Slowing Down On Research Publications

 

I had some more ideas about economics, but they weren't that great.  I am trying to be careful not to decrease my stature as an aspiring economics researcher by sharing things about ideas that I like but that are low-quality.  Since the GLL proof was *not* trivial, I *might* be able to get credit for it and proceed with my studies in a way where I could go back to school.


All of this depends on me getting help from the government for the crimes that have been committed against me.  Intuitively, it seems unlikely that the brazen, "nude" evil deeds of the court in Virginia would go un-punished by law enforcement.  I think there is a certain line that even the most nefarious of most bad prosecutors would not cross, and that line has been crossed repeatedly in court in Virginia.  The puzzling thing is, what takes so long?  The answer is I don't know...maybe massive amounts of foreign involvement?  I can't say.


Anyway, I am believing that it's going to be a good day on or before July 31, 2026.  If that turns out not to be true, then I guess I'll slink away and use my disability money (if I ever get it) to try to get out of legal trouble.  The brazen fabrications and use of AI technologies to falsify evidence is astonishing.  Also, the number of people who seem to be willing to show up to "bully" and/or gaslight/mislead/harass me is also staggering.  I don't know if that group of people will get away with it or not, but it would seem "extremely outrageous" for Judge Lee and my attorney Fred Kaufman to be able to get away with what they have been doing.  They are not subtle at all.  I reported them to the FBI many months ago, and I'm still waiting for a result from that.


I hope that readers of this blog will wish me luck in my life!

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