mescaline

He's a classic visionary with the ability to manifest that vision in others with his words. His track record speaks for itself, likely because of his vision and willingness to risk. He likely has strong skills in seeing positive outcomes and cast them as truths into others. He will continue to succeed in business outcomes, until his vision falters.

Above the Curie temperature for a given material, the spin orbits of the atoms are randomized. When it was a "magnet" the atoms spin orbits were lined up.

A spinning barrel has all the motion of the atoms "lined up" in a curve. The curve becomes a frame of reference to the remainder of the Universe. Whether or not the individual atoms of the barrel are lined up with each other, or not, is irrelevant to developing a gravitational gradient.

Magnets pull together field lines in the extant magnetic field. These field lines either don't exist or are straight lines, unless they happen to intersect with a gravity gradient or a piece of matter, which is itself a manifestation of vibrations in various fields. These vibrations are assumed to have various alignments, depending. When the Curie temperature is reached in a particular piece of matter, those vibrations become randomized in direction. So, the field lines passing through that matter would then remain "straightish". They aren't bent significantly in one direction or the other.

There is another possibility, which accompanies the idea of divergent magnetic field lines. Crystalline bismuth will causes fields lines to diverge along certain directions of the crystalline lattice. Above the equivalent idea of a Curie temperature for dielectrics, the material ceases to diverge the field lines and they regain their "straight" nature. If a plate of crystallized bismuth is placed in a magnetic field, it will tend to spin to align its lattice to the field lines with the least amount of divergence.

So, take a crystalized plate of bismuth. Create a strongly aligned and coupled magnetic field with two bifilar coils. Rotate the plate through the field, aligned perpendicularly to the field lines. Ensuring the planes of the lattice, as it rotates, impact the lines of force at an angle that maximizes the divergence of those field lines. Increase the rotation to the point that the field lines, in the frame of rotation are diverged significantly to form an effect. This would be assumed to have proportional effects based on the inertial mass of the rotating crystal. This would be visualized as a circle of bent field lines within a larger lattice of straight field lines, which grow larger as the rotational velocity is increased.

The resulting effect should manifest as an inertial field dampener for existing gravitational gradients. In other words, it should nullify the existing curvature of space in a particular area around the device, in a particular plane, maybe in the form of a circle.

If this were possible, it might have significant implications for developing a gravity shield. Or not.

> with objects traveling in curved paths

Like curved spacetime inside a gravity well? :P

> Because the black hole is about 27,000 light-years away from Earth, it appears to us to have about the same size in the sky as a donut on the Moon.

I'm still sad we can't post donut emojis here. This place sucks.

There's a slight problem in your use of "everyone". You, personally, don't know or have sampled everyone. You are using it as a indication that "people warned" and "people should know", given people warned other people.

Saying you can't believe people didn't know is just showing lack of empathy in how others form trust. Many of those people form trust by looking at a screen and seeing a nice website with nice logins and nice charts. They look at things with dollar signs and say, "that's a good number there". Others dig in and are curious about how things work. Some laugh when people complain about how much power proof-of-work takes and believe it is the eniventible conclusion to why we don't see aliens out there.

Don't be the wurst person. Be the best! See that all humans need our help from an understanding technology perspective. Know that software can be implemented to take away their choices, or give them more choices than they had before.

Eating habits can change with stress. If I eat certain types of wheat, my back hurts. I had an endoscopy and colonoscopy that came back normal, but I had some inflammation spots in my stomach, likely due to consuming some bad wheat or something else. These changes can come about from the state of gut biomes.

Cleaning up my eating habits and consuming probiotics seems to have helped a lot. I can eat limited amounts of gluten now without my back hurting, or my stomach complaining about it. I still struggle with cravings of sugar and cream at times, especially when I'm fighting depressive events. Eating things the body craves is an easy out. It's limiting those actions with mind, when it is not so healthy, that challenge many of us.

Spin. Everything that has gravity eventually spins, so spin produces gravity and gravity produces spin. Even the moon spins, so I must be right.

Also, if you spin someone in a barrel, it produces a force that is indistinguishable from gravity, for the person in the barrel. Simple, but scientists like to make things complicated and confusing. Probably makes them sleep better at night.

See Newtons bucket argument. Spin is relational to the universe. If something spins, it produces gravity gradients. These come from differing frames of reference to time, or more specifically, variance in the pace of causality.

Ads, mostly. If you work on ads, or support ads, fuck you.

I was thinking about "physical reality" as a means to establish a chain of trust. If you and I sit next to each other, we have vocal and image chat available. Other than someone coming and physically injecting themselves into our "sphere", our communications can be trustworthy and reliable.

If a "chunk" of data could be "sovereignized" by association with other "nearby" chunks of data (through some common signing event), one could "move" seamlessly from one chunk to the other, regardless of where it was being "served" from.

When I talk about "chunks" here, I'm talking about document boundaries and ownership/control of the data.

If we were in some sort of simulation, moving from my sphere of data to yours would look something like a probability distribution. By having signed contracts between the spheres, one could increase the probability that movement in a general direction resulted in access and loading of trusted data.

Because the chains start out empty, nobody "owns" these fictitious plots until they are established through preexisting trusted channels. Various channels as well. None of this bullshit NFT land grab crap that nobody can trust. Use NFTs, or even better, Lightning payments to establish the "authenticity" of the nearby data spheres.

There is value in the burn of mining. Understanding this requires understanding how humans evaluate risk and reward. Not all human evaluation of risk may be influenced by outside thought. It is ingrained from childhood.

Never ceases to amaze me how companies will do whatever the fuck it is they want to do. Snap should be ashamed of taking the brand of an educational device for their floating piece of garbage tech.

I’d love to see how Snap justifies stealing another company’s brand! Check out the Pixy cam.

Someone should do something similar with Lyft, who will allow the drivers app to report you’ve been picked up and dropped off all the while the rider is still standing waiting for the car to show up. Adding insult to injury they ask you to “rate” the ride that never occurred before providing a button to report it.

The “rights” we are talking about is mostly the right to run their own utility and trash services. That’s about it and whatever else the government usually provides. Street repair. Security. They don’t get a lot of financial breaks and what they do get from it is based off efficiency of their models, not some “sweetheart” deal.

An over communication platform should have scheduled outages like this regularly!

One may wonder why Pearson remains hellbent on finding Aphants.

Evolution is a bitch.

Or just run it in a container!

13 year olds don't worry about houses, they worry about things shared online by their peers. That's on Silicon Valley, folks. Denial of our own hand in this is real.

You do sound negative, but I understand where you are coming from. I can't speak for the other soloers, but this solo affair over here is going to make WAY more than an Uber driver. Hell, I may make more than Uber itself.

That's the power of positive thought and focused attention. That attention nets positive feedback. I did this. Nobody else. Well, except for that bit Joe did. Thanks Joe.

Remember, anything is possible at Zombo.com.

I would recommend reading The Origins of Consciousness and the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, by Julian Jaynes.

> There's no way someone can't picture their mom in their head.

No matter how limited your thinking of other's experiences, I don't consciously see an image of anyone or anything at anytime while awake, in mind. Period. I know exactly what my mom looks like, but I still love her with all my heart. She is aware that I can't see her in mind and has said that she always knew I was different, but loves me just the same! I guess she "makes up" for my lack of this ability, given she can take herself back anywhere at anytime and see anyone that was there in that place in excruciating detail. It's a bit odd, but she has reported she can't see people in mind she doesn't love. I view this as a "tag" on which she is able to recall the images...

Even though I've never held a bowling pin or been close to one, I know how big a bowling pin is because I've seen the ball hit the pin at the end of the lane and I've held the ball in my hand.

A bat is definitely longer than a bowling pin, but not by much. I don't see either in mind when doing this referencing.

These ideas are linked through memories of spatial relatedness, not imagery.

I once had an interesting discussion with someone who had participated in unique treatments for PTSD. The councilors advised the patients, when they saw disturbing imagery in mind, to place the imagery on a poster. They indicated that most patients could do this task. They then proceeded to have the patient put the poster on the wall "across the room". The image "shrunk" in mind by forcing it into spatial perspective. They then had the patient put the poster on a telephone pole "across the street". This shrunk it even more. A diminishment in the strong feelings (stress) related to the imagery was reported in some patients. So, the smaller something appears, the less some appear to react to the imagery. Small monsters vs. large ones, I guess.

Knowledge of the mesh, and spacial awareness, both of which has nothing to do with seeing an image.

I thank you for your question, given it has given me a rather large dump of an idea into thinking mind that I will implement in my conscious AI project. Gratitude also goes out to whoever put spacial search into Solr: https://solr.apache.org/guide/8_1/spatial-search.html

  <flip>.com~> Should I use whomever or whoever in this sentence: Also, thanks goes out to whoever put spacial search into Solr?
  system=> No training data found for that command. Consider revising. x
  ambrosial-hound*> ...
  ambrosial-hound*> There is no definitive answer to this question, as both forms are considered acceptable. However, many people prefer to use "whoever" in situations where the subject of the sentence is unknown or unclear.

I couldn't be aware of seeing such an image, but factually I can say a normal tennis ball does not fit into a normal keyhole. Then again, there's Alice.

I am, strangely enough, highly spatial and tested off the charts for it when I was younger. I can do exactly what you describe, with a high degree of precision. I do this mainly by elimination, which is likely due to the fact I can't consciously perceive the imagery, but only get a feeling if it is "right" or not.

One way I put it to a visualizer recently was that I am not conscious of seeing the map, but I am definitely operating on the mesh. The way he described it was that he was actively seeing the map, overlayed on the model, as if it were a screen in mind. He waved vaguely to "up here" where it "was".

While I dislike the term "aphantasia" for being technically inaccurate, it is the closest label for the condition of my brain. My brain is completely free of any visual or auditory (or other sense) creations of any kind, other than what I'm perceiving in a given moment based on inputs from my eyes or ears (or nose, fingers, tongue, etc.) This is true whether I have ingested a "mind altering" substance, or not. I do apparently see and hear things in dreams, however. I cannot recall them later, other than by remembering facts and feelings about them.

The Aphantasia definition quoted on Wikipedia states it is "the inability to voluntarily create mental images in one's mind". But, there also exists an idea of a state in which an individual's brain NEVER creates mental representations of any kind, willful or not, other than what is being observed by the senses in that moment.

Thankfully, I still have an imagination. Thinking mind will always think, if allowed by the awareness. What makes it weird is whether or not things are seen in mind, or heard in mind when that thinking occurs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aphantasia

Location: Sirius B (about 8 light years away)

Remote: No.

Willing to relocate: Yes, but it will take a while.

Technologies: Anti-gravity Propulsion, Conscious AI Physcology and Neural Patching, Replication Systems

Résumé: {click here}

Email: siriusb.proxy+mescaline [&:;'"at"';:&] gmail.com

Settle down, it's April 1st!

A 100 more million people since I was in high school has ruined things around here, traffic mostly.

That's a moot point. When in a non-disclosure agreement with a company, the binding part is that one will not divulge information about the company or potential partners. If one doesn't know if the company is a partner or not, they still can't divulge the information. If you've ever worked for one of these on-demand consulting firms, they go over this in detail. Basically, if a company tells me something on the call, and that includes information about another company, I can't tell a third party about it, nor can I mention it to the other company.

It is very likely Zoom and Okta are partners. Companies are constantly "partnering" with each other and all that means is there likely some agreement somewhere between them to not divulge information.

I think it's pretty clear the poster figured out they were in legal jeopardy, or were worried about it, given the content is now gone.