> endorsed by (...) Dr Oz, Andrew Huberman, and RFK Jr
Anything endorsed by the last one must be great.
There were some articles that said that billionaires wanted to put collars with explosives on necks of their guards, in order to be able to control those guards.
Because billionaires are afraid that the guards would not allow them to enter their bunkers.
This unrelated device sounds like a nice way to train peoole to use collars, later you just change from the "helpful" model to the "explosive" model.
_diyar 17 minutes ago [-]
Hijacking this comment to ask about Huberman, can he really be lumped in with the other two in that list?
I listen to his podcast for a while and stopped when I realized most of what he is talking about is marginal stuff or ”new research suggests”, which I found less interesting.
But has he really ever been a grifter selling complete bunk? Not talking about the ad-segments, which are of course payed endorsements.
Arodex 11 minutes ago [-]
Well, here he is promoting complete bunk, so the question answers itself.
theF00l 5 minutes ago [-]
That is fair, especially on this occasion. On the other hand I have found some of his material very helpful, particularly around sleep and helping me maintain my circadian rhythm.
altmanaltman 27 minutes ago [-]
Wait if they blow up their guards, who will protect them from all the cave people? Surely there are better ways to buy loyalty than this James Bond villian idea lol
wongarsu 4 minutes ago [-]
It turns it into a kind of prisoner's dilemma where all guards rebelling means everyone dies, while only some guards rebelling means the guards that rebelled die while everyone else (including the billionaire) get to live
It's incredibly unethical, but in a game theory sense it seems sound. Any one guard is punished for rebelling, and even if everyone coordinates they can't do anything about it. At least if you can eliminate the obvious weak points: the collars would have to be automatically activated
Rendered at 11:14:07 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Vercel.
Anything endorsed by the last one must be great.
There were some articles that said that billionaires wanted to put collars with explosives on necks of their guards, in order to be able to control those guards. Because billionaires are afraid that the guards would not allow them to enter their bunkers.
This unrelated device sounds like a nice way to train peoole to use collars, later you just change from the "helpful" model to the "explosive" model.
I listen to his podcast for a while and stopped when I realized most of what he is talking about is marginal stuff or ”new research suggests”, which I found less interesting.
But has he really ever been a grifter selling complete bunk? Not talking about the ad-segments, which are of course payed endorsements.
It's incredibly unethical, but in a game theory sense it seems sound. Any one guard is punished for rebelling, and even if everyone coordinates they can't do anything about it. At least if you can eliminate the obvious weak points: the collars would have to be automatically activated