H-E-B Codes

 

I think it's July 13, 2026.  Thank you!


I saw a woman who signaled 7-13- first.  Then, I saw a different woman who signaled, "GM -OC".  She seemed to be disputing the first woman, saying that she was OC.


On the way out, I saw a guy who looked a little bit like John Steg, but not too much like him.  That made me realize, he's saying, (at DC time) that the people are EXTREMELY MOTIVATED to gaslight me.  I think it's supposed to be a "costly subtle signal" about how important it is to them to get me arrested and out of the way.


I think the comment is, and I think I'm taking the bait here, I think that some of these guys do not understand at all how probable cause works.  My evil father does, but most of these people don't.  The key is, probable cause is. generally very low bar to meet for law enforcement.  If the thing you're doing is not "very obvious and destructive/evil," that doesn't mean you can't be put under surveillance.  The law enforcement people, and the lawyers who back them, are looking for "clues," and even more than that, for SUSPICIOUS BEHAVIOR.  If you are doing something that suggests that it's probable that you're doing something illegal, that can get your surveilled, even if your underlying "surface" behavior is innocent and minor.  You might daydream about the case getting thrown out of court by an angry judge, but the key is, what will the people find AFTER they have started watching you?  Your email might be secure, but I believe the government has ways of getting into it once they get a surveillance warrant or whatever it's called.


My belief right now is, it's 7-13.  That's consistent with "horse", because horses could mean horse successor.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Math Update: My P != NP Proof Might Be Correct!!!!! -- (update, no it's not, see the note at the beginning and the updates near the bottom)

EDIT:  No, this proof is not correct.  See the updates at the bottom for details on why (based on Dr. Zelinsky's comment).  Fortunately, my GLL proof and MSR proofs still appear to be correct. It could be that Joshua Zelinsky's comment actually helps me to complete the proof. The GLL proof appears to be correct, AFAIK. The thing is, the fact that we can prove "PA is consistent --> P != NP" within PA and the fact that we can prove "PA is consistent" as a theorem of ZFC just shows that P != NP is a theorem of PA.  That isn't a contradiction, it's just another step in the proof. I think the striking idea is, P != NP is a theorem of PA, but not of ZFC.  That is what I worked to prove.  AFAIK it is possible for a proposition to be a theorem of PA but not of ZFC.  In particular, PA can be proved consistent from ZFC, so we would think it s possible and even likely that there are some non-theorems of ZFC that are theorems of PA. So this is great!  It l...
Read more

Hello, Texas - A Quick Monopoly Lesson

  So today, I thought I saw some people running around blurting code gestures at me.  One of the codes seemed to say, "Riot for a[buse] v[ictim] time -M".  Oh, M?  M as in Monolith, or M as in Monopoly fan who doesn't get it? Here, Houstonian code-talkers...let me teach you how to play Monopoly, since you are so hungry for free knowledge:  - Make deals with other players that benefit you.  - Offer deals to difficult players that are somewhat beneficial to them, knowing that they might reject.  - Watch which deals other players reject, and identify what *deal types* they are not likely to accept from you or anyone else.  - Be very very careful about your own deals--and behavior--lest you get figured out by your opponents and backed into a corner, with good, beneficial deals being made without you by cunning adversaries who know your every move. There's a poker lesson in there, too, but I don't want to get too educational right now.
Read more

Flash Non-Fiction: James Bond and Masculinity

  This was going to be a longer essay, but I decided to just blurt out my point rather than trying to write well. Basically, I think James Bond movies are good, and the songs are high-quality too, but it sends semi-dangerous messages to men in particular about what it means to be a man.  The Bond character is intransigent, aggressive, violent, and absolutely sure of himself in all cases.  He is portrayed as a big winner--able to date and have sex with beautiful women, almost impossible to kill, and lethal and elite at both armed and unarmed combat. I'm concerned that some men, including my estranged father ASW, have had their sense of morality warped by Bond movies.  They think that this dramatically presented way to be masculine is the only way.  I think that's unhealthy, and when people get the not-so-original idea to "try to be more Bond-like" in their personal lives, that leads to catastrophic conflicts with and major potential for deep pain for people that ...
Read more