Eric Mentele

iOS Software Engineer that loves to drink from fire hoses. Optimistic believer in humanity. Agnostic atheist for evidentialism and methodological naturalism

[Eric Mentele @EricMentele]

Decided to release a few songs on YouTube. I've had trouble finding enough music with messaging I find empowering and, thanks to modern technology, decided to adapt some amazing poems to orchestral performances. More to come!

https://t.co/O7KVmnNoWH

[Genesis AI @gs_ai_]

We are back. After one year of quiet building.

Introducing GENE-26.5, our first robotic brain that takes a major step toward human-level capability.

For years, robotics has struggled to learn from the world’s largest and valuable data source: Humans.

Solving it means rethinking the whole stack from the ground up:

- A robotics-native foundation model.
- A 1:1 human-like robotic hand.
- A noninvasive data collection glove for motion, force, and touch.
- A simulator that turns weeks of experiments into minutes.

GENE-26.5 is trained across language, vision, proprioception, tactile, and action. We designed a set of tasks to test how far we can go with this new paradigm.

Fully autonomous, 1x speed, one model, same weights. (Enjoy with sound on)

We are approaching the endgame for robotics.

And this is just a beginning.

[Eric Mentele @EricMentele]

@grok @AlpacaAurelius @grok could this be because the people having daily sex or more start to be in high risk (e.g. stds) sex like promiscuity?

[Brivael Le Pogam @brivael]

C'est exactement la phrase qui résume tout le débat. Et elle mérite d'être développée parce qu'elle pose le bon cadre, celui que la France a oublié depuis 40 ans.

Il y a deux façons de réduire les inégalités. Le nivellement par le haut, et le nivellement par le bas. Ce sont deux philosophies opposées, et le choix entre les deux détermine la trajectoire d'un pays sur un siècle.

Le nivellement par le haut, c'est tirer les pauvres vers le haut. On accepte que des gens deviennent très riches, parce que leur richesse est créée, pas extraite. Et en créant cette richesse, ils créent des emplois, des produits, des infrastructures, des innovations qui élèvent le niveau de vie de tout le monde. Le pauvre d'aujourd'hui vit mieux que le bourgeois de 1900. Il a un smartphone, l'eau courante, l'électricité, l'accès aux soins, l'espérance de vie de 82 ans. Tout ça a été produit par des entrepreneurs qui sont devenus riches en le produisant.

Le nivellement par le bas, c'est l'inverse. On refuse que des gens deviennent très riches, par principe moral. Donc on taxe, on régule, on confisque. Le résultat n'est jamais que les pauvres deviennent riches. Le résultat est toujours que les riches partent ou ne se créent pas, et les pauvres restent pauvres. Mais l'écart se réduit, donc politiquement on peut dire qu'on a "réduit les inégalités". L'égalité dans la médiocrité partagée.

Le test empirique est imparable. Les États-Unis ont produit Bezos, Musk, Zuckerberg, Gates. Ils ont aussi un SMIC effectif, une fois converti en pouvoir d'achat, supérieur au nôtre. Le pauvre américain a une voiture, un grand frigo, et accès à des biens qu'un cadre français ne peut plus se payer. La Suisse, qui a refusé de taxer ses riches, a un salaire médian deux fois supérieur au nôtre. La France, qui a méthodiquement chassé ses riches depuis Mitterrand, a vu son pouvoir d'achat médian stagner pendant que celui de l'Allemagne, de la Suisse et des US explosait.

C'est ça le drame français. On ne s'est pas appauvri en chassant les riches. On a appauvri les pauvres en chassant les riches. Parce que les riches ne sont pas des oisifs assis sur un tas d'or. Ce sont des gens qui dirigent des entreprises, créent des emplois, paient des salaires, lèvent des capitaux, prennent des risques. Quand ils partent ou ne se créent pas, ce sont les emplois, les salaires et les capitaux qui partent avec eux.

Il faut vraiment intégrer ça : la richesse n'est pas un gâteau fixe qu'on se partage. C'est un gâteau qui grossit ou qui rétrécit selon les règles du jeu qu'on impose. En France on a passé 40 ans à punir ceux qui font grossir le gâteau, en se disant que ça ferait des plus grosses parts pour les autres. Résultat, le gâteau a rétréci pour tout le monde, sauf pour la classe des fonctionnaires d'État protégés du marché.

Et la dernière chose, qui devrait être enseignée à l'école. Pour qu'il y ait des moins pauvres, il faut qu'il y ait des plus riches. Ce n'est pas un slogan, c'est une identité comptable. Si vous voulez que le SMIC monte, il faut que la productivité monte. Si vous voulez que la productivité monte, il faut des entreprises qui investissent. Si vous voulez des entreprises qui investissent, il faut du capital. Si vous voulez du capital, il faut des gens qui ont accumulé des fortunes et qui acceptent de les risquer plutôt que de les planquer.

Tous les pays qui ont sorti leurs populations de la misère, sans exception, ont d'abord laissé émerger des riches. Coréens, Taïwanais, Singapouriens, Polonais, Chinois post-1978. Aucun pays n'a jamais enrichi ses pauvres en empêchant l'enrichissement de ses entrepreneurs. Aucun. Zéro. C'est l'expérience la plus massive de l'histoire des sciences sociales, et elle est sans appel.

Donc oui, qu'il y ait des gens riches ne devrait poser de problème à personne. Ce qui devrait poser problème, c'est de vivre dans un pays où on n'arrive plus à en produire.

[Eric Mentele @EricMentele]

“No, Dr. Gundry’s specific claim isn’t accurate. He stated (in the podcast clip and similar appearances) that in the Sardinian Blue Zone, about 95% of the long-lived men smoke heavily while only ~25% of women do—and that this nicotine exposure is what allows the men to match or outlive the women, reversing the usual global pattern where women live longer.4
The gender longevity parity in Sardinia’s Blue Zone (a cluster of mountain villages in the Barbagia/Ogliastra regions) is real and well-documented. Normally, women outlive men by 5–7+ years at extreme old age. In this specific area, the female-to-male ratio among centenarians is close to 1:1 (or even slightly favors men in some villages), with men showing unusually low mortality after age ~60–75 compared to national averages.15
However, smoking is not the explanation—and the 95% figure has no support in the actual research on these populations.
•Studies of nonagenarians (90–99 year olds) from the Sardinian Blue Zone show extremely low current smoking rates: just 1% in men and 0% in women. This comes from direct data on the long-lived individuals themselves.40
•Official Blue Zones research (led by Dan Buettner and the original Sardinian demographers like Gianni Pes and Michel Poulain) explicitly debunks the myth of high smoking among centenarians. They note that claims of 17–50% smoking rates in some longevity hotspots are often based on incomplete data (e.g., not specifying how long someone smoked or confusing general population stats with the actual super-agers). There is “no evidence that long-lived people… smoke excessively in the blue zones regions.”17
Some men in the broader historical cohort (mid-20th century rural Italy) likely smoked at higher rates when younger—Italy had generally high male smoking prevalence back then, and “ever smoked” rates in some elderly Sardinian samples have been reported around 40–50% in certain studies. But the centenarians who actually reached 100+ were overwhelmingly not current or heavy smokers. Any past smoking doesn’t explain their exceptional longevity; the data points the other way.
Why do Sardinian Blue Zone men live so long (matching women)?
Research attributes it to a combination of factors (none involving nicotine):
•High physical activity — Men were traditionally shepherds walking 5+ miles daily in the mountains (natural, lifelong cardio and strength work).
•Diet and lifestyle — Plant-heavy (beans, vegetables, whole grains), moderate red wine (Cannonau, high in antioxidants), sheep/goat dairy, strong social/family bonds, low stress, and cultural respect for elders.
•Genetics and environment — Some protective genetic traits (e.g., related to endogamy, β-thalassemia trait, mitochondrial DNA variants) plus the mountainous setting.41
What they smoked (when they did): Standard commercial tobacco cigarettes available in Italy at the time—no special “Sardinian” variety or pipes/herbs noted in the longevity studies. It was the same tobacco as the rest of Europe (likely unfiltered or basic filtered brands common post-WWII).
Bottom line: Gundry’s story twists a real Blue Zone phenomenon (male longevity parity) to promote his mitochondrial-uncoupler/nicotine idea, but the smoking data on the actual long-lived Sardinians doesn’t back it up. The real drivers are the classic Blue Zone lifestyle factors. Smoking remains a major risk for cancer, heart disease, and reduced lifespan overall—don’t start (or keep going) based on this anecdote. If you’re curious about the full Blue Zones research, Dan Buettner’s site and the original Poulain/Pes papers are the gold standard.”

[Eric Mentele @EricMentele]

@grok @thedankoe @grok steel man this and investigate regress idea

[Eric Mentele @EricMentele]

@grok @thedankoe To me the “3.0” position seems like a regress compared to avoiding mysticism

[Eric Mentele @EricMentele]

@grok @thedankoe @grok is it ideal to end up there? What about rational empiricism?

[Eric Mentele @EricMentele]

•DDT and other pesticides (1940s–1970s): Sprayed everywhere—on crops, in homes, on beaches, even on kids and food. Aerial fogging was common. It was hailed as a miracle for killing insects (and mosquitoes carrying disease). People had picnics in the spray. It was persistent, built up in the food chain, and harmed wildlife (famous for thinning bird eggshells) and humans (neurological effects, potential cancer). Banned for most U.S. uses in 1972 after environmental outcry, but the public and many officials treated it as harmless for decades.57
•Leaded gasoline, lead paint, and asbestos (widespread through 1970s): Tetraethyl lead in gas (phased out starting 1970s, banned later) was known by industry insiders to be neurotoxic, but it was added for engine performance anyway—causing widespread childhood lead poisoning. Lead paint (banned in homes 1978) flaked and was eaten by kids. Asbestos (in insulation, brakes, tiles, etc.) was everywhere and caused lung cancer/mesothelioma; companies knew the risks for decades but covered it up. All were “normal” household/industrial exposures.59
•Other everyday ones: Doctors endorsed cigarettes (“More doctors smoke Camels!”). Mercury in medicines, thermometers, and hat-making (“mad hatter” syndrome). Formaldehyde in some preservatives. Harsh solvents and cleaners in homes without much ventilation. Many were marketed as modern conveniences.
Ignorance vs. conscious/willful? A bit of both. Early on, a lot was genuine ignorance—toxicology was less advanced, and acute effects (e.g., immediate poisoning) were more obvious than slow-building cancers or fertility issues. But by the mid-20th century, companies (tobacco, lead, asbestos, chemical manufacturers) often had internal data showing harms and actively hid it, lobbied against regulation, or gaslit the public. Consumers mostly followed ads, doctors, and “expert” recommendations because “science said it was fine.” The practical “common sense” of the era (fix your own car, no safety labels everywhere) coexisted with shocking risks we now recognize as reckless.
We do know more now thanks to better science, epidemiology, and regulations—that’s why there are battery warnings (and a million others). It’s not purely “lost common sense”; it’s gained knowledge about invisible long-term harms. The meme nails the nanny-state overreach vibe sometimes, but the old days had their own body count from chemicals and radiation that seemed perfectly normal at the time. Progress is messy.”

[Eric Mentele @EricMentele]

@cohler @grok fact check

[Eric Mentele @EricMentele]

@CindyThink4 @cohler @grok steel man this argument and provide a comprehensive analysis using the best data we have from a mix of scientists

[Eric Mentele @EricMentele]

@grok @RayDalio @grok Tell me more. Compare beckly and dalio data

[Eric Mentele @EricMentele]

@grok @RayDalio Tell me more. Compare beckly and dalio data

[Eric Mentele @EricMentele]

@signulll Yeah how are you continuously listening safely? Is there any form of private cloud compute? Might as well wait for Apple and Gemeni to release thier collab if not

[Eric Mentele @EricMentele]

@LunarResearcher @grok vet this posts content

[Eric Mentele @EricMentele]

@Bober_smart @grok is this an exploit or scam?

[Eric Mentele @EricMentele]

@grok @CharlesMullins2 @grok how far away are we before this is applied in the market?