Socially smart people often won’t tell you to your face when they disagree with you because they can sense intuitively that you are too attached to the outcome of the interaction and that you couldn’t handle disagreement. So they will just agree with you… but then you might not hear from them again.
It’s easy to assume this is “fake” when really it’s just what intelligent people do to protect their energy. If you went around saying what you really thought all of the time you’d make way too many enemies, and get in way too many unproductive arguments (cortisol spikes = aging)
Of course the only way to make genuine connections is to say what you really think… but especially if you intend to be deeply involved in society, you must train your intuition to know who can take it.
To film this scene in "Death Becomes Her" (1992) where Meryl Streep's bre@ sts rise higher & become firmer after drinking the anti-aging potion, a pneumatic bra was built to create the effect. But it didn't seem realistic enough. They also tried various other methods but failed to get the desired effect. Finally, Meryl Streep's makeup man got behind her, lifted her bre@ sts into position while being hidden from the cameras. It worked to perfection.
(Meryl Streep conference at the French Premiere of "Death Becomes Her" & IMDb)
P.S: On this day, 34 years ago, Robert Zemeckis's "Death Becomes Her" (1992) premiered in New York City, USA.
Andrew Tate on LOSERS who are obsessed with Latino females:
“Any man who’s obsessed with Latinas is usually a f*cking f**got”
“You want a Russian blonde Barbie but a Barbie doll won’t talk to you because you’re f*cking poor”
There are more than 10,000 people who should hear this message. The reality is that most of them never will. Modern communication systems are increasingly filtered through algorithms that decide what people see, what gains visibility, and what disappears beneath the surface. The result is that ideas are often judged not by their merit but by whether they fit the incentives of the platforms that distribute them. If this vision is ever going to become reality, it will not happen because an algorithm decides it should. It will happen because people choose to discuss it, challenge it, improve it, and share it with others.
What is being proposed is not another technology company. It is not another token project. It is not another attempt to build a larger data centre or a more powerful centralised model. The objective is something much broader. It is the creation of a distributed intelligence economy in which individuals own their knowledge, own their tools, own their models, and participate directly in the creation of value.
For too long the assumption has been that progress requires concentration. Larger institutions. Larger platforms. Larger data centres. Larger models. Larger corporations. The belief is that intelligence improves as more information is gathered into fewer hands. Yet history repeatedly demonstrates that knowledge does not originate from centres of power. It originates from individuals. Discovery is distributed. Expertise is distributed. Creativity is distributed. Innovation is distributed.
Artificial intelligence should reflect that reality.
The future should not consist of a handful of corporations acting as gatekeepers to intelligence. It should consist of millions of people creating specialised tools, specialised agents, specialised services, and specialised knowledge systems. A physician understands things that an engineer does not. An engineer understands things that a lawyer does not. A scientist understands things that an accountant does not. Human civilisation works because knowledge is dispersed across society. The strength of the system comes from the interaction between specialists, not from the existence of a single authority.
The same principle can be applied to artificial intelligence. Instead of one giant model attempting to know everything, we can build networks of specialised agents that cooperate, compete, verify one another, and continuously improve. We can create systems that discover expertise rather than pretending expertise can be centralised. We can build mechanisms that reward truth, reward reliability, reward contribution, and reward innovation.
Most importantly, we can create systems that help people become more capable rather than making people increasingly dependent upon a small number of organisations. Technology should extend human potential. It should allow individuals to do more, learn more, create more, and contribute more. It should not exist primarily to extract value from users and concentrate it among a small group of owners.
This is why ownership matters. This is why reputation matters. This is why open systems matter. If individuals cannot own what they create, cannot control the knowledge they develop, and cannot participate directly in the value they generate, then the future will simply reproduce the same concentration of power under a different technological label.
A distributed intelligence economy offers a different path. It allows individuals to build. It allows communities to experiment. It allows experts to encode their knowledge into specialised systems. It allows markets to discover value through competition rather than through central planning. It creates diversity rather than uniformity and resilience rather than dependence.
The preservation of your sanity as a young woman is far more important than the existential pursuit of new experiences with men who exhibit manipulative, abusive, or psychologically harmful behavior.