The iconoclastic narrative of Trump as told by Trump

   Trump recently when visiting Kansas City and speaking in front of the VFW (note: it is expected that Trump may actually deny as he does in the near maximal sense of offering denials), offered to his audience, "Don't trust what you hear!'  That is in reference to Trump, that anything said can not be trusted.  That strange moment, certainly reminds of the authoritarian persecution mania strain running in Trump, but it is also one that is self iconoclastic since after all aside from faith or lack thereof, Trump would concede that such statement offers that little truth of accomplishment or failure is owing to Trump, though he'd also state (easily surmising), I never made such statement.  Its contradiction is almost what I coin for the political behaviors of a leader as 'maximalist populism'  or in simpler terms, 'Be all for everyone, and let them invent your self narrative.'   Though Trump is re pleat with double negatives, and certainly that anything possibly said involves a negation in many cases.  There is, however, this perverse nature of Trump when having stated 'there is not believable reality' and only faith, beyond entrenchments or simply in having hoped to maintain an exploitation between polar extremes.  There is no argument.  There is no saying otherwise.  There is only faith, and faith in a human leader that apparently contrives a narrative of the non reality of reality.  Think about this, however, it is an investment of belief in the infallibility of a human leader, however, that Trump simultaneously argues and argues against (in the likely scenario of refutation), and here he attempt to escape the culpability of his own self leadership.  There is and isn't the good economy that is the simultaneously the apocalypse of gone defunct economy, all things that Trump would likely say that he never said.  Its hard to understand this type of political logic, as to where it ends, excepting that ardent supporters could be sensed only having filled in this narrative as they have pleased.  It isn't that Trump ever bashed, after all, NBC, the same media that served to create the icon of Trump that Trump himself demolishes.  Maybe this is incorrect in saying, however, in that Trump manages the stasis of his own image.  Beyond the faith in the talking statue of Trump that said, didn't say, is nothing.  Trump only hopes, as with human imagination, that his ardent followers are creating their own image of him in absence to much thought given about the 'non reality of now'.  However this chaotic politics continues remains to be seen.  Press secretary Sanders invents as much as Sessions as much as Pompeo the Trump that is seen, and in many respects none are really observing him

Some crypto currency thoughts

https://nyti.ms/2NYYSdw

Cryptocurrency’s proof of work system generates coin through mining with cryptographic math problems that have known solutions.  It probably helps to understand the proof of work concept.  Crypto currency like bitcoin use a decentralized version of Hashcashing.  In this case, the proof of work hashing requires all the work and subsequently has time estimations integrated into the solution process.  Knowing the solution doesn’t really help here in advance since proof of work sets expectations of work hashing via sender and receiver communications (all the bad guesses are expected).    If fraud were to occur it would be likely in a time compressed manner and requiring access to all decentralized server nodes receiving fraudulent or time misreported  work.  In other words the server nodes would need be hacked. Servers compromised on this order probably poses no more if not less risk relative to traditional banking industries in terms of vulnerability I would imagine..  If any vulnerabilities existed in a significant and endemic way it would likely show with respect to coin scarcity and devaluation. I imagine there are indirect measures for fraud on this point.  Most crypto currency security-vulnerabilities exist because of poorly administered user accounts through exchange systems but not thru any inherent weakness of the coins production design.  It is designed to discourage fraud and more likely has pushed most fraud exploitation in banking to other areas relative traditional banking.  Proof of work is designed to control scarcity of the coin, and while scarcity and fraud may be thought interchangeable, I think it is a bit misapplied stating that the coin's cost has been held arbitrarily high for the sake of warding off fraud and for verification.  Speculative value of the coin comes thru classic market transactions and neither relate to the inherent structure of the coin's production value.  Verification of the bitcoin is actually relatively inexpensive and is an integrated ledger in the bitcoin (hashed) and verified through the p2p node servers ledger systems (my apologies if I am incorrect).  Certainly higher demand for the coin (scarcity) translates into potentially more miners that could come online to produce more coin hoping for higher returns, but considering that the average miner returns are quite low for even a basic setup (daily a couple of dollars for many), incentives to inflate the coin's supply and demand are always tempered relative to one another.   How the insurance of the "real deal" of the coin play's into its intrinsic market demand I think is personally nominal.  The bitcoin's production and security (verification) are not synonymous.

Humorously to Lynch...

Twin speaks..

Intelligent way?   The intelligent way is the Duke Nuke'em?  :)

You should get back to your forsaken cowboy...

Theories to Alien Civilizations

Type II, III and above.  The problem with interstellar travel and energy requirements are not really a problem for gravitational constraints.  Remember these civilizations can harness the power of individual stars (type II) and many stars (type III).  Generally speaking higher order civilization types are likely to have access to abundant energy and likely the technology that deals with also energy requirements as related to 'super earths'.  Type I civilizations no doubt deal with gravity but really some of the bigger problems to 'space program' is their thicker atmospheres.  One this translate to much frictional energy that represent constraints to travel, secondly biology often deals with constraints to the amount of accelerated force that would be dealt with.  For Earth's type I civilization traditional chemical rockets have served purpose for graduating energy payload expense, dealing with atmospheric friction, and secondly dealing with the problem of accelerated forces that would certainly harm flights containing biology.  The downside to chemical rockets is that its pretty rudimentary (combustion) related stuff to get stuff flying...couldn't there be better ways to lift payloads up into space, or has been quipped in the movie Interstellar, there really isn't so much of a type I solution to evacuate an entire planet (for its biology) for the amount of chemical combustion (energy requirements) up into orbit, save petri dishes and genomes. 

   One theory...
    Transporting biology across interstellar space is a wasteful for energy and spatial requirements.  It seems cool but really, its a waste for type I civilizations.  As to orbital lift solutions, maybe there is some physics solution (discovered) in the future that simultaneously handles high friction burns with shock waves and cavitation more adequately than exists now and simultaneously deals with acceleration/deceleration problems (then one shot energy burst lift assists could be a possibility), but otherwise, conventional means are a likely given today and well into the future as it relates to biology and transport.  The same applies in where atmospheres are more rarefied, except mostly its the accelerated forces problem...maybe the use of cryogenics to some advantage can ramp up accelerated motion for biological flight problems, but this is approaching a type II civilization's solution?  So Type I civilizations and other types may not really bother so much with living biology for interstellar travel.  It seems far less cool, but hey, its the reality of Earth's type I civilization.  Cheaper to send machines and control these.
 
   Theory Two...alien civilizations exist and are quite active here...we aren't looking for them in the right places.  They aren't so interested in convincing the world with a massively idiotic mother ship hovering in the sky that creates massive panic about the world and mobilizes any to think that aliens are allergic to water and bad show tunes.
They could be embedded in a much larger microbial population (quite small) and integrated with respect to any attributes that would make for genetic dissimilarity.  In other words, they don't look like alien biology at all relative to our own.  They may be assimilation oriented as well, assimilating the features of their own genetics with that Earth life making for ease in transitioning to Earth's biology without being invasive or destructive.   Adding to this theory, why is intelligent life always restricted to corporeal biology?  Or given to likely type I constraints?  If you could be an intelligence that were nearly without mass, it seems travel becomes easier, doesn't it?

   Theory three...when radio telescopes are used to look for intelligent life, really type I civilizations are going to be found more likely...given that type II, and above aren't as interested in type I technology or communicating via this way.  Are there faster than light means, for instance?  Really my type I existence 150,000 years ago, isn't so meaningful to you now if I am long since gone!  And secondly, we had to wait 300,000 years just to say 'Hi'?    Local communication is better up to a few decades, but really going beyond this, seems to get more cumbersome in the exchanges.  Other than relaying the message 'Hi' (and given the energy requirements for transmitters), greater utility for radio based communications probably warrants justifications.  At times type I civs politic the notion of radio telescope probing the universe on the basis of 'we're likely alone if we see no evidence to suggest otherwise', and the ramifications for type I civs even desiring to spend the monies either transmitting or looking for transmissions diminishes. 

   Theory four...civilization types tend to be interested in one another more likely when there is type parity...thus type II bonds well with type II, type I with type I, and so forth...
type IV studies type III but isn't so much interested with a lot of interaction...'Hey look we are type IV would you at type I like to be type IV?'    When a cargo cult is made of beings?  I mean the ethics of this sort of thing gets studied right?   Aliens of different type orders seem more omnipotent and all powerful and well...hmm...maybe its just as well to go incognito and call it a day!   They could be interested, they may not be interested.  If they've been here chances are they've been elsewhere, and anyways, as in the scale of time in the cosmos, what are several thousands years of recorded history?  The Fermi paradox fails as a longitudinal argument...existentially here and now, yes, a possible issue...but we see starlight from millions of years ago coming to Earth and if ever any civilization existed there, its probably not there anymore.
The paradox in reality provides for complex answers while the mistaken assumption is the  simple reasoning of obvious presence.  For instance, you think, the answer could mean more likely, 'Why is the alien friend not living down the street and waiving at you as you come to greet?' If it Is an assumed bias that intelligent civilizations seek to inhabit (by greater populations) more places and potentially consume more resources part of the argument 'why aren't they here by now'? If the goal of higher order civilization type is neither obvious presence which infers the condition of colonization and consumption of resources, then it could be inferred that such civilization isn't obeying either by principle of population scale, settlement/colonization, and consumption of resources.  Even if colonization is also a logical prospect what is an easier means to colonization?  Is it transformation of a given environment or integration and assimilation of existing biology into an environment.  We know that CRISPR gene editing allows for the insertion of genetic code, so if it is possible with a type I civilization, how to identify 'alien' DNA versus Earth DNA?   The other part of the colonization answer, is that it may not be so simple to transfer components of a biome into another real estate without transferring more completely many different parts of that biome.   Transferring an 'alien' biome may require unique climate conditions and all other parameters that need be met.  This is organisms from the microscopically small to larger organisms that work in such environment to make any particular component sustainable.  It seems another likely ethical and legal conundrum (likely present in many such type I and above civilizations) is what responsibility is born existentially in eradicating indigenous planetary life.  As it turns out, many of such civilizations will likely have complex legal systems and likely a basis of ethics presiding with respect to interactions.  Can you imagine a chaotic and lawless group of aliens in mass being organized well enough to produce the technology to travel interstellar space...as in the case of number of monkeys that randomly manage to reproduce the works of Shakespeare?  Well maybe it is very very very remotely possible, but for the vast majority of intelligent civilizations this is true?
   The 'why are they not here' may also means that even if existential proof is given the validity of evidence by continual contact.  Surely the voyage across the Atlantic is by far shorter, and abundantly trade is globalized on our planet, relative to the scale influence of civilizations past, but even 12,000 light years across is but a fractional distance of our own galaxy.  That distance by the way describes the limiting time frame for luminal velocities.  That distance also describes much of recorded history on our planet (not pre history or natural history but recorded history).  Thus, in such a distance of travel, one could imagine enormous changes having happened in a type I civilization and what about trade and contact clearly?  For a relative modest scale distance of travel.  The people of 12,000 years ago may share some physical and emotional similarities but the cultures could be quite distinct!  And who would future aliens come to meet relative to a visitation 12,000 years ago if they had such meeting?  My argument then is this:  the concept of continual contact and trade for type I civilizations over extremely modest and short scale distances becomes economically cumbersome and faces any number of difficulties.  Of course, even for aliens traveling when relativity is quite noticeable for near luminal velocities, the journey is one into the future.  It is in knowing that the information of ancestors will likely be history upon arriving at any destination.  That is, almost universally the truth for most stars likely hosting intelligent civilizations throughout our galaxy.  Then what are the economics and what is the sociology of continual visitation and contact to look like?  Many wars fought, the rise and fall of any number of civilizations happened in such time frame.  If that impression of us, a first civilization so long ago reached in ever the faintest of reflecting photons from our planet to such receiving host alien world and that such could be extrapolated from the darkest of images to much greater luminosity, the light of today would reveal how much has changed.  The 'why are they not here' is also in keeping to the likelihood that most travel is sub luminal and near luminal at best, but almost unlikely superluminal.  While we hold out hope that wormholes could miraculously transport us from one world to another, the likelihood of travel by this means is enormously expensive if it were possible.  Thus even for the observable universe, the concept of scale cannot be fully realized until interstellar missions have set about conveying the problems related to communication and contact for most.  The question 'why are they not here' is not so easily satisfied.   A handful of settlers don't land on a planet to survive with existing indigenous biology neither likely providing adequate real estate, and even where hosting biology shares enough genetic similarity, look to history.  All the perils of science in such question is contained in the 'we are doomed by what we only know', and how do ancestors record the incidental meeting of one alien group (a mere handful of such individuals) in history, and how is such history to survive?  How is the evidence of their existence ever to survive?  There have been lone voyages by Irish monks alleged to have sailed all the way to Iceland in sojourn for a hermit like existence.  Likely a place that afforded solitude as much as the alleged travels of another Irish monk supposedly even as far reaching to the America, but in some ways maybe this history is almost recalled in the way that mythology is regarded.  There is probably little to any evidence ever to be found of a lone monk that ever would have reached a place like New York long before European colonist ever settled. Without scale and numbers, unless aliens were using machines in fabricating ever so much grafitti with a sense in conveying a permanence of their existence in some incontrovertible way, it seems like the fate of human voyagers in the past, there are some relegated to the now unwritten chapters of history.  That is to say, that there is also a probability that such contact and communication simply vanished into narrow time window of civilizations past if any receiving civilization was there to record it even.  If a tree fell in the forest but no one was there to hear it, did the tree fall?  Certainly it did, but not to the broad consensus of the scientific community.
    As an analogy consider the symbolic language used at Yucca mountain.  I think this perfectly illustrates the problem of scale of communication over time.  For instance, scientist reasoned, likely rightly, that America as we know it may not exist in the next tens of thousands of years, and with this, there could be a possibility that our own language hadn't existed, and so to communicate with future inhabitants the dangers of the Yucca mountain site, they instead relied upon using universal like symbols that would convey danger of the site, or likely be interpreted as a warning.  While this isn't to say that aliens might not be doing the same thing somewhere else in some nearly eternally ruined (or just a long long time to go back before its safe) spot in the cosmos, but it is to convey the difficulties of communication over the scale of time..  Just whose language would people of the star system 12,000 light years away would such intelligent speak?  Consider the possibility that alien visitors came to Earth in prehistory, the problem of contact and communication follows more along the lines how to discern visitors of millions of years ago, or whether if a civilization existed millions of years ago, the Silurian hypothesis forms some idea of figuring out a civilizations existence.  Even for 12,000 years of communication return and response (more like 24,000 years cycle), two intelligent civilizations are mindful in communicating with some key (as in the movie 'Contact') making use of logic and natural structures (constants) in the universe, for instance, that would form the basis of such language.  Given the likely mutability otherwise of existing language over any span of time.  Who will exactly manning the transmitter on the next cycle of communication?

   Theory five....the scale distance relationship of the America's to Europe is vastly different from the scale relationship of Earth to Mars, Mars to Alpha Centauri, Alpha Centauri, and so forth.  While technological increase in type I civilizations potentially increases the rate of travel, there are (beyond the theoretical) fundamental limits to the speed of travel, and these aren't likely fundamental limits that can be broken.  While holding out hope in cosmological oddities like wormholes, travel in the cosmos in an intergalactic sense is beyond being a turtle, its much slower if it is at the speed of light...maybe from the perspective of travelers this is fine given relativity, but its generally a one way ticket into the future.  Type I civilizations are really doomed when it comes to deep exploration (beyond the one way ticket).  Sure one can look in one's own backyard but mostly for type I civilizations, the civilizations are luck to have vessels designed to house people for hundred's of light years.  For technological growth on Earth, when would you estimate a first interstellar journey?  Scale distances (as indicated above) relate another problem which is that signal communication obeys inverse square laws in terms of signal amplitude...the farther things are away changes the necessary requirements for sending a signal that isn't lost in the chaotic background of cosmic noise.  Certainly stars could send signals but look how massive these structures are!  Communicating between Earth and Alpha Centauri   mentions the transmitter's aperture requirements for our nearest star neighbor...and that is several light years away.  As scale distance increases so to the size of transmitter and cost with it, so even if a type I civilization couldn't afford literally sending something there, even communicating could be costly with all the risk of sending signals to a place that hosted no intelligent life.

   Theory six...type II and higher civilizations progressively get rarer in terms of existence.  Even if each type I civilization has managed to survive its nuclear childhood and adolescence.  Is it likely social evolutionary destiny that such civilization aims to harness the power of its own stellar neighborhood, and subsequently the evolution of higher civilization types is to maintain abundant population growth with power and resource control on galactic scales?  Type II and higher may not be as interested in growing population and inhabiting more space and subsequently consuming more resources (energy or otherwise).  Biological drives and existential purposes could be distinct relative to those found on Earth.  If exploration is driven by population pressures (type I civilizations), imperatives even on Earth for different groups of peoples based upon geography have  been shown true, which relates to desire for exploration, communication and technological adoption.  It maybe that some higher type order civilizations aren't so interested in spending time and resources to exploring the cosmos even given all the factors that hadn't prevented such civilization from doing so.  The same could be true for communication.  Thus a rarer civilization type also holds the possibility that social evolution makes even rarer the possibility for exploration and communication in general.  Thus the one's that are able to are less likely to do the communicating or traveling leaving those that are (type I s) less likely to do so beyond a quite local basis ( 100ly < ).  Extending to this idea, higher order civilizations aren't as myopic as type I civilizations and thus consider things well beyond the scope of a few years or decades for planning exploration and communicating.

Theory seven...Earth is known and avoided (for some reason).  It implies something about our civilization type indeed, but it could be possible that we have offended or are considered uniquely hostile relative other intelligent civilization types found in our local galactic neighborhood.  Consider all the wars, genocide and destructive capacity that we've exhibited up till now...higher civilization types probably didn't get to be where they are at by continuing to waste resources and energy warring with one another, or possibly blowing themselves up to smithereens with nuclear weapons.   Higher order civilization types may have little to do with war, are far kinder to their own, and generally dislike much of Earth in terms of social climate, and thus Earth is left communicating more likely in a universe of isolation. 

Theory eight... skepticism requires much proof.  Is a monolith found buried in some location on Earth sufficient evidence for alien intelligence?  We urge others to practice 'leave no trace' in consideration to ecology, yet the graffiti of travelers passing through tell us irrevocably about those that have been.  Time relates another problem, even rocks can erode in time (millions of years).  Artifacts can buried under sedimentary layers of Earth.  Even for the scale of time on the order of millennia, or far less, old settlements may be found in time.  However, given much the evidence pointing where no evidence exists for travelers having passed through millions of years ago.  How would an otherwise anomalous artifact (say object composed of iron) but found millions of years before any human civilization be treated without the lack of collective evidence even it were sufficiently dated?  Would it be treated by the scientific community as purely 'anomalous' or likely fake? Of course, being 'iron' doesn't fit the extraordinary claim that it is also the product of an 'alien civilization', does it?  Inherent biases would likely have that any such artifact or 'evidence' of any alien civilization requires something that is a technology that we couldn't reproduce and likely gaining acceptance requires scale of evidence.  The whole point in stating this is that 'we only know what we know' is an inherent assumption also biasing the study of the observable universe.
We don't absolutely know what happened on this planet back hundreds of millions of years ago.  We have many theories and evidence about the natural history of our planet what has likely happened, and that collective ignorance of conservative judgement puts much greater limiting factor on probabilities of life elsewhere.  As to discerning history of dating artifacts beyond recorded history, that is another matter because we have biased against this consideration.  A few decades ago, a similar skepticism would range about the possibility of exo planets beyond our solar system, yet the thinking was that our solar system was uniquely privileged in harboring the necessary ingredients for forming an harboring planets?  What is remarkable about the vast cosmic web of the universe is that much of it looks homogeneous even if galaxies themselves bear distinctions in terms of stars and the elements that they are likely to have greater abundances or lesser amounts.  That there is little distinction for the sun relative to other points in our galaxy, or own galaxy in the cosmic web plays to some central notion that if the conditions are neither so exceptional here, why not elsewhere?  And if in time (the longitudinal argument) makes that the formation of life is far less exceptional given the conditions and ingredients than we believed (in laboratory and simulation testing), why should life be exceptional on Earth?  Earth was not exceptionally the center of the universe, or the solar system...nor the sun similarly.  So why not life? And why not intelligent life?

Other reasons you can think of?
The whole point of this is to say the universe is also so large in scale for intelligent life not to exist, but this will likely become more true once examples of exo biology are found.  This will happen in the next ten years.

What are own thinking reveals to us, is that for the 15,000 years past having seen the birth and death of civilizations over is a very minuscule window in the picture of cosmic time, and that even our own anthropocentric biases have repeatedly been undone.

White House Adolescence

    Trump is a juvenile of a president.  I say this only because characteristically Trump seems to be interested in pushing buttons more than he serves any issues or in serving them follows some haphazard mantra of his own that were far worse than George W's "I looked him in the eye"...judgement of people.  That is, where supposedly that soul to soul bromance is born from looks alone.  This juvenile immaturity appears in someone like Dennis Rodman in his "Big bang in Pyongyang" sounding much like his basketball buddy Jong-un...defending that friend as a rebellious teenager might do in a moment of self righteousness before walking out of a house of the respecting.  It is only often times when the inset ugly behavior of such nasty friendship that some greater wisdom is bestowed to the teenager not having listened to loving parents or well meaning friends.  Obviously Rodman would see precisely what the North Koreans have so aptly controlled in providing much of any view of their own country.  As to ugly friendships...it is more likely that anything is ever so much heard from those that disappear and anyways, a rare glimpse beyond propaganda city reveals more modestly (if not stark) something beyond the glass high rises of Pyongyang.
    Trump is certainly international but international in Europe would mean in places like Scotland (not without controversy and having been blocked on real estate deals) and likewise Ireland.  Outside of these places in Europe, Trump is no where to be found, and so to much of the rest of the world, similarly one would likely find a place in the Philippines, Turkey, and India.  It is worth reminding, however, these aren't stellar places either for human rights records Considering that Dueterte (Phillipines) and his anti drug death squads have likely involved the killings of any number of innocents, or Erdogan in Turkey having basically made greater enemies of Kurdish peoples regionally (Turkish distinction apparently lost with the growth of Isil). and then having locked up journalists at record international levels.  Even so (where business could provide some illustration), Trump's attentions in Russia are apparently another matter only complicating matters in and around Iraq, but that is given the Russian/Iranian connection to be found in and around Syria and given all security arrangements in combating Isil that has left Syria for a country decimated in combating either insurgency or terrorists alike.   The whole point, however, in describing Trump's internationalism is more likely in the description of business man that doesn't really deal with much of the other part of the world (the rest of Europe), or much of Asia really, and this provides better description as to why Trump isn't either so much of an internationalist.  This problem is that Trump is precisely an outsider to much else in the world because he has likely been restricted, regulated, or shunned away from real estate development outside of the US , and so his business 'relationships' aren't so much strongly 'first world' in so far as economy and politics, but found in other places in the world that are emerging markets are places that Trump has more familiarity and likely one should imagine having greater familiarity with that brand of politics.  A greater share apparently for Trump's business dealings is also domestic in fairness, and likely a geo political far cry from places that have much room for improvement in so far as democratic values and human rights records.  Though we are to wonder if ever a culture exists at the pinnacle of some business establishments, is it so far off from the ideological wanderings of Trump?  If extra legal spying culture in corporate America were yet another problem, it is all the facility provided up to now in having made popular the figure head of Trump.  Corporate dictatorships that work in less than egalitarian ways are the public media spectacles for once popular shows like the Apprentice.  That is to say that all is not ending with Trump alone and Trump weren't created in a vacuum (see https://theestablishment.co/nbc-helped-create-trump-now-it-owes-the-american-public-ecc2d7f4f30d?gi=50935d4474e3)
    Furthermore once public and private spheres of government have only blurred more so.  Amazon faces accusations of providing facial recognition technologies to law enforcement.  Google only recently changed in stance in providing DARPA military based machine learning services.  Google's Youtube has recently faced accusations of suppressing LGBTQ video sites by either demonetizing or down ranking videos.  In the recent past, major companies have pulled advertising when referencing ads were linked to right wing extremist sites.  A few corporations have pulled their advertising as associated to Fox New's Laura Ingrahams recent comments, but, perhaps, for all the outward support that shown by larger corporations and business, it is a more complex picture.  Trump most certainly isn't completely the problem here.   More deeply, however, in all of this, the externalized autocracy of American power has been symptomatic of more deeply ingrained military/industrial political culture that has shown shades of Trump and worse having avoided the clear optics of controversy.   If at times that picture has emerged in the past (post WWII thru the 1950s) leading to civil rights movement, an attempted Goldwater surge having only failed to accomplish what Reagan did, and Trump what Reagan did not.  That is, there is also nothing new in such politics all the same, other than representing a new body politic more politically divergent in time.  What has changed seemingly is that such politics have been in many respects glaringly stupid.

   It isn't merely the juvenile nature of scraped together talks in Singapore between North Korea and the US, but a myriad of Trump's populism gone awry from banning Muslims,  having recklessly taken to provoking trade wars with his own self interest in mind, the alleged war room rumors of 'Why aren't we using are nuclear weapons?' posed to military generals, the 'pussy grabbing', the prostitutes, grizzly bears for trophy hunters, assaults on our national parks and monuments, never mind the EPA.  Trump has rotated more personnel in the WH, has more vacancies relative any past president.  Trump's chief of staff John Kelly allegedly calls Trump repeatedly an 'idiot' behind closed doors and is so demoralized that he regards his day work as gym workout time.  .Former secretary of state, Rex Tillerson was fired as opposed to following the tradition of most other secretaries of state that would usually have served through an appointed term..and anyways what sort of president goes about really selecting 'qualified' individuals only to be 'fired' and this usually being par for the course relative to other past presidents?  Trump allegedly spends the better part of his day apparently tweeting and not really doing much else, save attending no more than a couple of meetings usually.  Massive civilian casualties and damage of Hurricane Maria and Trump's reception seem to reflect that Trump might have felt a sense of jealousy of the hurricane's aftermath.  The president is less likely seen doing things for people, if he has stated that rehabilitation during the opioid crises could be dealt with by 'executing drug dealers'.  Trump's charity and handling crises isn't ironically building or providing reconstruction benefits in times of disaster within American territorial jurisdiction, which one might have thought Trump may have been more skillful at logistically speaking, but in manufacturing his own social apathy in the wake hurricane Maria's destruction of Puerto Rico, or the sort of response one might have expected in the past by popular evangelicals in describing natural catastrophes as 'deserved punishments'.  The doublespeak of mainland culture is omnipresent in all of this.  How can one speak of American diplomacy under Trump?  'America first' policy has meant a humanitarian shift to others outside the exclusion zone set in Trump's mind.  Puerto Rico is right up there with the illegals from central America and Mexico, reflecting a distinction of white male protestant culture that Trump considers American, and secondly what ever happened to Trump's properties in Puerto Rico?   Truly the litany of lying claims made by Trump are too hard to follow anymore.  Democratic leaders have generally stopped responding much of anything Trump has said, and for all this, the US presidency reflects something that hasn't been seen in a long time.  US American leadership is bad.  Though Trump has achieved something extraordinary that hasn't been seen for a long time.  The might of the American 'king' is perceptively waning.  The omens for future presidents could be for the signs now happening in state's that have worked legislatively to reduce the power of governors, could this be the start of diminishing the power the executive branch?  Political checks and balances come when it seems there are necessities born by examples...protecting America from childish and adolescent power could be another coming of age.    

Cruelty

    Cruelty comes from within the home

    Cruelty comes from the industries that promote it

    Cruelty comes from all who accept it in silence

    Cruelty is cloaked in words to alter its description in attempts to make it pervasive

    Cruelty could be interchanged with other words similarly in describing much

   

Deception, Weakness, and Trump

    Trump's first days in office were notably described in the same way that any autocratic leader would pay attention to any perception given of their own following.  Lackluster inaugural crowds that filled the streets were merely evidence of that weakness and so to it Trump's inclination to deceive.  Predictably, it isn't that any might have known that Trump's loose and free flowing tweet speech would provide self evidence of what should follow in the White House when he would take office.  All the measure of Trump's agenda would follow in a flurry of confusion, denial, deception and all measure of perception that Trump would have in store when under a new 'zero tolerance' immigration policy had taken effect.

   Trump's denial of his own actions.
   The Trump's own administration providing conflicting reports including outright lying certainly wouldn't help.
    Trump admitting in so many words doing so, but in order to be 'tough', child separations are necessary!
     Trump's scapegoating other political parties for his own actions.
 
    And there we have it, president willy nilly fears political reprisal but loves the posture of being the president that has effectively used children as 'weapon' pawns for political purpose. In this case, its president deception as 'humanitarian' that has pushed forward any new immigration legislation with special urgency.  In that way, it is let us 'cooperate' to rewrite the legacy of democrats.  Adding to this Sessions Trump emphasizing 'biblical' purpose that seems more apparently the historical arguments offered by proponents of slavery, then having followed anything moral or just.

    The beginning of the end of leaders though usually starts, however, when 'just kidding' follows by actions that are far more meaningful.  Political correctness and 'just kidding' wouldn't follow with the Trail of Tears now would it?  When your power demonstrates its more clear purpose and intention, despite all the cult, lies and weakness to follow, it seems people will remember your actions and your words.

   Journalists so much the 'enemy of the people' are feared in providing any more transparency to what could be imagined, a brief audio recording released to the press of crying children in such detention facility indicate precisely what most (excepting apparently 50 plus percent of present GOP ranks according to one CNN poll) would find egregious...it is noted that well over 2/3 of those surveyed disagreed, however, with the president's action in separating children from their parents.  Of course, one would hope those numbers only incline and likely they will as more information is known and provided.  Cruelty and inhumanity shown more clearly on our own shores should be a wake up call.

It goes without saying Trump has no business leading this country.  Has the word 'chaos' been outlived as of yet? Or is it merely evidence all the more to the euphemism of Trump's circus power?    Hard to see those victimized in the wake of 'chaotic' decision making as being served by 'chaos' for its own sake?  Clearly Trump has purpose in the system and its not merely in invoking disorder and agenda....can better precision of words be used here?

Problems for the Dark Forest Theory and Advanced Civilizations

Referencing article: http://bigthink.com/scotty-hendricks/the-dark-forest-theory-a-terrifying-explanation-of-why-we-havent-heard-from-aliens-yet

Why not very likely a scneario...

Perhaps prevailing logic of advanced civilization beyond type 1 orders could be that getting beyond type 1 means that most type 1 civilizations will be self eliminated before ever having reached such a stage and far less likely to prove a threat in terms of being invasive or a threat.

Prevailing logic of advanced civilizations beyond type 1...high inter cooperation, not competition and elimination oriented.

Prevailing  logic of competition oriented civilizations, taxing to resource usages, more likely to self destruct through the anthropogenic effects of climate change or anything else taxing a life hosting environment, nuclear, biological, and/or aggregate industrial catastrophes.  There is no reason to believe that higher order civilization would need bother with eliminating if competition/threat were an issue. 

That is a waste of time and resource.

Eurydice Dixon

   Eurydice Dixon: Comedian's killing prompts anger in Australia

Watching Picnic at Hanging Rock 

We only have ourselves to blame for not conforming enough.

We only have ourselves to blame for being on the wrong side of the tracks at the wrong time.

How to move past the clock being moved backwards

    Clocks have been pushed back much in history.  This is inevitable.









 






     Out of step with time?







     Have faith.








     Another famous writer once offered something about the thief of time is punctuality.









      

Chaos and Trump

   What is justice when a sitting president offers impunity by pardon power?  In all the wake of legal chaos, it seems so many rabbit trails have been open in the pursuit of inquiry that Trump is potentially redefining the practice of investigation.  What happens when investigators are spread in ever wide reaching spheres of inquiry and all of this leads to yet more prosecution while Trump remains untouched? 

    Certainly everyday passing only reveals how unscrupulous Trump has been, and by this observation, if by ignorance alone, Trump is likely to be caught up by anything that up ends his previous work, but does this really matter?  I say this because Trumpian chaos is spectacular in its way to operate success from failure, as has been the practice of turning success from loss in business, it isn't merely that Trump overtly worked this practice the minute that he set foot into the White House, as evidenced by overt commercial advertising for family business.  Trump's ZTE negotiations had shown more thinly Trump's brand of nationalist protectionism.  ZTE a Chinese based smartphone manufacturer had been banned in the US for integrated spyware.  This particular ban of technology were put in place under the Obama administration, this ban went generally unnoticed by the public until Trump.  Trump, on the other hand, made apparent his unskilled practice of double speak in lifting the ban.  ZTE's offered incentives to get Trump to lift the ban?  Apparently an Indonesian tower with Trump's name on it was brokered.       Trump's disarray and chaos has largely presided on the basis of wealth culture providing itself that freedom to do as it pleases, and in the process working from self propagation.  There isn't the notion of survival, or if it ever existed, the power paradigm rested upon prestige by scale.  Deception shouldn't exist any more than faith in such system afforded its own self evident truth.  Accounting irregularities are paid off mythologies as are the lies told by leaders that blithely spin their version of 'fake news'.

    One writer/comment person in media offers with casual excitement that Trump is spinning chaos into the system.   If that were given by the excitement that America were treading into new territorial waters and the system were changing.  It isn't, however, so exciting in that it were the digress of costing tax payers in more obvious ways.  Be it higher gas prices, or consumer product inflation all timed in concurrence to strike in more obvious ways after the midterm elections.  Trump's befriending enemy and making enemies of friends suggests only Trump's culture of unilateral reliance  Inclination isn't merely given by those scratching their heads asking why precisely why globalism hadn't worked around Trump, there appears to be just this occurring.  Scrapping an Iranian deal that were over a decade in the making (extending beyond Trump) would have assuredly been avoided, for instance, if the Iranian's brokered a Trump tower deal, and in this moment of chaos, it seems that all of this could be entirely possible, and that Trump had renegotiated a  deal that hadn't provided greater world wide security but actually weakened it, only on the premise of optical prestige and all that has brought Trump into power.

   Its not that the injection of chaos couldn't be good, it is when it is done so poorly only having made self evident any number of those caught in the wake of it.  Headlines to children separated from their parents by ICE in containing detention cages couldn't match the outrage of another parent's admiration of the new Trump era having done much the same.  Much that we wouldn't treat ourselves as we treat others as so popularly rained in an era of dehumanization.  Trump offers pardons with ease to the dead and to his allies.    Trump's  power operates through no concession, no admittance of failure, through the propagation of lies. Trump's business acumen is given certainly by an optics of the Trump mythology of America's apocalyptic cities.  More precisely, resurrection is given not by new opportunities but a mythological nostalgia.  Trump is an anachronism spinning the chaos of old ghosts that are certain to want to rest in peace and probably could care less for pardons.  Such nostalgia would insist on maintaining more costly and aging power infrastructure:  coal and nuclear plants that have been long up for decommissioning.  Trump has been merely embarrassed that inevitable demise, even under Trump, still happened with already so many closures of plant facilities and more likely to come, even as Trump offers vague references to national security in keeping these open.  The obvious downside of operating such can be self evident in countries that have over time refused free markets and have maintained costly infrastructure in the process.  The timing of power plant closures, especially relating to the hollow promises of Trump and coal country, is all optics to Trump.  It looks bad and avoiding the obvious, even if it were to cost taxpayers in the long run, should be more important to Trump.  As an aside even if coal were made more prominent in the American power grid landscape, and this bringing more coal mining back, it seems there is only greater likelihood that the jobs created were ones through automation and technology relative to human labor.  The rise of black lung disease, that hasn't been seen for decades is a testament of just how pressurized human labor markets are in such industries where human labor can't compete with automation.  Likely if companies want to invest in coal extraction it neglects human labor and jobs to go with it. 

    The turbulence that Trump has generated it seems should likely dissipate, at least being undone substantially in the future.  While the echoes of pre WWII protectionism seem alight, Trump's timing is off.  The French far right seem to have been thwarted as is likely the case of other movements.  Even the Brexit movement seems to be running an often tenuous calculus for an ever so cautious economy that wonders of its own self direction without a firm partner in the US that has of recent sent poor vibes.  Trump seems chaotic to the tenure of anti globalism and America first considering itself neither beyond Trump's power alone.  There isn't longevity belonging to a White House concerning itself more so with rapid sound offs and egos alike.  Trump's populism is given to a fleeting narrative that will likely remain the fixation of conspiracy theorist, victimization and victim blaming so often used.  Trump will likely have moved beyond such, however even in the case of eventual impeachment or anything else pushing Trump to exit if and when such should be the case, and in that measure, Trump isn't thinking about legacy but more likely Tower deals that had provided enough visual opulence, all the chaos of legal suits to follow over the power of management of such towers will have preoccupied a president's mind.  That Trump could also be of little tangible worth but all the worth in his own spectacle serves his time in office.  Trump will have only have remembered so much, otherwise, of his victimization and having generated new narratives certainly well into the future.  There is little calming the spectacle of his cult that has ensued for all the chaos. 
          

Reaction to are bots entitled to freedom of speech?

Here is the prefacing article:

Are bots entitled to freedom of speech?

First amendment wording, of course, makes vague construed meaning of speech though it is probably more clearly implied communication.   

The answer to the question is yes, probably, bots could potentially be safeguarded as having protected forms of speech since neither does the amendment differentiate really who is doing the speaking.  That is speech could be individuals, groups of individuals, institutions, businesses, and have multiple authors.  Secondly, even if parsing the difference between human and non human in such distinction, the embedded authorship and protections of this, could be construed as protected as well, could it not?  The amendment again does not make distinction between whether such speech originates from human or not, nor distinction given to citizenship or anything else.  The amendment in the most abstract form reads to protect speech.  

Now online speech on private servers may have limitations as given by the distinction of public and private places.  Technically any twitter bot, could be banned (as has happened) even if the originating speech was technically coded by a human author...in other words, even if the authorship of such speech were ruled human, still limitations of speech in private spaces apply.  

Businesses are likewise curtailed even in public forums the right of speech in so far as advertising (signage space and format, for instance), and thus even so time restrictions could apply to say bot advertising spam in public spaces in the future as given by any locality (or broader) laws passed.  

Whether you like the bot, because it truly cares or misrepresents itself as human, for instance, is irrelevant in view of the law.  This doesn't mean, of course, that online the bot always has protected speech.  Obviously, twitter banned a number of bots on its servers,, and has its own reason to do so, most excepting those alt right people having lost a number of 'friend' voices might complain.  Other than they, whether bots have freedom of speech is probably irrelevant to issues of bot communication and handling of other issues...why need to pass laws in the first place in other words with respect to curtailing bot speech?

As it has been suggested in article that bots and 'fake news' going hand in hand have played a role in offering much 'misleading content'.  That being said, and not equally applicable to groups of individuals or governments in the past having done much the same.  Bots may serve in automation being able to scale volume of information but in many respects are as good (at present) as the human programmers that have conceived of manners in which to manipulate people.  Secondly, all the tools for scaled dissemination of 'misleading news' exists as easily for people.  I raise the point: what is the distinction between task automation and 'bots'? In this sense, I would ask what delineates tools of scale and automation relative to a bot having performed such tasks excepting that a human was required to do multiples of such task relative to having instructed a bot to perform all of these, nonetheless, by degrees of difference, task automation were involved in either process.  In other words, if the 'bot' writes the email as a well as compiling the mass mailing of deception, relative to the human that task wise does the same thing, only not having the bot at his or her disposal, what makes one so different relative another? The tools of task automation (email address lists),  and so forth, are still there...is such task automation worthy of the characteristic 'bot' and in the descriptive of censorship not protected speech when it is used and employed?  This indicates only the legal and logical problems of parsing distinctions of 'bot' if any such definition is construed for the purposes of law making legality of speech.  It is, perhaps, not only cumbersome but potentially absurd and labyrinthine. 

Perhaps, the future looks different in this respect, if machine learning systems have 'learned' better ways in deceiving people, and there is an unwillingness to tackle systemic issues in this respect. 

Musk and social site for ranking news articles

https://www.vox.com/2018/5/24/17389388/elon-musk-twitter-pravda

Article starts off with Musk doesn't understand how journalism work.  Doesn't?
A rant?  President spends most of his day Twittering and Musk five minutes differentiates less a rant and being unhinged? 

I hadn't followed another article's rants on freedom of the press, or how consent drive media otherwise, in a 'free country' has amounted so much to the culmination of what we have today.  Musk isn't responsible for the erosion of media outlets (such as the Denver Post given all of its layoffs) and that a major hedge fund (outside of Musk's control) would be engaged in all the cost cutting that effectively makes parts of media merely outlets of topically surface reporting, or for that are more likely to be silenced.   

Musk does, however, raise important points regarding 'fake news' especially when its used in connection with popular social media sites like Facebook.  In an age, where consumer advertising is driven to pushing hyperbolic reinforcement of personal subjectivity.  'Fake news' has been akin to provisioning a false social reality and social manipulation at that. 

Finally the article's red herring is laid that Musk is offering a smoke screen...hmm...as though categorically effort and attention is focused to things that Musk should be paying attention...exempting that the oval office does precisely this sort of thing repeatedly more often that many in politics have simply stopped responding.

Facebook is now being pressed for misuse of consumer data as well as its role related to 'fake news'.  Google has lost (for its ad sense) major sponsors for provisioning alt-right content that such sponsor weren't interested in endorsing or having wanted affiliation.  More so if Musk's ideas were employed in a way effectively so as to limit the influence of false social biasing, we might have at times better picture of how people nationally or world wide felt about any number of media articles, and in some ways, we might see, how the alt-right were given all the power of distorting an image to make it appear as being far more popular and accessible than it really were.  Trump could hardly stand the reality  (that were allegedly 'fakes') of the inauguration crowd images, or that his lead weren't as commanding as a hoped for a country so swept about by Trump's vision.  A perfect storm of social media culture has, of course, complimented Trump and his entourage, and only the usual consent of authoritative press making has been relied upon here in combating Trump.

As to other matters....

Apparently Grimes related to Musk in a intellectually curious way that sparked some dating interests, or so what...sounds pretty normal to me.  The other half of media doesn't get smart people relating to one another beyond something saccharine being involved.  Musk couldn't be more perfect for Grimes...given anagrams and all... :)

Into the cosmos

 
    The dawn of space faring era has already begun but it is predictable in many ways.
It is one given to consideration to cost, economy, and scale.  Much as any exploration of the world in the past were considered by commission and anything else making lucrative the possibility of an endeavor, exploration likely wouldn't have taken place for itself alone.  That is, without any number of purpose, and gain for economy in store.
 Applications for low and high Earth orbit are commonplace.  A manned moon landing, on the other hand, would be quite limited in duration and scope for all the extensive preparations made, scientific purpose were attached, of course, to these missions.  If  given to political and social ramifications, all set to notion of 'just because'.  On the other hand, such missions have not been repeated.  If it weren't merely to the cost exorbitance, the possibility of failure also popping a big sword, anything practical to come of future missions should be as ill fated as lunar colonies and giant spoke and hub (gravity simulating) lunar space wheels.  Energy expense for planetary terrestrial ascent has and will continue to be a likely daunting challenge well into the future.  It isn't just that Earth's gravity happens to be likely on the size scale of planets modest, or even its atmosphere representing another part of this challenge.  Classical mechanics about biology always place constraints on accelerated forces involved.  The classical chemical rocket expends momentum change with enough ease.  Imagine the momentary energy needed to in one burst.  For instance, if having devised a slingshot to hurtle something into space,  formidable air friction threatening any hurtled vessel since it isn't the sort of energy that is just mach 2 or 3 but in the double digit range (that is red hot energy for air friction), and thus the problem of launching things into space a merely conservative path problem.  Air friction is certainly part of this problem, and as much as imagining escape velocity having taking limits to infinity in such problem might entail all the necessary energy to do what is required to get a vessel away from any planet, and that even where gravity is sensed considerably weaker above...it is always necessary to expend energy to ensure that such vessel (via centripetal acceleration) isn't also pulled back to Earth.  Fortunately, this expense in a rarefied environment means that air friction isn't so much the problem, and that such fuel also applies much more in return relative to the same expense at a much lower altitude.  The cosmic dance of the moon about the Earth, is 2,300 miles per hour while it is 240,000 miles away from Earth...that velocity is necessary, otherwise, the moon and the Earth would fall into one another, and certainly another great cosmic melancholia would beset its inhabitants.  Thus the other part of the problem in sending thing up is ensuring that they stay up there, especially when sending things away to infinity is highly unlikely.  A space shot, while having been proposed at times in the past, rightly has stayed theoretical in most cases, or only in application to the projectile for weapons purpose...where a melting projectile isn't given as much consideration relative to whether it can at least reach its intended target...thus no need for heavier considerations of things like heat shield and so forth.  Movie's like Interstellar, hint at the mathematical and energy realities of evacuation for such planetary apocalyptic scenarios.  That is, to say, the energy to do so, at present, goes beyond a scale that our world economy could handle.  Amazingly enough we may not be so much up for the scale of things involved in the math, and when the mother ship and all life boats have been launched into the heavens via the screen, we are as likely to accept such possibility.   

   The cost per kg of sending things into low earth orbit has dropped considerably in price tag, on the other hand, and this makes more remarkable the feat of cost, economy, and scale of space faring in the future.  I would argue far more important than one time symbolic purpose that could offer the same residential purpose of any hosting Olympic city.  That is, what is left behind, however, isn't as likely decay where it has stood but an obvious time warp given to abandon, and in that presence what a civilization had achieved, in view of the alien archaeologist should be only more obvious.  Clearly that dreams and aspirations weren't given to optics alone, but proved robust and commonplace.

   Fantasies of explorers past dabbled into quite romanticized fictions, in their accounts, even as the cost, purpose and more mundane details would surface for accountants.  Captivating the social energy of audiences, financial speculations, and hoodwinks in store would prove as necessary ingredients.  While others like Pizarro would make fortune, seizing amazing stores of gold, having the technology to do so, forcing upon hearts and minds through shock and awe.  Otherwise, inexplicably, how should so many numbers otherwise fall despite major technological advantages that his band of conquistadors would possess?  Nonetheless, even given the supposed impetus to religious conversions, economy were a major driving force to such exploration and the seizure of land.  Wealth and enrichment, to the tune of a gamble, but not without preparations, not without reconnaissance.  Nothing was happenstance by Pizarro's mission to conqueror Peru.  That is given by the application of having done, precisely this sort of thing in the past, and having the necessary implements in place achieving these goals.

     What conqueror wanders into a wasteland, otherwise, that has little to offer and considers this worthy?  It is one fictionalized in paper, and at least, despite any number of lost vessels for any measure of achievement. Despite losses, social capital could be had for any commissioned journey, and when ever resources could be seized, and nothing of established administration and legal right should exist for indigenous peoples, seizure could prove most profitable relative to any king attempting to purchase land otherwise holding such resources, already having been measured and likely in some way, having suffered from then modern technological depletion in a way that would prove distinct relative the new world.

   The cosmos offers potentially something similar here.  Though as always, there is any age old problem, considering transport and logistics.  Fortunately, what could be seized should likely only require the forced religious conversion of alien microbes at best, at least for this solar system.   Having to deal with gravity and energy requirements and so forth, humans in such age, provide lesser roles in all likelihood.  Low quality of life indicators for more permanent residence are just as likely given the limitation of scale for habitation elsewhere.  If resident outposts in Antarctica are prime examples, one could hardly describe permanent residence, or anything close to metropolis, and that township at best are geographically peripheral and more likely provide year round habitability.  Spectacular failure of self sustaining and completely resource independent bubble cities have proved that the idea of colonies elsewhere could well be omen of what were to come.   If there isn't something potentially exponentially foreboding in the cost of things.

   I imagined the colonists of the future having arrived in successive waves, as in the ships that brought them there at all such expense.  That trip could be imagined, like the old world colonist, or something like fur trappers set about to make their fortune and having left another life and children behind when fortunes were made.  Though in reality, while we can think of the past, and imagine it in parallel, there is all the exponential gape of one world relative another.  The cosmic sea isn't merely a living sea in the same sense or scale.  It is far more vast and empty than that.  It is the difference of scale that makes such journey, a more likely one way trip, or at least one that is scaled to small populations when humans are sent elsewhere.  Otherwise, the less glamorous thought is that these inhabitants were likely born from cheap transport and petri dishes and never knew the sunrise on Earth.  How could one describe the tragedy of lost seeds, otherwise, that never experienced consciousness and whose parents were machines that did their best in care for their children's survival?

Rise of the terminators

CNET article on Project Maven

Combining lethal drones with machine learning has added yet another element which seemingly puts machines alone in the decision making of life and death, and now adding to this whatever distinction between private and governmental interests should appear to be less obviously so.  Could military operations be moving more so in the direction of outsourcing its operations to mercenary contractors? 

   If the last war in Iraq proved that more and more blurring of these lines, it seems Google may be offering its services to aid in the destructive capacity of who lives and who dies.

Though a maybe a few things to be reconciled, when machine learning algorithms mistake a turtle for a gun

When 'bad' decision making becomes an algorithm! 

Indignation

   Indignation
   Dare to have an opinion where the sun always shines on the emerging utopia of the       wastelands! 
   Dare to have an opinion that sparks indignation,
   For all seeing eyes!
   Better it is imagined that all is right with pretense in protecting,
   Paradox, absurdity otherwise in acting

Arbitrary

anyone with permission is granted that...

anyone...

Reducing image noise for nighttime shots

Machine Learning enhancing night images

Noisy night images are definitely headed out the door.  AI and machine learning will likely help users produce clearer and higher quality productions without so much user effort.

Op-ed to op-ed: After 14 years...

Here's the original article:

After 14 years, I’ve had it. I’m leaving Seattle

Honestly hadn't lived there for well over a decade, and that being said, had few to any run ins with the homeless even in areas of the city where populations had higher numbers.

Involuntary treatment actually is not customary in so far as mental health treatment around the country and there is a reason why this is the case.  One because of the historical legacy of forcing people into treatment and the legacy of abuse, the idea of going back to forcible treatment is probably not a popular one.  I'd suggest to the science writer to do his research on this topic.

Alex complains about spiraling costs of housing...well, Seattle trends like any other higher demand West Coast city that is likely going to have increasing housing costs.  A city that has increasing international real estate appeal is one that is also more high demand and likely becomes less affordable to locals that aren't as wealthy.  Get over it, and find another place to live if its too much.  A lot make their money, get their job experience,  and leave to other parts of the country where the cost of living is more reasonable, and where certainly housing is more affordable.  It may not be as pretty scenery wise elsewhere but you may find in the long run, you have more money in your wallet for travel anyways.

Decided to move to the East side, Bellevue, Issaquah, maybe Mercer Island, Kirkland, or wherever else? 

Complains about minimum wage hikes...
Gentrification of the city hadn't helped, but honestly there were a lot of locals moving out of Seattle city proper a long time before you came along.  Seattle has mostly had a narrative of revolving people in and out...entire building in Fremont (on the historic registry) moved to Ballard to make way for Whole Foods now defunct.  The city has continually faced erosion and a lot of migratory transplants for quite some time.  There's nothing new in your op ed here.  The wealthy want their businesses to serve them, let them have it, and expect wage standards advocated.  Honestly I've traveled to countries elsewhere where food costs are exorbitantly higher (double to quadruple) what typical American costs are...such country appears to be managing quite well...business still operate there, and people are still willing to pay for the costs (tourists and locals alike).

So what if you leave...I did...like a lot of others in the revolving door of the modern American landscape.  Try picking a place that is a little less desirable and maybe you'll find more civility.

The rigged imager

   Recently having purchased smartphone X from store.  M__ attempted numerous self portrait shots.  Numerous more than he could say, and all images seemed to provide a distinction relative to the image that were commonly viewed in front of the mirror.  Why is it always very similar?

Downcast and disheveled face, cheeks puffy and slightly discolored, M__ appeared tired and worn, he appeared haggard.  Obviously outdoor lighting seemed to provide greater improvement for his appearance.  Camera's don't lie, do they? 

The truth of the matter for a ccd imager an image is processed and calibrated in some representational way for all the incoming light, the imager is calibrated in terms of human visual perception.  It isn't accurate in some ways as it is calibrated in an average way to visual perception.  Some see colors differently, and some perceive the vibrance of some colors distinctly relative others...and some even see colors in sounds, and smells, as connected to other senses, that is, given a neurological crossing of wires mixing sensory states.

The truth of the matter is that even a compiled image from a smartphone or camera is likely to be processed whether a user likes it or not.  That is reprocessing an image potentially from a RAW digital format into other media formats which approximate original raw binary data through a number of mathematical transformations, and not permitting all the calibrations that supposedly are meant in emulating a perception like human optics.  The image is filtered, and so it is assumed that the image in a given instantaneous moment that is still image is gathered is representational of its subject matter, save the apparent snow that has gathered in the image...could this be the interference, for instance, of something like cosmic rays having perpetuated when not enough visible light should exist for the duration that a shutter had gathered whatever photons that could be had? 

The light were more sickly yellow than he would have recalled, at least, if it were his eyes, neither had he perceived so much white noise (snow) in the image of a room that appeared darker than he recalled, having shown him in unflattering ways. 

A clinical white wash of light shown overhead as M__ gazed into a mirror.  Yes, perhaps, I can see more a blemish here and there.  Signs of aging that he'd convince himself must have existed only having overlooked this or that, the camera hadn't perpetual misheard him, but looked upon the details in some objective way it would seem...don't we have a tendency to think of ourselves in continuity to a greater depth than extends beyond surface?

M__ noticed over the course of months and years that his face changed, as one might expect with years in aging.  Changing as in some mutability of self, that one would expect, irrespective of the continuity of the self "I" that M__ knew.  I being there, M__ thought. 
A slight shift in angle, a distinct head posture, a facial expression that essentially conveys something beyond a transient misappropriation of body languages that coincided for all purposes to bad timing, but just so happened to be the case more often than not.  So much less thought into that resident expression that betrays all other expressions. 

There is no grudge in that discrimination given by algorithms.  It is posited as certainly as facial recognition employs the framing of a face and has a spatial appropriation created so instantaneous that the tag box need be employed perpetually in the frame() method (until instructed otherwise).  That is where the eyes, nose, and mouth exists.  The curvature of that mouth alongside the topological models that would be instantaneously conceived following the smooth curvature of facial muscular structures.  A lifting of the cheeks, lifts the corners and creases  of the mouths...long since understood by those in art and medicine.  Turn that smile into a frown.  Cross one eye with another...a strange asymmetrical gait is more noticeable than one that is not.  Human minds by evolution discern such noticeable patterns right away, and in sensing discriminate one face from another.   Machine language manipulated all such data in a dizzying way.  Much more rapidly than any human artist could conceive, that is, in continuity of one thirtieth of a frame per second or 1/30 seconds a rendered frame with all necessary ingredients to convey what need be conveyed.

M__ wouldn't have better on a given day that he were apparently tired, wouldn't have felt better on a day that seemed haplessly the same as the day before. 

For the endless string of days, he were postured like a puppet in an endless choreography, all such social capital spent away, and where likely social credit should be less common place.  Restricting his travel was all part of the system, as in the litany and narrative, describing its own self continuity, to readers and onlookers so often far away. 

His mind traversed the image that would be his own self memory, self invention that surely was in his own domain as equally as it were removed.  Something that no one would see in a world where few did gaze so much at the faces of others really.

Recent Study on the Ride Share Gig Economy and Added Thoughts

Here is the study:

http://ceepr.mit.edu/files/papers/2018-005-Brief.pdf

Notable highlight:

"We perform a detailed analysis of Uber and Lyft ride-hailing driver economics by pairing results from a survey of over 1100 drivers with detailed vehicle cost information. Results show that per hour worked, median profit from driving is $3.37/hour before taxes, and 74% of drivers earn less than the minimum wage in their state. 30% of drivers are actually losing money once vehicle expenses are included. On a per-mile basis, median gross driver revenue is $0.59/mile but vehicle operating expenses reduce real driver profit to a median of $0.29/mile. For tax purposes the $0.54/mile standard mileage deduction in 2016 means that nearly half of drivers can declare a loss on their taxes. If drivers are fully able to capitalize on these losses for tax purposes, 73.5% of an estimated U.S. market $4.8B in annual ride-hailing driver profit is untaxed."

And this is the rub for an industry that maintains a substantial market.

Added thoughts:

Uber or Lyft having externalized transportation cost infrastructure to ride share drivers removes incentive in provisioning scarcity to ride share driver supply.  While on the other hand, potentially encouraging market growth for demand, as some consumer have related, the average time to service could be in some cases considerably lower relative to traditional cab services.   Market saturation of supply drivers likely leads more likely to shortened arrival times for supply customers while ensuring greater likelihood of ride share orders being fulfilled as opposed to cancelled.  Also having externalized transportation costs in such way, it has the advantage in cost leveraging the cost per ride to consumer while maintaining profit margins relative to traditional ride services.  This displacement, of course, is passed to drivers of the ride share service.

Here are additional factors that can make pay rates quite low:

• Cost per ride doesn't pay as much when minimum hourly pay rates are non existent.  
• The frequency of rides per hour are small alongside small mileage added to lengthier deployment times and mileage in providing a ride in the first place.  That is, unpaid travel distance meeting small paid travel distance.  
• Too much downtime travel distance.
• Too many drivers in queue for a given location (e.g., waiting at the airport with 96 others in queue), not enough demand.

Maximizing travel fares:

• Frequenting locations where clients may be utilizing transportation in specialized ways as opposed to a primary source of transportation.     
• Choosing locations where clients that use ride share as primary means more frequently may be more likely to use the service, in absence to public transportation offering, for shorter trips and especially in non specialized ways.  
• Events based ride shares could potentially have better pay outs since these are more likely to require highway miles and lengthier travel times.  
• Pickups with drop off at the airport especially where travel distance to and from are increased. 
• Reducing non paid travel time.
• Finding minimum distance routes to higher frequency ride share demand locations.
• Use multiple ride shares (if possible). 
• Reducing total per day travel miles while increasing the number of rides per day.  
• Offering ride share when the pay makes sense.  What is a base hour rate goal?  Getting paid to do other things when typical base hour rate during such time isn't in keeping.  
• Doing ride share in conjunction with other types of paid services (e.g., not Uber delivers but other types of specialty delivery services that pay decent).  Thus signing on to Uber to offset downtime loss of income when other delivery and/or transport services are slow as means to supplement primary income as opposed to primary means.   

Because Ride Share conceptualizes the market of drivers as intelligently driven by the supply of drivers and consumers more so, there is likely more managerial stress burden placed upon drivers to make critical economic decisions as to whether or not the market is viable as a means to income.  The gig economy is revolutionizing the ways that time is spent and the valuation for such.  Like the outset of the industrial revolution and all ramifications entailed by emerging technologies and sociological manifestation therein, it as likely that society is being transformed to think in different ways about the utilization of time and resources.  There is the power of potential exploitation and maybe in the future greater empowerment for individuals in maximizing their returns for time spent.  Proliferating diversification of gig related work is a likely reality for our economy.  Increasingly companies, corporations may be looking to pay independent contractors for task related work as opposed to lengthier paid downtime stays.  This inherently puts greater time management stress on individuals in such economy to maintain some paid work load when it is necessary, but also being intelligently cognizant in ways that were less commonplace in the past.  Knowledge and task based services as they become increasingly transient in terms of continued usage will likely mean less are as highly specialized in providing services and more likely having better adaptive management skills and/or utilizing adaptive management services that makes more likely effectiveness of individuals in being able to deliver profitably skills sets, services and products.  One should predict that our future economy will likely put greater premiums (not less) for task service related deliveries if it is ever to be sustainable.  Of course, externalizing lean efficiency is yet another thing... 

Thus a maxim:  Don't be afraid to express your worth for what you are doing and don't settle for less.

Icelandic Summer Landmannalaugar Solo Trekking and Camping Guide

   I want to make this post brief.  Mostly there's a lot of travel guides out that mention considerations to Icelandic weather, heed the advice, but I'll add something additional here.  Iceland is a Northerly country subject to more extreme weather conditions even in the summer.  It can be sunny and generally nice, even while it is cooler, and then it can be more extreme in terms of gales and stormy weather.

This past summer I managed to do the Landmannalaugar trek, but also encountered more severe gales.  The weather events were enough to have a warden shutting down the trails, and strongly suggesting camper's (with tents) to take up adequate shelter.  One particular camp was closed so that my starting day thru hike from the first destination point was instead differed to a third camp site.  That is going from the interior highlands south to the lowlands.  I decided (owing to getting ahead of an incoming storm) not to stay at a higher altitude alpine location and instead thru hike to the second location which was lower elevation, but even so were deferred to a third location.  That being said, extreme weather events can lead to camp closures if warden's make decisions that adequate shelter isn't afforded.  Also expect thru severe weather events that wardens may close the trails down (in our case a full day).  Quite likely though you wouldn't want to be out there anyways.  Just keep this in mind when factoring time schedules.

Fortunately the trek does provide a number of bus opportunities, but I would suggest taking note of schedule if you intend to use this.  Don't assume that huts (because they are advertised) are likely to be open.  First come, first serve?  Sort of, but not really.  During the height of tourist season, as I experienced, and especially during a severe weather event, the huts tend to be in high demand, but especially by paid tour groups, so unless you have exclusive reservation through a tour company, don't count on a hut being available, and make that even less likely if severe weather comes.  Going with paid touring companies affords more likely access to huts, and/or luxury treatments for trekking.
Wise to bring a three or four season tent.  I rode out severe storm with extremely high wind gales in a three season hiker's light weight tent which served well especially when sheltered in with a stone wall for weather reinforcement.

If it storms and severely so, you will likely deal with plenty of water (especially given all the river and stream crossings).  The deepest stream was nearer to the Thorsmark terminus which (at that time of the year...July) was waist high and generally a stronger current...I am six feet in height.  Highly recommend trekking poles for the crossing and/or managing to scout an adequate channel crossing site.  Keep pack belt un clipped so that your pack can be evacuated from your back in rapid fashion should you fall into the stream.  The water is glacial cold.  Wet shoes with decent traction and/or water sandals (same) can come in handy.  Gaiters are likely fine for most of the highlands, not so good where the streams in south are deeper...most stream crossing can do better with water wear for your feet.  Just change before and after crossing from dry to wet footwear and so forth.

I had witnessed a number on my trek through hiking to Thorsmark in a two or three day journey or busing out earlier because of weather conditions.  Most it appeared especially came into Thorsmark early (from our starting group) likely because of wet gear or the inability to keep gear sufficiently dry.  I, fortunately managed to keep gear dry through the duration of the severest weather, but found that on the tail end of the worst storm, my gear was saturated.   Thus I would suggest some added things for a tent.  One, it has a rain fly vestibule area where hiking boots and/or additional gear not stored in the tent can be kept in dry safe keeping, or that alternately you have a rain tarp situated so as to provide your tent additional dry space.  Secondly, compartmentalizing tent and sleeping bags or anything in tote from one another to ensure that water doesn't creep saturate internally other parts of your gear another thing to keep in mind.  Stowing an external rain tarp outside your pack can simplify this, or keeping the rain fly of your tent plastic bag stowed and segregated from other dry gear should help a lot.  Don't assume a rain cover for your pack is enough.

High humidity can more likely bring ruin to your down bag experience...consider synthetic bags.  Consider woolens and synthetic wear.  Bring and expect to use layers. 

Another small secret I'll share with you...I asked a warden, if my family home would see present weather conditions where I was at...she replied, 'That information most certainly will not be published outside Iceland!'  While I used free Wi Fi hotspots throughout Iceland.  I found none on the trek.  Something to be aware of if you intend to use wifi as a means of communication.  As to cellular service and using your existing phone abroad, check in advance.

Guides will tell you to expect much...don't assume that the weather reports that you see are what to expect before you go...its always sunny and nice, till you get there... who wants to lose revenue anyways?  :)

React and Redux

What is the difference?

One I hadn't wanted to attempt as thorough researcher to answer this question with technical ins and outs, but rather approach this with a simplest possible answer, at least a reduced answer that avoids all the technical ins and outs of differences here.

One while react does provide in its framework controller model and controller logic interfacing, by far, React provides a framework with the design aspect of encapsulating mvc structure in a component by component basis and View predominant in its focus.  While React can be designed functional in nature, it seems to me to lend itself to classical OOP design patterns.  It is, of course, also quite easy to learn and trending popular in terms of adoption and use.

Redux apps on the other hand may share some structural difference to MVC design patterns in the way of separating Controller and Model logic with the that of the view systems, as opposed to having a compact all in one strictly component integration.  That is, in housing model and controller logic to the component.  Redux logic separate Controller logic into, for instance, actions and states of the app, and making ease in generalizing the state and actions of the application across components and containers, which are components that merely handle the delegation of component actions and states.  It is also one of a functional design pattern that provides injection patterns into component and containers alike, so it also extends functional design in a positive way given flexibility and power in evolving state and action of the app.  The downside (if such is appropriate) is that Redux has a higher learning curve for adoption, at least in the pure sense of learning redux without middleware helpers.

Which to use?

If you were wanting to gain experience with Redux design and especially functional programming work, it seems Redux would be a good choice.

If you have complex state and action managements for you Web Apps design patterns, Redux may also be  another good choice, though as I've read for asynchronous management, you may need some added middle ware helper (Redux provides advice on this).

If you are new to creating Web Apps or want something that easy to dive into, React is great as a learning tool and creating a web app quickly.   React provides great versatility and state management is especially easy to understand and implement.  However, complex state management systems with two way bindings and especially implementing a generalized state management system could be also just as cumbersome work in React relative to Redux.  Thus I've seen, for instance, WebRTC web apps designed in Redux relative to being purely React, and there's likely no coincidence where app states and actions would need be shared across a number of components since an overarching controller system provides some clarity to the approach of binding data.  Redux, add goes beyond what Angular provides here especially where Angular component models increasingly resemble the simplicity of React's components which has been the trend apparently for any number of web app frameworks.
 While two way bindings, for instance, attend to the problem of two way state mutations, in React or Angular for that matter, on the other, hand I've found myself violating the mutability principle of functional programming design.  That is, instead of mutating the inputs, providing a return object that expresses a new state.  Redux, in this way, could be considered the preferable approach if and wherever app design patterns make use of two way bindings between child and parent components and is required.

If you know neither, perhaps, it may help to understand React first and then learn Redux.  Though when learning Redux provides for enough distinction to think of Redux app by way of Redux design through its native api documentation (React may not be helpful) alone.  Trying to understand Redux, through React documentation, in other words, can get in the way, in my opinion.

React is to Redux, however, arguably for what Python is to C++...which is something to keep in mind. 

Admin email notifications with firebase database write queries (JavaScript)

Prerequisites:

•  NodeJS with NPM installed.  
•  Google Firebase Account

    With your favorite web app framework you can configure your web app to auto generate emails based on site user feedback.

I've used ReactJS in this case for a generic contact us model form submission.  A quick tutorial on getting started with React JS and setting up this model can be found at:

https://www.codementor.io/yurio/all-you-need-is-react-firebase-4v7g9p4kf



   In this project I adapted recipes given for firebase user authenticated additions... from sites:

https://www.menubar.io/firebase-functions-sending-emails/

and

https://github.com/firebase/functions-samples/tree/master/quickstarts/email-users

Follow the quickstart tutorial in the functions-samples link.  Namely, in setting up your gmail account to send emails via node mailer.
Once say you have your react project or whatever project using firebase set up.  You'd need to go to that particular folder and initialize firebase functions...to do this actually will require potentially a couple of proceeding console commands at the root of your project directory:

npm install firebase-functions@latest firebase-admin@latest --save
npm install -g firebase-tools

then

firebase init functions

Go into the functions directory (via command prompt or console/terminal) and type:

npm install nodemailer --save

node package manager will initialize the project with the functions folder and install (provided your acceptance) the necessary node packages.  Note:  highly recommend that you double check your git ignore file and configure the ignore for the functions folder if you are using git.

An adapted code (from the above links), for instance, in sending email notifications looks like this:

const functions = require('firebase-functions');

const nodemailer = require('nodemailer');
// Configure the email transport using the default SMTP transport and a GMail account.
// For Gmail, enable these:
// 1. https://www.google.com/settings/security/lesssecureapps
// 2. https://accounts.google.com/DisplayUnlockCaptcha
// For other types of transports such as Sendgrid see https://nodemailer.com/transports/
// TODO: Configure the `gmail.email` and `gmail.password` Google Cloud environment variables.
const gmailEmail = `****@gmail.com`;
const gmailPassword = `*****`;
const mailTransport = nodemailer.createTransport({
  service: 'gmail',
  auth: {
    user: gmailEmail,
    pass: gmailPassword
  }
});

// // Create and Deploy Your First Cloud Functions
// // https://firebase.google.com/docs/functions/write-firebase-functions
//
// exports.helloWorld = functions.https.onRequest((request, response) => {
//  response.send("Hello from Firebase!");
// });
const APP_NAME = 'Cloud Storage for Firebase quickstart';
exports.sendFEmail = functions.database.ref('messages/{uid}').onWrite(event => {

    // only trigger for new users [event.data.previous.exists()]
    // do not trigger on delete [!event.data.exists()]
    if (!event.data.exists() || event.data.previous.exists()) {
      return
    }
  
    var user = event.data.val()
    console.log(user);
    var {email} = user

      const mailOptions = {
        from: `${APP_NAME} `,
        to: `****@gmail.com`
      };
    
      // The user subscribed to the newsletter.
      mailOptions.subject = `**** Contact Notice!`;
      mailOptions.text = `${user.name} sent a message!. Here is the message:  ${user.message}.  This is the sender's email address:  ${user.email}`;
      return mailTransport.sendMail(mailOptions).then(() => {
        console.log('message sent!');
      });
    })

You'll put this code say in an index.js file in the functions directory...just replace the existing default code set.

Now you can easily deploy this up to firebase...
In your project's root directory in console just type:

firebase deploy --only functions

This pushes the function up as firebase function...what does this code do?

Reading the line  "functions.database.ref('messages/{uid}').onWrite(event..."

This is an event handler set on the database called when ever a write event occurs on the database 'messages' database key.  When a post request is created on the firebase database writing a new database entry, the event handler function is called.

The event handler in this case, if you are doing further reading, refers the database entry set as 'user'.
The object 'mailOptions' is passed in turn to the mailTransport inside the method sendMail...noting for nodemailer this is parameter nature of sending mail.

Suggested reading for further firebase api documentation as related to real time database event handling:
https://firebase.google.com/docs/functions/database-events