I don't always ponder on stuff that would make even a hippie give me a wedgie, instead, today i was thinking at how unfinished our human interaction pattern is which would bore a hippie (yey).
Expression of one's self is subjugated by society's view of morality, so much so, that you have to feel deaths grips before you realize just how futile it is to try and fit in. You're alone from the moment you are born, to the moment you die, might as well experience life through your spectrum and not be held down by right and wrong.
Morality is just a construct to please our current aesthetic view on life; humanity has no clear goal to guide said morality other than "live". Naturally, when you base your sole existence on life in and of itself, you fear death. What is our purpose ? Is it that simple? Live? And if so, for what? life is not the final frontier, stop being so afraid to explore; And this is just an extreme example, i fear, you might see it as a subliminal message for suicide, which i assure you, it means you are missing the point. I'm just saying that it's the reason you are so afraid to take original steps. I don't know how to put it so i make myself clear...
I guess... we have a wrong view on what bad and good are. There is no good without bad and vice-versa they are both needed. The moment you make a mistake you should not regret, you should learn from it. If you keep that in mind, making mistakes won't make you feel reticent to trying again, on the contrary, it will get you eager to try again. It would speed up the evolution processes.
This all, is not to say that rules are not necessarily a good thing, they have played and are probably still needed to play a part. If anything they help by protecting the prospect of a better life, however they can also inhibit the spurt of evolution. None of them is right and wrong, however making more solid decisions based on yourself can't not help your development.
I guess this is a product of the helplessness i feel when i see this stagnant oasis of possibilities, people focusing on such trivial matters... Don't get me wrong, it was needed so that we could learn from it, but for how long? Come on... bring it for fucks sake!
Thursday, December 12, 2013
Tuesday, December 10, 2013
Time travel 2
Date: 10-12-2013
Time :16:00
I want to revisit what i just translated about my time travel mumbo-jumbo, because i feel i left too many open ends.
In my previous assumption, i regarded time as the thing that both gives linearity to our universes and the "soup" ... that is time. I don't know of a word to explain that. Basically we take for granted that time must be linear, but why? The linearity is a property attributed to time, it's not included in time itself; Time can be just a soup containing all the information, the linearity is what deciphers it into what we perceive. Time as we know it, is made out of two dimensions.
Think of it as a cable, a cable has the copper inside it, and the insulation over it (not the best example but i hope you understand), if i were to melt that copper, it would be a *splat* of copper, and if i were to pour that copper into a mold (insulation) it is what it would give it the shape of a wire. So, in order to go back in time, i would first have to remove the insulation(one of the dimensions of the finite wire) and i would be left with the *splat* of time, giving me freedom to mold it as i please, hopefully allowing me to go back in time.
I like this one more, because it feels better tied together, but i'm not sure which side to take, so i'm out.
In my previous assumption, i regarded time as the thing that both gives linearity to our universes and the "soup" ... that is time. I don't know of a word to explain that. Basically we take for granted that time must be linear, but why? The linearity is a property attributed to time, it's not included in time itself; Time can be just a soup containing all the information, the linearity is what deciphers it into what we perceive. Time as we know it, is made out of two dimensions.
Think of it as a cable, a cable has the copper inside it, and the insulation over it (not the best example but i hope you understand), if i were to melt that copper, it would be a *splat* of copper, and if i were to pour that copper into a mold (insulation) it is what it would give it the shape of a wire. So, in order to go back in time, i would first have to remove the insulation(one of the dimensions of the finite wire) and i would be left with the *splat* of time, giving me freedom to mold it as i please, hopefully allowing me to go back in time.
I like this one more, because it feels better tied together, but i'm not sure which side to take, so i'm out.
Time travel.
(translation )
Date: 8-12-2013
21:20
Every person has it's own universe and it's own ... existential line? ~something like that
The moment we interact with each other( 1+1 universes) , we create a parallel universe for the time we are interacting. Parallel, as in a temporary universe, a host for our own universes, that disappears the moment we stop interacting. Best defined as a "host universe". It can be correlated to virtual particles popping in and out of existence.
The result of this, is that there is no "mother" universe, we create, we take decisions.
Time is what holds all the universes on the same...temporal line (well fuck).
Time is what explains the linearity of our encounters despite every person having his own universe.
Meaning, that if time would not exist, the moment i would meet with another person(universe), i could meet him once when he is a kid and once when he is an adult, even if the encounters would not be far apart from each other. ((Either that, or now when i think about it, there could be a channel that holds time linearly aswell, so like two dimensions... but i'll leave it at that for now ))
Otherwise said, if, as an experiment, i would intersect the path of two universes (two persons), at regulate intervals, in the absence of time, i could see them both at huge "age" differences of each other, and there would be no continuity, or what we now perceive as a "mother" universe.
If this would be true, in theory, in order to travel in time, you would first have to cancel time out, and you would get a chaotic intersection of time frames.
-Infancy- ((talking about the theory)) but this whole thing is conditioned by what happens with a universe when the one governing it, dies?~ Does his universe continue on living? or does it disappear along with him, or is it maybe taken over by something else?
If it were to disappear, it would mean that any past older than the oldest man alive, is forever lost, limiting time travel to a period of 100 ~ years. Unless of course the universe's governing is taken over by something else.
Or another method, would be to use the principle of "nothing is lost, everything is transformed" or better said energy. The dissipated energy from the death of a universe, has to be rebuilt into the initial universe and only after that travel back into it, destroying the initial 100 years limitation.
Date: 8-12-2013
21:20
Every person has it's own universe and it's own ... existential line? ~something like that
The moment we interact with each other( 1+1 universes) , we create a parallel universe for the time we are interacting. Parallel, as in a temporary universe, a host for our own universes, that disappears the moment we stop interacting. Best defined as a "host universe". It can be correlated to virtual particles popping in and out of existence.
The result of this, is that there is no "mother" universe, we create, we take decisions.
Time is what holds all the universes on the same...temporal line (well fuck).
Time is what explains the linearity of our encounters despite every person having his own universe.
Meaning, that if time would not exist, the moment i would meet with another person(universe), i could meet him once when he is a kid and once when he is an adult, even if the encounters would not be far apart from each other. ((Either that, or now when i think about it, there could be a channel that holds time linearly aswell, so like two dimensions... but i'll leave it at that for now ))
Otherwise said, if, as an experiment, i would intersect the path of two universes (two persons), at regulate intervals, in the absence of time, i could see them both at huge "age" differences of each other, and there would be no continuity, or what we now perceive as a "mother" universe.
If this would be true, in theory, in order to travel in time, you would first have to cancel time out, and you would get a chaotic intersection of time frames.
-Infancy- ((talking about the theory)) but this whole thing is conditioned by what happens with a universe when the one governing it, dies?~ Does his universe continue on living? or does it disappear along with him, or is it maybe taken over by something else?
If it were to disappear, it would mean that any past older than the oldest man alive, is forever lost, limiting time travel to a period of 100 ~ years. Unless of course the universe's governing is taken over by something else.
Or another method, would be to use the principle of "nothing is lost, everything is transformed" or better said energy. The dissipated energy from the death of a universe, has to be rebuilt into the initial universe and only after that travel back into it, destroying the initial 100 years limitation.
Happiness
(translation, and a heavy one at that)
Date: 5-12-2013
Right, so, it's 5 am, just woke up from an abrupt and early going to sleep the other day in my trying to stop a heavy, heavy head pain; And while staying alone, in the dark, I started to contemplate again on the notion of happiness; And in all fairness the image i get seems to be a lot clearer from the last time when i was alone in the car, freezing =)). ((It's more upbeat than that, but it somehow gets darker in the translation, meh))
Whatever, so i woke up with a very well etched image in my mind... well it's not the image that counts, the image is just a means for the sentiment it portrays; I'm saying the sentiment is the object of focus here... But, fuck it, i'll detail it for further reference.
I see it.. as a picture, an image stuck in time, like a fly stuck in amber; I was a kid, at school, gymnasium ? class 1-4, fuck it, anyway, it was night-time, wait so class 5-8, and i swear i was so happy.(( 1-4 i had class in the morning, 5-8 i had class in the afternoon))
I was close to going home, i think, but i doubt that was the magical reason for my happiness, i felt, however, that it (the happening) was a piece of the happiness i used to take for granted. Anyway, i'm glad my brain chose a winter night to convey that feeling, so calm, so serene.
Back to my point (but i don't wanna!), happiness gets defined by it's absence, meaning "happiness" is more poignant the more you don't have it. Take as an example that story i just said...
No, actually, as an example, i will never know how happy driving makes me until i will no longer be able to drive.
It makes it that much more obvious, the moment you stop having it, and it gets added to the sum of your experiences as a point/line on a scale of happiness. And that is how you form your sense for happiness; Your enjoyment is a result on a scale of your past experiences.
Well that is not happiness, i just lack a better term, being so close related to happiness itself.
And by "happiness itself" i mean the happiness you feel as a product, the "on the spot" feeling.
The on the spot happiness is a happiness reported to your past joyful experiences.
That's why, the more you age, the more, cynicism gets more pregnant, the more you are left feeling like a sad piece of shit. Because finding sources of happiness gets harder and harder compared to your youthful years when the face of your parents made you laugh.
What i'm trying to say is that, i strongly believe, after all this, that happiness is a flux of feeling; it's different from a pill you take and: bam! you're happy. You can't be happy without knowing what happiness is. Just like time.
And what we are looking for, in life, is happiness, new happy experiences.
When i said happiness is like time, i started thinking... where/when does your first experience of happiness begin?
Does "life" give you happiness the moment you are born? Meaning: when you are born, on top of a functioning body to hold you in this reality, do you also get a "life" with the key and implicitly the start of happiness? and of all the other feelings?
Absolute happiness, if i were to formulate it, would be ...
/ A body with zero past happy experiences to which you artificially insert a new happiness (meaning he should not feel it himself) / The new happiness must be... perfect, in the sense that it should contain in it or with it the feeling of not having that happiness, a happiness that exists and yet doesn't exist.
I started thinking now, as a result, if maybe we are here as a means to measure the inner workings of an absolute.
The experiments of some sort of original beings, that are much more advanced than us, but that have the same mission as us...looking for an answer to the universe (dependent on semantics, i'm not referring to a cluster of stars). And this is not a new idea that came out of this ...text, but rather one that i hope would give meaning to my next train of thought.
So, given that we have been talking about the absolute up till now, i wanted to say that we are here as an experiment, a means to measure the inner workings of an absolute, but from the perspective of entities(can be regarded as gods in the literal sense) governed by absolute; in the same way, i guess, we are governed by infinity.
Our "souls" are sent here, placed in a costume ( our body) in order for us to be able to survive in this dimension.
Think about it, the body is infinite whilst the soul is absolute.
The body is made out of materials in this world (infinite) whilst the soul doesn't exist per say, doesn't have mass, is not an object, it exists as a concept. The way they are sown together is a great mystery and must be advanced technology.((I'm officially a hippie ))
The soul, in my mind, is everything i have discussed up till now, a decoder for our senses with absolute origins. It's a possibility that the place that sends the souls, has them as stand alone entities.
- Trying to make it longer so i don't skip details, so i can have the same feeling when i read it again.
...
Been sitting for about 10 minutes, staring at the ceiling like an idiot...
The idea in the bible, the bible itself, has logic with everything i have said so far. It's like a book left from "the others". An user manual, if u will, to serve their purposes.
Same way, the idea of Apocalypse, before he comes ( i think that's how it went) makes sense ~.
What would the sense be, in showing themselves to so many people? Somebody,supported by the existence of his peers behind him, is bound to ask questions that... would "strike a nerve", and that would there-on-after corrupt the masses into dealing with it. People are so much easier to fool when they are separated ( herd mentality )
This charade would be in the detriment of this world's exploration, when you are trying to set yourself free.
Meh... ideas... 6:04
Date: 5-12-2013
Right, so, it's 5 am, just woke up from an abrupt and early going to sleep the other day in my trying to stop a heavy, heavy head pain; And while staying alone, in the dark, I started to contemplate again on the notion of happiness; And in all fairness the image i get seems to be a lot clearer from the last time when i was alone in the car, freezing =)). ((It's more upbeat than that, but it somehow gets darker in the translation, meh))
Whatever, so i woke up with a very well etched image in my mind... well it's not the image that counts, the image is just a means for the sentiment it portrays; I'm saying the sentiment is the object of focus here... But, fuck it, i'll detail it for further reference.
I see it.. as a picture, an image stuck in time, like a fly stuck in amber; I was a kid, at school, gymnasium ? class 1-4, fuck it, anyway, it was night-time, wait so class 5-8, and i swear i was so happy.(( 1-4 i had class in the morning, 5-8 i had class in the afternoon))
I was close to going home, i think, but i doubt that was the magical reason for my happiness, i felt, however, that it (the happening) was a piece of the happiness i used to take for granted. Anyway, i'm glad my brain chose a winter night to convey that feeling, so calm, so serene.
Back to my point (but i don't wanna!), happiness gets defined by it's absence, meaning "happiness" is more poignant the more you don't have it. Take as an example that story i just said...
No, actually, as an example, i will never know how happy driving makes me until i will no longer be able to drive.
It makes it that much more obvious, the moment you stop having it, and it gets added to the sum of your experiences as a point/line on a scale of happiness. And that is how you form your sense for happiness; Your enjoyment is a result on a scale of your past experiences.
Well that is not happiness, i just lack a better term, being so close related to happiness itself.
And by "happiness itself" i mean the happiness you feel as a product, the "on the spot" feeling.
The on the spot happiness is a happiness reported to your past joyful experiences.
That's why, the more you age, the more, cynicism gets more pregnant, the more you are left feeling like a sad piece of shit. Because finding sources of happiness gets harder and harder compared to your youthful years when the face of your parents made you laugh.
What i'm trying to say is that, i strongly believe, after all this, that happiness is a flux of feeling; it's different from a pill you take and: bam! you're happy. You can't be happy without knowing what happiness is. Just like time.
And what we are looking for, in life, is happiness, new happy experiences.
When i said happiness is like time, i started thinking... where/when does your first experience of happiness begin?
Does "life" give you happiness the moment you are born? Meaning: when you are born, on top of a functioning body to hold you in this reality, do you also get a "life" with the key and implicitly the start of happiness? and of all the other feelings?
Absolute happiness, if i were to formulate it, would be ...
/ A body with zero past happy experiences to which you artificially insert a new happiness (meaning he should not feel it himself) / The new happiness must be... perfect, in the sense that it should contain in it or with it the feeling of not having that happiness, a happiness that exists and yet doesn't exist.
I started thinking now, as a result, if maybe we are here as a means to measure the inner workings of an absolute.
The experiments of some sort of original beings, that are much more advanced than us, but that have the same mission as us...looking for an answer to the universe (dependent on semantics, i'm not referring to a cluster of stars). And this is not a new idea that came out of this ...text, but rather one that i hope would give meaning to my next train of thought.
So, given that we have been talking about the absolute up till now, i wanted to say that we are here as an experiment, a means to measure the inner workings of an absolute, but from the perspective of entities(can be regarded as gods in the literal sense) governed by absolute; in the same way, i guess, we are governed by infinity.
Our "souls" are sent here, placed in a costume ( our body) in order for us to be able to survive in this dimension.
Think about it, the body is infinite whilst the soul is absolute.
The body is made out of materials in this world (infinite) whilst the soul doesn't exist per say, doesn't have mass, is not an object, it exists as a concept. The way they are sown together is a great mystery and must be advanced technology.((I'm officially a hippie ))
The soul, in my mind, is everything i have discussed up till now, a decoder for our senses with absolute origins. It's a possibility that the place that sends the souls, has them as stand alone entities.
- Trying to make it longer so i don't skip details, so i can have the same feeling when i read it again.
...
Been sitting for about 10 minutes, staring at the ceiling like an idiot...
The idea in the bible, the bible itself, has logic with everything i have said so far. It's like a book left from "the others". An user manual, if u will, to serve their purposes.
Same way, the idea of Apocalypse, before he comes ( i think that's how it went) makes sense ~.
What would the sense be, in showing themselves to so many people? Somebody,supported by the existence of his peers behind him, is bound to ask questions that... would "strike a nerve", and that would there-on-after corrupt the masses into dealing with it. People are so much easier to fool when they are separated ( herd mentality )
This charade would be in the detriment of this world's exploration, when you are trying to set yourself free.
Meh... ideas... 6:04
Google turning into a bad guy
I always liked google because they started out as underdogs and they managed to become this monster that they are today without, however, being pretentious about it, they did remember their roots. And i think we should appreciate them more, we should promote that attitude because it is hard to not become this greedy money making machine - i will give examples later on.
However, we are promoting google, indirectly, through the use of their services and all they stand for(all of which i enjoy) and some may think that it is enough but i feel that we should go that extra mile for google, because they deserve it, they also did that themselves everytime, can anyone remind me of a time when google didn't account for it's users first rather than profit?
But let's get back to square one, the reason why i even started this, is because i feel google has lost some of it's initial principles and by that i mean the new "5 second add" at the start of a video on youtube((this was written prior to google merging google+ and youtube)), yeah we all love it, but to be honest it isn't even that bad, but it does mark the beginning of what could become something much worse.
And i feel NOW is the time to help OUR NIGGA OUT! (you're white ) Because google is our nigga, and he deserves to be reminded we have faith in him, and not turn our back on him. Google is probably one of the best niggas on the internet, give him some love, remind him of the days he fought for a clean look on their search engine and how he should do the some for youtube. Aren't those recommended nikky minaj videos on fucking the weeknd songs enough? Nobody can actually complain about that, you're making a buck and all we have to do is ignore that, which isn't even hard considering it's not in our "working space".
But anyway i have been going on about google so much that some of you may think i've been hired or something so let's look at two other "new kids on the block". First one, and the one i've grown to hate is facebook, and i know i'm not the only one. To be honest i never really liked facebook to begin with, but i never hated it, they just had a different approach rather than google. They were more about the goal and less about the means and to be honest, as long as the goal would have been a user-friendly page i would still only be on my "fuck you" phase; I remember when they introduced the new look of facebook, i was left with the impression that i can turn back if i don't like it maybe it was because of "try it" or something like that, i have a bad memory, sorry, and motherfucker, i can't, i even searched on google, and that nigga didn't give me anything conclusive, how fucked up is that? This has been a while ago and i just let it go. But honestly what i fucking hate is that i have to see every stupid shit a friend posts or "shares" and i know, i read somewhere, that you can disable them, but why the fuck aren't they disabled to begin with? Let me choose if i want to see every single thing a friend does *cough* crush *cough* you fucking stalker *cough*. And to be honest i think the "share" feature is a great thing, as long as it wouldn't have a life long history of abuse, i mean come on! And then there's the games notification, i have had it with those motherfucking games on that motherfucking facebook, i heard you can disable them aswell, got my dick wraped up in the ceiling fan((i have found out how to disable them eventually, or maybe they just introduced it after i wrote this dunno)), but at least nigga google tried *fistbump*. And i don't want to rant about everything that's wrong with facebook (everything) but it's the sheer amount of automated crap that gets pushed on to you and you just have to swallow. I actually wanted to try a fucking game but i got terrified that it might do the same thing to my friends (send them game invites). Come visit my farm, FUCK YOU!!!!
Enough about facebook, let's go over to the other new kid on the block and that is league of legends. Now league of legends is so money hungry that they litterally forget who the fuck is paying them. Stop the rage, yeah they tell you to stop the rage when they incite to fucking rage.
- From the beginning - , first lol problem, is feeding us skins with no soul in them but on insane prices just because they were a popular demand (hint beach party hint). And i don't wanna hear bullshit "oh but they listen to their users, because everyone wanted a beach party leona" crap. Yeah they did, but they did it MOSTLY because they saw it would be prolific, then they considered the impact on the users, or better said: the impact on the users was a by-product of their money hungry scheme. And on first glance that would contradict itself, because the majority would have to vote for those skins in order for it to be prolific, AND THAT WOULD BE TRUE, but the majority are kids in lol, and i don't fucking see kids representing them at tournaments, i doubt kids make up for most of their income, no, it's us, fucking working adults no matter how you look at it, it just so fucking happens that there are more kids than us, SO FUCKING START A KINDERGARTEN AND LET THEM PLAY WITH HEROES, you won't get exposure as a kindergarten you pieces of shit, KNOW YOUR PLACE.((i so had a bone to pick with them, well still do ))
This leads us to our second point, the matchmaking system. In lol there are 2 modes i play, normal and ranked. Now on ranked games the matchmaker pits together people of the same rank (bronze/silver/gold/diamond/plat) while factoring the number of games played to reach that rank, it's like a relevancy algorithm. Now the problem with this one are it's flamers and the only way to punish them is "report them" and hope something happens to them. Really?
Now off the top of my head there are 2 ways to make this work.
If the guy you report actually gets a warning/ban make it so that i can see it, to get some sort of closure that my whole game wasn't fucked up for nothing, or that i didn't try to be nice for nothing.
*disclaimer* i'm not nice, i bash their fucking heads in when they get cocky and stop blaming the team, i single them out every time, because they deserve it, i'm not playing this game to babysit, if i wanted that i would play Sims* So closure wouldn't work that much for me, admittedly.
But my 2nd point i can't see why it wouldn't work: Just factor in flaming warnings into the matchmaker. make a relevancy algorithm for flames aswell.
And i'm just gonna be short about normal games, i got pitted with 2 premades, bronze 3 and 4 vs a 4-man premade, with a single bronze 1 silvers and a diamond 4. This happened because matchmaker in normals factors only the number of games, or it's more prominent ~.
And now to the actual point of this, because i don't want to look like i'm just flaming lol for nothing, the reason why they don't change their matchmaker (which is the bread and butter of this whole game, the source of excitement) is because the waiting time would be MUCH longer, and that would look bad to the stupid(which make up most of their community), alienate users who want to play asap (the type that just ate a can of sugar, KIDS) and it would be counter-productive. Well i'd rather wait 20 minutes for a good game, than 30 seconds for a bad one. I know it would make you earn less, but you forget your goal should be a GOOD FUCKING GAME, not a money making machine.
And the same issue goes for world of tanks, and the laughable part is that world of tanks already has a fan-made sort of relevancy calculator, they just need to implement that into the matchmaker. But they won't. Fuck it i'm not gonna start explaining why that is wrong as well.
I guess my qualm is also with today's view on how a customer should be treated, there is no more passion just a blind goal to get rich regardless of means, and it's the reason why we have so many good visual games but no gameplay, so many good 3d effects but no story-line and it's partly our fault because we stand for that, and we buy said games or go to said 3d movies, start making a difference.
Back to google, i honestly love this nigga, because he hasn't lost his love for what he's doing, google you mah nigga!
However, we are promoting google, indirectly, through the use of their services and all they stand for(all of which i enjoy) and some may think that it is enough but i feel that we should go that extra mile for google, because they deserve it, they also did that themselves everytime, can anyone remind me of a time when google didn't account for it's users first rather than profit?
But let's get back to square one, the reason why i even started this, is because i feel google has lost some of it's initial principles and by that i mean the new "5 second add" at the start of a video on youtube((this was written prior to google merging google+ and youtube)), yeah we all love it, but to be honest it isn't even that bad, but it does mark the beginning of what could become something much worse.
And i feel NOW is the time to help OUR NIGGA OUT! (you're white ) Because google is our nigga, and he deserves to be reminded we have faith in him, and not turn our back on him. Google is probably one of the best niggas on the internet, give him some love, remind him of the days he fought for a clean look on their search engine and how he should do the some for youtube. Aren't those recommended nikky minaj videos on fucking the weeknd songs enough? Nobody can actually complain about that, you're making a buck and all we have to do is ignore that, which isn't even hard considering it's not in our "working space".
But anyway i have been going on about google so much that some of you may think i've been hired or something so let's look at two other "new kids on the block". First one, and the one i've grown to hate is facebook, and i know i'm not the only one. To be honest i never really liked facebook to begin with, but i never hated it, they just had a different approach rather than google. They were more about the goal and less about the means and to be honest, as long as the goal would have been a user-friendly page i would still only be on my "fuck you" phase; I remember when they introduced the new look of facebook, i was left with the impression that i can turn back if i don't like it maybe it was because of "try it" or something like that, i have a bad memory, sorry, and motherfucker, i can't, i even searched on google, and that nigga didn't give me anything conclusive, how fucked up is that? This has been a while ago and i just let it go. But honestly what i fucking hate is that i have to see every stupid shit a friend posts or "shares" and i know, i read somewhere, that you can disable them, but why the fuck aren't they disabled to begin with? Let me choose if i want to see every single thing a friend does *cough* crush *cough* you fucking stalker *cough*. And to be honest i think the "share" feature is a great thing, as long as it wouldn't have a life long history of abuse, i mean come on! And then there's the games notification, i have had it with those motherfucking games on that motherfucking facebook, i heard you can disable them aswell, got my dick wraped up in the ceiling fan((i have found out how to disable them eventually, or maybe they just introduced it after i wrote this dunno)), but at least nigga google tried *fistbump*. And i don't want to rant about everything that's wrong with facebook (everything) but it's the sheer amount of automated crap that gets pushed on to you and you just have to swallow. I actually wanted to try a fucking game but i got terrified that it might do the same thing to my friends (send them game invites). Come visit my farm, FUCK YOU!!!!
Enough about facebook, let's go over to the other new kid on the block and that is league of legends. Now league of legends is so money hungry that they litterally forget who the fuck is paying them. Stop the rage, yeah they tell you to stop the rage when they incite to fucking rage.
- From the beginning - , first lol problem, is feeding us skins with no soul in them but on insane prices just because they were a popular demand (hint beach party hint). And i don't wanna hear bullshit "oh but they listen to their users, because everyone wanted a beach party leona" crap. Yeah they did, but they did it MOSTLY because they saw it would be prolific, then they considered the impact on the users, or better said: the impact on the users was a by-product of their money hungry scheme. And on first glance that would contradict itself, because the majority would have to vote for those skins in order for it to be prolific, AND THAT WOULD BE TRUE, but the majority are kids in lol, and i don't fucking see kids representing them at tournaments, i doubt kids make up for most of their income, no, it's us, fucking working adults no matter how you look at it, it just so fucking happens that there are more kids than us, SO FUCKING START A KINDERGARTEN AND LET THEM PLAY WITH HEROES, you won't get exposure as a kindergarten you pieces of shit, KNOW YOUR PLACE.((i so had a bone to pick with them, well still do ))
This leads us to our second point, the matchmaking system. In lol there are 2 modes i play, normal and ranked. Now on ranked games the matchmaker pits together people of the same rank (bronze/silver/gold/diamond/plat) while factoring the number of games played to reach that rank, it's like a relevancy algorithm. Now the problem with this one are it's flamers and the only way to punish them is "report them" and hope something happens to them. Really?
Now off the top of my head there are 2 ways to make this work.
If the guy you report actually gets a warning/ban make it so that i can see it, to get some sort of closure that my whole game wasn't fucked up for nothing, or that i didn't try to be nice for nothing.
*disclaimer* i'm not nice, i bash their fucking heads in when they get cocky and stop blaming the team, i single them out every time, because they deserve it, i'm not playing this game to babysit, if i wanted that i would play Sims* So closure wouldn't work that much for me, admittedly.
But my 2nd point i can't see why it wouldn't work: Just factor in flaming warnings into the matchmaker. make a relevancy algorithm for flames aswell.
And i'm just gonna be short about normal games, i got pitted with 2 premades, bronze 3 and 4 vs a 4-man premade, with a single bronze 1 silvers and a diamond 4. This happened because matchmaker in normals factors only the number of games, or it's more prominent ~.
And now to the actual point of this, because i don't want to look like i'm just flaming lol for nothing, the reason why they don't change their matchmaker (which is the bread and butter of this whole game, the source of excitement) is because the waiting time would be MUCH longer, and that would look bad to the stupid(which make up most of their community), alienate users who want to play asap (the type that just ate a can of sugar, KIDS) and it would be counter-productive. Well i'd rather wait 20 minutes for a good game, than 30 seconds for a bad one. I know it would make you earn less, but you forget your goal should be a GOOD FUCKING GAME, not a money making machine.
And the same issue goes for world of tanks, and the laughable part is that world of tanks already has a fan-made sort of relevancy calculator, they just need to implement that into the matchmaker. But they won't. Fuck it i'm not gonna start explaining why that is wrong as well.
I guess my qualm is also with today's view on how a customer should be treated, there is no more passion just a blind goal to get rich regardless of means, and it's the reason why we have so many good visual games but no gameplay, so many good 3d effects but no story-line and it's partly our fault because we stand for that, and we buy said games or go to said 3d movies, start making a difference.
Back to google, i honestly love this nigga, because he hasn't lost his love for what he's doing, google you mah nigga!
Monday, December 9, 2013
Why?
Logical reasoning as to why "why?" exists... i forgot, fuck.((something i haven't said before, i tend to forget easily, and lose my train of thought oh so easily)
Anyway, the premises was inspired from "why?" being a part of an absolute truth, a sort of "0".
If i think about it, even the fact that "why ?" exists is an indicative of an absolute... lost it again.
Anyway, let's say we ourselves create an AI "thing", how long would it take him to become self-aware and what is the process?
There must be a "why?" in the middle.
"Why?" is the first ingredient of life as we know it...-vague-
As an example Big bang was triggered by a "why?"; it's the catalyst of knowledge.
There would have been no diversity without "why?"...However, after all this, "why?" is not the "0" point but it confirms it purely through its existence.
We would not have been created without "why?".
Note: "Why?" at this point is an abbreviation of the process or the start of a curiosity.
Curiosity is transmitted through genes, attesting it's genesis in another "place"; we are made from god-like materials ( god = absolute).
We, theoretically, have the means of transcending the infinite.
The infinite and the absolute, can be regarded as two distinct dimensions that include one-another.
Let's say space is our lego made "bubble"; the moment we will take a hold/understand all the pieces , we will transcend into absolute.
However what is certain is that our simple existence, is inspired from an absolute( Which is not far from what bible would preach ~, still bugs me)). We are not alone, because we exist, however that "something" is not necessarily in our universe, on the contrary it is actually most likely not.
Anyway, the premises was inspired from "why?" being a part of an absolute truth, a sort of "0".
If i think about it, even the fact that "why ?" exists is an indicative of an absolute... lost it again.
Anyway, let's say we ourselves create an AI "thing", how long would it take him to become self-aware and what is the process?
There must be a "why?" in the middle.
"Why?" is the first ingredient of life as we know it...-vague-
As an example Big bang was triggered by a "why?"; it's the catalyst of knowledge.
There would have been no diversity without "why?"...However, after all this, "why?" is not the "0" point but it confirms it purely through its existence.
We would not have been created without "why?".
Note: "Why?" at this point is an abbreviation of the process or the start of a curiosity.
Curiosity is transmitted through genes, attesting it's genesis in another "place"; we are made from god-like materials ( god = absolute).
We, theoretically, have the means of transcending the infinite.
The infinite and the absolute, can be regarded as two distinct dimensions that include one-another.
Let's say space is our lego made "bubble"; the moment we will take a hold/understand all the pieces , we will transcend into absolute.
However what is certain is that our simple existence, is inspired from an absolute( Which is not far from what bible would preach ~, still bugs me)). We are not alone, because we exist, however that "something" is not necessarily in our universe, on the contrary it is actually most likely not.
#4
date - end of 2012 or something like that -
Until what point does a man change his opinion? Meaning: What is the "random" process for humans?
Let's say you have an idea determined by "+", how many more "+" does it take before it becomes a "-" or until you first start to contest your ideea? ( keep in mind that +/- are not meant necessarily as ordinary addition and subtraction signs, i just lack the mathematical knowledge to explain it better )
History of a God / The solitude of a singularity
(translation)
I have initially imagined the end in the form of four entities, but now that i think about it, that would be impossible, because that would no longer be the ending; that was probably a product of my own mind trying to cope with the loneliness of such an event.
The end, can only be watched through the eyes of a single being, standing testimony to the aftermath. The singularity. (( I'm still proud of this))
However, before the god, before him, there was a violent battle between his, now, fathers. I will name them subtly Adam and Eve.
-- This is something hashed out, but i will include it anyway because i like it: "Can you imagine two super-galaxies heading towards each-other? The only two entities sparkling into a sea of nothingness, the God's nostalgic memory".
Everything is true or relative through an individual perspective.
However, you cannot be certain, that everything around you (including people) are not a product of perspective.(( This is called solipsism, and it's a phase i'm still not over, you can look it up if you want)) .
The concepts i think of, as an individual, pop into existence the moment i think them, and they are reborn into other people's ideologies after i have thought them.
There are different options.
1.Ideas that have a common denominator attract each-other ( like gravity) and they have a higher chance of being noticed (by yourself) the moment you acknowledge them, meaning that we are all contributing to a common conscience - we are component parts / "neurons" of a god? -
2. A mothership (myself?) exists that inspires ideas into my own perception and everything around me is the product of an emotion ( loneliness/boredom) and everything is animated for my own amusement. If true, how is the actual reality like? ((Yes i am aware of what this means))
3. Or is it possible that everything is a reality simulation ( the hadron collider comes to mind).
As an example, if i would have someone write a concept that only he knows, and that he thinks is true, in this book without me seeing it; would that concept emerge into humanity's common conscience or would it be lost forever until someone would read this book?
Problem is, however, that it cannot be tested, because the concept would emerge, through the simple fact that the person who wrote it acknowledges it and lives through it; pieces of the notion would slip into the conscious being simply by him living it, and you cannot know if another person thought them or if they were induced into existence by the initial thinker.
Regardless, what about the other notions i have found out after birth?((I think i might have phrased it poorly, it might mean, the notions that i did not think, and were taught after birth, but were true regardless of my birth)) Either they are issues of perception, or i willed them into being without knowing...
Still, if all concepts can be regarded as energy and are lost within the universe, written on a "book", would it be possible to find out about theories and concepts of lost civilizations? ( as an imagination exercise, opening a portal to all knowledge/consciousness) . And it would be possible, if everything is part of a god, or if i am myself a fragmented god.
I have initially imagined the end in the form of four entities, but now that i think about it, that would be impossible, because that would no longer be the ending; that was probably a product of my own mind trying to cope with the loneliness of such an event.
The end, can only be watched through the eyes of a single being, standing testimony to the aftermath. The singularity. (( I'm still proud of this))
However, before the god, before him, there was a violent battle between his, now, fathers. I will name them subtly Adam and Eve.
-- This is something hashed out, but i will include it anyway because i like it: "Can you imagine two super-galaxies heading towards each-other? The only two entities sparkling into a sea of nothingness, the God's nostalgic memory".
Everything is true or relative through an individual perspective.
However, you cannot be certain, that everything around you (including people) are not a product of perspective.(( This is called solipsism, and it's a phase i'm still not over, you can look it up if you want)) .
The concepts i think of, as an individual, pop into existence the moment i think them, and they are reborn into other people's ideologies after i have thought them.
There are different options.
1.Ideas that have a common denominator attract each-other ( like gravity) and they have a higher chance of being noticed (by yourself) the moment you acknowledge them, meaning that we are all contributing to a common conscience - we are component parts / "neurons" of a god? -
2. A mothership (myself?) exists that inspires ideas into my own perception and everything around me is the product of an emotion ( loneliness/boredom) and everything is animated for my own amusement. If true, how is the actual reality like? ((Yes i am aware of what this means))
3. Or is it possible that everything is a reality simulation ( the hadron collider comes to mind).
As an example, if i would have someone write a concept that only he knows, and that he thinks is true, in this book without me seeing it; would that concept emerge into humanity's common conscience or would it be lost forever until someone would read this book?
Problem is, however, that it cannot be tested, because the concept would emerge, through the simple fact that the person who wrote it acknowledges it and lives through it; pieces of the notion would slip into the conscious being simply by him living it, and you cannot know if another person thought them or if they were induced into existence by the initial thinker.
Regardless, what about the other notions i have found out after birth?((I think i might have phrased it poorly, it might mean, the notions that i did not think, and were taught after birth, but were true regardless of my birth)) Either they are issues of perception, or i willed them into being without knowing...
Still, if all concepts can be regarded as energy and are lost within the universe, written on a "book", would it be possible to find out about theories and concepts of lost civilizations? ( as an imagination exercise, opening a portal to all knowledge/consciousness) . And it would be possible, if everything is part of a god, or if i am myself a fragmented god.
2#
Date - unknown -
(This is a translation)
We have an ant and a human, what separates us? What puts us above them?
The common answer would be "intelligence" "consciousness" and the last one is a product of the first anyway; simplifying, what's left is - intelligence -
Intelligence is relative, it can be quantified only through our point of view. We can't, at this moment, use an universally true constant for intelligence. So in principle, we give meaning to it ourselves, we can't judge objectively without taking into consideration the opinion of every being in the universe.
Regarding our existence in retrospect we could simplify the variables knowing that we all started from the same common point, existing as that point, familiarly known as the big bang but that could be anything else of the same nature, an enormous mass of energy.
- Intelligence is a product of man-
So theoretically having energy as a common denominator, in any situation where "x" has the highest energy value, he/it will be the most powerful being.
Physically speaking, us as a species, will never be able to create "something" with a higher energy than the sum of our energies combined - On the same principle of "every action has an equal and opposite reaction" / or you can't create something out of nothing.
In order to advance as a civilization we have to absorb more energy ourselves; To transform resources into energy.
Our main energy sources is Earth. The moment we have absorbed all it's energy, or better said, we have absorbed it, we would have advanced as a civilization.
^ I think this is where the classification of civilizations comes from.( I, II, III, IV)
However, considering everything, it would mean that us, ourselves, are limited to an evolutionary point, unless we multiply ourselves. Birth is a means of transforming energy. (( I have been trying to make sense of this, and i think, i regarded each individual as a finite energy container, each individual can store so much energy before it is "full"))
Mankind is an energy-transforming machinery .
Peaking in the future, we have a single destination and that would be: self-destruction. The moment we would have consumed all the energy in the universe we would have to implode AKA the big crunch? - - continuing, theoretically, we are heading towards self-destruction, harnessing all the energy into a singular point.
Another alternative would be: that we would transcend, as beings, into gods, living into an eternal state of self-sufficiency of the consumed energy. (which in retrospect, is the same thing )
This is a note to self in an attempt to continue this thought, which i never have.
- Homework -> sustain -> gods - > "reason" -> Big Bang, creation of new universes, a perpetuum transformation of energy; a perpetuum mobile
(This is a translation)
We have an ant and a human, what separates us? What puts us above them?
The common answer would be "intelligence" "consciousness" and the last one is a product of the first anyway; simplifying, what's left is - intelligence -
Intelligence is relative, it can be quantified only through our point of view. We can't, at this moment, use an universally true constant for intelligence. So in principle, we give meaning to it ourselves, we can't judge objectively without taking into consideration the opinion of every being in the universe.
Regarding our existence in retrospect we could simplify the variables knowing that we all started from the same common point, existing as that point, familiarly known as the big bang but that could be anything else of the same nature, an enormous mass of energy.
- Intelligence is a product of man-
So theoretically having energy as a common denominator, in any situation where "x" has the highest energy value, he/it will be the most powerful being.
Physically speaking, us as a species, will never be able to create "something" with a higher energy than the sum of our energies combined - On the same principle of "every action has an equal and opposite reaction" / or you can't create something out of nothing.
In order to advance as a civilization we have to absorb more energy ourselves; To transform resources into energy.
Our main energy sources is Earth. The moment we have absorbed all it's energy, or better said, we have absorbed it, we would have advanced as a civilization.
^ I think this is where the classification of civilizations comes from.( I, II, III, IV)
However, considering everything, it would mean that us, ourselves, are limited to an evolutionary point, unless we multiply ourselves. Birth is a means of transforming energy. (( I have been trying to make sense of this, and i think, i regarded each individual as a finite energy container, each individual can store so much energy before it is "full"))
Mankind is an energy-transforming machinery .
Peaking in the future, we have a single destination and that would be: self-destruction. The moment we would have consumed all the energy in the universe we would have to implode AKA the big crunch? - - continuing, theoretically, we are heading towards self-destruction, harnessing all the energy into a singular point.
Another alternative would be: that we would transcend, as beings, into gods, living into an eternal state of self-sufficiency of the consumed energy. (which in retrospect, is the same thing )
This is a note to self in an attempt to continue this thought, which i never have.
- Homework -> sustain -> gods - > "reason" -> Big Bang, creation of new universes, a perpetuum transformation of energy; a perpetuum mobile
The beginning of a diary - Men and Women differences
17-04-2011
- I'm gonna divide this into 3 or 4 separate ideas that converge into my actual question.
I'm gonna start with a reference to a user's question i have answered.
She/he asked if a man and a woman can ever be just friends; My strong belief is that this could never be true. I'm a guy and i'm absolutely sure that not just me but all of us have some sort of expectation out of a relationship, whether it's flirting or an amorous interest. I believe that those who do not agree are either fooling themselves or never thought about it with a more serious/objective approach.
2nd and this is a bit short, as it is a personal conviction, and that is that men have the same thoughts / general convictions but they express them differently and by this i mean that there is no "you can't understand women" and i bet most that have some real experience would agree with me. ( i remember i somehow meant we are all molded through the same matrix )
So the resolution of these two ideas would be that women aswell can't stay in a "just friends" relationship with a man. Or can they? and by this i mean can they initiate a friendship with the "just friends in mind"?
I guess this would be one of my question.
On the first idea i feel that generally only one of the two in "the just friends" relationship is sexually attracted to the other, and the second in the party is just wasting time, forcing repressed thoughts or frustration, using the first as a testing material, generally using him/her just as a "shoulder to lean on", but not in the general way of it, but a more material way, with or without realizing it.
So at this point i sound a bit like i'm contradicting myself. The feeling is not shared between the two, only one of them. (No idea what i meant here)
That was the third, and the fourth is shorter but one of my strong convictions and rule to live by,being, that behind every action there is a reason; Nothing comes for free, supporting my idea that we all act for our own well being; there is no such thing as a good deed for free; if u do a good thing, like say helping the poor, you do it just to feel better about yourself or to get attention/ recognition from others, which at their turn offer you that in the hope of getting something out of you. This is basically what i understand by ying and yang.
Now on to my actual question, which will seem rather stupid after all the talk but it really got me thinking..
So i saw this video-clip on MTV ( the times ) can't remember the name of the artist/song but i somehow got the idea (probably wrong) that a guy was getting stalked by a woman, her saying all these sweet things (which would seem rather strange by normal standards) about him and he was sort of compassionate about her. And putting myself in his position i realized that i would probably be compassionate aswell, but i doubted a woman would put herself through the trouble .
For me this would mean that men actually care more about "love trading" if you will, rather than women.
So are we more sentimental than women? By my second conviction that wouldn't be true. still, if so, what do women use to compensate for love? Are they really different in perception than us?
Say you have a man and a woman of the same intelligence, having the same knowledge bag, which of them is more likely to be compassionate about a stalker?
Reading through my post i just got an answer that might solve my problem and I think it's the correct one but it would be a shame to not bounce this off with you guys if you feel like it.
-
-
-
This resolved itself in a bland and "obvious" way, being that women are less powerful (physically|) compared to a man, and that would cloud the judgement of this question.
- I'm gonna divide this into 3 or 4 separate ideas that converge into my actual question.
I'm gonna start with a reference to a user's question i have answered.
She/he asked if a man and a woman can ever be just friends; My strong belief is that this could never be true. I'm a guy and i'm absolutely sure that not just me but all of us have some sort of expectation out of a relationship, whether it's flirting or an amorous interest. I believe that those who do not agree are either fooling themselves or never thought about it with a more serious/objective approach.
2nd and this is a bit short, as it is a personal conviction, and that is that men have the same thoughts / general convictions but they express them differently and by this i mean that there is no "you can't understand women" and i bet most that have some real experience would agree with me. ( i remember i somehow meant we are all molded through the same matrix )
So the resolution of these two ideas would be that women aswell can't stay in a "just friends" relationship with a man. Or can they? and by this i mean can they initiate a friendship with the "just friends in mind"?
I guess this would be one of my question.
On the first idea i feel that generally only one of the two in "the just friends" relationship is sexually attracted to the other, and the second in the party is just wasting time, forcing repressed thoughts or frustration, using the first as a testing material, generally using him/her just as a "shoulder to lean on", but not in the general way of it, but a more material way, with or without realizing it.
So at this point i sound a bit like i'm contradicting myself. The feeling is not shared between the two, only one of them. (No idea what i meant here)
That was the third, and the fourth is shorter but one of my strong convictions and rule to live by,being, that behind every action there is a reason; Nothing comes for free, supporting my idea that we all act for our own well being; there is no such thing as a good deed for free; if u do a good thing, like say helping the poor, you do it just to feel better about yourself or to get attention/ recognition from others, which at their turn offer you that in the hope of getting something out of you. This is basically what i understand by ying and yang.
Now on to my actual question, which will seem rather stupid after all the talk but it really got me thinking..
So i saw this video-clip on MTV ( the times ) can't remember the name of the artist/song but i somehow got the idea (probably wrong) that a guy was getting stalked by a woman, her saying all these sweet things (which would seem rather strange by normal standards) about him and he was sort of compassionate about her. And putting myself in his position i realized that i would probably be compassionate aswell, but i doubted a woman would put herself through the trouble .
For me this would mean that men actually care more about "love trading" if you will, rather than women.
So are we more sentimental than women? By my second conviction that wouldn't be true. still, if so, what do women use to compensate for love? Are they really different in perception than us?
Say you have a man and a woman of the same intelligence, having the same knowledge bag, which of them is more likely to be compassionate about a stalker?
Reading through my post i just got an answer that might solve my problem and I think it's the correct one but it would be a shame to not bounce this off with you guys if you feel like it.
-
-
-
This resolved itself in a bland and "obvious" way, being that women are less powerful (physically|) compared to a man, and that would cloud the judgement of this question.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)