If you want a book I personally liked Thomas Hanna's Somatics Reawakening The Mind's Control Of Movement, Flexibility, And Health. It can be found as a PDF on the internet.

The books starts by explaining why you should care about somatics.

He might exaggerate some things but I think that no matter what you do in terms of the factors of aging that Aubrey de Grey describes, if you don't address the somatic factors you won't make it to 300 years of age even if you do gene therapy.

At the end the book describes exercises that you can do at home before going to sleep and after waking up. I'm not sure whether those exercises as described by Hanna are optimal but they do something. There a higher time investment to get into it but after that the regular upkeep is at 5 minutes per day after waking up.

Finding local classes is also good. At the moment I still lack the knowledge to judge the quality of all methods. Doing Feldenkrais with a teacher that has years of experience would be a straightforward route.

Sucralose works for me as a replacement of actual sugar.

I'm still continuing with the use of Anki to learn Python programming language. The method seems useful so far. My Python deck reached >200 cards recently. You can try it here:

https://ankiweb.net/shared/info/51975584

What is your irrational reading guilty pleasure? Whenever I need a cheap laugh, I browse Conservapedia. Where do you go to indulge the occasional craving for high-octane idiocy?

What's a low-hanging fruit in a world where ladders grow on trees?

Is there a formal fallacy of taking something that's overrated, and concluding that it sucks? (Because you overreact to the fact that it's overrated)

Sometimes I feel like looking into how I can help humanity (e.g. 80000 hours stuff), but other times I feel like humanity is just irredeemable and may as well wipe itself off the planet (via climate change, nuclear war, whatever).

For instance, humans are so facepalmingly bad at making decisions for the long term (viz. climate change, running out of fossil fuels) that it seems clear that genetic or neurological enhancements would be highly beneficial in changing this (and other deficiencies, of course). Yet discourse about such things is overwhelmingly negative, mired in what I think are irrational kneejerk reactions to defend "what it means to be human." So I'm just like, you know what? Fuck it. You can't even help yourselves help yourselves. Forget it.

Thoughts?

Would a (hypothetically) pure altruist have children (in our current situation)?

Maybe creating a safe AGI isn't as impossible as it looks to me. Maybe it isn't beyond human capabilities. Maybe.

Maybe humans are not safe AGI. Maybe both the idea of "safety" and the idea of "general intelligence" are ill-defined.