Quick Comment

 

I just realized something.  I have almost no secrets left, except for my stocks trading strategy and things from my career as a defense contractor.  Did the government people who showed up at the grocery expect to irritate me enough that I would leak something??  I am not going to leak anything.  Do you understand how angry I was before, when I was psychotic?  This is nothing compared to the psychosis.  Nothing can make me angry enough to leak.  It's not that I like the DOD, I just don't want to.  No initiative or activity that anyone can plan against me has the slightest chance of getting me to "make a mistake."  I guess what I'm wondering is, what business do the creeps at the grocery store think they have with me?  I understand what they're doing.  They're trying to blend in to my expectations and get me angry...furious...madder than I ever had been before...and then, they visualize, I will leak, and their "black op" will have brought me down.


I'm not doing it!  It's not on my to do list, and I'm a game theory person.   I've been to anger management therapy, I never get "very angry" at all any more, and any mild anger I feel is short-lived.  Do you not believe me that I followed Dr. Radin's advice about "being a Spartan," in regards to the story about the Spartan soldier and the fox?  I have a Spartan's enthusiasm for the "military service" in the USA, which is basically getting a job and making money in the economy, too.


Again, what business do the people at the store have with me?  They expect me to figure it out, be a little secretive for a little while, and then finally snap and say something I shouldn't say.  Noobs!

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