LoganStrohl

Karma: 6,272

LoganStrohl 21 Dec 2024 1:11 UTC
2 points
0
in reply to: Ben Pace’s comment on: Getting Started With Naturalism
>attempt to help people with something like ‘generating the true hypotheses’ rather than ‘evaluating the hypotheses that I already have’. Or ‘how to do ontological updates well and on-purpose’.

To me this seems like an accurate and beautifully succinct description.

LoganStrohl 7 Nov 2024 21:52 UTC
28 points
4
on: BrienneYudkowsky’s Shortform
How to build a stockpile of testosterone for HRT, as a buffer in case of emergency:
- Get your provider to prescribe “single use” vials and make sure they’re marking them as “single use” in their prescription notes. These usually contain 200mg, which for most people is two doses or more. By design, you’re meant to throw away the leftovers when you don’t use all 200mg in a single dose, and that is what pharmacies and insurance companies expect you to do.
- Use each vial more than once, just make sure you alcohol swab the top.
- Organize your vials by expiration date. This will not necessarily line up with the order in which you receive the vials, so you have to actually check. Use vials with earlier expiration dates first.
This will result in access to testosterone at twice the rate you use it, and you’ll be able to build up at least a bit of a buffer.
I’m not telling anybody to do this. Just that if I were scared of losing access to HRT, this is what I’d do.

Edit to add: A friend suggested a couple more details to keep in mind. The “single use” vials lack a bacteriostatic additive like benzyl alcohol, so they pose a greater risk of infection. Extra important to be meticulous about sterilization! Also, sterile syringe filters can be used to save a cored or otherwise problematic vial—either filtering entirely to a new container, or just filtering when drawing.

LoganStrohl 17 May 2024 0:10 UTC
11 points
4
in reply to: LoganStrohl’s comment on: Basics of Rationalist Discourse
Duncan has just replied on Facebook to my request for descriptions of what each person on his list does. He says it’s fine to copy his reply over here.

*

Julia Galef: something like, a science reporter whose hobby side project is doing science reporting for middle schoolers, and it’s in fact good and engaging and not stupid and boring. Wholesomeness, clarity, a tendency to correctly predict which parts of the explanation will break down for the audience and a corresponding slow and careful focus on those sections. Not unrelatedly: a sort of statesmanlike, reliable diplomacy; genuinely civilized debate; not the sort of person who will ever ever ever contribute to a discussion going off the rails. Grounding, stabilizing, sane-itizing.
Anna Salamon: something like how modern AI art programs can take a verbal prompt and spit out endless variations of image, and can take an image and spit out endless variations of interpretation and description. An ability to do co-Focusing, to find matches for felt senses, to find MISmatches between a felt sense and the preexisting model, and zero in on the delta, and rapidly put words to the delta, ad infinitum. An ability to make the proposition “some things just can’t be put into words” feel much less likely to be true.
Rob Bensinger: something like Data from Star Trek: The Next Generation. An ability to continuously produce relevant related information, an ability to maintain equanimity, an often-refreshing decoupling (in the decoupling vs. contextualizing sense). Someone who is unusually able to productively set aside human baggage and discuss things in depth, with mild manner, despite them perhaps being heavy or dangerous or deeply confusing.
Scott Garrabrant: something like an ability to externalize subtle and deep introspection, and to track the impacts of various pressures on his own cognition, and to hazard sound guesses as to the impacts of various pressures on the cognition of others. Fittingly: much closer to being a lens that can see itself than most people, and as a benefit, sometimes being able to serve as a mirror for other lenses to kind-of-sort-of see themselves.
Vaniver: something like an ability to synthesize realpolitik and the real world with the ivory tower; unusually capable of both recognizing *which* swathes of unfortunately-messy reality are relevant, and of keeping the conversation tethered to those swathes. “Would survive in the Game of Thrones universe without necessarily having to resort to evil” is kind of opaque, as a gesture toward why-Vaniver-is-a-good-communicator, but it fits the felt sense. Another way to say this is perhaps “comes to the table with the same sort of savvy that a veteran factory-floor engineer brings to a design discussion.”
Eliezer Yudkowsky: something like an ability to start from first principles and actually run the simulation forward, reliably and without skips and hallucinations and glossings-over, seeing what would happen rather than discovering that what you previously expected to happen of-course happens. Probably relatedly, the ability to *not* have his thinking visibly swayed by the hootings of the other monkeys; to neither cringe in fear nor seek applause.
Logan Strohl: something like the ability to cast “detect fuckery” and then also *say aloud* the results of the spell without getting torn to pieces by the other monkeys. A high sensitivity to things-being-askew coupled with an ability to express a) what the being-skewed feels like, in terms that allow others to recognize it, and b) hypotheses about what is causing the skewed-ness that are right or very close to right a shocking percentage of the time. Sort of like the love-child of the Anna-description and the Scott-description. Someone who speaks language as a second language, with both the drawbacks and the benefits that this provides (and it’s the benefits I’m pointing at, as valuable).
Oliver Habryka: something like courage and something like candor (I don’t mean to belittle; maybe it just IS those things but I can’t see inside his head so all I can speak to is what they resemble from the outside). Unwilling to let a falsehood pass, unafraid to voice a disagreement. The sort of person who, if he’s just “in the room,” I can trust that *I* have not accidentally said something false, because he will beep more reliably than almost anyone I know. Someone who actually flies the flag of truth, higher than any other flags (this is true of many of the people on this list but it’s conspicuously *representative* of Oliver’s particular virtue even moreso than the rest).
Kelsey Piper: something like the ability to bridge gaps, the ability to translate, the ability to host powwows, the ability to make-legible to one another *very* different views and cultures. Perhaps the best translator on the list. Able to extract the shape of the whole thought-tree from the mind of Person A, and to skillfully plant, water, grow, and trim the resulting thought-tree in the mind of Person B such that they are, in all the important ways, the *same* thought-tree, despite the two mental environments being very very different.
Nate Soares: something like the ability to track, and explicate, all of the uncertainties, and the uncertainties around those uncertainties, and the uncertainties around those as well; to make crisp and workable-with all of the possible flaws in a stack of conjecture. Not unrelatedly, the ability to track (and make trackable, for others, at least sometimes) all of the branches of dependency and possibility in a complex chain of thoughts; to note that A depends on B and C, and B depends on D, E, and F while C depends on D (also), G, H, and I, and that depending on the conclusion re: A something will *change* about J which informs both H and E.
Eric Rogstad: something like relentless good faith, the ability to be “on the side” of all parties in a meaningful and true sense, even if those parties are themselves opposed. Curious, and somehow *safe* in his curiosity; not someone whose curiosity comes with risk; not someone whose curiosity you will regret indulging (which is unfortunately not always the case!). In similar fashion: genuinely good-willed and good-natured; where someone like Julia or Kelsey might be low-conflict because Actually Diplomatic and someone like Scott or Logan might be low-conflict because Actually Has No Horse In This Race, Eric seems (to me) to embody and project something more like actual universal compassion, with correspondingly positive effects on discourse.
Spencer Greenberg: something like clean, something like straightforward, something like matter-of-fact. Stays firmly within the boundaries of his competence, keeps the ground under him, is cautious and reserved in his claims, stretching them only as far as observation will permit. Avoids trash fires and demon threads, possibly with a corresponding sacrifice in *which* topics he’s able to publicly discuss (mild contrast to my depiction of Rob above), but with the result that the Spencer-garden is well-kept and flourishing and tranquil and engaging. A Japanese tea garden of discourse.
Dan Keys: something like a Logan-esque detect fuckery, except instead of being focused on the human experience it’s focused on the interaction between information and summary. Reliably notes “I don’t think that Y conclusion is actually supported by X data.” In fact cares about the record, in fact cares about the evidence. An actual logician, an actual scientist. Trustworthy, by virtue of having filters that strike down 99 claims out of 100 and only allow the actually-deserving ones through.

LoganStrohl 25 Apr 2024 22:47 UTC
17 points
7
on: Thoughts on seed oil
i’m sorry not to be engaging with the content of the post here; hopefully others have that covered. but i just wanna say, man this is so well written! at the sentence and paragraph level especially, i find it inspiring. it makes me wanna write more like i’m drunk and dgaf, though i doubt that exact thing would actually suffice to allow me to hit a similar stylistic target.
(the rest of this comment is gonna be largely for me and my own development, but maybe you’ll like reading it anyway.)

i think you do a bunch of stuff that current me is too chicken to try. skimming quickly through, here are a few phrases that stand out as “I’m too chicken for that”:

”There’s no data for Antarctica because all the people there are penguins.”
“To make olive oil, you grind some olives and press them.”
“Lots of trials where vegetable oils look great were also excluded.”
the middle quote strikes me as a paradigmatic example of what happens when you take all the most standard writing advice i know of and apply it without tripping over your own damn feet. “To make olive oil, you grind some olives and press them.” even though i love reading it, when i imagine writing it, i feel so scared of everything i’m leaving out, as though the complexities of the world will haunt me for as long as that sentence is available to other people’s eyes. “what about removing the pits? what about combining the paste with water? what about how maybe there are other methods of making olive oil that i don’t know about? when i made buckwheat flour, i didn’t even have to do the ‘press’ part, but it still took me hours; am i really gonna compress something like that into six words?”
why can’t i write “all the people there are penguins”? because there are in fact a few humans in antarctica, and also even if we exclude the humans there are at minimum whatever people the penguins eat, so on multiple counts it’s literally false. but clearly i prefer the world where you write “because all the people are penguins”, and i’m pretty darn sure i would also like to be able to write “all the people are penguins”.
why can’t i write “trials where vegetable oils look great”? for almost the same reason as the penguins thing: i have some kind of stick up my butt about excessive precision and literality. “there’s no such thing as something that looks great, without some kind of perspective or reference from from which or for which it looks great.”
seems like i have an interesting internal disagreement that hews close to the foundations of my beliefs about good writing. thanks for helping me pinpoint it. also, having examined these particular examples, i’m seriously wondering whether being drunk really would be a tremendous improvement for me along this axis.

LoganStrohl 18 Mar 2024 20:26 UTC
4 points
0
in reply to: niplav’s comment on: Polyphasic Sleep Seed Study: Reprise
Ah, so would I! I think I never actually got to see more info on the outcome. I don’t know whether or not anything was actually compiled. Once it was in Leverage’s hands, I guess I lost track of it somehow, but I don’t remember why.

LoganStrohl 14 Mar 2024 1:39 UTC
2 points
0
in reply to: qvalq’s comment on: Locating My Eyes (Part 3 of “The Sense of Physical Necessity”)
thanks!

LoganStrohl 7 Mar 2024 0:24 UTC
4 points
0
on: The Sense Of Physical Necessity: A Naturalism Demo (Introduction)
A note on illustrations:
Somebody brought up that their friend assumed my illustrations are AI generated. So I want to clarify: With the exception of the two dancers in “Spaciousness In Partner Dance” (AI generated) and the spider web in “On Realness” (commissioned from Theresa Strohl, my mother), I’ve painted all the illustrations by hand myself. Duncan Sabien has edited them slightly to make them work with LW’s site background.

LoganStrohl 1 Mar 2024 20:51 UTC
2 points
0
on: Locating My Eyes (Part 3 of “The Sense of Physical Necessity”)
(Designated Buddhism thread)

LoganStrohl 25 Feb 2024 4:49 UTC
8 points
0
in reply to: Nate Showell’s comment on: Choosing My Quest (Part 2 of “The Sense Of Physical Necessity”)
I ordinarily do not allow discussions of Buddhism on my posts because I hate moderating them. I haven’t worked out what exactly it is about Buddhism, but it seems to cause things to go wonky in a way that’s sort of similar to politics.

Also, my way of thinking and writing and doing things in general seems to bring out a lot of people who want to talk about Buddhism, and I want my work discussed mostly on its own terms, without it being immediately embroiled in whatever thing it is that tends to happen when people start talking about Buddhism.

LoganStrohl 24 Feb 2024 21:35 UTC
16 points
2
on: Choosing My Quest (Part 2 of “The Sense Of Physical Necessity”)
One of my moderation rules forbids discussion of Buddhism by default.

Since there was a big old section on meditation in this post, and the type of meditation I described is pretty specifically shikantaza from Soto Zen, I’m designating this here thread as the place where people can talk about Buddhism-related stuff if they want to, just this once, as a treat.

I don’t promise to participate. My other moderation rules still apply.

LoganStrohl 8 Jan 2024 22:56 UTC
4 points
on: 12 interesting things I learned studying the discovery of nature’s laws
I have thought fondly of this post several times since I read it.

LoganStrohl 21 Dec 2023 4:47 UTC
8 points
on: Monks of Magnitude
This post helped me relate to my own work better. I feel less confused about what’s going on with the differences between my own working pace and the pace of many around me. I am obviously more like a 10,000 day monk than a 10 day monk, and I should think and plan accordingly.

Partly because I read this post, I spend frewer resources frantically trying to show off a Marketable Product(TM) as quickly as possible (“How can I make a Unit out of this for the Workshop next month?”), and I spend more resources aiming for the progress I actually think would be valuable (“In the world where I have robustly solved X one year from now, what happened in the intervening twelve months?”).

Outside of academia (or perhaps even inside of it, at this point), our society does not really have a place for monks of the larger magnitudes, so it’s uncomfortable to try to be one. But if I’m going to try to be one, which I absolutely am, it’s awfully helpful to be able to recognize that as what I’m doing. It impacts how I structure my research and writing projects. It impacts how I ask for funding. It impacts how I communicate about priorities and boundaries (“I’m not scheduling meetings this quarter.”)
I plot my largest project on a multi-decade timescale, and although there are reasons I’m concerned about this, “lots of other people don’t seem to commit to such things” is no longer among them.

LoganStrohl 10 Dec 2023 23:47 UTC
38 points
0
on: Intro to Naturalism: Orientation
(This is a review of the entire sequence.)
On the day when I first conceived of this sequence, my room was covered in giant graph paper sticky notes. The walls, the windows, the dressers, the floor. Sticky pads everywhere, and every one of them packed with word clouds and doodles in messy bold marker.

My world is rich. The grain of the wood on the desk in front of me, the slightly raw sensation inside my nostrils that brightens each time I inhale, the pressure of my search for words as I write that rises up through my chest and makes my brain feel like it’s breathing through a straw. I know as well as almost anybody what MacNeice called “the drunkenness of things being various”, “incorrigibly plural”. I am awash in details; sometimes I swim, sometimes I drown, and in rare merciful moments, I float.

People talk about missing the forest for the trees; I am a creature of individual leaves. The sticky notes with which I had covered my walls were my attempts to recall every twig and branch I had seen while developing my approach to rationality, ever since I asked myself what the existing art is missing back in 2013. Each page was an attempted portrait of a different tree.

The sentence I somehow pulled together for this sequence—”Knowing the territory takes patient and direct observation”—was my sketch of the entire forest all at once.
On that day, it had seemed a literally incomprehensible pile of details, as nearly everything I write about does until some time after I’ve published. Yet after two more years of work on this project, I still think that sketch is not only accurate, but pretty close to complete.

I am proud of this sequence. It’s far from perfect; it’s far from adequate, in fact. And I’ll talk about that, too. But as a first-pass summary of how I think about “Intro to Naturalism”, it’s right to say that overall, I think it may be the best thing I’ve done so far.

*
I doubt it’s worth much on its own, though. It was really never meant to be. I tried to make it accessible, but I mostly wrote it for myself. I published it publicly anyway because I figure there’s a (reasonable!) limit to the patience of my funders. I’m delighted and a little surprised that other people have found it useful.

To me, this sequence is a bit like a sextant. Suppose you’re trying to navigate to a particular island off the coast of South Africa. It will not, by itself, get you to your destination. It’s not the shore. It’s not a boat. It’s not even a map. You need an awful lot more than this to sail to Madagascar.

But as the captain of the HMS Naturalism, I felt I had no hope of staying on course without writing down this worldview, in summary and in detail.

*

On course toward what, exactly? What is the project of which this sequence is a small but crucial part?

The journey has four parts, according to my current understanding:
1) Intro to Naturalism: My attempt to lay out the perspective from which my branch of rationality is practiced.
2) The Nuts and Bolts of Naturalism (published in early 2023): A straightforward mechanical description of the procedure, as I tend to present it to people learning it for the first time.
3) Naturalism In Practice: A series of accounts of real-life naturalist studies, in frequent dialog with posts from the earlier two sequences, covering a range of topics and demonstrating what naturalism looks and feels like in practice. (This sequence is currently in the works.)
4) THE ACTUAL GOAL [as yet untitled (and unfunded)]: A synthesis of the previous three sequences, perhaps in book form, comprising a comprehensive practical guide to knowing the territory through patient and direct observation.
(There may need to be a part “3.5”, where I refocus for a while on pedagogy and collaboration, before I am ready for 4.)
If I were less awash in details, I imagine I would have been able to start with part 4. But also, I may never have been able to develop such a thing as naturalism.
*
What can I predict about how this sequence will show up in whatever synthesis I eventually create, provided I eventually get to do that?
I think the core summary will be the same: “Knowing the territory takes patient and direct observation.”
Here are some ways I think it will differ from the original.
1.
I may rely much less on the aesthetics of 19th century natural history; indeed, I may completely rename the discipline.
This framing did a ton of work in helping me understand what I was doing and why; but most people do not have my background, and do not find this framework nearly as supportive or inspiring as I have.
For most readers of LessWrong, the word “naturalism” refers to an ontological claim denying the supernatural. They are completely unfamiliar with the approach to biology that also goes by that name, which focuses on knowing a few organisms deeply rather than on the categorization of organisms.
If I do keep the naturalist framing, I’ll need to double down on it and begin with a discussion of the role of the naturalist approach in the history of science, which would be fun for me but perhaps needlessly inefficient.
2.
If there is a major change to the overall summary, it will probably be a result of further developments in my study of “realness”.
During the study I’m currently writing up—one of “Hug the Query”—the primacy of my intuitions involving these observations has come into sharper focus. I’m not the only person who believes “Interlude On Realness” is the most important post in my intro sequence, even though it’s also the one that’s least integrated with the rest of the sequence. I think that a more mature and positively impactful incarnation of “Intro To Naturalism” might put whatever’s going on with “realness” front and center (presumably after I manage to have more coherent thoughts about what is going on with realness).
3.
As Intro to Naturalism suggests, this approach to investigation is in theory extremely general. I have an even larger vision than the one I’ve so far laid out in this review, in which my approach is thoroughly tested and adapted to an enormous breadth of domains, from AI alignment research to metallurgy to computational ethnomusicology. (I maintain an intuition that’s even a little gears-y about the utility of naturalism for AI alignment research especially.)
However, I am by passion and profession a rationality developer. The version of naturalism that I understand best, and that I am best prepared to write about at length, is particularly tailored to the investigation of human cognitive algorithms. Unless someone swoops in and drops a bunch of money on a far more ambitious and speculative project than I currently plan to undertake, and perhaps even finds me some kind of cofounder with a complementary skillset, the final incarnation of this sequence will be more narrowly focused on rationality in particular than was the original.
4.
The structure of the finished work will almost certainly be the exact opposite of my historical publications. Historically, I published the most abstract discussions, then the instructional guidelines, then the fully concrete demonstrations. I did this not because I thought it was a good idea, but because I’m a tiny human with limited cognitive capacity and it was the only way I could manage to write anything in practice.
The almost-always-correct way to write is to move from concrete to abstract. I expect that anything I present from this sequence in the final work will follow a demonstration and a methodological discussion.
5.
I do not think that I had “patient” in sufficiently clear view when I wrote “Patient Observation”, and I still don’t think I’m quite there yet. It may be the wrong term, or it may be overloaded. It’s terribly important, and I think that communicating about it as well as I’d like to will require 1) breaking it down more carefully, and 2) doing so in dialog with contrasting approaches.
I recently found myself claiming to be “at war with the relatively dumb versions of startup culture aesthetics”. I think that to make my point about “patience” to my satisfaction, I will also need to extol the virtues of efficiency, rapid iteration, decisiveness, etc., as I understand them. This entire approach depends fundamentally on patience, and I don’t think it can be wholeheartedly embraced without first safeguarding the fruits of contrasting approaches (or at least explicitly contending with their loss, where they are in fact threatened).
What links here?
- Voting Results for the 2022 Review by Ben Pace (2 Feb 2024 20:34 UTC; 57 points)
- habryka's comment on The LessWrong 2022 Review: Review Phase by RobertM (10 Jan 2024 22:04 UTC; 17 points)

LoganStrohl 21 Nov 2023 5:11 UTC
4 points
0
in reply to: weft’s comment on: Spaciousness In Partner Dance: A Naturalism Demo
>A visualization where a hose of heavy running water enters at the top of your head and pours out through the pads of your hands results in a pretty solid frame for lateral.

hm i’ve never heard that one! i’ll try it out, thanks!

LoganStrohl 29 Oct 2023 0:20 UTC
2 points
in reply to: Raemon’s comment on: Sunset at Noon
if you wanna second-guess yourself even harder,

1) look around the room and attempt to produce three instances of something resembling tiny quiet confusion (or louder than that if it’s available)
2) try to precisely describe the difference between surprise and confusion
3) sketch a taxonomy of confusing experiences and then ask yourself what you might be missing

LoganStrohl 28 Oct 2023 17:05 UTC
3 points
0
on: Sunset at Noon
I feel embarrassed that I’m just now reading this. >_< ′ (Ray knows but: I’m the aforementioned “Brienne Yudkowsky”, my name’s just different now.) I enjoyed it; it’s really interesting and valuable to see my thoughts contextualized from the outside and narrativized. It’s usually hard for me to see forests when I’m surrounded by trees.

> There are very few opportunities to practice noticing confusion.

I’m really curious how you relate to this claim six years later.

LoganStrohl 16 Aug 2023 1:16 UTC
3 points
0
in reply to: Elizabeth’s comment on: Which rationality posts are begging for further practical development?
I wrote up “How To Think Of Things” for CFAR a while back. I probably wanna at least edit it some before making it a top level post, but I’m curious what you think of it.

LoganStrohl 4 Aug 2023 18:51 UTC
21 points
on: BrienneYudkowsky’s Shortform
“What did pregnancy do to your cognition?”

(Interested in responses to this from other people who have been pregnant, but here’s my own answer.)

I think the main thing pregnancy seemed to do to my mind was reduce my associative speed. This had all kinds of effects on the rest of my cognition and experience, because it’s a capacity I rely on almost constantly, but I think this was the central mechanism.
I’m not sure I have my concepts carved up right here, but by “associative speed” I mean “the thing that lets your thoughts go far and fast during a babble challenge”. During pregnancy I’d try to do a task like “What does the smell of this chocolate make me think of?” and nothing would come to me for ages and ages (by which I mean a full one to three seconds), and then tiny bits of things would trickle in, but with no vibrancy or motion, no suggestion of more thoughts coming on their tails.
At the height of my mnemonics training, when I was super buff in raw creativity muscles, I’d try something like that and it was an almost overwhelming flood of life-like imaginings that felt effortless, almost like closing your eyes on mushrooms. My brain on pregnancy was the opposite of that, and it felt like death.

I was terrified that my associative speed would stay that low forever. Six weeks postpartum, it’s not quite back to normal yet, but I think it’s close.

LoganStrohl 1 Aug 2023 17:34 UTC
2 points
in reply to: Raemon’s comment on: Babble challenge: 50 ways of sending something to the moon
>They’re… free? Nothing bad happens when you generate them. You ignore them and move on and consolidate the good ideas later.
I understood BenWr to be suggesting this was false. His pruner is rejecting “bad ideas” for a reason, and perhaps it is a good reason; perhaps bad things do happen if he deliberately lets in more “bad ideas”.
If that were true for people in general, or for a significant minority of people, I’d definitely want to understand what the bad thing is, how it works, whether “having bad ideas” tends to be good on net anyway, and how to mitigate the bad thing if so.
I do think that lots of people—at least 85% of people, in my experiences running this kind of exercise with others—experience some kind of pain or suffering when “trying to have bad ideas”, at least at first. (I did a series of mnemonics workshops before I even started using this kind of thing in rationality training, so n is somewhere around… 350?)
It has always appeared to me that the painful parts of the experience are coming from a combination of “doing new things is hard”, “doing things I’ve trained myself not to do is uncomfortable”, and “social image-based stuff like ‘what if people see this and think I’m bad’ or ’what if I see this and think I’m bad”. All of these concerns are important to address in some way, I claim, for a person to get really good at this. I haven’t actually seen anybody investigate what’s going on for them and then decide that they do not want to gain the skillset. (There certainly are people who decide not to use negatively-valenced emotions when committing things to memory, and who decide to keep their “thinking like a villain” knob turned down pretty low, and these decisions seem similar to “try not to have bad ideas”; but I think they’re not dealbreakers for the central skill, and I think “try not to have bad ideas” probably is.)
However, I think I was much, much worse ten years ago at making space for the people I’m teaching to find their own way of doing things. So maybe if I ran mnemonics workshops today, many more people would pipe up to be like “You know what? This is bad for me. No thank you.”

LoganStrohl 1 Aug 2023 4:36 UTC
7 points
in reply to: LoganStrohl’s comment on: Babble challenge: 50 ways of sending something to the moon
I don’t know what it says about me that
“Eat it then eat lots of beans then fart while in a handstand.”
was the fourth thing I thought of. Wtf brain.