Prudence or preparation for warMethods for a deputy or a militant to devise and justify defense expenditures
How to find out what is an optimal defense budget :? Alles ist psychologisch Defense is the art of action (immune system training) and reaction (defense). 1) Peeling off the threats -reaction part policy All states have ministries of defense not offense. Words from abroad, whether threatening or reassuring, are something no one in the field should take too much notice of. We have actions at our perception. Just actions can be taken into account. In other words we think we know what missile tests, dispatches or satellite photos mean, but in what they show we see us, we don't know the other side intentions. We show and mirror the presumptions. Here there is an endless room for interpretation of the threats, from downgrading to paranoid war mongering. Optimal defense cannot be a direct or emotional response to threats. We don't know the past [what are direct causes]. nor future nor how to respond appropriately....[ experiments, signaling status games, showing off?]. We pretend to know what some international mischief really meant. All defense ministries have a weakness for ¨unintended¨ provocations and detest the sincere and modest relativism of 'I do not know'. If the level of investment in defense is a response to threats, the idiotic ideal of being prepared for everything is being born., It would be good to describe them from the 'all I know is there is the inner negativity bias [evolution biology pessimism]' point of view and then estimate, by history, survey or expert group, what % of recommended spending is recommended (inflated) in terms of the ideal of being prepared for everything. I.e. also how many % are overstated as a bidding bait/ sacrifice when competing for a budget, how much is inflated in terms of looking forward to tinkering tenders, army tunnels and profits, and how many % are inflated due to exaggeration and cooking of threats as a logical consequence of the homeostasis of organizations for threats, recognition or fight. These 4 tendencies bloat defense spending. This 'reactionary' bloat [the media justifications by threats are likely to be used and so showed] can be estimated and truncated. 2-Ask the grass, foundation of the state Another method of defining defense investments is to make them such {especially their content, not just budget money} that each of the citizens feels as comfortable as possible. Say if there is an 10000 USD offer per head to be spent let my head decide what to do, where to allocate or perhaps how to upgrade my own feeling and integrity via practice with rifles and pals and perhaps save some for the next year ...as in Switzerland. AI-driven surveys or referendum would help here. 3-Ghosts of the past ... Recognizing a trauma driven budgeting There are inherited griefs and grudges and these claims to fate or others are shared not only via the culture but also by mysterious ways ( epigenetic transfers) across the generations. It's a pity that there seems to be noone studying the macro of this epigenetics. (Micro is studied my psychiatrists, family-constellations therapists and such) UN does not have a body to estimate average sense of national entitlement as a debt against another nation or the fate. But these exist and fidget with military budgeting. Under unresolved grievances, it is easy to weaponize as the hope of repayment confers status. TI-esque studying, tagging and rating should bring about broader recognition and perhaps applications such as cross-country settlements that, according to science of these injustices, could cleare away mutual claims and restore, reconciled the macro mind gestalt . 4-If we are the prey then.. policy Do the Russians, the Germans, the US, the Slanted-eyed or whosever devils want to take all from us? Do they aim and arm diligently and is it really all they want? If so, the defense is the utmost priority. How much an aggressive foreigner spends depends on the plunder potential. Traditional intra species genocide, where one tribe kills everyone to have a place to breed, felt the most logical as there were shared proper-pillage profits. This used to be an accepted game until the oil regions and media. Now it is more like an industry using states {nationalism, lobbying] for its own resource driven pillage/profit. One should see motivations such as hostility [NATO as a bully] or envy behind those preparing to attack. On the side of peace, one must see the spotlight effect where everyone thinks a] they are the best and so have more b] the others envy it {the wall and fence culture} and c] the others are same judging them by our eyes, {we don't like you and so we don't understand that you don´t care about us}. This is possible in an area where the neighboring area is overrun with militant people. I don't think there are many more left of those. Here indeed it will not be fought with missiles (sorry no tenders bros) but with bespoke bio weapons like viruses. CZ CZ Kterak zjistit jaký obranný budget je optimální_::? CZ CZ Obrana je uměním akcí [imunitní systém] a reakcí na útok. 1) Reagujeme na hrozby Všechny státy mají ministerstva obrany nikoli útoku. Slova z ciziny, ať výhružná či uklidňující, jsou něco, na co by nikdo v oboru neměl brát přílišný ohled. Máme k dispozici činy. Tehdy lze brát ohled na činy aneb myslíme si, že víme co ukazují raketové zkoušky, depeše či satelity. Co ukazují vidíme, ale nevíme. Zde vzniká nekonečný prostor pro výklady hrozeb od snižování po paranoidní war mongering. Optimální obrana nemůže být přímou reakci na hrozby. Nevíme, co to je. Přímo neznámé příčiny, budoucnost ani jak vhodně reagovat (experimenty?) či co opravdu nějaká mezinárodní nekalost {lze očekávat, že všechna ministerstva obran mají slabost pro ¨nechtěné¨ provokace} znamenala. Prvním nepřímým krokem je mnoho spíše pesimistických [evoluce preferuje pesimismus] výkladů dle snahy o ideál přípravy na vše. Pokud by byla míra investice do obrany reakci na hrozby, je dobře je popsat a pak odhadnout dle historie, anketou či expertní skupinou, kolik % doporučovaných výdajů je doporučováno (nadsazeno) z hlediska ideálu přípravy na vše, kolik % při konkurenci výdajů z rozpočtu je nadsazeno jako licitační oběť, kolik % z hlediska těšení se na cinknuté tendry army trafiky a profity a kolik % z hlediska přifouknutí a pečení umělých hrozeb jako logického důsledku homeostázy organizací na rozeznání či potlačování hrozeb. Tyto 4 tendence nadýmají výdaje na obrany. Toto reakční nadýmání je možno odhadnout a odseknout. 2-Záloha základ státu Další metodou definice investic na obranu je učinit ji takovou, aby se každý našinec cítil co nejlépe. Základem bezpečnostních tanečků je zvýšení statusu organizátorů i participantů. Nic nezvedne hormon (pocit) jako si jednou ročně s kolektivem zatančit. Dejme lidu možnost si odhlasovat domobrany s pravidelným provětráním fald, pušek či houfnic. ( Schweiz). 3-nevyřízené účty Lidé s nevyřízenými účty tyto musí (nelze žít) řešit (Gestalt terapie)nebo musí změnit hodnoty . Obdobně tak neřešené křivdy z dob do 2 generace bývají stále čerstvé. Je možno mstít se za babičku, když rodiče nic nepodnikli? Asi ano. Za prababičku snad už ne, to by byla vyčůranost na ospravedlnění krádeže. (Hle vykopávka střepů prapředka = patří mi pozemek.) Škoda, že OSN nemá orgán na vzájemné zápočty dle odhadů těchto křivd, tak aby se zjistilo, která národnost, kmen čistě nejvíce nárokuje. Výsledky by závisely na indexu subjektivní síly času. Čas dluhy vždy smaže. Pokud by se chytrou propagací či virem síla indexu času zvýšila, křivdy by mizely a útočný (zbrojní závody) rozpočet by mohl být změněn na obranný až udržovací . Zde je variabilita největší: nemá li stát, národ či kmen vyřízené účty, což každý přirozeně chápe jako sumu nevyřízených rodinných křivd, je snadné zbrojit a čekat zisky, protože naděje na splátky dodává status. 4-Jsme kořist Kolik cizák vynaloží energie, záleží nejen na averzi či sdílené paranoie (9-11 attack on us US), kdy jde o to nepřítele vyhladit, ale také na lupu, aneb co si na nás Rus, Němec, Ušák, Šikmohled či kdo může či chce vzít. Tradiční invaze bývaly v končinách s ropou. Věda říká, chce li ministerstvo čehokoliv dožít konce století, nechá miliardu let biologických usazenin usazenu. Na straně přípravy na útok jsou tedy hodnoty statusu= motivace dominance, nepřátelství [NATO as a bully] či závisti a zisku = kořisti. V období míru je nutno ctít zkreslení spotlight effectem. Každý si myslí, že to co má, má větší než tržní hodnotu. Toto se na úrovni státu projeví jako zhmotnění vlasti zbožněním hodnot, tradic, kulturních i přírodních památek. To co nemá obsah je najednou chráněno zákony a je předpokládáno, že nám cizé národy tuto vlast závidí {kultura zdi a plotu}. Podle sebe soudíme tebe, a když vás nemáme rádi, tak nechápeme, že jsme vám shumafuk. Nejlogičtější se jeví tradiční mezidruhová genocídka, kdy jeden druh ostatní pobije, aby se měl, kde množit. To je možno v oblasti, kde je sousední oblast přemnožena militantním lidem. Takové kmenová napětí byla příčinou vzniku mnoha států, ale mezi sousedními již skoro nejsou,. Kurdové či Palestinci stát nemají, a tak je jejich vlastní státy jako nádor stíhají. Jde o území? Nevim Zde vskutku nebude bojováno raketami (sorry no tenders bros), ale spíše cílenými biozbraněmi.
0 Comments
I do not believe the communist ideal that people in a non-local society [say over 3000 members] would add to the common good as well/much as they could given their options.
No dear comrades, only in a local transparent society, the ideal of giving freely what I could is possible. Only there I can trust the reciprocation when all my needs are being met. Reciprocation is not working where there is a mist (may cover freeloaders) and-or mistrust i.e. with secrecy or when dealing with strangers. The rules of non-local deals are thus written in [town to state] laws since people would at large try to play the strangers (system), as you comrades did when you preached this ideal yet drank your privileges. Very few, probably nice, pure and perceptionally manipulated, believed {or still believe} this ideal since actions speak louder than proclamations. Comrades who climbed the opportunities ladder did not believe this ideal. They spoke lie using the party ladders and niches to become directors... claiming the companies successes, pretending to know the future when planning. The employees played this system their way. Their motivation was way under ´giving as much as one could´ and the saying among the bestest party outsiders went: 'they who do not steal steal from their family'. Zappa nodded and said 'people like to own stuff'. Our socialist past was a special case of unfair -ism when the privileges of the party members were implicitly and sincerely given= stated in the laws. Samewise the wealth equality was fairly praised and controlled as the old bourgeousts were punished just because they were richer. Today the fairest system is in Scandinavia because it is the most transparent one. Not as many players, few hidden motivations. Of course it has its problems and ways to deal with them. Niches in nature or society tend to be monopolised by one species, one solution. The bestest way. If the way is a new organisation, the problem's niche of abuse is created. In the case of monopolised solution, the transparency is a must, since every organisation created to cope with something has an existential interest in keeping that thing. With secrecy there is a free reign for the natural tendency of hidden adding to the problem despite the coping declarations. Firemen starting fires is old as state. The definitions of what needs to be classified must so be regularly contested. Any option for an experiment should be given a green light. Say, in one region some data is a secret yet in a similar another it is not. A good candidate for a secret act may be preventing the attacks on transparency. Like in this city we will secretly curb gdpr and other threats to its minimum and in other region openly. Competition/experiment here is to openly say: just in our region we keep the public transparency in (say) everyone´s income statements... Later one would be able to assess which worked better, which region´s society is healthier in individual happiness and lower corruption. Assessment is not by experts but surveys. A short time should be put on the publication of the old secrets so that the experiment conditions and results can be publicly viewed and expertly studied. In an organisation to cope with problems (at niches of abuse), there is a pressure to keep the gravy trail of non transparency or a monopoly. This will/force would try to suggest there is a trade of between transparency and competition in this, the most important of problems. The importance of a problem is subjective. One of yardsticks is in how much pressure (lobbying, corruption, keeping ´natural´ monopoly narration, holding on the old paradigm) is there to keep this problem being dealt by a monopoly or at least secretly. The secrecy of power (only 2 strong parties duopoly), of NATO top meetings with no minutes, of tenders condition manipulation suitable for chosen competitors. Is there a natural monopoly? Army? In a changing environment of many facets it is more likely than not that there are viable alternative, creative ways to make profit in the previous natural monopoly realms. The monopoly so dissolves. For example. The foreign security aka wars and invasions started to being dealt by alternative contractors, flexible forces with a more direct gravy trailing to the organisers than from the usual secret army tenders. “The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it's profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theater.” ― Frank Zappa Well, the minimum wage makes no sense in a 'normal' unspoiled societies with no subsidies or state sponsored pensions. This norm is now rare since there are traditions driven by a will to redistribute. It started with the pensions for loyal police or soldiers...now for anybody, rich or poor, there is always a trickle down for the redistribution organisers. [More organising means more posts to give to people who decide upon others. The ego flows in when you find your love to profile, test, label and give subsidies to others.] The wordings of forms to fill when asking a state for anything ...like entering.. are evidence of spoiled society.
If there are state benefits [housing and such], the firms would take a notice and, especially in cultures of high self reliance, can pay the low-skilled unorganised workers peanuts. The tested benefits do not let people fly. Clients are afraid to leave the scraping class. The scraping ones spend {and live and work} badly. A generous minimum wage law automatically uncurses workers and so improves the society. The lower middle [and poorer] workers should be given rather max viable wages since it helps their position as a customer [as well as an able worker/employee] and so rather helps their industry. With a generous minimum wage, the ego falls away and time flows letting one to live, as if in the zone. An interesting minimum wage effect went on in Seattle where it helped the local demand after goods and services. The low skilled industries were rather helped. More waiting jobs got open. A waiter with 50% extra USDs per hour does not save but spend it in their pub :) You know those lucky ex poor lottery winners- they jump to riches and spend as if there was no future [which is, with no saving for future, not] Later, with some nasty addicting habits, they go back to rags. This may be pretty a general rule. If so [a sudden {contrast} winner=spender effect] the workers would later get used to the surplus income, save more. Spending less, they will loose their zone-blessings. This would add troubles to the industry and raise the barriers to input the trade. Benefits curse life. Wage rise blesses, but especially in the fresh memory one. The social experiments are valuable. Who would say that smokers in pub-sitting nations of Ireland [1st ban in EU] or Czechia [last ban in EU] would recognise their preshaming of the smoking ban as silly, mostly approving of it now. [Czechia's pre-ban discussion would somehow dismiss other EU states' experience from after this 'restriction of personal freedoms'.]
Portugal showed that the cutting of supply of drugs which cuts the indignation and despair promotion [media fuel] was important. Sudhir Venkatesh studied gangs who live on drugs supply and found the culture with few hope. Even the bosses are not on average surviving 30. Yet somehow this shared despair finds its sustained culture. Pain culture. Is the war on drugs working? No, it just helps the gangs and the cops' bosses. The solution that dissolves gangs [helping their members yet primarily their customers] is to give drugs to the sick=needy like in Portugal. 2 decades ago scientists were ask to help Lisboa. Science said supply was important. If nobody wants the overpriced illegal drug, there is no gang, the supply of criminals withers away. For half the money saved on repression, the sick are treated and returned to society that so learns not to stigmatise. Success. I applaud Portugal. Likewise with the Scandinavian inmates, it is cheaper to help them than let the pain culture spoil them. Society then learns to let and not stigmatise them since after release they are improved, the know a trade and dignity. Something that most of EU prisons [nor elsewhere] never supply. I applaud pragmatic social penal practices. Likewise with migration. Pain supply matters. Criminals offer know-how creating a media bubble of hope abroad. By promoting local hopelessness, they encourage migration. Now an experiment is underway where Bagdad -Minsk corridore is open side stepping the smuggling mafia. Indignation rousing media (another pain niche) found out it is the Minsk dictator's reply to the sanctions. Bravo and thanks for the experiment. If it lasts, it will collapse the criminal supply of hope [false luck examples] abroad bubble. Emigration is about unknown, hope and future i.e. process of hearsay. Migration without this supply nudge might then stop on its own, especially if EU promotes pockets of hope [fake it to make it lies?} of luck examples in tradespeople of Iraq.. Scientists will find that for half the cost of repression and subsidies, Iraq can be helped to sustain its local hope, its future. I applaud Belarus, we need experiments. Does Sudhir break internet? 'I was thinking of translating ted.captionhub.com/projects/d96777af2d talk by Clover Hogan . (Is she Paul's relative?:)
So she says all the leaders took on the responsibility and became leaders. Hm I think she speaks about leaders from 1000 yrs ago. So Clover Hogan asks what story is in the way of our taking on the responsibility. Find it and challenge. Reimagine your hobby and put its new iteration into service of promotion against climate change. If you are overwhelmed with the interconnectedness of the crises, visualise, what it would look like if you focus on a single problem [from all the fucked up environmental complex]. Imagine healing lobotomy to be able to focus on just one tiny facet disregarding the heavy global. You will became a soldier technologist same as the ones who caused this shite, but on the good side. Now trying something else. Hmmm I ponder the borders and states and ownership.. all this is connected to ambition-competition circle which is powered by comparison. Ambition under competition is focused. Not sensitive not kind. It begets jealousy and walls. The blind focus is in the core of the process of modern power, it is a norm of our technological civilisation, fertilised by gods' blessings to be fruitful, spread and populate all the corners. There is almost no state that is not build on this ambition. A habit-pattern that all men breathe like fish breathe water. It leads to exploitation (smearing environment with externalities and little regard). China buys mines and woods pretending local can survive. Bitcoin rises and the ambitious revere and follow. I reckon that the majority of modern leaders took up the challenge of having silver spoon. Tough stuff. Nepotism is a norm, it is a tradition, an instinct of liking fluffy puppy, not a lizard. In most of societies there is no shame nor guilt connected to nepotism: only if gone wrong like when the nephew refuses the post or embezzles too much... Today's society is in its global form too sick [GDP growth religion], too sinful, too consuming, addicted to signaling in media. Veneration of grabbing, competition and the now. TED = Plague trying to uproot itself just to postpone the doom and exploit the future even more thoroughly. The leaders we have are the mirror of the addicted majority [in democracy or not] - locust. 'Eat Now more TV now. More locust now. Locust are holy esp in market support mode. Can there be an ambition for a] fighting the populating or b] having the clairvoyant sensitivity open? Who would like to fight population must hurry up before the droughts and viruses take all the credit. Who would struggle to reach the 3rd eye may not probably go far either. Despair or denial? I ll flip a coin. The coin says escape, ship away to other worlds... denial then... perhaps. One famous costs-pumping Czech-Slovak lawyer Juraj Podkonický used to monopolise the executions of people who did not pay fines for the free rides in Czech municipal vehicles. Many, like one my US friend, who found the lack of upfront ticket payment a trap, free-rode more than once. This is why clever Juraj built his niche. Since the court system, after 5 or more years, instead of googling, was delivering letters to old addresses, many did not know that they were being sued. Juraj’s sin is in claiming his ‘expertise’ in the most efficient way = legal costs per free ride (fine), not per ‘free rider vs transport company’ case. Moneys, off course, disappeared from the accounts at once; municipal transportation companies got their rightful fines, cca 15% of the execution, and Juraj the rest. When he was sued back, he acted surprised since the court letter was delivered to his company, not to his private address. For making the business out of triumpfing over the free riders, he should boil in hell. In Germany [as I know, uniquely in the EU], the lawyers bully people who download from the Net. It is unjust since the total majority of the chased-after are unsuspected, local [the enablers are technology and/or global] and imho oversqueezed by the fines that reflect the German salaries. The loss to the copyright holders is hard to state yet the personal and family tragedies that follow are real. Most of them, chased-after sinners, did not know about the copyright {I would not steal a car but I would download one} and/or did not do the guilty act. Others: family, visitors, hackers, did. The ones who make sharing of the copyrighted art their long term business would not be caught in Germany or elsewhere since they use cloaks. When, 8 years ago, the suing started, one would (had to) go to cinema or buy the CDs in stores and then share them. Internet is only very recently the art's primary source. The copyright holders know this and already made their main profits in cinemas, stores, Netflix and such. [There was/is a ransom part to make up for the creative losses in the price of blank CDs too] Without sharing they would have made more profit, but not really without its German part. A note <<the copyright, like slavery, was not always an accepted norm. It is accepted more or less in the last 2 centuries and in only some [cca half of population] cultures. Only recently it is traded like rights to collect debts. Before that the most profits a great art generated went to the performers and dealers, not the creators.>> There are several legal firm leeching off this environment-circumstance, squeezing anyone [mostly random and unsystematic wifi subscribers] from whose IP the infringement was detected. If the wifi holder [a client of an internet provider] does not react, the moneys are ordered to be deducted from their accounts. Other German legal symbiotic companies offer help to deflect the attacks. What a game of waste. Many Germans are rich and rather pay than face the stress of bullies and courts. Poor Germans [where a thousand euros is never saved] try deflections which means they are being slowly killed by stress [the stress glucocorticoids slashing short memory=learning]. To sue the silly wifi holders of internet copyright infringements is bad karma. One friend was so attacked in 2019 by trainees or minions of Munich lawyer firm Waldorf and Frommer. 3 films [2 Paddingtons and Ready Player One] were detected being downloaded by a torrent at his Vodafone IP wifi within 3 days between 1st and 3rd of Jan 2019. All of those films were already released on Netflix, so their video quality was probably good. This also means that the losses claimed are rather illusionary. Anyhow, the losses were calculated in hundreds, and the total what they want him to pay was cca 3000 Eur. Copy and paste accusations plus the post stamps and profit. This 3 days mishap was split between 2 cases making it 2 letters and more legal gravy/fines. The detection proof presented was funny as the net robot sniffed altogether just 5 minutes of those guilty torrent files being dealt. I think, even with the maximum internet speed, this would not suffice to download or share the whole 3 films properly. The sinners in Germany are being punished on behalf of all international sinners. Sin is supposedly because of struggling artists but in reality this is a war where there is no cash for 99% of artists. It is powered by the US copyright owners, they create the society of this sin. Had the sharing been a local German treat, given the legal gravy/fines situation there would not have been enough local sources to download anything from.. The poor friend did not even have a laptop then; if it had been his family there would have likely been more crime time detected after 3rd of January as the letters come weeks after the crime. The visitors from Czechia, I was one of them, were the culprits.. 3000 fucking euros?@!, it is like a quarter of an apartment in Bilina... Life sucks as deadly traps are everywhere unangemessend, innit... From the macro-anthropocentric point of view, there is the common good of a legal society (lawyers, perpetrators and victims) and the future common good (the common good+ good of 3 more generations). The lawyers deal not only objectively in rules and their obediences but also subjectively in kindness [local] and a (global) evil prevention as is evidenced in most of the constitutions and juries. Automation may help the former yet rather blur the latter. IT makes highly paid data entry professionals and so is rather on an evil side since it slightly blocks caring and/or compassion. The research suggests that this harms the industry, resulting in burnouts and fluctuation. There are lawyers and lawyers, some deal on behalf of the common good, taking into account the nature of cases, and some on the ‘autosqueeze them as you can’ side. Most of them are between. Say in tort cases, after a ‘mishap crime’, the former would look into the case and claim the immediate harms and the latter would rather nudge the client to pump up the emotional, legal and other costs. If there is ambition, usually from a perceived competition, suing a bejeesus out of a perpetrator raises the lawyer’s status and pay. Many non-evil lawyer trainees [cca. 87%] are so corrupted and serve the evil, common bad, side. Some evil feedback loop may developed, like famous 2+ million population in the US private prisons: Law makers and lawyers, corrupted by ambition are nudged to supply the slaves, since more slaves=more profit. A 2nd note: <<slavery is an old norm, only in the last century it uses clever cloaks.. or not, as thousands {incl my grands} who were sincerely used by the Nazis]>>. One can see this is quite easy {populist} and serving a few, harming many more. Does suing on a 1% of global internet help the creators? Not likely, the niche serves to stain the legal trainees and leech off the unlucky, unjust situations of the local rich. What a waste of talent and karma when there are hard and noble cases to attack > The science proved the burning of oil and coal must stop else there will be no nature; no livable future. No future lawyer, culprit or victim will be exempt from weather, collapses and droughts if the addiction to burning in business as usual continues. Yet, even though we know now that it must stop now, there are harmfull, slowing-down short term policies instead of a cold turkey quitting, a long term view approach. The legal attacks should be directed on all who burn, in order to materialise the breaking of addiction to industries. Perhaps the rights to live can be sold [as copywrights] and then a strong collector, holder of these rights can be a worthy client of the lawyers for common good. Majority of good creative people= artists likes/needs culture of benevolence, freedom and sharing. ARTISTS FOR ART SHARING! ARTISTS FOR PIRATING! ARTIST AGAINST COPYRIGHT! I have just listened to another sustainable energy, future and humanity talk by yet another TED guy, this time a UN person Achim Steiner. [related to Rudolf Steiner?].
Anyhow, he spoke on the shite that is happening. And it is a real shite, not the happy Mr.Hankey excrement that Steven Pinker paints. At the end Achim said there was some humanity worth preserving. The humanity he ment, might be helping the poor or unlucky... as he mentioned, the real state of now is that 26 people own same as half of the rest of the owners. Interesting truth. Well, what would happen, when he let or make those 26 well-spread their wealth... Well, I know: even more overpopulation worsening the shites he had mentioned. Hans Rosling had another opinion... he saw that when we get somewhat middle classy rich we do not fuck for future that much. We own some means and they would let us shape our future rather than the nature or destiny like the instincts of very poor. The very rich [can support any size of family, lovers and mistresses] as the very poor [fuck for future > at least some of the grand grands will make it and support] do make many kids but not us, the time-is-money-is-future responsible class. We keep our offspring low trying to serve the good of the future. But how bad is the shite? We do not know because there is no comparison. Prognoses, except of Pinker's, are gloomy. I think that a low global gini index would create some 25 billion lower than middle class equal humanoids competing in sucking the biosphere really properly, leaving no fossil fuels nor wild vertebraes. Fucking would kill the future properly when the wealth is shared. But the wealth is very much unshared, the gini index keeps growing. The military budgets eat as much as they can [or want] with the ease of 4 000 year old tradition. The best investment is the secret know how - the information on how to protect against taxes and redistribution. The macho jerk has all the space when the rest is competing overstressed in the corner. There is thus not much left, yet still enough to feed the overdebted, nervous families to have 2 times more bad-prenatal kids as the middle class. No means = survival competition kicks in = more kids equipped with wrong levels of stress hormones. They are fuel and reasons behind the irony of the social systems. They make more of the same filling the niche. So we are lucky that there are those selfish billionaires who keep the wealth from those dirty hands. Why would I support some negroids mongoloids indionoids arionoids or hispanoids when the Truth is - in gut we do not trust the strange races and if you give resources, any [sub] species spawn to the limits. There are always limits and thus the competition. Peter Farb knew it 70 years ago: Intensification of production [or any other trick of humanity] to feed an increased population leads to a still greater increase in population. Be them billionaires selfish simpletons, pricks and psychopats [like Trump] or visionaries who can see 2 more steps in the future [like Gates or Hanauer], it won't matter, the wealth is not spread. The jerks keep the means from the hands of the spawners. They do it too well. Now even the middle class is poor. Will we succumb to the poor strategy of fucking for future? Would not it be a class migration defined by strategy rather than wealth? Even when beaten and poor, humans try to spawn. There is now no poverty limit in any human internet using group that is a physical [food] barrier to fucking for future. The limit may be cultural, but not in the wealth. This is the irony of humanity. ingIn the light of black matter lives and bar lives matter and black lives matter and trans people matters matter which are all very legitimate since they react to some oppression I would like to add my life to the matter queue since there is a silent oppression by a loud minority (or rather majority?) who would not shut up and have to keep on babbling about how much they matter. What I mean is this 'I me mine' - I am of a uniquer matter' ... more than you - messages all around of us who do not think were born better or more than others but travel or still keep a radio or a PC. Beyond the known bias of all performers who think they are better lovers, drivers, leaders, more popular etc aka remembering the my and good, there is a perceived norm of showing off the gloryest origins. Can every pedigree be the best in the competition of the origins or is this just a silly tradition based on lies or hearsay? The mother human nature messes: 1 in 21 fathers are unknowingly caring for someone else's DNA-ed child.
I mean, there seems to be too many people, in these competitive times clinging to origins hearsay. The chosen people, the better clan, best god, purest family. If anyone digs deep enough we should all find a x-th century writer.... Would you then suddenly start writing since it is obviously in your genes? Or do you dig to justify your vices by some historical claim? If I find out my grand grand was a rich man do I know where my penchant for big rooms comes from? If he were a communist should I join the communist party or rather fight against the church property restitutions? It is the same shit with the horoscopes. They make you think you are a good shooter for the week. You were not enough, now you are. What a bs. If you look for patterns, you will find them. In the US all know where they came from and call themselves Irish, Italian, Jewish or Japanese or I do not know what... even if their grand grand grands were born in the US. They know their imaginary origins and so they know why they are reckless, stingy, happy, sad, drinking, touchy, sporty, bossy, musical, Then they travel ´home´ and feel this magic of ancestral connection they so much expected. Uuu hugs are cheaper than air tickets. I, who do not care about my grand...grand sins and fortunes, feel sometimes oppressed. There are nudges to do the silly research to find mine xy sources and origins and then follow all the bullshit of own design estimation aka nature first (no nurture) bs self portrait. I do not say that the nature or the family karma or the family culture do not matter, I just say all the past had its influence but we can not know what caused what, what part did the nurture played. A big one. One logically chooses not to bother. 'Bullies around me matter' bother me because one can tell they adore their pedigree of the big family abroad or in the past with a place in heaven. I have a very small family now with no imaginary friends and that is all that should matter since it brings clarity into thoughts and acts. The granny has not to claimed anything from the German state for subjecting my granddad to the totaleinsatz [slavery] work. And please do not come with apologies or money if you are a German or I will bitch-smack you with a smelly fish. All are born thanks to all the history before. If our ancestors had no mishaps [as the totaleinsatz] our mums egg would not meet the particularly lucky sperm of our dad´s in this immaculate time called 9 months b4 birthday. So my thanks goes also to all the unknown circumstances like fucking and slaughtering of the Neanderthal people. And also to the dogs who helped keep them warm and fed. Also to the volcanoes that poisoned the air in all the aeons. Thanks to Hun, Lenin or Churchill too. They have statues and they caused deaths to the innocent.. I won´t mind if their statues disembellish some places. These statues are witnesses and symbols of 'my bro has a bigger dick' brain damage bullying I am talking here about. I may be enraged to see how the Communist party members families got rich. I was already alive and witnessed how awful [cruel pigs] and opportunistic beings most of them, the well positioned party members, were. After the 1989 putsch they were not punished nor stripped of the loot and they managed to keep and even snatch the properties of the state, creating an aristocracy class that is now able to buy the votes and reelect themselves using old boys partisan democracy with barriers to enter. Now we have the agent Buresh leading the country through his personal history of working ethics hysteria as his sins [conflicts of interests] justification. The laws let them and now they write them. Anyhow, well, too much shit, whatever. I write this post not because of this wickedness but because there is this general cultural oppression of us who would or can not care to use our family origins as reasons or personal fetishes. The proud cultures abuse the ancient records (we are born better, all know this and here, this is our god given right to your land or property and btw my bro has a bigger shtick than you) and memories to bully others. People should not use the history which is beyond the memories of the people they know, else there is an oppression. There was a crime at the beginning as well as at the end of these story tools /(stools><?) At the beginning, there often was a powerful leader who had some luck in his genes promotion and who wanted to clear his name of the crimes that started his fortune. ..so he manipulated the story by omitting the bad light and ordered the family and followers to keep his history alive. That is how and why many records were done. All this glory, wrongdoings, we hate this... attitudes or vendettas should not matter after 5 generations also because they are not real. They are puzzling the present, which is already too complex, changing in an unprecedented rate. (the temperatures, the technology, killing of species and pollution) The challenges of now are enough, they do not need to be glamorise with paranoia (if you look for patterns, artefacts or explanations, you will find them) from distant past or future. When I was 13 or 14 I heard a funny ¨Student Hadgi Ben¨ song by Brno's Barel Rock band. The song mocked an Arab vet student for being rich, socially inept and not diligent... its text read ''we do not mind them here at all, we love them a lot' meaning we really do not. I recall feeling there was some violence in this funny nudge to join us, the better ones [who are somewhere between the racist mob and students suffering their inept, rich colleagues bad habits]. Should I mock or hate these rich foreign show offs? Or Russians or Germans for what their grandfathers did to mine? I surely may. Perhaps. I accept those who get touchy when their family grievance is mentioned, but please be it as fresh as possible. If it is not shared through direct witnessing, it is a virtual reality grudge that will ensnare you when you start to fetishise it. Had I accepted these stories as my part I could have puzzled myself with silly prejudices. These internalised stories of others are foggy glasses or mistakes to brain function. They steal some memory and befog clear thinking. Sasha Cohen mocked this culture of pride in Borat who was from the bestest country with the best history hating all the neighbour competing nations plus the Jews.... I hope he would be able to mock the fetishising past grievances (competing genocide by Ottoman Turkey is not recognized in Israel) or silly reclaiming the land based on 500+ years old records. We should prefer our personal generalisations based on experience. Mine is an autostop lakmus. Hitch hiking through the Europe in the 90ties I found out Germans are good people, kinder than most Europeans save the folks in Ireland, Norway and Iceland. TED translating using volunteering translators, reviewers {I me mine} and approvers is a complex hogwash ecosystem that caters for the bad translators [driven by fear of bad translation] not the good ones. The ones who try the job and leave are the Chancers {here here}. They are by definition impatient and some of them might have stayed had there been a feedback. Chancers are 2 types: Morons and No-bs quickies. The Morons are not objectively inept but defined so by their reviewers. If your translation's review is more red than black, [the reviewer changed more than half of the subtitles] it means they think/see you should go back to school. The No-bs quickies do not generate red reviews but would not wait [it can be forever but is usually in months] for a review or approval and leave. As we can see a Chancer's fate depends largely on the reviewer. TED says the reviewers should be somewhat more experienced. Besides topical interest they have other 3 motivations by a) the teacher's pleasure of herding the pupils, making it red, b) seeing reviews as better language practice than translating itself and c) lubricating the publishing funnel. The reviewers are choosing according to the talk topic mainly. The lubrication motivation is nudged by seeing the community's stats at amara-tools but these are not emailed like new TED videos ready for subtitling, one must consciously seek them. The moronizing teacher motivation can transform into mentor-ships when both parts fit which is rare because the feedback comes late. A reviewer imagines the translator would recall the errors but after a week it is hard without links and examples so the most feedbacks do not do much. Mentorships may be nudged but willingness information on both sides is not tagged, collected nor publicly available with the exception of LCs who are so monopolising the mentor niche.
There are 2 pure types of retained [non-chancer] volunteers> the Bored bums and Hermionas. They have time to help since they simply have enough time [Bums] or can organise it [Hermionas] well. Bored bums are more flexible with rather varied productivity since Hermionas have their plans/diary. Their productivity stability is on a scale from Suns to Novas. Novas are fecund at a life's crossroad, looking around like a waitlisted student. We all are on a crossroads somehow, a Nova is there long enough to contribute like crazy and then the life moves on and they keep their 2 translations/approvals [LCs] per year. What crisis? All goes best it [in an unpredictable internet] can... funds are well spent, the community being enhanced and values promoted. Facts: TED says its raison d'etre is spreading of ideas. TED has 2 houses: 1st) TED conferences with exclusive congratulatory community & 2nd) the idea spreading machine: www.ted.com. TED thinks its translators serve the elite house but we, by our nature. should and do serve the spreading machine. The only tongues that have enough of the reviewers and language coordinators [LCs] are Spanish and Portuguese. Ted.com is a communication machine and TED translators' rules/culture is by one rule suits all indirectly hampering this communication. The rule is that the LCs have a privilege to control others´ work publication. Besides it is subjective it is also silly as good translators, like me, are not retained. Well, if TED translators were in the same business as ted.com [spreading of the ideas aka entertainment & education] it would have been different. TED would honour the users [global Internet public] with ease of approach and more of the translations. One premise says> a talk jumps in popularity after each new subtitles are added/published. Communication approach says: 'the errors happen, perfection is an enemy, the goal is to convey gist and create emotions'. The speakers, if they do not memorise, make mistakes. Some sentences are nonsensical or there is bad intonation or structure. It is OK, it is a talk, not a book. A translator sees the gist and conveys it... often with their own typos and mistakes... and here lies the problem of TED videos' translations... the way it copes with these mistakes... it gives them too much power and relevance [enemy] and is on a quest of eliminating them; whereas they can be used as communication enhancements and nudges. If one, as a new no-English user, visits www.ted.com he/she either googles on or leaves with nothing to watch. The language mutations are missing as well as searchable lists of subtitles. The good job/help TED can do is to help the non English users to their selected talks. UCD webdesign. Perhaps via a new portal link with set of alternative ways on how to get to talks of varied interests and tongues. Amara-tools shows a way here. TED translators to LCs funnel is like a real socialism organisation. The applicants write essays on how they will help so that the politbyro can approve of their ability to belong into the language community coordinating class with post editing privileges. Coordinating, subordinating? They should help the novices. The entry barriers can be lowered. Who are the novice volunteer translators? Mostly the learners of English [personal fitness], then lovers of some ideas spreading [inclusive fitness] then, secondarily, members looking for meaning in a good-doing club. Coordinators should probably groom the novices so that they feel more of the belonging motivation. I would prefer/like to see a motivation via service-to-users examples, i.e. to see how a translated talk helps users, say in an old folks home, lab or at a rally. I hope/think the belonging motivation is in minority; most of us volunteer to help spread some ideas and improve our lingual traits. I suspect that in Chinese and other big tongues is the English learning aspect [inclusive fitness] more pronounced. This is why the system fails the novices... the best motivation for a generic new translator is to see the work has outcomes... it is published asap. However his/her subtitles are mostly published with some 3+ months delay. Bad system attributes: TED subtitling sports 2 bad system attributes> a] subtitles ownership exclusivity and b] rare LCs approvals. These are getting in the way of serving the users aka it is not working. Analysis: a] Sometimes anarchy is better than real socialism. Wikipedia is an anarchy of a benevolent community [all share the right of post edition] with little space for defence or paranoia [oh but it is not authorised oh ]. It gets translated by anybody and anybody can help to mend/submit better translations. It is OK to own a translation and be a proud provider but both systems should and can coexist. Say if subtitles get stuck in limbo for more than 5 months, it will get published automatically and then anybody can amend it... so say if you hold the ownership and value it over spreading of the idea, you would be lobbying at your community to barter for an early [less than 5 months] approval so that no co-translators get mentioned. [PS It is also sad that after I submit subtitles I can not improve them. When solutions (as they do) occur after a sound sleep, it is too late since the poor subtitles are locked, queuing in the review limbo... ] b] LCs: These valued multilinguals are translators who would not approve of subtitles with a mistake. They mostly do not 'coordinate' but act as the final controllers who have just time to dis/approve of reviewed subtitles. Since they do not use robots or automation and life happens to them, they do not volunteer with a planned/ideal focus and cause a 'grammar Nazi' situation: many subtitles are not published withing a novice retention span and so the communication flow suffers. Communication between the talk author, ted staff, translators and public/users. Novice retention is hard. Let's not pretend we have a know how. No research, no trials = no data...= we do not know! Same forces that say LCs have to write essays before their membership is agreed would say they know best how to retain novices. Bullshit. Allow trials. ...risk mistakes and try it on with parallel testing [pilot] approach. Solution ideas aka Pilots I would try -If a subtitle gets unreviewed [stuck] for 4 months it gets published as well as unlocked for amendments by anybody. [benevolent users] A communication business where the users can return. -A 2 speed approach> I would let another srt tools [not just amara] such as dotsub to be engaged in the endangered tongues subtitling [at least as a pilot]. In this 2nd pipeline subtitles ownership would be more collective, as it would not go through the LCs reviews/approvals but will be directly available at TED.com as a subtitle source [say community vs curated source] until it gets approved i.e. the curated/approved srt is available. Embrace the community, all of us, not just the curated club. So that fewer people would feel it [TED translating] amounts for nothing. The benefit of the approach is not only in higher publishing, but also in elimination of amara monopoly. Amara for TED has some UCD - issues. Its workflow design before actual subtitling is unintuitive, not user centered/friendly. All takes learning but Amara for TED should not be the only way on how to produce subtitles. You may assume the 2 pipeline system means worse quality, but we really do not know; we know it means quicker publication and so many more translations. -Another pilot is an AI [Deep Learning] mutually beneficial engagement. Google translate AI could be helped via LCs tribe cooperation. Feed it [let it learn] the review iterations [revisions history] of all translations to produce patterns for deciding upon where an initial translation [locked for review] is rather bad or rather good. Marking translation quality is another job but one with a result in an aide. I think Google would/should happily agree. Overworked LCs should feel some support and such a pattern-recognition aide should become a tool for quick approval decisions. [had the LCs be still needed] -Also: Had I spoken at a conference I would have been grateful for any volunteered subtitles ...am I nudged to help/pay the translators or reviewers? Many speak, milestone ticked out but many speak and their idea, their baby lives out there competing for attention. Mistakes as nudges: We do not know what a mistake in subtitles does/means... say one sees it and... there are these outcomes : - ..one can fix it, (in 2 pipelines system they thus become a co-translator) or - ..they curse the ted and the translator who dishonoured their best tongue and write an irate comment under the video, then someone replies or mends it or - ..they do nothing but their subconscious would later avoid further video sources with a poor translation quality or - ..they start to pay more attention to catch more mistakes [viewer's engagement] or - ..they are not sure so they check other sources [autonomous learning] being happy to be able to see a mistake (in 2 pipelines system they are nudged to become a co-translator) Some idea inspirations> https://seths.blog/2018/11/quality-and-effort/ https://translations.ted.com/Quick_start_guide_for_Language_Coordinators#How_to_post-edit_a_published_task https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZI96A7sYnLY 1. Cheerleader - to believe in you when you struggle to believe in yourself 2. Mentor - to point you in the right direction when you’re feeling lost 3. Coach - to take you out of your comfort zone so you can maximize your potential 4. Friend - to hear out your dreams and deepest desires 5. Peer - to keep you focused on the task at hand
We need cheerleaders to get unstuck, peers to lick our wounds with and drops that turn fat into muscle |
Authorbiodive.weebly.com Archives
August 2021
Categories |