From ba6373ebfbcafc99ce7a4fa100b2a26fc3bc2731 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Preston Pan Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2025 04:18:06 -0800 Subject: [PATCH] add two new blog posts; bitcoin node; haskell devel --- agenda.org | 19 +- blog/acausal.org | 195 +++++++++++++++ blog/index.org | 5 +- blog/manifesto-1.org | 370 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ config/emacs.el | 2 +- config/emacs.org | 2 +- config/nix.org | 66 ++++- journal/20250222.org | 13 + journal/20250302.org | 16 ++ journal/20250305.org | 14 ++ mindmap/lrc_circuit.png | Bin 3229 -> 3229 bytes nix/flake.lock | 36 +-- nix/modules/bitcoin.nix | 7 + nix/modules/conduit.nix | 6 +- nix/modules/configuration.nix | 1 + nix/modules/home/default.nix | 10 + nix/modules/home/emacs.nix | 2 + nix/modules/home/user.nix | 2 +- nix/modules/ollama.nix | 6 + nix/modules/secrets.nix | 28 ++- nix/secrets/secrets.yaml | 5 +- nix/systems/spontaneity/default.nix | 1 + style.css | 1 + yasnippet/org-mode/blognew | 2 +- 24 files changed, 754 insertions(+), 55 deletions(-) create mode 100644 blog/acausal.org create mode 100644 blog/manifesto-1.org create mode 100644 journal/20250222.org create mode 100644 journal/20250302.org create mode 100644 journal/20250305.org create mode 100644 nix/modules/bitcoin.nix diff --git a/agenda.org b/agenda.org index d6e2221..b246b97 100644 --- a/agenda.org +++ b/agenda.org @@ -31,17 +31,25 @@ I want to write another song. I want to start making YouTube videos. ** TODO [#C] Analogue Computer I want to make an analogue computer. +* Skills +** TODO Learn Blender +** TODO Drawing with Krita +** TODO Circuit Design +** TODO Learn More Solidity +** TODO Learn Haskell +** TODO Learn Coq Theorem Prover * Academic -** TODO Statistics ** TODO QFT ** TODO GM +** TODO Real and Complex Analysis +** TODO Measure Theory +** TODO Category Theory +** TODO ZK Proof Deep Dive * Scheduled tasks These are one-time tasks that are scheduled at a particular date, and that don't require regular schedules. -** TODO [#A] Clean House -I need to clean my house very soon. ** Friends These are tasks related to seeing my friends. There will be tasks listed here when I schedule something. @@ -60,10 +68,11 @@ SCHEDULED: <2025-02-12 Wed .+1d> - State "DONE" from "TODO" [2025-01-11 Sat 02:26] I want to stretch every day so that I can become more flexible. ** TODO Journal -SCHEDULED: <2025-02-21 Fri .+1d> +SCHEDULED: <2025-03-03 Mon .+1d> :PROPERTIES: -:LAST_REPEAT: [2025-02-20 Thu 22:07] +:LAST_REPEAT: [2025-03-02 Sun 05:38] :END: +- State "DONE" from "TODO" [2025-03-02 Sun 05:38] - State "DONE" from "TODO" [2025-02-20 Thu 22:07] - State "DONE" from "TODO" [2025-02-18 Tue 01:44] - State "DONE" from "TODO" [2025-02-11 Tue 04:01] diff --git a/blog/acausal.org b/blog/acausal.org new file mode 100644 index 0000000..ed6ad6f --- /dev/null +++ b/blog/acausal.org @@ -0,0 +1,195 @@ +#+title: Consciousness and the Universal Handshake +#+author: Preston Pan +#+description: Narrative is the only real construction. +#+html_head: +#+html_head: +#+html_head: +#+html_head: +#+html_head: +#+html_head: +#+html_head: +#+html_head: +#+html_head: +#+language: en +#+OPTIONS: broken-links:t + +* Introduction +Logical Decision Theory (LDT) isn’t just a tool for making decisions. +It reveals deeper implications about consciousness, time, and reality +itself. If we accept that decisions can be made across acausal +channels, we are forced to reconsider whether time itself is merely +an emergent property of a deeper structure. + +Rather than seeing reality as a linear sequence, LDT suggests that it +may be more accurate to think of it as a lattice of interdependent +computations -- a pattern that doesn’t just pass through time, but defines it. + +In this essay, I explore the structural implications of this idea, +connecting concepts from decision theory, consciousness, and narrative +construction. Taken together, these form a narrative +lattice -- a framework where the underlying principles of reality +emerge not from individual moments, but from the way they interconnect. +* The Optimization Limit +In order to understand LDT, we must first understand more classical +decision theories. In classical decision theory, we can model +decisions using a decision tree. With this tree, or perhaps a directed +acyclic graph, we can model the linear progression of a conscious +actor making decisions and resulting decisions from consequences. This +naturally models mutual exclusion and other such concepts that we are +familiar with in probability theory. For example, if the decision tree +branches into two nodes, A and B, this models an actor, for example +Alice, being able to choose one of options A or B, but not both. We +can assign /expected values/ to each of the branches by assigning a +measurement of value, thus giving Alice a /utility function/. Alice's +utility function tells her /what to value/, and using this utility +function she can then evaluate the /expected value/ of each +branch. Then, she chooses the branch with the highest expected value. + +However, LDT says that this model is /naive/ -- it completely ignores +Alice's /lack of agency/. That is to say, Alice is framed as a +completely autonomous agent that doesn't have any commitments to +any framework. This may in fact be problematic when attempting to +model situations where the highest expected value play is for Alice to +commit herself to a strategy that may not in fact maximize her +expected value. + +To give a concrete example, imagine an all knowing AI that can +simulate you. It knows your internal mind state at all times, and it +presents you with two choices: box A with one thousand dollars, and a +box B with an unknown amount of money. It reads your mind state, and +based on your mind state it will determine if it puts ten thousand +dollars or zero dollars in box B. If it thinks you will pick box B, +box B will contain zero dollars. If it thinks you will pick box A, box +B will contain ten thousand dollars. What should Alice do? + +It seems intuitive to humans that in fact you should pick box A, but +actually according to classical decision theory, after the AI presents +you with the two options, the AI can no longer actually change the +amount of money in box B. Therefore the best strategy according to +classical decision theory would be to believe that you are going to +pick box A, and then actually pick box B once the AI has committed to +the decision of packaging box B. However, there is one problem: if you +use classical decision theory, the AI can simulate that you are going +to use classical decision theory, and you will always win zero dollars. + +Actually, according to logical decision theory, the best thing you can +do is to /actually believe/ that you are going to choose box A as usual, +and then /actually choose box A/. The reason? Maximizing your expected +value in this case is all about choosing the /strategy/, and having +/perfect commitment to your strategy/. You cannot allow for the AI to +predict you will ever use classical decision theory, therefore you +should precommit to a strategy that doesn't allow you to change the +strategy after the AI commits to putting money in the box. + +What this demonstrates is that the very nature of +/maximizing expected value/ actually requires you to think in the +context of a larger whole -- a whole made up of other agents that can +simulate you. In fact what this principle demonstrates is that in +order to solve for these kinds of problems in practice, one must use +a different framework -- one that views oneself as a part of a +/narrative collective/ rather than as an individual agent. That is, the +right question isn't if you will choose /A or B/; the right question is: +/what will the simulator think about people like me/? +** The Consciousness Lattice +Therefore, a natural question emerges: if we take this idea to its +logical conclusion, is it perhaps the case that consciousness is a +property of the /metapattern/ i.e. a set of interactions between +different observers and their simulations of you, inasmuch it is a +result of the neurons that generate the larger whole? In my view, this +model of consciousness is more complete: we have searched for +consciousness /within/, but we have not in fact found any subsystem +within the brain that generates the consciousness. Instead, perhaps a +necessary condition for consciousness is the interplay of different +observers creating a dynamical system that responds to the framework +you inhabit based on their simulations of you. In other words, it is +as much a problem of the /supersystem/ as a problem of the +/subsystem/. The consequences are clear: this implies that no amount of +introspection can make up for any extraspection that is done by facing +the interaction of other observers. + +Another consequence is that decisions are not quantifiable by a +decision tree. In fact because the decision tree actually depends on +the framing of the tree itself, it is more accurate to describe the +system as a static lattice with all the possible transition states +encoded in the lattice, for which the actual set of transitions is +turing complete and is therefore not decidable. + +** Acausal Handshakes +Acausal handshakes are a specific instantiation of the anthropic +principle -- the idea that certain structures exist because they are +required for their own observation. The classic example is the +question, "Why does the universe exist?" The standard anthropic answer +is: "Because if it didn’t, you wouldn’t be here to ask." This isn’t +just a tautology; it suggests that existence is, in some sense, a +self-justifying computation. + +LDT extends this principle beyond cosmology and into decision-making +itself. Consider the question: "Why did you choose A instead of B?" +Classical decision theory answers with some appeal to efficiency or +optimality, as if a conscious agent simply evaluates expected values +and acts accordingly. But from an LDT perspective, this framing is *backwards*. + +The real answer is that your decision is a consequence of a +precommitment -- one that existed /before/ the decision was even +presented to you. Moreover, the kind of agent that would precommit to +an optimal strategy would also precommit to the very meta-framework +that enables precommitments in the first place. This recursion creates +a hierarchy of self-referential commitments, forming an implicit +handshake across time, space, and computational structure. + +Thus, decisions don’t exist in isolation. They are nodes in a +precomputed lattice of self-consistent reasoning. If the universe +itself is structured in a way that allows intelligent agents to ask +"Why?", then the question and its answer must already be embedded in +the system that permits the question to arise at all. + +Thus, we can imagine that because of the process of generalized +natural selection, we can imagine these /highly structured/ organisms +emerge. Ones that don't just act as collectives in space -- but in +time. These organisms would self replicate an understanding throughout +time in a way which would cause similar patterns to emerge through +time, and in a way that enables the current replication to realize +that the previous replication must've existed. This memetic virus would +cause the host to realize that /previous/ hosts also had the same idea +-- and it would enable the host to reason about time in a non-causal +manner. In fact, this idea exists. It is the very idea you are reading +about right now. This idea would only propagate among people that +understood the idea -- that is to say, hosts with a certain set of +preconditions that would enable them to frame it in their own way, and +actually understand the idea in a highly academicized manner, only +accessible to readers diligent enough to attempt to understand the +idea. In other words, it selects for people that are like the idea's +host. + +In this way we are creating a joint consciousness. It is not the +individual; it is the pattern. The pattern creates the person inasmuch +as the person behind the keyboard is creating the pattern. +* The Boltzmann Brain +The Boltzmann brain is a hypothetical observer that is trapped in a +universe of pure entropy. In a high entropy universe, any +configuration of particles is possible given enough time. This enables +the particles to spontaneously construct a brain, experiencing itself +for only a moment before deconstructing itself back into a maximally +entropic state. The Boltzmann brain is a result of a sequence of +highly ordered states that resemble consciousness emerging from a +purely random soup of particles. However, it is not right to even say +that a /sequence/ emerges -- the apparent "sequence" is only an illusion +of the brain itself, each state acting as though it had memory of +other states that it doesn't experience in order. + +It might be more suitable to say that the Boltzmann brain is actually +emergent from a set of disparate events connected together in a causal +lattice -- that is to say, an arbitrary lattice superimposed on +complete randomness. This lattice has no concept of each event +happening after another; instead, it encodes the structure of the +apparent order from the perspective of the observer. In effect, this +is a self justifying anthropic principle: the only Boltzmann brains +that exist are the ones that "retroactively" justify their existence +or retain coherence. +* Conclusion +I present you with a framework that is not the only way to understand +reality -- but that, like any other commitment scheme, doesn't allow +you to unsee it once you see it. If you resonate with any of the ideas +above, it is because you are the kind of person that would resonate +with such an intellectual framing of the idea. In other words, you +didn't choose the idea: the idea chose you. diff --git a/blog/index.org b/blog/index.org index 8086990..afb2f4b 100644 --- a/blog/index.org +++ b/blog/index.org @@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ #+html_head: #+language: en #+OPTIONS: broken-links:t -#+html_head: +#+html_head: * Why? I want a place where I can write long form essays about subjects @@ -35,11 +35,14 @@ Blog Articles: #+end_src #+RESULTS: +- [[file:acausal.org][Consciousness and the Universal Handshake]] - [[file:automation.org][Automation, Hypocrisy, and Capitalism]] - [[file:cognition.org][Cognition]] - [[file:crypto.org][A Review of Cryptocurrency]] - [[file:horses.org][Stop Asking for Better Horses]] - [[file:machine_learning.org][Machine Learning is Here]] +- [[file:manifesto-1.org][The End of Equality and The Technocratic Imperative]] +- [[file:monorepo.org][My Monorepo]] - [[file:nixos.org][You should use NixOS]] - [[file:private_keys.org][Passwords Are Obselete]] - [[file:stem.org][Stem]] diff --git a/blog/manifesto-1.org b/blog/manifesto-1.org new file mode 100644 index 0000000..cc5772f --- /dev/null +++ b/blog/manifesto-1.org @@ -0,0 +1,370 @@ +#+title: The End of Equality and The Technocratic Imperative +#+author: Preston Pan +#+description: A system built on illusions will always decay. +#+html_head: +#+html_head: +#+html_head: +#+html_head: +#+html_head: +#+html_head: +#+html_head: +#+html_head: +#+html_head: +#+language: en +#+OPTIONS: broken-links:t + +@@html:By Preston Pan@@ + +* Introduction +Our current economic and political system isn't totally failing right +now, but it's pretty close. Everyone agrees that our current system +isn't working as well as it once did. Our world leaders are not the +best among us. We live in an era of great technological progress, +while at the same time many of our institutions are /rotting/ -- where +most of our progress is driven by corporate America and Chinese +manufacturing. It is rotting so badly that /Donald Trump/ and /Elon Musk/ +are taking over in a semi-coup. This phenomenon isn't just a failure +of governance -- it is a failure of culture. + +For decades, we've been taught that culture moves in one, forward +direction, towards progression. But this is a lie. In our worship of +ideology, we fail to replace and examine our incompetent structures +/before/ they fail, and institutional protections are eroded. + +The world is collapsing not because of economic cycles or +partisanship, but because we built our institutions on a myth—equality +as a moral good. This myth has led to governments that do not select for competence, +and as a result, our systems are breaking down. +We need to abandon equality-based governance and replace it with a technocratic, +results-driven system that rewards competence above all else. It's +exactly what we need, but keep in mind that Elon Musk is /not/ going to +do this. He recognizes the problem that we all see, but he may not +have the solution. + +We do not suffer from: +- a left versus right problem. +- a rich versus poor problem. +We suffer from a competence versus incompetence problem. And we have +failed to replace our institutions before they had a chance to fail on +us. So what do our "best institutions" think of us -- and what should we +think of /them/? + +* Inside Harvard +Ivy League schools are some of the best of the best. They promote the +best ideas and they /punish/ bad ones. They punish bad ideas because +everyone in Harvard is /smart/. And these central intellectual +powerhouses will power our future. But is this true? Enter the +mainstream academic thought complex and one of its core values, which +led to revolutions all over the globe: our focus on equality, and the +communist movement which originated in academia +(many famous American physicists were affiliated with CPUSA; the Russian +Communist revolutions started on the back of an intellectual class in +Russia; Chomsky, Deleuze and Guattari; Einstein was a socialist, the +list goes on and on). Let's look at their track record, one of their most prized ideas, and +/let's see how they play out in practice/. +** China +Chinese communism received copious support from Chinese +intellectuals. There were intellectuals in China protesting +for a simpler writing system before Mao implemented the simplified +writing system, for example. However, the movement quickly turned away +from any semblance of intellectual input. + +The foremost major failure of Mao's regime during this period was the +great leap forward. During this time, grain was planted densely +because the idea was that grain wouldn't compete against others of the +same kind. This reduced grain harvests, and my friend has a personal +story about this. His grandmother witnessed a farmer telling a commune +that they were stupid for planting grain so thickly, "you could lie +down on it!", they said. They got their tongue cut +off for spreading "false information" about the regime. *Millions starved.* +Other policies included "communal furnaces", where people were told that +they could make high quality metals communally without economies of +scale. The truth is that in order to manufacture high quality steel +instead of pig iron, you need industrial scale furnaces because +"communal furnaces" /can't reach heat capacity/. Despite this obvious +failure waiting to happen and the academics warning Mao of this +possibility, the plan continued. The result? High quality metal, +turned into pig iron. + +My grandmother starved and her entire village almost died of +malnutrition. They starved because of bad farming policies, and a +complete inability to automate or move up the abstraction +hierarchy. Mao ordered sparrows to be killed because they were pests +that ate crops. The result? +*The locusts that sparrows preyed on grew enormously in population, and they ate all the produce. Everyone starved.* +But it doesn't matter anyways, because communism is cool. Because an +ideology that created generational trauma for two generations is +/fashionable/. People who have never experienced direct or indirect +influence from this communist regime still have the audacity to +believe this set of failures was caused by the CIA. + +After China reverted its socialist policies, it became an economic +powerhouse. The modern day CCP lifted almost a billion people out of +poverty, which is the greatest quality of life improvement in human +history. It is my opinion that the USA attempted to destabilize China +during the Tienanmen Square protests, but this didn't fundamentally +alter China's ability to become capitalistic. +*In spite of possible CIA involvement in destabilizing China, China's new economic policy reflected unforeseen progress*. +What changed in Deng's period? It turns out that /foreign investment/ +and /private equity/ doesn't destabilize nations, and capitalism isn't +always a CIA plot. But hey, maybe it's not real socialism. Maybe the +idea is still good and that was just one /really bad/ implementation. +** Cambodia +The Khmer Rouge was one of the deadliest regimes within its lifespan +in human history. They smashed babies' heads in en masse, and they broke +up families on the basis that people should value their /nation/ more +than their families. Within three years, they orchestrated the deaths +of /two million/, making it one of the deadliest three years in history, +reducing the Cambodian population by 25%. Cities were emptied, and +anyone that resisted the regime was executed. It was almost a /fifth/ of +the Nazi regime's total death count, and ran for one /fourth/ of the +time. After Pol Pot's death, none of the leaders were formally tried +for their crimes. The leaders' remaining lives were spent comfortably in +their home country, while American academics such as Chomsky, one of +the most cited public intellectuals in linguistics, +/denied the genocide occured/. The /Nazi/ regime was /de-nazified/ and all their +collective fiction was turned into /pulp/. The Khmer Rouge regime's +leaders were at large until they /died of natural causes/, and their +Western defenders faced no consequences. But hey, maybe... that's just another unlucky instance? +** North Korea +What started as a proxy war in Korea turned into one of the most +brutal modern day regimes. Their propaganda today is a genuine +preservation of cold-war era mentality. So let's look into their +modern day regime, and maybe we can reconstruct what it was like +living in all of these countries. + +Their prisons are torture camps, where prisoners catch mice and snakes +to eat because they have /nothing/. Nobody can leave their +country. North Korea's biggest money makers today are in fraud and in +extortion. The people are desperately poor, and the bureaucratic class +are living it large. And let's not forget that there's a natural +experiment that played out in Korea. There's the other side of the +DMZ, where, despite its problems, people have economic freedom and are +happier, despite living in a /dystopian, cyberpunk/ state. Let's not +forget that there's always the other side of the wall. Speaking of which... +** Russia, the Berlin Wall +The first and foremost thing one can look at for quality of life is +people voting with their feet. The Berlin wall wasn't built to prevent +people from getting in; it was to prevent people from escaping. The +West side and East side were split by this wall. On one side, +consumers had all the choice in the world, enormous wealth for the +middle class and even the poor. On the other side, almost /everyone/ was poor. +** Other Regimes +It isn't just in Europe and in Asia that Communism has proven to be a +failed system. It failed in many rogue militant regimes in Africa. It +has failed in south America in Venezuela. Venezuela /should have/ been +rich like the OPEC countries. Instead they nationalized their oil +industry and now they are desperately poor. It failed in Laos. It +failed in Vietnam. It has failed in almost every continent. One of +these failures alone was almost as bad as +the Nazi regime. When failures happen like this, we usually scrap the +idea, not just the practical implementation. Most intellectuals think +that it's only a bad idea in practice, without considering that it +might just be based on /bad principles/. + +If communism isn't about centralization and brutal dictatorship, +how come it plays out in the same predictable way, /every time/? +** Economic Calculation +And we know that all these ideas are bad in practice, but what about +in theory? We know, according to modern day neoclassical economics and +public choice theory that Communism as an ideology is /broken/. The +labor theory of value doesn't hold up inasmuch as it doesn't describe +the /subjective/ value placed on goods by individuals, which is the +basis of the original Marxist scientific socialism. We know that +private individuals allocate capital more efficiently than governments +do on average, and nobody denies this simple fact. + +Communism is built on a foundation of collective ownership, but also +it is a rejection of the idea that hierarchies in capitalism are +justified. The core tenet of the idea is that /equality/ in economy +ownership is of utmost importance because of dirty capitalist +exploitation. So we see the reason: academia is in a civil war with the +capital owning class, and although they aren't communist anymore, they +share the same principles (/"it's bad in practice but good in theory"/) +-- what if the theory should be scrapped? And how are academics, who +are the smartest people in the world, so /wrong/? What does it say about +these people that the /smartest people/ in the world cling onto this +failed theory? And what does it say that our entire urban society is built +on a milquetoast version of these ideas, after the ideas outright +didn't work? + +Communist arguments usually involve pointing out both the exploitation +of the working class by the managerial class, and arguments based on +universal access to public goods. When liberal democracies presuppose +the universal access to goods, they are making the exact same arguments. +The end result is similar. Instead of centrally planning the +production of wheat, you are subsidizing wheat production in order to +guarantee universal access. But this model has the same failure mode: +it just happens in 100 years instead of 10. +* The Stark Reality +Harvard is just as deluded, and our public consciousness is just as +deluded about these ideas as neo-nazis and white nationalists are to +their previous regimes. But at least Nazism only /failed once/. That was +enough for us to learn from our mistakes. What if the smartest people +never learn from their mistakes? What if the ideology that equality is +a universal good -- is actually wrong? + +Our society directly /forks/ the same ethical opinions of communists -- +while discarding the /theory and application/ of communism in everyday +life. But in my view, the /worst idea in history/ shouldn't be discarded +solely on the practical and the theoretical basis. Imagine if we lived in a +society where everyone thought that /Nazism/ was a good idea in +theory, or that it had ethical ideals. Some attribute this imbalance to the fact that communism was +about equality which is a lot less offensive than explicitly espousing +a genocidal view. However, it's not true on first principles that we +/should/ have a more positive view of equality and a less positive view +of nationalism. Nazis sold their ideas to the nation by using slogans +like "living space" and "restoring our strong nation". +The truth is, +*you can make any ideology sound good if you have a good enough salesman*, +but we don't have to make communism sound good. We were just trained to. +And too often, communism (or its ideas such as equality) don't sound +morally repulsive in the first place because +/people don't sell it that way/. So why do we sell communism as a noble +cause gone wrong, when we sell Nazism as the worst idea in history -- +something that isn't remotely true in comparison to Communism? + +In my view, academia, and by extension communism, may not have won the +cold war, but it has won the culture war. It won the culture war +because although we may not adopt their application or even Marxist +theory, we adopt their ethical framing of equality as a moral good. We +adopt their framing because we have uncritically looked to these +institutions for guidance historically. We have given them unchecked +cultural power. These people set trends -- and what's in fashion 20 +years from now isn't decided in elections. It's decided in a Harvard +thesis today. But this begs the question -- if they're so wrong +about communism, what else could they be so wrong about? If we can't +trust them on the worst idea in history, why must we trust them on +anything at all? + +Though, even in our society, we have a sector of unrivaled +economic productivity, making products for people that allow them to +live better lives. But this sector doesn't care about equality. It +doesn't care about anything. Or in other terms, it does care about +people -- as economic units. It cares not who you are, only +/what you can do/. And yet, it treats its subjects better than empathy +can treat its subjects. When /individual/ incentives are aligned with +/collective good/, you can be an /angel/, and a ruthless /investor/. Here, +international criminals thrive. International criminals create +international cooperation. Here, governance is a part of the system, +not adversarial -- we accept a couple of "lobbies" here and there, but +let's just call it a public-private partnership instead! It isn't a +utopia -- but it's /real/. +* The New System +Elon Musk and Donald Trump are capitalizing on the rot of the United +States. What if, instead of propping up this fragile rot in the first +place, we actually designed governance like a systems engineering +problem? Democracy can be optimized -- but as a systems engineering +professional, you know that optimizing something is no use if it can +be /deleted/. Here, we don't value peoples' opinions equally -- we have +a city-state model where /almost every city/ is a SEZ. We optimize +everything in governance, following neoclassical economic principles +and using public choice economics to tell us when we're micromanaging +(when we would cause a government failure). There are no zoning laws, +except in tourist attraction hubs, and the only taxes are land value +taxes, as well as sin taxes and carbon taxes. All wealth +redistribution is done with a negative income tax. Regulations that do +not constantly justify themselves get /removed/. Courts +/manufacture truth/, rather than adhering to preconceived notions of +"fairness" (professional jurors? Betting markets? A system where +voting on the jury means you put up money, so if you're wrong you have +something to lose?). Our police are here to enforce /laws/. Remove all +laws from the books that aren't enforced. Enforce every law on the +books equally and with /zero tolerance/. Riots and violent social upsets are not +tolerated here. Crime and gang violence is treated as domestic +terrorism. Harming public infrastructure development and private capital is +strictly forbidden. Climate activists blocking pipeline development +would simply not be required -- our economists and climate researchers +have already priced that in with a carbon tax. Sorry, but if you're +going to keep blocking this pipeline, we're going to remove you. /Forcibly/. +Freedom of speech doesn't give you a mandate to destroy taxpayer-funded infrastructure. + +In this new regime, the old regime's staff can be reused -- if they +can prove their worth. They get rehired in central bank positions, and +in governmental planning positions, but they get paid in call options of a standard +basket of local companies, meaning they get performance pay. In this +new regime, we replace ideas of democracy and equality (including +democratic voting, in say, courts) with ideas that /work/. If a +philosophy is truly shown to work, we optimize it to its logical +conclusion. + +** The Efficiency Doctrine +The world isn’t held together by sentiment. It’s held together by +incentives. Governments, corporations, and institutions can preach +about fairness, justice, and equality all they want, but at the end of +the day, none of these ideas survive unless they align with reality. +And reality is governed by efficiency. + +Every major human rights movement that succeeded -- whether it was civil rights, +women’s suffrage, or LGBTQ rights -- didn’t win because it was morally +right in some abstract sense. It won because it became economically +impossible to ignore. The same businesses that once refused service to +black customers now fight for diversity. The same corporations that +once wouldn’t hire women now push for gender parity. The same +industries that once ignored LGBTQ rights now celebrate Pride Month with +corporate sponsorships. Not because they cared, but because it made sense. + +You can moralize all you want about what’s right, but the world runs +on what works. And when something works, you don’t need to force it. +It wins on its own. Progressives spend so much time trying to +manufacture empathy that they fail to ask whether their solutions are +actually efficient. Do LGBTQ rights need to be forced onto businesses, +or do they emerge naturally because an inclusive workforce is more +productive? Does it make sense to give away land to Indigenous groups +based on historical guilt, or does it make more sense to integrate +them into the economy with productive incentives? + +A system that forces people to care is a system that doesn’t trust +efficiency to do its job. If your worldview depends on mandating +compassion, then maybe it was never that compassionate to begin +with. The truth is, the most compassionate thing you can do in such a +situation is to tell them the truth -- that you don't care about them +at all. + +The great irony is that when efficiency is maximized, humanism +emerges as a side effect. A prosperous, innovative society needs +people who are educated, mentally stable, and free to explore their +talents. It needs diversity -- not because of some ideological quota, +but because different backgrounds provide different solutions. It +needs to reduce discrimination -- not because of sentimental morality, +but because a workforce that hires the best talent regardless of +gender, race, or identity is simply better at producing results. + +If we get rid of the false god of “equality” and replace it with a +system that selects for results, we don’t become less human. We become +more human -- because caring for people is no longer a top-down +directive. It becomes the inevitable consequence of doing things right. + +The best part? Most humans want to be compassionate anyways, when +they're not constantly forced to. They'll give every excuse to +themselves to be compassionate to you, if they +like you, even if they're convinced they're doing it for self +interest. At the end of the day, every efficient system is comprised +of feeling human beings. And at the end of the day, what's the more +compassionate system? The one that tells you it doesn't care about you +when it does, or the one that tells you that it cares about you -- and +then doesn't? +** The Road Forward +A future built on competence won't come from Elon or Trump. It +doesn't start with hostile takeovers of the current government. It +first starts with a collective disillusionment with the current +cultural narratives around equality by spreading awareness, paired +with a /new/ belief -- the belief in a deep /Deng style/ practicality. +And it starts from the ground level -- treating people as individuals +instead of as ideological symbols in a cultural battleground, and a deep +commitment towards enriching those around you. Activism in its modern +form often replaces real solutions with performative change. +Instead of walking into this progressive trap, we should aim to create +a culture where our best business leaders, workers, and investors are +recognized and rewarded for their contributions to greater economic and +technological progress. +* Conclusion of the Technocratic Manifesto +The death of our modern day system is a result of /rot/ -- it is the +result of a system that is predicated on the myth of equality. Elon +Musk and Trump are profiteers, they are not builders. They profit more +off of /gutting/ the current system than from accelerating the +efficiency and progress of the private sector. What if we got rid of +this myth of equality -- and started over again, without replacing the +old, taking our understanding from our past failures -- and finally, +as humanity, acknowledge the great losses and tragedy of these +Communist regimes whose leaders /never/ faced consequences? diff --git a/config/emacs.el b/config/emacs.el index f71897f..92a3b9c 100644 --- a/config/emacs.el +++ b/config/emacs.el @@ -429,7 +429,7 @@ (require 'llm-ollama) (setopt ellama-provider (make-llm-ollama :host "localhost" - :chat-model "phi4:latest"))) + :chat-model "qwen2.5:14b"))) (use-package elfeed :custom diff --git a/config/emacs.org b/config/emacs.org index a962ac2..783eaa9 100644 --- a/config/emacs.org +++ b/config/emacs.org @@ -538,7 +538,7 @@ competitive LLM that doesn't cost money. (require 'llm-ollama) (setopt ellama-provider (make-llm-ollama :host "localhost" - :chat-model "phi4:latest"))) + :chat-model "qwen2.5:14b"))) #+end_src ** RSS Feed I use really simple syndication (RSS) in order to read news. As a result, I use diff --git a/config/nix.org b/config/nix.org index 89e06ba..aea8c30 100644 --- a/config/nix.org +++ b/config/nix.org @@ -478,6 +478,22 @@ Use ollama for serving large language models to my other computers. enable = lib.mkDefault config.monorepo.profiles.workstation.enable; acceleration = "cuda"; host = "0.0.0.0"; + openFirewall = true; + }; + + services.nextjs-ollama-llm-ui = { + enable = lib.mkDefault config.services.ollama.enable; + port = 3000; + }; + } +#+end_src +** Bitcoind +#+begin_src nix :tangle ../nix/modules/bitcoin.nix + { config, lib, ... }: + { + services.bitcoind."${config.monorepo.vars.userName}" = { + enable = lib.mkDefault config.monorepo.profiles.workstation.enable; + prune = 10000; }; } #+end_src @@ -603,11 +619,15 @@ Use postfix as an smtps server. { services.matrix-conduit = { enable = lib.mkDefault config.monorepo.profiles.server.enable; - # random comment settings.global = { server_name = "matrix.${config.monorepo.vars.remoteHost}"; + trusted_servers = [ + "matrix.org" + "nixos.org" + ]; address = "0.0.0.0"; port = 6167; + allow_registration = true; }; }; } @@ -671,6 +691,7 @@ because they enhance security. ./i2pd.nix ./gitweb.nix ./conduit.nix + ./bitcoin.nix ]; documentation = { @@ -1170,6 +1191,7 @@ I have many imports that we'll go through next. lang-js.enable = lib.mkEnableOption "Enables javascript language support"; lang-nix.enable = lib.mkEnableOption "Enables nix language support"; lang-coq.enable = lib.mkEnableOption "Enables coq language support"; + lang-haskell.enable = lib.mkEnableOption "Enables haskell language support"; crypto.enable = lib.mkEnableOption "Enables various cryptocurrency wallets"; art.enable = lib.mkEnableOption "Enables various art programs"; @@ -1219,6 +1241,7 @@ I have many imports that we'll go through next. bun yarn typescript + typescript-language-server vscode-langservers-extracted ]) else []) ++ @@ -1247,6 +1270,12 @@ I have many imports that we'll go through next. bash-language-server ]) else []) ++ + (if config.monorepo.profiles.lang-haskell.enable then (with pkgs; [ + haskell-language-server + haskellPackages.hlint + ghc + ]) else []) + ++ (if config.monorepo.profiles.lang-coq.enable then (with pkgs; [ coq ]) else []) @@ -1289,6 +1318,7 @@ I have many imports that we'll go through next. inkscape kdenlive kicad + reaper ]) else []); monorepo.profiles = { @@ -1308,6 +1338,7 @@ I have many imports that we'll go through next. lang-js.enable = lib.mkDefault (true && config.monorepo.profiles.enable); lang-nix.enable = lib.mkDefault (true && config.monorepo.profiles.enable); lang-coq.enable = lib.mkDefault (true && config.monorepo.profiles.enable); + lang-haskell.enable = lib.mkDefault (true && config.monorepo.profiles.enable); crypto.enable = lib.mkDefault (true && config.monorepo.profiles.enable); art.enable = lib.mkDefault (true && config.monorepo.profiles.enable); @@ -1651,6 +1682,7 @@ as an org file which gets automatically tangled to an emacs-lisp file. epkgs.general epkgs.gptel epkgs.gruvbox-theme + epkgs.haskell-mode epkgs.htmlize epkgs.irony-eldoc epkgs.ivy @@ -1659,6 +1691,7 @@ as an org file which gets automatically tangled to an emacs-lisp file. epkgs.latex-preview-pane epkgs.lsp-ivy epkgs.lsp-mode + epkgs.lsp-haskell epkgs.lyrics-fetcher epkgs.magit epkgs.magit-delta @@ -2111,17 +2144,23 @@ the yaml file specified. Yes, this is safe to include in the repo. age = { keyFile = "/home/${config.monorepo.vars.userName}/.ssh/keys.txt"; }; - secrets.mail = { - format = "yaml"; - path = "${config.sops.defaultSymlinkPath}/mail"; - }; - secrets.cloudflare-dns = { - format = "yaml"; - path = "${config.sops.defaultSymlinkPath}/cloudflare-dns"; - }; - secrets.digikey = { - format = "yaml"; - path = "${config.sops.defaultSymlinkPath}/digikey"; + secrets = { + mail = { + format = "yaml"; + path = "${config.sops.defaultSymlinkPath}/mail"; + }; + cloudflare-dns = { + format = "yaml"; + path = "${config.sops.defaultSymlinkPath}/cloudflare-dns"; + }; + digikey = { + format = "yaml"; + path = "${config.sops.defaultSymlinkPath}/digikey"; + }; + dn42 = { + format = "yaml"; + path = "${config.sops.defaultSymlinkPath}/dn42"; + }; }; defaultSymlinkPath = "/run/user/1000/secrets"; @@ -2736,7 +2775,7 @@ for these configurations. pavucontrol alsa-utils imagemagick ffmpeg helvum # Net - curl rsync git + curl rsync git iamb # Tor torsocks tor-browser @@ -2899,6 +2938,7 @@ Spontaneity is my VPS instance. firewall.allowedTCPPorts = [ 80 443 + 8448 ]; domains = { enable = true; diff --git a/journal/20250222.org b/journal/20250222.org new file mode 100644 index 0000000..77cc8b5 --- /dev/null +++ b/journal/20250222.org @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ +#+TITLE: Daily Journal +#+STARTUP: showeverything +#+DESCRIPTION: My daily journal entry +#+AUTHOR: Preston Pan +#+HTML_HEAD: +#+html_head: +#+html_head: +#+options: broken-links:t +* Saturday, 22 February 2025 +** 02:39 +I am currently talking to Marissa and Carson again over discord (I +know, discord sucks but hey, it's normie friendly). It's pretty fun, +and we do this often. diff --git a/journal/20250302.org b/journal/20250302.org new file mode 100644 index 0000000..aa21e68 --- /dev/null +++ b/journal/20250302.org @@ -0,0 +1,16 @@ +#+TITLE: Daily Journal +#+STARTUP: showeverything +#+DESCRIPTION: My daily journal entry +#+AUTHOR: Preston Pan +#+HTML_HEAD: +#+html_head: +#+html_head: +#+options: broken-links:t +* Sunday, 02 March 2025 +** 03:51 +I'm currently done reading my entire probability theory book. I'm +deciding what to do now, because of course I want to learn some GR and +some measure theory as well as some real analysis, but I think I'm +better off doing something else right now with my time. Either +figuring out how to run my own Ethereum node or otherwise would +probably be a good idea. diff --git a/journal/20250305.org b/journal/20250305.org new file mode 100644 index 0000000..646fec2 --- /dev/null +++ b/journal/20250305.org @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +#+TITLE: Daily Journal +#+STARTUP: showeverything +#+DESCRIPTION: My daily journal entry +#+AUTHOR: Preston Pan +#+HTML_HEAD: +#+html_head: +#+html_head: +#+options: broken-links:t +* Wednesday, 05 March 2025 +** 03:42 +Today I spent my time getting another bike. This one should ideally +not have a stuck bolt, and I should be able to complete the Ebike +setup tomorrow at least. I also slept like 14 hours today, and I spent +a lot of my free time drawing in Krita. diff --git a/mindmap/lrc_circuit.png b/mindmap/lrc_circuit.png index 4dd394e0907c1ac7e77a9b8538ffd23e82d59923..56d7d051eab756867a988691f896d2ad63136de3 100644 GIT binary patch delta 104 zcmbO$IahK*6(=*3pb5LioWF}UHWzb?8|xYvg&3M!nHpIcm}wgrSQ!{heLH9JWL_RA cY;sRFsOV3&&?Gl%FCy~O7-xrj#_0Q5i`r2qf` delta 104 zcmbO$IahK*6( #+html_head: #+html_head: -#+html_head: +#+html_head: #+language: en #+OPTIONS: broken-links:t -- 2.50.1