SherlockeHolmes

1. Purpose. what is it that drives one?

2. Integrity. when does one compromise it?

3. Awareness. is one able to disengage when one's ego (fueled by credentials) is activated.

"There is no vaccine yet for this."

There may not be any vaccine, but there may be a cure. If we change the language used to communicate within a setting/platform such as Facebook, possibly by using a subset of the language previously used or by adopting a more Formal construct.

But Facebook is a virtual neighborhood, with greatly increased bandwidth and range. It is difficult or impossible to achieve it in their settings.

I came across Sibilant, which can do this for me on either side - I believe. Hoping to find out soon.

I want to remind us that rarely do enough credible (according to some formal and stringent definition) evidences exist for a given topic for an observer to make a conclusion with the kind of confidence we often display while remonstrating on these issues.

Specifically: it is naive to adopt a conclusive tone involving a person without liberty for over a decade, and possibly undergoing forms of punishment without due trial. I suspect not one of us here is trained enough in Law and have access to enough TRUE information to come to a judgment. If so, we are guilty of engaging in and spreading careless commentaries made about a case that combines possible human rights violation (its abundance in current time does not make this any less serious of a concern) with possible government interference in defining what constitutes journalism.

I want to leave you with this last thought - in majority cases in history, it has been profitable for the public to challenge the government on its policies, rather than to trust in its foresightedness and integrity.

I am not invested in this topic, although I should be. In fact, some of the information you shared is valuable to my personal life.

I have a problem with oversimplification of hard problems, then claiming that they are currently understood. Then proceeding to build more extravagant and potentially dangerous solutions on the said platform.

The point you are debating - that of the influence of salts/neurotransmitters/more on brain chemistry, and hence on one’s mental state, can be so profound as to create a world where one experiences a vastly different emotional response to everyday events than what most others anticipate - is understood.

I contested that this is not enough to encourage experimentation with consciousness itself.

edit: the impact of chemistry can render itself in ways where the idea of one’s personality becomes fluid. chemistry can control my reaction to simple things, and render my ability to live my life debilitated. I understand that chemistry can shake at the very sense of having control over my self. I also understand that the external world barely acknowledges the role of chemistry in this, and likes to blame it wholly on the individual.

Mind alterations are induced by drugs. Chemical imbalances influence the same. I just am not convinced that these evidences are enough.

Thank you.

the money they’ve raised so far is due to the possible improvements this proposed technology will bring to neuro research.

machines have us beat on speed. however, let us not be blinded by this singularly awesome edge machines provide.

Distance between our respective positions on this topic is enough that I have to spend considerably more effort to communicate using words a more complete explanation.

p.s. I love to edit as much as I am able to, and dislike those that are prejudiced otherwise.

outside of that I wrote 5-10 commands of DOS as a kid, then a bunch of years later wrote 50-100 lines of BASIC over two years to program this robot that won second place when we added a fire detecting capability to its sonar ears. the robot could follow you around, stop and turn at walls, detect fire using a heat sensor I think, and put water on it.

However, one can easily choose to never use Facebook and not lose quintillionth of the information available on the internet. Facebook or any other such service is one of a quintillion of end-nodes that you can reach on the internet.

Comcast is the choke through which your internet connectivity comes through, and you are proposing to allow increased manipulative power to them.

Here, the man was armed with a gun (albeit unloaded). He was unstable enough for his girlfriend to put the police on suicide watch during her 911 call. If the police had to take classes on handling various situations, this particular scenario would be a final exam question. Moreover, I'm afraid that a majority of our policemen would have flunked this question.

Law enforcement is meant to be complex, and should require sophisticated knowledge in law and philosophy as prerequisites for aspiring policemen. Each police officer working on duty is not only serving as the enforcer but also as a judge. He judges whether a subject should be let go, detained, or - shocking as it may seem - be put to death.

A well functioning civil society founded on the idea of some social contract is bound to provide its citizens with some rights and protection. The prospect of summary execution at the any sign of threat to its law enforcers appears to fall short of this requirement in my eyes.

The officer in question in the topic being discussed, Stephen Mader, acted ahead of his time. He demonstrated the form of policing possible in our society with further sophistication of the minds of our officers. He took decisions that prioritized the right (to life) of his citizens. He was fired for doing so.

I am sure he would have shot Mr. Williams, having had his gun trained on him, had he chosen to make any threatening move.

It is a fine line, I admit. But is this not what progress is based on? Have we not advanced our civilization by continuing to investigate finer and finer still of dimensions? Why do we continue to rely on such crude measures when it comes to law enforcement? Are we incapable of serving our citizenry with increased space for preservation of their rights?

p.s. the reference to a black cat crossing was intriguing from the perspective of a psychoanalyst studying the HN mind.

my (armchair) analysis on cancer treatment - i) chemotherapy, in vacuum, most likely does considerably more harm than good, ii) sugar feeds cancer cells, iii) essential to feed body nutrients from a variety of sources (all must be plant based and non-processed), iv) it is likely a prudent investment to engage in holistic treatments such as being immersed in positivity and fulfilled environment and ingesting plant products with powerful healing properties known to locals across the world.

Having said all this, it is difficult to say no to conventional treatment and to MDs working at prestigious hospitals when the life of your loved one is at stake.

I have multiple cancer patients in my extended family, and this is in a family that lives on a south Asian diet (with all kinds of spices and turmeric, lots of vegetables). the cancer epidemic is extremely scary, and makes me feel vulnerable with my life - regardless of how knowledgeable I try to be on the subject.

My belief is that we must approach cancer as we have approached infectious diseases such as measles and whooping cough. We must identify carcinogens in our environment (this may be physical and spiritual), and take serious steps to remove them from our social construct.

original poster meant that writing these posts are cathartic for you because they let you "untangle the knots" in this situation. he is referring to your (commonly believed) good-hearted nature and how it must be relieving for you to set things right.

he didn't mean that you are using these posts to let off some steam, as you have perceived it.

however, that is a byproduct of how my soul acts in this given situation. I have a firm foundation on who I am, which is why I am able to get attention whereas some aren't.

therefore, if Pinboard founder didn't have some solidity (this implies neither "good" nor "bad" - qualifiers that fall short of capturing non-absolutism in life) to himself, none of this would've happened. he has reaped the reward for molding himself (which takes work) in a way so that he was able to win a battle like this. that is to his credit.

acting professional strikes at the core of what went wrong here, at why so many are antagonized by the tech culture despite the enormous value it has already generated, and partly at why the yuga that is ending has been the worst of the four in cycle.

be human, don't act professional. how? self actualize.

edit: down vote made me realize my first line was a personal attack. changed "you" to "many"

Courage: in short supply. is not defined by ability to mouth off ideas propelled by groupthink. often is found in those who are divergents.

I believe he laughed all the way to a homeless shelter, not a bank. I'm sad because I do believe he'd have invested the money into Pinboard had he been chosen as deserved the first time around. But it was not a total loss, and can potentially bring greater benefits to a needy population given prudent resource management.

Please look up confirmation bias. And (please) do not lecture me about my lack of awareness of the situation due to my newbie status.

there is no space for such excess such as near-frivolous temporary promotions in order to increase market share. the most successful businesses will be those that realize a business must recognize demand, instead of trying to create it.