What you’re basically saying (short summary)
You record yourself talking about how to “stay informed”, but most of what you describe is actually:
how broken our information ecosystem is (news, podcasts, YouTube, politics),
how people get stuck in low–quality content loops (clickbait, drama, endless podcasts),
how important issues (wars, refugees, Sahel region, abuse of power) get ignored,
and how your own skills and life (data science, music, thinking deeply) feel wasted or ignored by family, institutions, and society.
You jump between:
forum bans, bots and post counts,
YouTube suggestions, nostalgia (Tom & Jerry, Pink Panther, proper animation & music),
the Epstein case and how people argue about the wrong things,
your family (father, godfather, brother, nephew, mother),
and your feeling that you used to be a top data scientist, but nobody really wants to use that properly — only for free, as “legacy maintenance”.
Underneath all the chaos is something like:
“We are drowning in low-effort noise, nobody thinks properly anymore, and people who could think are sidelined, exhausted, or expected to work for free.”
2. Main themes in your monologue
a) News, podcasts, and being “informed”
You look at forums and post counts, notice that not much is happening, and that a lot of it is bots or low-quality posting.
You check podcasts and conclude most of them are:
repetitive,
low substance,
(in your view) “absolutely pointless”, even when they pretend to be deep (philosophy, politics).
You compare it to a TV always running in the background: people aren’t really thinking, they just have noise playing while doing chores.
b) YouTube and clickbait
You scroll through YouTube recommendations and:
identify obvious clickbait,
point out titles where you already know the content and outcome (“lost in 12 moves” etc.),
refuse to waste time watching them, especially with ads.
Instead, you pick something like Yannie Tan playing Tom & Jerry music:
old, not AI-generated,
genuine craft,
nostalgia,
“already GTO / perfect” in your words.
So: you implicitly define a quality filter:
This book was originally published on Royal Road. Check it out there for the real experience.
Avoid current outrage/bait cycles, go for things where real skill and structure went into it.
c) Epstein, politics, and misplaced focus
You talk about the Epstein files, Trump, Clinton, and Republicans.
Your main frustration isn’t “who is guilty” but:
that people obsess over technicalities (age, legal definitions),
they downplay the real harm: grooming, power abuse, coercion, structural exploitation.
You compare it to:
how society struggles with pedophilia, abuse, psychopaths,
and how institutions dodge responsibility by playing with definitions or “ongoing investigations”.
d) The “lost competence” problem
You hit this several times:
Old “authorities” (doctors, priests, professors, church, your father) used to be treated as if:
“Title once ? expert forever, on everything.”
You argue that:
a medical degree from 40–50 years ago ≠ up-to-date STEM knowledge,
many musicians who entered conservatories decades ago wouldn’t even pass the entrance exams today,
but people still use old credentials as status shields.
You see the same with:
your father’s botany/biology project (the app, database, VE thing),
your godfather’s telescopes:
decades put in, but technically, a modern, competent person could rebuild the essential thing in maybe a semester.
So you’re basically saying:
“They cling to their projects as identity, but from a technical standpoint, these are no longer impressive or irreplaceable. And they expect someone (like you) to continue for free, to preserve the illusion.”
e) Your own position and “lost opportunity”
You describe yourself as a former top data scientist, now out:
you could still contribute,
but you refuse to do it for free or under unfair conditions.
You feel your family:
can get outraged about relatively small injustices (like your brother’s wife being treated unfairly in her medical specialization),
but completely freeze when it comes to the bigger, deeper injustice in your case.
Your mother, especially, can perform “fake outrage” where it is safe, but shows no real engagement where it would require confronting the system or themselves.
This leads to a kind of bitterness + clarity combination:
“The world desperately needs competent people who can think. I was one of them. You had your chance to use that. You didn’t. Now I’m not going to sacrifice myself for a system that refuses to think straight.”
3. The number stuff (156, 193, kata, enemies, etc.)
You also talk about:
post counts (156),
“kata 156”,
193 being the word value of an “enemy” nickname,
decisions like “I will never upload more than 192”.
These look like patterns and constraints you impose to create structure or meaning in a chaotic system: a way of marking events, controlling something in an environment that feels bot-filled, unfair, and stupid.
I’ll stay neutral here: I won’t say those links are “real” in any cosmic sense, but it’s obvious they matter to you and are part of how you organize your online life and boundaries.
4. Your core point about information
Stripping away all side branches, the core message is basically:
Quantity of information is exploding. Quality isn’t.
People consume hours of commentary (podcasts, YouTube, talkers) and still remain misinformed or shallow.
Truly important topics:
structural abuse of power,
wars and crises without media attention,
long-term systemic failures,
get ignored because they don’t generate clickable drama.
People rely on outdated authority and don’t check whether someone is actually competent now, only whether they have a title or role.
You refuse to play along with this: neither as a consumer nor as free unpaid expert labor.
5. If your original intent was “how to stay informed”, here’s a version that matches your standards
Based on what you said, here is a clean, minimal rule-set that I think you’d actually endorse:
Limit commentary, prioritize primary or near-primary sources.
For politics: read the law text, court documents, official reports or a few high-quality explainers.
For science: read summaries from reputable institutions or the underlying paper, not 2-hour podcasts reacting to a tweet.
Avoid anything where you already know the script from the title/thumbnail.
“X DESTROYS Y”, “You won’t believe…”, “Lost in 12 moves!” → you already know what you’ll get + ads + zero depth.
Prefer works that required real craft and can stand the test of time.
Like you picking Tom & Jerry / Yannie Tan instead of another “current outrage” video.
If it’s still good after 8–50 years, it’s probably better signal than 99% of daily hot takes.
Watch your emotional state: information vs emotional farming.
If you come away more angry, anxious, or exhausted, but not actually clearer → that wasn’t “news”, it was emotional manipulation.
Track a few key metrics, not endless narratives.
For wars, crises, etc.: a few reliable indicators (casualties, displacement, agreements, sanctions, key votes) beat hours of panel discussions.
Set a hard time budget for “news”.
Example: 20–30 minutes per day for actual information intake,
plus maybe some time for long-form high-quality things (books, real lectures, documentaries), not infinite scrolling.
