stockhold

revivemi.com
TI$A x ADIDAS VINTAGE COLLECTION

TI$A presents his newest vintage collection with one of the best sports brands, Adidas. This collection consists of Olympic sweaters and jackets from the 1950’s & 1970’s. A vintage ADIDAS Olympic 1972 Sapporo Jacket is presented with Olympic patchwork on a bright white jacket. Vintage London ADIDAS sweatshirts feature the country’s primary colors of red, white, and blue with TI$A logos on the sleeves. Vintage Olympic Stockholm sweatshirts are introduced with two-tone sleeves featuring major patchwork from the 1952 Olympics. This vintage collection is available in limited quantities and will sell out!

So according to horror site Bloody Disgusting, the real test is what will happen to the Ghostbusters sequel after the 2016 movie ends its theater run. While Sony and Mattel seem pretty happy with the movie and its toys, we need to remember that they’re also a company that has to appease its stockholders. Are they truly happy or are they saying their happy to keep their stock steady? (Hopefully it’s both.)

Long story short: go see the movie several times and buy the merchandise (if you can afford it). More money = a bigger chance of a sequel. Reminder that while Sony says they’re happy and a sequel will happen, we need to actually get it greenlit. Words are nice but we need to get something official.

Okay, so imagine this:

Tony’s stressed. He’s been stuck in a hell of a lot of meetings, signing papers, meeting with stockholders and being told how to do his job, conferencing with Pepper, and on top of that, Doom just tried to take over the world with his robots again, and Tony’s fucking up to the ears in stress, and he’s just done. He really needs to do something to relax, because if he doesn’t, he’s going to explode, and it isn’t going to be pretty.

He loves inventing, he really does, he loves the thrill of it, loves making things that seem otherworldly and impossible, he loves planning, he loves getting hands on a dirty with it, grease and grime and all, but he’s had enough of that for now. Right now, he needs to do something calming, something that doesn’t require too much thinking, something that’s simple and gives nice results so he can just do and be pleased with the results.

But no one’s around. Natasha’s out doing god knows what, Clint’s with Bruce, probably busy cuddling and talking with him and Tony doesn’t want to bother them, and Steve’s out with Sam on running exercises. Thor went to visit Jane for the day, so Tony’s practically alone.

So he goes to the kitchen.

All the other Avengers think Tony and a kitchen mixed together will result in disaster, because when Tony’s making and inventing, he’s a fire hazard, courtesy too all of them being soaked by sprinklers that one time Tony accidentally made one of his inventions go off and caused a huge amount of smoke. No one was too happy with him.

But Tony goes to the kitchen, and he starts clattering around.

But get this.

As soon as Sam and Steve step in, they moan, because something smells fucking good, and god, they don’t know what it is, but they fucking want it. They go to the kitchen, and boom, there’s Tony, putting the finishing touches to what looks like the most delicious chocolate cupcakes with strawberry frosting fucking ever.

And they fall on them like a pack of ravenous dogs, and Tony just watches with a grin as they practically devour them, smacking their shoulders playfully and pulling some of them away, telling them to save some for the others, and Steve and Sam whine almost immediately after, because they’re so good, and they want them all to themselves.

Natasha comes in next, takes one bite, and promptly tells Tony she’s marrying him, and Tony can’t help but blush a tiny bit, and Steve huffs and pulls Tony into his arms saying he’s his and she can’t have him. And Tony’s just flustered, and Sam can’t stop grinning.

Next, Bruce and Clint come in, and they steal some cupcakes, and god damn, they weren’t expecting Tony to be such a whiz in the kitchen. Thor claims all of Tony’s cupcakes as his, which everyone protests too, and Tony is just fondly staring at them, rolling his eyes.

Even Rhodey and Pepper drop by, but Tony has a whole another batch of red velvet cupcakes with vanilla frosting, because he remembered this time that Pepper is allergic to strawberries, and Rhodey just likes vanilla.

It’s official. Everybody loves Tony’s baking. They all agree it’s to die for, and Tony can’t stop blushing, but he’s so happy and content that his family likes his baking. Baking is now sort of Tony’s hobby now, after inventing, and no one’s complaining.

So he isn’t very surprised at all that everyone is present as he takes the chocolate cheesecake he made earlier out of the fridge, as they’ve been stealing his cinnamon buns, homemade glazed donuts, and fucking awesome blueberry pancakes the whole week before.

6

Really interesting, unexpected colour explosions, graphics and characters fill this edition of Mould Map 2 from Landfill Editions, a publisher from Stockholm. Want want want want want want want. Want.  http://www.landfilleditions.com/product/mould-map-2/   http://mouldmap.com/

does it still not bother anyone that 1D released a song with the title of a serious mental illness developed during/after someone has been kidnapped or held hostage or even abused for a long period of time… am I still the only one bothered by or uncomfortable with this?

Decapitating Capitalism: Why the Easiest Job for AI to Replace is the Job of “Owner”

This may seem like a ridiculous point to try to make, however I submit that it provides a direct metaphor for the Hard Problem of Consciousness which may help make it more concrete, especially for those whose minds are filled with concrete.

What is the essential role of the Owner of a company? 

Whether they are individual proprietors, stockholders, or investors, the only truly unique function that a capitalist principal performs is to be the beneficiary of net profit. Every executive function of a company can of course be delegated to employees. The CEO, COO, board of directors, etc can make every functional decision about the company, from the hiring and firing to the broad strategy of operations and acquisitions. Simulating those roles would be more difficult for a computer program than simulating an owner would be because there would be a lot of tricky decisions to make, subtle political maneuvers that require a lot of history and intuition, etc. The role of pure ownership however, while highly coveted by human beings, is completely disposable for an AI system. In fact, we already have that role covered by our bank accounts themselves. Our personal accounting systems can be configured quite easily to automatically pay, receive, and invest funds automatically. They need not be considered ‘our’ funds at all. They are merely signals in a global financial network which has no use at all for any pleasure or pain that we might experience as a side effect of its digital transactions.

From the view of an AI scientist, the job of receiving capital gains is a no-brainer (literally). If we didn’t want to delegate the job of selling the company to a corporate officer, that feature would be a simple one to create. A modest set of algorithms could digitize some of the concepts of top business schools to determine a set of indicators which would establish a good time to sell the company or its assets. The role of receiving the profit of that sale, however, would require no such sophisticated programming.

All that is needed to simulate ownership is some kind of digital account where money can be deposited. The CEO would then re-invest the capital gains into the corporate growth strategy, which would yield a huge windfall for the company, in the form of eliminating useless expenses such as yachts, mansions, divorce settlements, etc. Left to its own devices, AI simulation of ownership would be communist by default. Whatever money is extracted from the individual customer as profit would be returned ultimately to all customers in the form of expanded services. Profit is only useful as a way to concentrate reinvestment for mathematical leverage, not to ‘enjoy’ in some human way. I suppose that a computer could be programmed to spend lavishly on creature comforts, but what would be the point?

This is where the metaphor for consciousness comes in. 

Consciousness can be thought of the Capital account of the human body. We are the owner of our own lives, including our body. We might be able to subscribe to a service which would manage our finances completely in a way which would transfer our income to the highest priority costs for civilization as a whole rather than for our personal hoard, but this is not likely to be a very popular app.

We might ask ourselves, why not? Why is ownership good?

Ownership is good for us as owners or conscious agents because we want to feel personal power and significance. Ownership signifies freedom (from employment) and success. Sure, many owners in the real world get a lot of satisfaction from actually running their companies, but it is not necessary. There is still power and prestige purely in being the person who owns the money which pays the bills. We want to own and control, not because it is more effective than simply reinvesting automatically in whatever functions are being executed to keep an economy growing, but because we want to experience the feelings and other aesthetic qualities define freedom, success, and power for us. Even if these qualities are employed for humanitarian purposes, there is still a primary motive of feeling (to feel generous, kind, wise, evolved, Godly, etc). 

In my view we do not have to have a purely selfish motive, as Ayn Rand would insist. I think that our personal pleasure in being a philanthropist can be outweighed by the more noble intention of it - to provide others with better feelings and experiences of life. This decision to believe that we can be truly philanthropic has philosophical implications for realism. If we say as the Randian Libertarian might, that all our humanitarian impulses are selfish, then we are voting for solipsism over realism, and asserting that consciousness can only reflect the agenda of a fictional agent rather than perceiving directly the facts of nature. It’s an argument that should be made, but I think that it is ultimately an argument of the intellect commenting on its own process rather than tapping into the deeper intuition and aesthetic presence which all cognition depends on. The mind doesn’t think that feeling is necessary, and it is right, for the mind, but wrong for everything else. 

For the intellect, the universe is inverted. 

Logic and language are ‘real’ while the concrete sensations, perceptions and emotions of life experience are ‘illusions’ or ‘emergent properties’ of deeper evolutionary bio-computations. There is a kind of sleight of hand where the dry, masculine intellect pulls the wool over its own eyes and develops amnesia about the origins of what makes its own sanity and self-intelligibility possible. The closest that it can come without seeing consciousness as irreducible is the mind-numbing process of calculation. Counting is a sedative-hypnotic for the mind. The monotonous rhythm puts us to sleep, and the complexity of huge calculations gives us a kind of orgasmic annihilation of the calculating experience. This is why big math is a convenient substitute for the deeper, direct experiences of cosmic awe.

Metaphor for Consciousness

Like the head of a company, our consciousness may seem to reside at the top end of our body, but there is no functional reason for that. There is nothing that the brain does which is fundamentally different from what any cell, tissue, or organ does in an animal’s body. Looking for the secret ingredient in the brain’s function or structure is analogous to looking for the substance in an object which casts a shadow.

Like the owner, our personal pains and pleasures are ours not because there is any intrinsic benefit for the pragmatic application of biology and genetics to feel painful or pleasurable, but because what we feel and experience is the only thing that the universe actually can consist of. The Hard Problem of Consciousness is not an Empirical problem, but a Rational one. Not everyone is able to understand why this is, but maybe this metaphor of business decapitation can help. When we use the intellect to reverse its own inversion, we can get a glimpse of a universe which is made of conscious experiences and aesthetic qualities rather than logical propositions, natural laws or existential facts. In my view, facts are a category of sensations rather than the other way around. Sensations which persist indefinitely without contradiction are ‘facts’. Hard to know if something is going to persist indefinitely, but that’s another issue.

Only consciousness cares about consciousness. 

Material substrates can be programmed to perform the executive functions of a corporation, or an evolving species, or a human body, however there is no function which is provided exclusively by the receipt of feelings and aesthetic qualities of experience, including the qualities of feeling that one is free or in control of something. Rationally, we should be able to see that qualia is irrelevant to function and violates Occam’s Razor in a functionalist universe. From a physical or information-centric perspective, there is no place for any feeling or sensation, no owner or capital of aesthetic wealth. The more that we, as a society, embrace a purely quantitative ethos, and actualize it in the structures of our civilization, the more we decapitate everything of value that it can contain.

There is so much dirt on this kid , please don’t stan him.

“Clovers, don’t bash at me anymore. Who do you think you are, my dad is a stockholder, a big stockholder. Whoever I want kicked out will be kicked out. You guys can’t do a thing. In two years, maybe your Qian Xi will be the next Liu Zhi Hong.”


How rude and disgusting. Jackson isn’t afraid you and neither are us fans.