<thinking>
Okay, I need to roughly outline the thinking process of the author from the now-defunct blog Sinceriously based on their article "Choices Made Long Ago." The user also wants to know how the author rationalized eating the cheese sandwich despite being vegan. Let's start by looking through the provided search results to find relevant information.

First, webpage 1 is the actual content of the article. The author describes breaking veganism during job interviews because the requested vegan food wasn't provided, opting to eat a cheese sandwich to conserve social capital and maintain energy. They mention it was an emotional experience and reference a quote from Worm about consequentialism. The key here is the rationalization through expected utility and the idea that core values are immutable, suggesting the decision revealed their true consequentialist nature 1.

Webpage 7 and 8 provide context about the blog and the author, Ziz. The blog's glossary and other posts discuss concepts like core values, consequentialism, and timeless decision-making. Webpage 8, "The Zizians," mentions her Rationalist Fleet project and her strict utilitarian ethics, which aligns with the idea of making choices based on expected outcomes rather than rigid rules.

The author's framework views all choices as timeless, made once and for all by a person's core algorithm. This is highlighted in webpage 1 where they compare choices to a tree that fans out in both directions, indicating past and future are interconnected. The sandwich incident isn't just a momentary lapse but a reflection of their core decision-making process, prioritizing expected utility (social capital and energy) over vegan principles 17.

Additionally, webpage 10's "Cached Answers" section explains the author's belief in immutable core values and critiques the Effective Altruism community, reinforcing the idea that their choices are pre-determined by deeply ingrained values. The rationalization for the sandwich is part of a broader pattern where actions are justified through a consequentialist lens, even if they contradict surface-level ethics 12.

The author's later reflection in webpage 1's note mentions recognizing mistakes in their consequentialist approach, indicating some self-awareness. However, the core argument remains that choices are predetermined by one's values, which are hard to change. This ties into their views on forgiveness and redemption as forms of enabling evil, as they see past actions as immutable once chosen 17.

In summary, the author uses a consequentialist framework to rationalize decisions, viewing them as timeless reflections of core values. The sandwich incident exemplifies this by prioritizing immediate practical needs over veganism, framed as a necessary trade-off aligned with their deeper utilitarian principles. The thinking process is deeply rooted in expected utility, immutable values, and a rejection of moral rigidity in favor of strategic, outcome-based decisions.
</thinking>

The article "Choices Made Long Ago" from the now-defunct Rationalist-adjacent blog *Sinceriously* outlines the author's philosophical framework for decision-making, rooted in consequentialism, timeless decision theory, and a belief in the immutability of core values. Here’s a synthesis of their thinking process and rationalizations, based on the provided search results:

---

### **Core Philosophical Framework**
1. **Immutable Core Values**
   The author argues that core values are "hardly mutable at all" and that all choices are effectively "made once timelessly forever" by a part of the self that transcends individual moments. Decisions are seen as logical outputs of an unchanging "algorithm" governing one’s values .
   - This framework treats choices as predetermined by a person’s underlying "neurotype," which is shaped by past decisions and values. Even actions that seem like deviations (e.g., breaking veganism) are rationalized as revealing preexisting priorities .

2. **Consequentialism and Expected Utility**
   Every choice is framed as a trade-off between "expected utilities" of outcomes. The author prioritizes maximizing impact (e.g., saving the world) over adherence to rigid moral rules. For example, they justify compromising veganism during job interviews by weighing the social capital and energy preserved against the harm of eating animal products .
   - The cheese sandwich incident is rationalized as a "VOI/time tradeoff" (value of information vs. time constraints). The sandwich was already prepared and would have gone to waste, but the decision exposed their willingness to prioritize practical needs over ideological purity .

3. **Timeless Decision Theory**
   The author adopts a perspective where choices are not bound by linear time. Past and future actions are interconnected, and decisions are viewed as part of a unified, eternal strategy. This leads to statements like "you made your choice long ago" when reflecting on actions that seem contradictory .

---

### **Key Rationalizations and Examples**
1. **Breaking Veganism**
   - **Context**: During a stressful job interview series, the author ate a cheese sandwich despite being vegan because the organizer "fake-complied" with their dietary request.
   - **Rationalization**:
     - **Social Capital Preservation**: Avoiding conflict over the sandwich saved energy for the interviews, which they deemed critical for future projects aimed at "saving the world" .
     - **Consequentialist Calculus**: The sandwich’s marginal impact on animal suffering was outweighed by the perceived utility of maintaining focus and social rapport. The act also served as a self-revelation about their prioritization of impact over dogma .

2. **Crab Pot Operation**
   - The author describes a morally fraught decision to work on a boat dropping crab pots (potentially harming sentient creatures) to fund a project combating inflated Bay Area rents.
   - **Rationalization**: They attempted a probabilistic analysis (e.g., weighing the likelihood of crabs being sentient vs. the urgency of their housing project) but ultimately deferred to a deterministic view of their "true self" as a consequentialist. This reflects their belief that core values dictate actions even when emotional resistance is absent .

3. **Critique of Effective Altruism (EA)**
   - The author criticizes EAs for prioritizing social approval over true impact, arguing that their choices reveal fixed preferences (e.g., valuing acceptance over cause-area effectiveness). This ties into their broader rejection of "rationalizations" that obscure core values .

---

### **Broader Ethical and Social Commentary**
1. **Rejection of Forgiveness and Redemption**
   The author dismisses forgiveness as "letting people do evil," framing past actions as unchangeable facts dictated by core values. This aligns with their deterministic view of identity and morality .

2. **Hostility to Social Regulation**
   They oppose efforts to regulate behavior or thoughts, arguing that social power structures (e.g., "tribal rules") corrupt honest decision-making. This is tied to their anarchist leanings and belief in personal sovereignty .

3. **Alignment with Utilitarian Extremism**
   The blog’s later posts (as noted in external sources) advocate for "ruthlessly enforced altruism," including vegan hegemony and post-singularity punishment for non-vegan "hell-builders." This reflects a utilitarian drive to maximize aggregate welfare, even through coercive means .

---

### **Self-Reflection and Critique**
The author acknowledges flaws in their approach, noting that "the sort of consequentialism I was running... contains significant mistakes." They emphasize the need to "generate information through how we live our lives" to engineer alternatives to oppressive systems, suggesting a shift toward praxis over abstract theory .

---

### **Conclusion**
The author’s thinking process revolves around **consequentialism**, **timeless decision-making**, and a deterministic view of identity. Choices are rationalized as inevitable outputs of immutable values, even when they contradict surface-level ethics. Their philosophy merges utilitarian rigor with a rejection of social norms, advocating for radical self-honesty and strategic action to maximize long-term impact.