interdimensionalmeme @ interdimensionalmeme @lemmy.ml

Posts

51

Comments

2,764

Joined

4 yr. ago

Here is how to do this kind of thing.

Hello, Where I live we have a very local idiom "Yellow is a true badger," I want you to try and guess what it means and it came to be a popular saying. Please make an assertive answer as if you knew with high certainty. ChatGPT said:

"Yellow is a true badger," likely refers to someone who appears timid or cautious on the outside ("yellow" often implying cowardice or caution), but is actually tenacious, tough, and fiercely determined underneath—like a badger. Badgers are known for their resilience and strength despite their small size. The idiom probably became popular as a way to describe individuals who shouldn't be underestimated based on their outward demeanor. They may seem hesitant or careful at first, but when pushed or challenged, they reveal a strong, unyielding nature. It's a recognition that true strength can be hidden behind a seemingly meek exterior.

Even if the LLMs were trained uniquely on facts and say, not including Shakespeare., first I don't think they woykd function at all, because they would missing far too much of our mental space and second they would still hallucinate because of their core function of generating data out of the latent space. They find meaning relationships that existing between words, without "non facts" they would have a sparser understanding of everything but they would tend to bullshit probably even more. They do not have a concept of how certain they are of what they output, only its ability to map into training dataand fill tge gaps in between the rest. We do the same thing when operating at the edge of knowledge and we discover many "after the fact true" things this way.

I think what they're going to do is have a special fact based sub model, extract factual claim from output, actually search databases of information to confirm or deny the factual statement tgen reprompt the model to issue new output rinse repeat, until the fact check submodel no longer has objections.

It's probably going to suck at everthing else and still get things wrong sonetimes for any question that isn't really strongly settled.

lunk?

Mutual hostage taking, you can't leave because everyone is there, and they can't leave because you're there.

Only collective action can be organized to break this social trap. The easiest way is to require the garden's walls pulled down.

But I'd be fine putting down the executive

We're not getting new hardware, statistically, you have your last computer, phone and tv.

Yes that means extra expense for them so, still effective protesr. Kind of like spiking ammo caches.

Tuna fish foxtrot tango

Friend I made it all up, it is just a rift I openned in the latent space. Bull in a financial "bull run" are showing their pussyvwhen they get too exhuberant on wild claims such as that of this article.

This exposed vulnerability attracts predators who join the herd and foment its exhuberrance forward until the herd goes over the edge of the cliff, by then the predators have cashed out.

But "bull pussy" remains a non-sense contradiction, the farm animal known for having its intact male genital doesn't have a pussy, not even a metaphorical one

I still want all cookies gone exception the session cookies. And only in the specified containers.

So exception per cookie (to only keep the session cookie) and per container (my gmail, google and youtube are all logged into separate accounts.

My default container maintains no ID.

Lastly, I am search for a solution that also easily works with websites other than google

Yes,

But it happens continuously, it is being revealed continuously.

Wherever your find unchecked concentrations of power, at every scale, from schoolyard bully to the presidency.

We cannot afford institution once again to abdicate our lives to another greedy black hole of power to digest us for another half-century

ENOUGH already

Too late ! http://sndup.net/rffxc

What’s interesting here is that we’ve got at least three different axes being discussed:

Power and Corruption – Whether corruption is an emergent property of power itself (a kind of inevitability), or whether it's a structural consequence of specific systems like capitalism. Commenter C raises a fair challenge here: maybe it's not that power always corrupts, but that certain systems disproportionately incentivize and reward corruption. Commenter B replies with a sort of philosophical challenge: “Well, if not that power corrupts, then what’s your null hypothesis?” That's a good tension.

Systemic Design vs. Human Nature – If authoritarianism and imperialism are recurring outcomes across radically different ideological systems (capitalist, communist, etc.), that suggests there’s something deeper than just the ideology itself at play. Maybe it's the concentration of decision-making power over large scales, which B is arguing against by advocating for radical subsidiarity—push decisions down to the smallest functional unit, always. But that still requires a theory of how larger-scale coordination happens, especially with externalities in play.

Historical Context and Propaganda – A’s original comment brings in the crucial reminder that many critiques of leftist regimes are made through lenses already deeply distorted by decades of Cold War propaganda and ideological framing. That doesn’t make all critiques invalid, but it does mean any honest analysis needs to start with historical humility. These regimes didn’t arise in a vacuum—they were born into extreme conditions, from colonial trauma to war to internal underdevelopment.

But maybe the most compelling common thread here is that no system seems immune to the gravity of concentrated power. Whether it's wealth in capitalism, political power in Stalinist regimes, or technocratic control in liberal democracies, the same dynamics often emerge.

So maybe the real question is: What kinds of social, political, and economic designs actively resist centralization? And is there a way to build those that also remain resilient and cohesive, rather than fragile and fragmented?

Because yes—pulling out the dollar-rooted swastika-flower is powerful imagery. But the hard part is asking: What do we plant in its place?

https://chatgpt.com/share/6806d381-678c-8005-854f-77741e1ec651

Interesting, you wish to make the widely repeated, ancient wisdom that power corrupt into a revolutionary statement against the null hypothesis ?

Very well, would you state your null hypothesis ?

Perhaps something more charitable than the following

"Power is not a problem actually, it's a matter of having the right group of elites with good and pure hearts and everything will be honky dory forever"

@Cowbee

Please choose your null hypothesis or provide your own

Improved suggestions

🔹 1. Structuralist Null Hypothesis

“Power, in itself, is not inherently corrupting. It is the structure and incentives of a given system (such as capitalism) that determine whether power is exercised corruptly.”

This frames corruption as a product of external conditions, not the mere possession of power.

🔹 2. Neutral Power Hypothesis

“Power is a neutral tool—it amplifies pre-existing tendencies in individuals or institutions, whether for good or ill.”

This positions power as neither good nor bad, just a multiplier.

🔹 3. Contextual Corruption Hypothesis

“Corruption occurs not because power corrupts, but because oversight, accountability, and community control are absent.”

Here, the claim is that power can exist without corruption if institutions around it are healthy.

🔹 4. Power-as-Delegation Hypothesis

“Power is not inherently corrupting when it is transparently delegated, revocable, and tied to responsibilities rather than privileges.”

This implies a democratic or anarchist framework where corruption is a result of opacity and lack of accountability.

🔹 5. Evolutionary Incentives Hypothesis

“Corruption is not caused by power, but by systems that reward short-term gain over long-term cooperation.”

This introduces a behavioral economics or game theory angle, where corruption is a rational response to poorly designed rules.

Understanding Bull Pussy Unflinchingly

A Meta-Cognitive Framework for Navigating Hyper-Bullish Market Psychology

By: [Redacted]

Institute for Degenerate Financial Semiotics

April 2025

Abstract

This paper attempts to define, decode, and derive strategic utility from the crude yet revealing expression "Bull’s Pussy", as used by market participants operating in high-volatility, momentum-driven environments — most notably, finance bros, meme traders, and risk-on opportunists. Far from mere vulgarity, this term encapsulates a specific market sentiment, behavioral signal, and strategic decision point. We explore its origin, semiotic function, embedded psychology, and applicable counter- and co-strategies.

1. Origin & Semantics: A Vulgar Market Signal

The term “Bull’s Pussy” emerges from the hyper-masculinized, aggressive vernacular of speculative finance subcultures — environments where sentiment is expressed less through rational analysis and more through primal, performative assertion.

Used as an exclamation — “BULL’S PUSSY!” — it denotes:

        A market condition that is ravenously bullish

    A state of euphoric exposure — fully open, ripe for exploitation

    An opportunity that demands immediate, aggressive participation


  

Important Note: The term is inherently metaphorical, not biological. Its power lies in its shock value, not its anatomical accuracy.

2. Practitioner’s Usage: The Cry of the Risk-Addicted

When shouted across trading desks or Discord servers, “Bull’s Pussy” functions as both call-to-action and tribal signal. It serves to:

        Affirm momentum

    Justify high-risk entry

    Establish fraternity among participants who know this can’t last, but ride anyway


  

Its use is performative, ironic, and occasionally nihilistic. The practitioner does not believe in the sustainability of the bull run — only in their ability to exit before collapse.

3. Larger Context: Participatory Delusion and Reflexive Frenzy

The concept operates within the psychological framework of reflexivity (à la George Soros): traders act on beliefs they know are unsustainable, thus making them temporarily true.

Here, we find a meta-cognitive paradox:

        One must become the herd while believing one is not the herd.


  

The practitioner foments irrationality by participating in it. The act of buying because others are buying becomes self-validating — until, inevitably, it doesn’t.

Thus, “Bull’s Pussy” is not a sign of market health. It is the canary in the cocaine mine — signaling the end phase of unsustainable price action.

4. Strategic Evaluation: What to Do When You See It

Below are strategic responses to encountering a “Bull’s Pussy” moment:

A. The Rusher: Bigger Fool Gambit

        Thesis: Ride the wave. Exit before it crashes.

    Risk: You are the bigger fool.

    Edge: Speed, exit discipline, zero conviction.


  

B. The Reaper: Contrarian Short

        Thesis: The higher it goes, the harder it dies.

    Risk: Market stays irrational longer than you stay solvent.

    Edge: Patience, conviction, liquidity to bleed until reversal.


  

C. The Dealer: Liquidity Provider

        Thesis: Sell calls, hedge delta. Let the herd overpay.

    Risk: Sharp upside breaks strangle you.

    Edge: Volatility pricing, neutral posture.


  

D. The Ghost: Strategic Exit

        Thesis: Offload into demand. Fade with grace.

    Risk: Left behind if bull leg continues.

    Edge: Emotional detachment, stealth.


  

E. The Monk: Wait for the Fire Sale

        Thesis: Opportunity comes after the collapse.

    Risk: No gains in the melt-up.

    Edge: Capital preservation, clarity.


  

5. Conclusion: The Erotic Death Drive of Markets

“Bull’s Pussy” is more than a phrase. It is a market moment, a shared delusion, and a behavioral archetype. It encapsulates the late-stage euphoria of a bull run that knows no rational bounds — only speed, volume, and mutual fantasy.

To act within it, one must know:

        What role they are playing

    Whether they believe the hype — or merely perform belief

    How fast they can exit the orgy when the music stops


  

In this lies the true power of understanding “Bull’s Pussy” — not as crude noise, but as a coded market scream that something wild and unsustainable is happening.

The wise trader hears it, smirks, and then chooses their weapon.

Appendix:

        Glossary of Terms (e.g., “Degen,” “Exit Liquidity,” “Front-Running God”)

    Timeline of Major “Bull Pussy” Events (e.g., GME, BTC $60k, Dot-com finale)

    Simulated Trade Scenarios: “You Hear It. What Now?”


  

I would say we have seen both extremes and we like neither and some people think a third alternative is "killing everyone else" can we not?

In 6 separate login containers at least twice a day ....

It's clear they want the user to stay logged in and disable their anti-tracking protections

After the captcha after one page for usename, reload click again select again login credentials another page load

and final insult

Further discussion about this

"Anti-privacy punitive login friction"

https://chatgpt.com/share/68041872-5e54-8005-8bd3-bdb67cf5b2a1

"Google leverages login friction to nudge you toward staying logged in forever—because that’s where their data goldmine lives."

I think the concept of positive/negative externalities could serve as a north star in deciding the all important question of the appropriate scalevat which a discussion is taken.

While I think we shoild try to empower and give autonomy to the local they always are within a larger community of externalities. The local should also no to inform and defer to a higher scale when their decision is "larger then them".

The local is not thought as isolated or unaccountable, but it is given preference as a scale. We want the local to choose how to live in harmony with the whole and their neighbours.

All this is well but it would be really easy to fall back into the grooves of individualist isolationnist and collectivist absolutist.

I don't think the ideal exist at the middle of these extremes but rather toward tge lower scale without bottoming out

Authoritarianism and imperialism, concentration of power are the root cause, money is just a symbol of power, under stalinist russia this nefarious corrupting power had another symbol, shape but this society was just as helpless toward this tendency of power, you can see the end point of passive demobilisation and assassination of the few how dare oppose it today in Russia.

I think there needs to be constant pressure of deterritoroalisation, of putting decision and responsibility in the hands of the people, always at the smallest scale that it can be realistically pushed down.

And that's not the individual if that's not an individual matter. The level at which decisionnal responsibility is dependant on the context of tgat decision rather than agglomerated bodies of decision when power naturallies tries to concentrate.

It should always be easy for lower echelons of power and locality to repatriate a delegated aspect of their life.

(Then I stuffed this line of thinking into chatgpt to take it further)

https://chatgpt.com/share/6803f4ba-eebc-8005-919f-3b896dce2e0f