I love the honesty of actual science.

Whenever I hear this I always feel it takes a lot more guts to understand why not to but continue to choose to live anyway. Death is a comforting certainty while living is the way we know it to be. Hope you and I will be able to feel differently and be more comfotable with the idea of continuing through this world.

I’m intending to build a more frequently enjoyable life. I may have to do some surgery before I’ll be able to forget things in the moment though.

This is actually my primary motivation. I have some morbid curiosity about what we’re going to do to ourselves next.

I’m here too and in my case I’m damn sure it’s something other than cowardice. I know I’d sacrifice myself in less than a second given the opportunity and I even know how I would, but I haven’t. There’s a reason we’re still around even if we don’t know it consciously.

Thanks for the reminder. I’ll make sure they know my body belongs in the trash can (in a few decades).

I’ll be getting a dog soon. Thanks for this, it’s too easy to forget how cool dogs are when you don’t have one.

I feel you on this. I often feel I’m living for pure spite.

I’ve always felt that my note would make anyone who read it glad that they no longer have to deal with someone as indignant and sanctimonious as I am. The fact that most would react to need this way is part of my reasoning against continuing in this world, but in spite of the failings of my species I like other people regardless whether they’re safe or not. I’d like to see what happens for my personal interest, but I completely understand anyone who wouldn’t be able to tolerate this life at all.

I’m not sure whether I’m too stupid one way or the other, but at least I know I’m stupid.

Cheers, mate.

Choosing the default is still a choice. Why is the default better than the alternative in your opinion? Please don’t answer that question or even consider it unless you already have an answer. I would rather not have to ask this myself to be honest.

deleted by creator

The most recurring theme is that I took Melatonin before bed and I can’t remember them. I just wake up drenched in sweat with my heart racing, so I assume what I woke up from was a nightmare. Have never had a nightmare otherwise.

Veritasium endorsed a known racketeer and as a consequence some portion of their audience is now going to be defrauded in an economy where there’s not a lot of room for that especially among those in need of therapy. Watching Veritasium videos causes the channel to have greater exposure, increasing the risk to the general population if engaged with by anyone. Therefore, engaging with this channel in any way is harmful to others.

There are probably more obstacles to my daydream than I’m aware of. That being said there is nothing static about science. Comparing what we’re doing now to what we were doing a century ago, two centuries ago, and three centuries ago we might as well be comparing completely separate enterprises based on almost completely different fundamentals. Academia has never been as organized and wide-reaching as it is today so it may seem like a monolith, but it’s a new monolith which I’m not sure will remain exactly as it is for long (relatively). I think there’s some room for experimentation.

Fortunately I don’t need to have all the answers in my imaginary journal. I imagine it more as a cooperative enterprise among scientists who have become disenchanted with established academic paradigms and are looking to do the research and experimentation in that zone which is of interest to scientists themselves but not necessarily supported by the need to publish in the areas most emphasized by the academic establishment. This is not anything against what exists and what is being produced which I personally consider to be important, only to provide additional avenues to serve science in ways it’s not currently being served.

You’re right that credentials in this model are fuzzy. At least at the beginning it would be composed exclusively of scientists already working in their field who would want something like this. It could be possible that these scientists answering only to their immediate guerilla journal peers may see fit to support the research of an individual with no doctorate but who has demonstrated their self-education has made them capable of designing an experiment which can be quantified, criticized, and re-produced. Whether this standard would be agreed upon by the greater community would certainly be controversial with plenty of politics involved, but that reality it outside of the scope of my daydream.

As for the sustainability, it’s as in question as any open source project. It lives and dies based on peoples’ desire to do it only because they want to do it and others want to support them doing it. This couldn’t be a career alternative to academia because making it into a business or non-profit would defeat the purpose as it would attain the same vulnerabilities to a much more severe degree than the much larger and stable existing model.

Not necessarily. Just because my theoretical journal wouldn’t be subject to the existing academic establishment it does not mean it would accept everything. This journal would be more rigorous because it would be composed exclusively by fidelity to the scientific process. I am not anti-academia, only acknowledging that the existing structures are so large and composed of so many egos that there is necessarily over-focus on some areas and under-focus on other areas as a consequence of the structure. My pretend journal wouldn’t be for everyone rejected from those institutions for explicit reasons of incompetence, it would be for those scientists who want to pool resources to do work that would not be easy to support on the current academic model.

I often fantasize about guerilla science done by serious people outside of official channels. While there are plenty of crackpots who desire this for political reasons, I would really like to see an open-source “journal” by and for those scientists who are in it purely for science and have become disenchanted with the current model which is compromised in some ways that prevents progress on certain concepts.

Your comment made me re-think this a bit, because I happen to know that the origin of “dad-bod” wasn’t patronizing but a word used by some straight women who find this body type attractive in men. I wonder if “short king” may have initially been used by people who were attracted to the attribute in men and wanted a nice sounding way to describe it. I’m totally with you when these phrases are used like you described, but I wonder how many people using these terms are genuinely attracted to the attributes they’re pointing out.