Wednesday, May 27, 2020

Pattern of Omission: Could an AI pick up on it?

I have seen a similar pattern happening in the media in many science related fields. In some cases it's actual researchers apparently committing these acts. The most obvious case right now is hydroxychloroquine. This was a safe drug, there is research into it for coronaviruses in the past. Zinc and azithromycin are part of the original protocol because of the mechanism via which scientist think it stops viral replication.

The pattern of omission here is there is usually no mention of zinc, sometimes no mention of azithromycin, and definitely no mention of the proposed mechanism. I haven't heard any mention of ionophores and how they would help zinc get into cells in order to stop viral replication from any mainstream source.

This isn't new. Nutritional research is rife with this sort of thing. Allegedly low carb diet studies, where, for instance the rat chow they used isn't remotely low carb enough to engender ketosis. The questionable nature of using rats in the first place. I suppose it's not quite as bad as poisoning rabbits with cholesterol- something rabbits wouldn't ever get in their diet normally- and then declaring cholesterol bad for humans, but it's pretty bad.

But, in any case, it seems to me these things might be trackable in some way. It's not easy for a program to see the omission, but we probably have enough examples of the pattern where a program could guess the pattern is re-occurring. Feed it the good examples of hydroxychloroquine being explained appropriately, and then the bad examples. Same thing with other clear examples of omission. Then let it crawl the web and try it out on many things. I think it's possible because I think there's more than just the omission itself. There are probably word choices, grammar, maybe even simple things- like author names- that could help a program reliably categorize whether there is a pattern of omission.

There's the crassly simpler thing to do- figure out what Silicon Valley is suppressing. This is probably good on it's own in a certain sense, but unfortunately, it is not enough for what I want, which is to understand what is true. Or at least have a more accurate map of the territory than what they want to provide.

But it is clear there are patterns. I suspect Silicon Valley has noticed this, and I think they go with these big name companies as the fact-checkers, or as authoritative voices, because it's easier to keep the narrative front and center that way. An A.I. would have no particular regard for the narrative, nor does the narrative remain the same in any sane way for it to be a standard to measure against. Indeed, I remember finding people in the field were also into making language gender nuetral- so I suspect they were attempting to get the result they want, but in the end it wouldn't make any sense. You just hobble your program that way. It needs to sample what is and identify patterns that actually exist.

Tuesday, May 26, 2020

When Science Attacks

I think what we have seen so far is very consistent with a chimera accidentally (or otherwise) being released from a lab. We have unexplained superspreader events of a virus that doesn't live long in non-lab like conditions. So, what's likely here is that if you get the early release, it's very contagious, but as it spreads through the population it reverts back to normal coronavirus like behavior.

This is quite likely some sort of AIDS vaccine research.

And extremely likely some of the very same people responsible for lockdown are also responsible for this research. Possibly even the original SARS could have been the same situation. In the U.S., this type of research is banned, and it seems highly likely that they moved operations to China.

Unfortunately, China is currently being rather aggressive and doesn't want to divulge information about this situation. I think this is a mistake. It is simply hardening global opinion against China, and their current policy ends up being de facto pro-deep state. The very same deep state responsible for the various color revolutions, and the Hong Kong umbrella revolution, which Xi wisely and patiently handled in a way that kept deep state claws off of their interests.

It would make much more sense now to reveal this research, and those responsible for it, and point out that these people were taking advantage of China to do something dangerous there, which could not be done here.

This would change the political winds here in America, and potentially defuse anti-Chinese sentiment, especially among people who dislike globalists like Bill Gates or others who are playing this highly dangerous game with vaccines due to the indemnification given to vaccine companies. It has gotten so silly, it's doubtful the virus will even stick around long enough for them to create a vaccine, and some vaccine companies have basically turned into pump and dump stock operations- rely on a little good press to boost the stock, and then sell- seldom even bringing any product to market. Increasingly, too, they turn to governments to mandate vaccines- which in many cases have no value at all to those receiving them- especially with extremely young children.

In any case, as summer approaches, we get more sun and therefore, less virus. Sunlight directly kills the virus, reducing likelihood of transmission if you are outside versus hiding indoors, and sunlight also improves your immune system, enabling you to fight it off more successfully if you do get it. Hopefully people start to notice this, and we do not have to suffer much longer with this incongruity of being masked up while it's sunny outside.

Thursday, May 14, 2020

Graduating From Night Owl Status

I've done a bunch of things over the years which have greatly improved my circadian rhythms. Underlying all these things is this idea that we probably should be out in the sun a lot, and not have a lot of artificial light at night. The ideas are similar to the paleolithic diet, but we are not in the paleolithic, and I have to do things like work inside under florescent lights rather than be outside.

In the mornings I take 5000iu of vitamin D3 (probably a good idea to get some K2 to go with it). I got this idea from the late Seth Roberts, best known for his Shangri La diet, but he made a lot of great observations on his blog over the years. Another observation he made that seems to help in this arena is what he called morning faces. The premise was that we are designed to socialize, to we will tend to be more awake at times when we expect to be socializing- but you can actually use this by doing things like watching youtube videos where someone is just talking straight at the camera.

I try to get out in the sun and walk around with my glasses off during the day to get the full spectrum of light. Seems like the more sun the better, except don't burn- which seems deceptively simple, but in practice I have had to remember to start with really small amounts of time and build up, especially if I try to sunbathe. In recent years there's been some suggestion that it is the high Omega-6 oils that are causing the bad sunburns. My O-6 intake is pretty low, and although I did get red this spring, it did not progress to the type of sunburns I used to get as a child.

I eat a relatively low carb diet most of the time, though I am not sure how important this is for sleep. I do feel a lot of carbs right before sleep will likely disrupt sleep- perhaps wake me up due to low blood sugar later in the night. Also, I tend to get cramps in my feet and legs if I eat too many carbs and then go lay down in bed.

I take 3mg of melatonin at night and put on blue blocking glasses. I also have my windows covered so light won't come in at night.

One of the things I noticed was that the switch to daylight savings time messes me up. Ideally, I would wake up with the sun, perhaps not take anything at all, and let my body produce all this naturally. But since I have to work, I decided to set my wake up time in the summer at 6:30am, and sleep time is around 9:00pm. I take the melatonin at 9, and put on the glasses, but I don't necessarily go to sleep right away. In the mornings I will get up regardless of the day of the week and take the D3, but if I am still sleepy on the weekends, I'll go back to sleep.

In the winter, I get up at 5:30am and take the melatonin at 8pm. This means I don't have to shift twice a year, which we all end up doing when we follow the daylight savings time edicts.

I have coffee in the morning. There have been times I tried not drinking coffee and I did not notice a great difference. I have noticed alcohol close to bed can disrupt sleep pretty severely, leading to waking up in the middle of the night. From experimenting, I have noticed it is probably best to stop drinking at 6pm. It seems, from a dose perspective I can handle about 4oz of liquor or about a half bottle of wine without sleep disruption- but of course, much depends on how much over time, and how long before sleep.

It takes time, but eventually I got so habituated to it I noticed I get sleepy at the right time even in situations where I didn't expect it. I noticed this once at my mother's house where there was socialization, way too much artificial light, and I was mistaken about what time it was. And I have also begun to awaken a little before my alarm from time to time.

Thursday, March 12, 2020

Statistical Thinking

Life saving medical care is an awesome personal good.

It may totally suck in terms of a collective good.

It is plausible that, right now, there are people in America who cannot have children without modern medical intervention. This is because there have been enough generations now where there were people with access to good healthcare, and they may have had some sort of scare, or their doctor just wanted to make his golf time, so they got the C-section or whatever. In fact, there's a lot of evidence there are too many C-sections going on period, but lets pretend for this particular moment that these are all necessary interventions.

Because if they truly were necessary in one generation, and then the next, and then the next, then perhaps we end up with people who can't have children normally. We certainly end up with high mutational load.

But again, if it's your child, your wife, your situation- you are going to be really happy the intervention is available.

And maybe, if we are really lucky, the tendency of women to get into things like home births, midwives, doulas, etc...- maybe that's a helpful antidote to some of this.

But anyway- when we notice the potential problem, we are not being evil. Like now, when people are noticing COVID19 is killing old and sick people. Or when we notice the statistics on race and IQ, and we aren't being racist, because we aren't trying to randomly apply statistics to individuals.

I've seen even worse today, with an idiot telling me I should be more worried about COVID19 than abortion, which was a reminder to me that we need to keep many, many people who otherwise seem sane away from power. What kind of crazy policies could come out of such a misunderstanding of morality?

Anyway, I called this statistical thinking, but I am not sure it is the best title. Is there a better way to describe this?

Maybe I just will never be able to get this point across, because the emotion from the personal side is too strong in most people.

Monday, March 9, 2020

What the procession of theft looks like

I've blogged before about bureaucracy and I tend to tweet about it from time to time. Today, I'd like to write about how the systematic inclination towards theft has played itself out.

If you happen to have any assets, you may have noticed that it's generally considered a good idea to put those assets in an LLC, maybe a partnership, a corporation. And you get the same sort of advice for starting a business. Sometimes it isn't necessary, but sometimes it's legitimately good advice.

But what this does, of course, is reduce the number of sole proprietors and individual owners. There's technically no one to steal from anymore, except for 'we the people' and already people are moving from an expectation of owning houses, cars, etc... - to a subscription model.

So the people won't own much. In some sense they will suffer less, because most of the maintenance and care needed will be paid for by corporations. But the flip side of that is that the bureaucrats running the corporations are insulated from the consequences of their actions. We've seen the sort of schemes were there are bonuses for various risky endeavors, which may fall apart in five years, but once the shit hits the fan five years later, the guy that got the bonus for that deal is long gone and his name may not even be attached to the deal.

I've even seen it in non-profit, with a guy presiding over a multi-million dollar deal I know was a dumb idea. But I also know this guy can put the deal on his C.V. and pretend like it was awesome, and although the people who worked with him ended up hating him, they aren't going to bad-mouth the deal, because they'd look bad too.

Nothing will put the brakes on these companies. Family businesses tend to exist for the family- when they grow, they grow slowly, with the family. Corporations tend to try and achieve economies of scale, which happens at two different levels- the first level is a supposed economy of scale around their core business. They get bigger than they need to be even there, but they get even bigger at the second level when they notice the reward they get for sending money (and lobbyists) to Washington D.C.

The government does it too. The modern state generally needs growth, or else people start to notice injustice. Every extra step down this road makes growth more necessary, yet money creation via debt is making it ever more difficult for them to stimulate growth. And when everything is a service, you have nothing to rely on if you can't make your monthly payment.

If the government was a family business, wouldn't it protect individual owners and family businesses more, and not give so many benefits to corporations? Perhaps, it wouldn't cause businesses to incur so many costs, so even a company attempting to reach an economy of scale wouldn't need to get as big as they do today.

But people seem to focus very strongly on the fact that that would mean a small group of people would get to be the elites. They don't appear to notice how we are practically smothered in elites now, although, yes they don't deserve that title. I think it is also possible that they look at bureaucracy and imagine a hierarchy within it, such that those truly high up surely must have some wisdom or at least aristocratic tendencies. I doubt it. I think most people get taught to think like bureaucrats, and it is doubtful those who rise to high places are permitted to display many signs of intelligence, because they would then deviate from bureaucratic thinking.

Wednesday, February 12, 2020

A Proposal: The Zimbabwe/Weimar Scale

There is a research project I'd like to see undertaken, one that I think would contribute to the education of poor, misled libertarians everywhere.

In a nutshell, I would like to propose we create a Zimbabwe/Weimar scale. With this scale we can then measure modern money creation. I am reasonably sure that American and Japan have outdone Zimbabwe and Weimar in terms of money creation. It is a simple matter of technology, time, and scale. Zimbabwe and Weimar were hampered by the need to actually print currency on paper.

We use electrons now. There are far more dollars that exist solely as digits in an account somewhere than there is cash. We can conceivably create more currency in a single hour than both these unfortunate countries ever managed to do even while running their printing presses 24/7/365.

So, this Z.W. scale would help the unfortunate libertarian not make a mistake. They would see we've far surpassed those poor, amateurish countries in terms of money creation, and yet we've not had hyperinflation. And then they might start thinking about why.

The simple answer is that nations that suffered hyperinflation have debt denominated in other people's currency. If you are sovereign, and you get to pay people in your own currency, you can get away with a lot. But neither Z nor W were sovereign.

Additionally Z and W were engaged in old fashioned money creation- directly printing money, whereas we are in the age of currency creation via debt, which is, in a sense, even more daft than what those backward countries were doing. Why so? Well, it is, perhaps, insane enough to decide your problems can be solved by just printing more money, but if you do that, well, you actually have more money sloshing around in the economy- it is as if they imagined they needed a lubricant, and then went around spraying lubricant everywhere.

But currency creation via debt may look like lubricant at first, but it hardens up like glue rather quickly because the debt needs to be paid back. At the very least, payments need to be made on time. If someone defaults, that is essentially a deflation event. IF loans get paid off- a deflation event. And if the 'ideal' for the system is happening, then a large portion of the existing money supply goes to loan payments, which basically renders it non-functional for these lubricant purposes that the central bankers had dreamed up the whole scheme for in the first place.

Monday, February 10, 2020

Making Elizabeth Warren's College Bailout Right Wing

James Carville recently criticized Elizabeth Warren’s plan for free college or paying off college loans or whatever- basically that it was unfair to all those who did pay. As an unfair plan, it is unsellable to the American people. Too many people who actually vote are going to look at it like it is incredibly unfair.

But if the premise is fraud, it is much more fair- and it provides us with a simple solution to our over-production of 'elites.'

First, as in most fraud cases, the perpetrators of the fraud are the ones most on the hook. The funds ought to be coming from the colleges that pretended to educate. Secondly, the person who declares he or she was the victim of fraud is declaring his or her own degree to be worthless. It would be seen as much more fair, then, because those actually successful and/or willing to keep their degrees can continue to be in the credentialed class.

At the same time, though, the entire idea of the credentialed class takes a hit. Everyone develops skills- indeed, it often takes a real education scrounged up on-line or due to work experience, to let us come to understand we weren't educated in the first place.

Meanwhile, higher education would quickly return itself to educating approximately 15% of the population, and they'd likely restrict themselves to those smart enough to actually benefit from college rather than continue trying to pretend that college is for everyone. And, from a long term strategic standpoint, we'd be denying our enemies a lot of status and money.

This seems like a niche political issue, only relevant to those who took out loans to pay for college, but it is actually part of a larger problem that seems to still be largely not understood- private debt rapidly becomes an economic problem, as ever larger amounts of money begin to flow away from productive ends, and towards payments for the debts. The economy stagnates, and ends up effecting everyone- not just the people who took out the debt. The government understands this to a certain extent, and applies it to private corporate debt- indeed, they seem to be constantly interfering now in overnight liquidity markets, which is, if you think about it, is vastly more unfair than actions that benefit individual people in relatively objective ways. In order to benefit from a corporate bailout, you kind of have to be in the position of owning a large chunk of a corporation.