it will be interesting to see whether or not all that pacific moisture can overpower the reduction of solar energy driving the expanded vortex, or if 2016 ends up cooler than 2015 despite the record el nino. we're really caught between two extremes, right now. let's hope the tornado season is less than catastrophic...
www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/record-low-temperatures-in-ontario-amid-deep-freeze-/63649/
Sunday, February 14, 2016
13-02-2016: understanding the causes of decline
tracks worked on in this vlog:
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1
end section post:
http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.ca/2016/02/i-just-want-to-point-out-that-it-was-at.html
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1
end section post:
http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.ca/2016/02/i-just-want-to-point-out-that-it-was-at.html
j reacts to an analysis of her own decline
i just want to point out that it was at this point that i can trace the beginning of a decrease in my hit count. the changes in youtube have not helped and make it almost impossible to reverse the problem. but, this is the real root cause of the decline.
i talk about this in the vlog for feb 13th. but, it's very disappointing - depressing, really - to truly be cognizant of what has actually happened...
my metrics were consistently increasing up to this point. i peaked at over 3000 hits in october - substantial, and enough to think i'm growing and am breaking through something. yet, by the middle of 2015, my hits were cut down to almost nothing. what happened?
well, it seems as though people were not actually interested in what i was typing. rather, people were interested in my profile picture.
i consciously picked that profile picture because it was a "bad shot" - i was very badly hungover. i liked the irony of this, in juxtaposition to the world of fake media images. it was a kind of fuck you to selfie culture.
but, it became it's own fake media image. i had dozens of comments directed at it. the reaction that was most instructive was to point out that the nature of the commentary fit the picture well - and this is why the hit count increased so much, and i ended up with so many upvotes on my comments. it wasn't that what i said affected anybody, or caused anybody to think about anything. people weren't indicating any kind of actual solidarity. it was merely that people found my picture amusing, and wanted to see it near the top of the comments. it didn't really matter what i was saying, so long as it vaguely fit their preconception of what they imagined i ought to be saying.
other comments, in hindsight, were more illuminating than i realized: suggestions that i look "emo", or "black metal", for example. this was both completely wrong and entirely void of any substance - it was merely extrapolated from the fact that i was hungover. it seems that a false perception of who i am was projected from the image, and it was that false projection that was getting upvoted and generating views.
it also generated negative comments. much of this was at a low level of discourse - crude insults that can be broadly summarized as claims that i was "ugly", and often in ways that forced me to research terms i hadn't seen before. this was annoying, but it wasn't what forced me to change the profile picture.
what forced me to change was the misgendering. you can imagine how that might be irritating. i didn't upload the picture thinking that it made me look "emo" or "metal" or anything of the sort. rather, i thought it just made me look like a hungover female with a overactive gothic dye job. i really didn't need or want this kind of abuse.
so, i changed the profile picture to a more recent shot of me as a blonde with a bit of lipstick. my intent was to prevent me from being misgendered. and, this seems to have worked.
in the process, the false projection of me as "emo" or "metal" or whatever it is that people made out of the black dye job and hungover eyes [in truth, i mostly listen to instrumental music, although i once listened to a lot of socal punk, which is how i dress - tshirts, jeans and minimal makeup] evaporated. as people were more interested in how i looked than what i thought, the attention that i was generating dried up. i also think that my newly unambiguous self-gendering alienated young girls that thought i was cute as much as it alienated dudes that found out that i was actually seriously queer, not just faggy in a metal kind of way.
again: i've never liked metal. i don't even really like rock music, in the broadest sense. the only rock music i've ever liked is some early psych and the anti-rock strains of punk/post-punk and grunge. rock culture has always sickened me. i'm a very bookish nerd. i'd rather hang out in the library.
i have a degree in mathematics. i've studied deep into degrees in physics, computer science and law.
nerd. total. and, not afraid of stating it.
but, that's not what my hungover picture suggested. and, so, everything came crashing down when i changed it....
i don't regret this change, and i would do it again. rather, i think i learned an important lesson. i thought people were actually interested in what i had to say about things - that admittedly surprised me, and i should be less naive about things as i move forward.
in the broader scope of things, it doesn't do me any good to get thousands of purely social-media level hits from young girls that are misgendering me (and would be freaked out to actually see me) or guys that i'd never talk to. the truth is that i'd rather have friend-level conversations with those girls and get hit on by those guys (if they're old enough). the reality of everything being backwards was not useful to me in getting an image out. it was, and may unfortunately remain for some time, much more of a hindrance to me.
and, did i even want to get an image out? was i gunning for subscribers and views? the truth is that i didn't ever care. i wanted people to listen to my music. and, neither teenage girls nor metalhead/emo guys are (on average) going to be interested in listening to my blender rock.
moving forwards, i should perhaps target my audience a little bit more carefully. it was maybe pointless to bother posting insults on the emo band's site, as nobody interested in who i am or what i do is going to post there. i should perhaps be focusing more on music that i actually like and less on trends that i do not. my discography channel will deal with this, while my vlog channel will focus more on my ideas and opinions of things.
the reality is that this is all still experimental. there's no understood model. and, in a real sense, i'm trying to accomplish the impossible. i get all of this. but, i've learned a few things along the way and hope that i can apply them.
but, it was the profile pic change that killed me. and, that's a really sad reflection of society - style meant everything, substance meant nothing.
https://plus.google.com/b/115697117379871673298/+jessicatemporarydeletion/posts/YdtY8RVDqAH
http://musicofjessicamurray.blogspot.ca/2014/10/blog-post_15.html
i talk about this in the vlog for feb 13th. but, it's very disappointing - depressing, really - to truly be cognizant of what has actually happened...
my metrics were consistently increasing up to this point. i peaked at over 3000 hits in october - substantial, and enough to think i'm growing and am breaking through something. yet, by the middle of 2015, my hits were cut down to almost nothing. what happened?
well, it seems as though people were not actually interested in what i was typing. rather, people were interested in my profile picture.
i consciously picked that profile picture because it was a "bad shot" - i was very badly hungover. i liked the irony of this, in juxtaposition to the world of fake media images. it was a kind of fuck you to selfie culture.
but, it became it's own fake media image. i had dozens of comments directed at it. the reaction that was most instructive was to point out that the nature of the commentary fit the picture well - and this is why the hit count increased so much, and i ended up with so many upvotes on my comments. it wasn't that what i said affected anybody, or caused anybody to think about anything. people weren't indicating any kind of actual solidarity. it was merely that people found my picture amusing, and wanted to see it near the top of the comments. it didn't really matter what i was saying, so long as it vaguely fit their preconception of what they imagined i ought to be saying.
other comments, in hindsight, were more illuminating than i realized: suggestions that i look "emo", or "black metal", for example. this was both completely wrong and entirely void of any substance - it was merely extrapolated from the fact that i was hungover. it seems that a false perception of who i am was projected from the image, and it was that false projection that was getting upvoted and generating views.
it also generated negative comments. much of this was at a low level of discourse - crude insults that can be broadly summarized as claims that i was "ugly", and often in ways that forced me to research terms i hadn't seen before. this was annoying, but it wasn't what forced me to change the profile picture.
what forced me to change was the misgendering. you can imagine how that might be irritating. i didn't upload the picture thinking that it made me look "emo" or "metal" or anything of the sort. rather, i thought it just made me look like a hungover female with a overactive gothic dye job. i really didn't need or want this kind of abuse.
so, i changed the profile picture to a more recent shot of me as a blonde with a bit of lipstick. my intent was to prevent me from being misgendered. and, this seems to have worked.
in the process, the false projection of me as "emo" or "metal" or whatever it is that people made out of the black dye job and hungover eyes [in truth, i mostly listen to instrumental music, although i once listened to a lot of socal punk, which is how i dress - tshirts, jeans and minimal makeup] evaporated. as people were more interested in how i looked than what i thought, the attention that i was generating dried up. i also think that my newly unambiguous self-gendering alienated young girls that thought i was cute as much as it alienated dudes that found out that i was actually seriously queer, not just faggy in a metal kind of way.
again: i've never liked metal. i don't even really like rock music, in the broadest sense. the only rock music i've ever liked is some early psych and the anti-rock strains of punk/post-punk and grunge. rock culture has always sickened me. i'm a very bookish nerd. i'd rather hang out in the library.
i have a degree in mathematics. i've studied deep into degrees in physics, computer science and law.
nerd. total. and, not afraid of stating it.
but, that's not what my hungover picture suggested. and, so, everything came crashing down when i changed it....
i don't regret this change, and i would do it again. rather, i think i learned an important lesson. i thought people were actually interested in what i had to say about things - that admittedly surprised me, and i should be less naive about things as i move forward.
in the broader scope of things, it doesn't do me any good to get thousands of purely social-media level hits from young girls that are misgendering me (and would be freaked out to actually see me) or guys that i'd never talk to. the truth is that i'd rather have friend-level conversations with those girls and get hit on by those guys (if they're old enough). the reality of everything being backwards was not useful to me in getting an image out. it was, and may unfortunately remain for some time, much more of a hindrance to me.
and, did i even want to get an image out? was i gunning for subscribers and views? the truth is that i didn't ever care. i wanted people to listen to my music. and, neither teenage girls nor metalhead/emo guys are (on average) going to be interested in listening to my blender rock.
moving forwards, i should perhaps target my audience a little bit more carefully. it was maybe pointless to bother posting insults on the emo band's site, as nobody interested in who i am or what i do is going to post there. i should perhaps be focusing more on music that i actually like and less on trends that i do not. my discography channel will deal with this, while my vlog channel will focus more on my ideas and opinions of things.
the reality is that this is all still experimental. there's no understood model. and, in a real sense, i'm trying to accomplish the impossible. i get all of this. but, i've learned a few things along the way and hope that i can apply them.
but, it was the profile pic change that killed me. and, that's a really sad reflection of society - style meant everything, substance meant nothing.
https://plus.google.com/b/115697117379871673298/+jessicatemporarydeletion/posts/YdtY8RVDqAH
http://musicofjessicamurray.blogspot.ca/2014/10/blog-post_15.html
j reacts to the reality that trump does not understand current american foreign policy
“It is absolutely ludicrous to suggest that Russia could be a positive partner in this,” Mr. Bush said.
“Jeb is so wrong; Jeb is absolutely,” Mr. Trump said, before being cut off by boos from the audience. “You’ve got to fight ISIS first,” he added. “You have to knock them off strong.”
trump has clearly not been briefed. and, jeb is right. but, how does jeb find the forum to explain this? and, will it help him if he does?
they kind of have themselves to blame for this, though.
trump has absolutely no idea what he's even saying. there's no use in even debating with him; he just doesn't have enough of a grasp on the issues. educated people can see that. but, in a very real sense? trump is repeating the propaganda that people are supposed to be repeating, which is helping him seem more relatable.
so, there's a deeper problem here. it came up with obama a bit, too - although i'm still not sure what the deal with obama really is. it's an open question as to whether obama was clueless or pretending to be clueless. he seems to have been a very fast learner, if he was really that clueless - he got briefed pretty quick. the military plan was not altered. wolfowitz is basically still running things, has been the whole time. guantanomo is even still kicking. it was all total bullshit.
so, he either did exactly what he was told, or it was all a subtle ploy - and he was basically working from the inside.
see, we think it's reasonable to suggest that kiril is kgb, but we think it's crazy to suggest that obama was cia. but, it's really occam's razor, actually.
trump? no. he's just fucking clueless. and, it's not at all clear he'll snap into line if he wins. so, what happens? change of policies? probably not, actually.
assassination, actually.
and nobody wants that. not really.
it's a lot easier if bush just wins the nomination.
but, in the long run?
the propaganda needs some adjustment. i've been saying this for years. it's not even believable. it hasn't been, the whole time. it's just insulting. and, look at the blowback, now.
might it make more sense to just be honest about it?
“Jeb is so wrong; Jeb is absolutely,” Mr. Trump said, before being cut off by boos from the audience. “You’ve got to fight ISIS first,” he added. “You have to knock them off strong.”
trump has clearly not been briefed. and, jeb is right. but, how does jeb find the forum to explain this? and, will it help him if he does?
they kind of have themselves to blame for this, though.
trump has absolutely no idea what he's even saying. there's no use in even debating with him; he just doesn't have enough of a grasp on the issues. educated people can see that. but, in a very real sense? trump is repeating the propaganda that people are supposed to be repeating, which is helping him seem more relatable.
so, there's a deeper problem here. it came up with obama a bit, too - although i'm still not sure what the deal with obama really is. it's an open question as to whether obama was clueless or pretending to be clueless. he seems to have been a very fast learner, if he was really that clueless - he got briefed pretty quick. the military plan was not altered. wolfowitz is basically still running things, has been the whole time. guantanomo is even still kicking. it was all total bullshit.
so, he either did exactly what he was told, or it was all a subtle ploy - and he was basically working from the inside.
see, we think it's reasonable to suggest that kiril is kgb, but we think it's crazy to suggest that obama was cia. but, it's really occam's razor, actually.
trump? no. he's just fucking clueless. and, it's not at all clear he'll snap into line if he wins. so, what happens? change of policies? probably not, actually.
assassination, actually.
and nobody wants that. not really.
it's a lot easier if bush just wins the nomination.
but, in the long run?
the propaganda needs some adjustment. i've been saying this for years. it's not even believable. it hasn't been, the whole time. it's just insulting. and, look at the blowback, now.
might it make more sense to just be honest about it?
this section is going to be expanding in the upcoming weeks to include reading written comments.
i would prefer to write replies to comments. i express myself better in the written form, and just generally prefer communication in that way. but, youtube does not seem to recognize a comment as content and has consequently done everything it can to reduce the level of discourse in the comment section. it's come to the point where i feel that i have so little control that it's not worth bothering with.
so, any comments that i would like to make will be made in this medium instead. or, at least, they will be until google decides to reintegrate a workable comment system into youtube.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLrHImg7oLm2YpPRHHqZdGJ9Bu1_XkhtXv
but, of course - feel free to comment on my page in writing. i will reciprocate.
it's just that i need to get all of my writing off of other peoples' videos. that's apparently what youtube wants, so it's what it's getting...
i would prefer to write replies to comments. i express myself better in the written form, and just generally prefer communication in that way. but, youtube does not seem to recognize a comment as content and has consequently done everything it can to reduce the level of discourse in the comment section. it's come to the point where i feel that i have so little control that it's not worth bothering with.
so, any comments that i would like to make will be made in this medium instead. or, at least, they will be until google decides to reintegrate a workable comment system into youtube.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLrHImg7oLm2YpPRHHqZdGJ9Bu1_XkhtXv
but, of course - feel free to comment on my page in writing. i will reciprocate.
it's just that i need to get all of my writing off of other peoples' videos. that's apparently what youtube wants, so it's what it's getting...
Saturday, February 13, 2016
i'd just like to remind people that this is my only twitter profile, and that other twitter profiles (and any and all gaming profiles) belong to somebody else.
https://twitter.com/dgkfgjklgjkgjka
i had a sega genesis when i was in junior high school. i have not gamed - at all - since.
it should be clear that there is no trace of gaming in the comments. and that, frankly, i don't come off as a gamer, either, do i?
as should be clear from my six year old joke, i don't think that the concept underlying twitter is of much use to me.
it's not that i had one and stopped using it or whatever else. the idea struck me as moronic from the very start, and i've never bothered with it.
https://twitter.com/dgkfgjklgjkgjka
i had a sega genesis when i was in junior high school. i have not gamed - at all - since.
it should be clear that there is no trace of gaming in the comments. and that, frankly, i don't come off as a gamer, either, do i?
as should be clear from my six year old joke, i don't think that the concept underlying twitter is of much use to me.
it's not that i had one and stopped using it or whatever else. the idea struck me as moronic from the very start, and i've never bothered with it.
detecting a microscopic ripple from a binary star two billion light years away?
forgive me, captain. but, that's an irrational amount of faith to put in the equipment. and, it's a lot of faith to put in peer review, too. it was just a few months ago that they thought they found a tachyon and couldn't figure out the error.
i'm not exactly rejecting anything. i'm just less than impressed by the premise.
imagine skipping a pebble across a pond. you're going to see circular waves expand outwards. so long as nothing interferes with those waves, they should continue indefinitely.
but, it took two billion years for this energy to get to us. pretty smooth sailing, don't you think?
but, they've isolated for every known interference - it can't be anything else that we understand. so, it must be what we were looking for, right?
see, that there is what we call a logical fallacy.
listen: i'm not rejecting the results. i'm just not exactly accepting them, either.
forgive me, captain. but, that's an irrational amount of faith to put in the equipment. and, it's a lot of faith to put in peer review, too. it was just a few months ago that they thought they found a tachyon and couldn't figure out the error.
i'm not exactly rejecting anything. i'm just less than impressed by the premise.
imagine skipping a pebble across a pond. you're going to see circular waves expand outwards. so long as nothing interferes with those waves, they should continue indefinitely.
but, it took two billion years for this energy to get to us. pretty smooth sailing, don't you think?
but, they've isolated for every known interference - it can't be anything else that we understand. so, it must be what we were looking for, right?
see, that there is what we call a logical fallacy.
listen: i'm not rejecting the results. i'm just not exactly accepting them, either.
Friday, February 12, 2016
bush may not win, but he will get more delegates than trump in the end. wait for it.
now that christie and fiorina are both out, expect to see bush jump by 5-10 points across the polling spectrum.
once that stabilizes a little, expect to see moderate republicans move from trump to bush due to the tea party no longer being seen as an existential threat to the party.
you have to understand that this is the major reason that trump is polling well: he's not a tea party candidate. and, thus, when compared to the hard right candidates like rubio and cruz, trump comes across as a moderate.
that's why trump is hitting bush rather than cruz. he knows who the serious candidate is.
the two serious candidates right now are bush and kasich, and it doesn't seem like kasich has much of a chance right now south of the mason-dixon line.
if big money has it's way, it's going to pick cruz. he's the insider guy. but, the voters don't actually want that kind of social darwinism.
what bush needed was for the field to narrow. and, if he can find a way to force kasich to drop, then he's a walk to the finish line.
now that christie and fiorina are both out, expect to see bush jump by 5-10 points across the polling spectrum.
once that stabilizes a little, expect to see moderate republicans move from trump to bush due to the tea party no longer being seen as an existential threat to the party.
you have to understand that this is the major reason that trump is polling well: he's not a tea party candidate. and, thus, when compared to the hard right candidates like rubio and cruz, trump comes across as a moderate.
that's why trump is hitting bush rather than cruz. he knows who the serious candidate is.
the two serious candidates right now are bush and kasich, and it doesn't seem like kasich has much of a chance right now south of the mason-dixon line.
if big money has it's way, it's going to pick cruz. he's the insider guy. but, the voters don't actually want that kind of social darwinism.
what bush needed was for the field to narrow. and, if he can find a way to force kasich to drop, then he's a walk to the finish line.
i mean, you gotta understand that a big part of what i'm doing right now is saving the comments before they disappear, rather than deleting them.
almost everything on youtube will eventually be deleted. when google+ and youtube were integrated, that didn't matter - the comments remained on google+. even when the video was removed. i would not have moved here, otherwise.
but, now there's a link to "view comments on youtube" that just goes to a 404.
if i don't do this, i will lose all of the comments.
and, so why keep commenting here at all?
like, i need to be clear.
i haven't lost a couple of comments.
i've lost hundreds of threads - many that carried on for months, with dozens of people.
hundreds of pages worth of writing.
hours - days, weeks - of my time.
and, i'm not happy about that.
if you're a heavy user of the comment section on youtube, take a flip through your google+ profile. it's no doubt a bloodbath.
this isn't a safe place to type.
so, it's kind of wrongheaded for you to think i'm destroying my profile.
i'm saving my writing.
i've cleared off the first six months of 2014. and, even with the dozens of threads that i've lost, it's over 280 pages. that suggests i should get over a thousand pages off by the time i'm done - and that i've lost who knows how much.
what i'll say, at least, is that most of what i've lost seems to be related to album discussions rather than politics. i'm not crying persecution or anything. i'm not being targeted. it was just incredible incompetence on the programming side of things, and it's left me with absolutely no confidence in the platform.
again: up until a point in late august, 2015, videos going down did not delete the comments. so, comments could be made safely at youtube with the understanding that they would be archived at google+. with no warning that i received, the products were separated at the snap of a finger and all of the archived comments were deleted. these were comments that the previous system had safely stored in the google+ profiles, even though the videos were down.
the reality is that the separation deleted large amounts of google+ content.
i've been posting hyperlinks at google+ since, waiting for a youtube comment feed to appear. it's not happening. so, i'm cutting my losses and getting out.
almost everything on youtube will eventually be deleted. when google+ and youtube were integrated, that didn't matter - the comments remained on google+. even when the video was removed. i would not have moved here, otherwise.
but, now there's a link to "view comments on youtube" that just goes to a 404.
if i don't do this, i will lose all of the comments.
and, so why keep commenting here at all?
like, i need to be clear.
i haven't lost a couple of comments.
i've lost hundreds of threads - many that carried on for months, with dozens of people.
hundreds of pages worth of writing.
hours - days, weeks - of my time.
and, i'm not happy about that.
if you're a heavy user of the comment section on youtube, take a flip through your google+ profile. it's no doubt a bloodbath.
this isn't a safe place to type.
so, it's kind of wrongheaded for you to think i'm destroying my profile.
i'm saving my writing.
i've cleared off the first six months of 2014. and, even with the dozens of threads that i've lost, it's over 280 pages. that suggests i should get over a thousand pages off by the time i'm done - and that i've lost who knows how much.
what i'll say, at least, is that most of what i've lost seems to be related to album discussions rather than politics. i'm not crying persecution or anything. i'm not being targeted. it was just incredible incompetence on the programming side of things, and it's left me with absolutely no confidence in the platform.
again: up until a point in late august, 2015, videos going down did not delete the comments. so, comments could be made safely at youtube with the understanding that they would be archived at google+. with no warning that i received, the products were separated at the snap of a finger and all of the archived comments were deleted. these were comments that the previous system had safely stored in the google+ profiles, even though the videos were down.
the reality is that the separation deleted large amounts of google+ content.
i've been posting hyperlinks at google+ since, waiting for a youtube comment feed to appear. it's not happening. so, i'm cutting my losses and getting out.
Thursday, February 11, 2016
10-02-2016: beginning the kill-off of deathtokoalas
tracks worked on in this vlog:
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1
may 16, 2014
it's really pretty sad just what level of effort people perceive is being put into this. the writing in this profile is largely stream of consciousness. i'll go back to correct spelling or modify sentence structures to eliminate underlying assumptions in the writing that only make sense to me, but what you're reading here is otherwise completely raw.
so, how do you approach somebody accusing you of using a thesaurus? this is shit i'm pumping out in a few minutes per post. so, when the false assumptions are stripped out, that must be a suggestion that i have an advanced vocabulary, which i actually think is not at all true - i think it's obvious that i graduated high school and have read a few books since but i wouldn't suggest that much beyond that stands out in what i'm presenting here. nor would i want it to. i fucking hate pretentious blowhards. here's a startling fact: over the approximately ten years that i spent in university i went to zero parties and made zero friends that i stayed in contact with outside of the scholastic context. the hate was really mutual, actually. it wasn't somewhere i fit into. at all.
for the first few years, i greatly preferred hanging out in the projects near my parents house, with dropouts and hustlers. then i spent a few years hanging out with street artists and ravers, followed by a few years of complete lonerism and then a few years with occupy kids before i went back to being a complete loner. i've never been or ever wanted to be the elitist educated kid. that's really a very bad way to interpret this. yet, it is also unfortunately a very bad reflection of the public education system when somebody of no meaningfully advanced education that is just scrawling out thoughts as they come up is viewed as writing carefully presented essays and agonizing over every word in them...
i always knew i would be fucking miserable in the life of an academic, but i was balancing it off against other ways to be fucking miserable. in hindsight? i regret wasting my time with it. but, i can't say i ever had a lot of choice: the alternative that was presented to me was pretty shitty, too.
there were several years when taking student loan money was literally the only way that i could pay my rent, because i wasn't able to get a job in a coffee shop or fast food restaurant.
"so, why did you go to graduate school?"
"because mcdonald's wouldn't call me back. white, unfortunately."
"oh."
"the rent just keeps coming, y'know? every fucking month. never stops. the student loans are a steady pay check for somebody that can't find work."
"why not just try welfare?"
"well, that would be better. i could do what i want instead of studying shit i don't care about. but, welfare is something like half of student loan money. it's not enough to pay the bastards. if it was, i'd go for it."
"oh. disability?"
"well, i don't have one, far as i can tell."
today, i do live on disability. but the diagnosis is pretty weak. it's something i have to do this summer, actually - get a better diagnosis. i don't know what fits best. schizophrenia. bi polar. something like that....
TheVanillatech
Why? I know 4 months but why?
deathtokoalas
this post was to google, rather than youtube. it's just all cross-posted.
TheVanillatech
+deathtokoalas
Still, why..... XD
deathtokoalas
+TheVanillatech
i've been posting a lot to google over the last few months. i guess i have an internet addiction; before i was posting to google, i was posting to facebook, and before that i was all over the cbc (canadian state run media), and before that i was all over mailing lists and newsgroups...
but i've moved to youtube in an attempt to promote the music i've been spending more time with over the last few months.
i'm constantly being accused of being one of them no good book lerners. i've had dozens of people accuse me of sitting in front of my laptop with thesaurus.com open.
it's ridiculous. and false. but interesting. just reflecting.
(edit: re that last re-post.
the flip side of what some people call white privilege is an equally valid concept that one could refer to as white obligation.
never mind that i'm not really actually white. it's less than 50%, anyways. but i look white, so i'm stuck with this annoying white obligation whether i like it or not.
what white obligation states is that i'm not allowed to be an economic loser - i have an obligation to take my place in a hierarchy and live up to a set of contrived expectations. it doesn't matter that i don't at all care or have any remote interest in climbing up any kind of hierarchy. it doesn't matter that i'd rather invest my energy towards economically useless behaviour. due to my skin colour, i'm basically forbidden to work a shitty job. i'm expected to go to university and get a middle class job that i don't care about, whether i like it or not. a life of apathy and low-investment labour is verbotten, as it is beneath me on the hierarchy of expectations. so, mcdonalds will not call me back, no matter how many times i apply (and i've applied many times). further, economists and politicians will then claim that i do not want to work at mcdonalds - because i'm too privileged.
the system will allow me to take out absurdly large loans, and then place me on disability when i fail out of disinterest. but, it will not allow me to work below my racial potential. and, for me, that's equally enslaving.
i've come to care less and less as i've aged. and, i'm at the point where i no longer remotely care. if the system tried to force me into some kind of workfare, i'd walk into work drunk, spit in the boss' face, urinate on the cash register - it would be horrific. but, there was a time when i was happy enough to work a crappy job - if i'd only be allowed to.
it was the emotional investment and time expenditure required to hold a middle class job that i strenuously rejected.)
it's really pretty sad just what level of effort people perceive is being put into this. the writing in this profile is largely stream of consciousness. i'll go back to correct spelling or modify sentence structures to eliminate underlying assumptions in the writing that only make sense to me, but what you're reading here is otherwise completely raw.
so, how do you approach somebody accusing you of using a thesaurus? this is shit i'm pumping out in a few minutes per post. so, when the false assumptions are stripped out, that must be a suggestion that i have an advanced vocabulary, which i actually think is not at all true - i think it's obvious that i graduated high school and have read a few books since but i wouldn't suggest that much beyond that stands out in what i'm presenting here. nor would i want it to. i fucking hate pretentious blowhards. here's a startling fact: over the approximately ten years that i spent in university i went to zero parties and made zero friends that i stayed in contact with outside of the scholastic context. the hate was really mutual, actually. it wasn't somewhere i fit into. at all.
for the first few years, i greatly preferred hanging out in the projects near my parents house, with dropouts and hustlers. then i spent a few years hanging out with street artists and ravers, followed by a few years of complete lonerism and then a few years with occupy kids before i went back to being a complete loner. i've never been or ever wanted to be the elitist educated kid. that's really a very bad way to interpret this. yet, it is also unfortunately a very bad reflection of the public education system when somebody of no meaningfully advanced education that is just scrawling out thoughts as they come up is viewed as writing carefully presented essays and agonizing over every word in them...
i always knew i would be fucking miserable in the life of an academic, but i was balancing it off against other ways to be fucking miserable. in hindsight? i regret wasting my time with it. but, i can't say i ever had a lot of choice: the alternative that was presented to me was pretty shitty, too.
there were several years when taking student loan money was literally the only way that i could pay my rent, because i wasn't able to get a job in a coffee shop or fast food restaurant.
"so, why did you go to graduate school?"
"because mcdonald's wouldn't call me back. white, unfortunately."
"oh."
"the rent just keeps coming, y'know? every fucking month. never stops. the student loans are a steady pay check for somebody that can't find work."
"why not just try welfare?"
"well, that would be better. i could do what i want instead of studying shit i don't care about. but, welfare is something like half of student loan money. it's not enough to pay the bastards. if it was, i'd go for it."
"oh. disability?"
"well, i don't have one, far as i can tell."
today, i do live on disability. but the diagnosis is pretty weak. it's something i have to do this summer, actually - get a better diagnosis. i don't know what fits best. schizophrenia. bi polar. something like that....
TheVanillatech
Why? I know 4 months but why?
deathtokoalas
this post was to google, rather than youtube. it's just all cross-posted.
TheVanillatech
+deathtokoalas
Still, why..... XD
deathtokoalas
+TheVanillatech
i've been posting a lot to google over the last few months. i guess i have an internet addiction; before i was posting to google, i was posting to facebook, and before that i was all over the cbc (canadian state run media), and before that i was all over mailing lists and newsgroups...
but i've moved to youtube in an attempt to promote the music i've been spending more time with over the last few months.
i'm constantly being accused of being one of them no good book lerners. i've had dozens of people accuse me of sitting in front of my laptop with thesaurus.com open.
it's ridiculous. and false. but interesting. just reflecting.
(edit: re that last re-post.
the flip side of what some people call white privilege is an equally valid concept that one could refer to as white obligation.
never mind that i'm not really actually white. it's less than 50%, anyways. but i look white, so i'm stuck with this annoying white obligation whether i like it or not.
what white obligation states is that i'm not allowed to be an economic loser - i have an obligation to take my place in a hierarchy and live up to a set of contrived expectations. it doesn't matter that i don't at all care or have any remote interest in climbing up any kind of hierarchy. it doesn't matter that i'd rather invest my energy towards economically useless behaviour. due to my skin colour, i'm basically forbidden to work a shitty job. i'm expected to go to university and get a middle class job that i don't care about, whether i like it or not. a life of apathy and low-investment labour is verbotten, as it is beneath me on the hierarchy of expectations. so, mcdonalds will not call me back, no matter how many times i apply (and i've applied many times). further, economists and politicians will then claim that i do not want to work at mcdonalds - because i'm too privileged.
the system will allow me to take out absurdly large loans, and then place me on disability when i fail out of disinterest. but, it will not allow me to work below my racial potential. and, for me, that's equally enslaving.
i've come to care less and less as i've aged. and, i'm at the point where i no longer remotely care. if the system tried to force me into some kind of workfare, i'd walk into work drunk, spit in the boss' face, urinate on the cash register - it would be horrific. but, there was a time when i was happy enough to work a crappy job - if i'd only be allowed to.
it was the emotional investment and time expenditure required to hold a middle class job that i strenuously rejected.)
human nature. orderly universe. yawn. it's all nonsense.
guy's stuck in the nineteenth century. burkean conservatism rather than neo-liberalism. that's just level two of your typical christian ignorance - and is just as easily debunked.
we live in a world that is chaotic and unpredictable - defined by imperfect causality, probability distributions and thick error bars. newtonianism has always been a caricature. in four hundred years, all we've really learned about how to solve the n-body problem is that the closer you get, the more bodies you have to add - that the entire idea of an n-body problem is naive.
newton should no longer be taught in high school. sure: it's useful for engineers. but, the broader philosophical ramifications are too problematic.
forget it. leave him in the past with aristotle. start the kids off with modern physics.
guy's stuck in the nineteenth century. burkean conservatism rather than neo-liberalism. that's just level two of your typical christian ignorance - and is just as easily debunked.
we live in a world that is chaotic and unpredictable - defined by imperfect causality, probability distributions and thick error bars. newtonianism has always been a caricature. in four hundred years, all we've really learned about how to solve the n-body problem is that the closer you get, the more bodies you have to add - that the entire idea of an n-body problem is naive.
newton should no longer be taught in high school. sure: it's useful for engineers. but, the broader philosophical ramifications are too problematic.
forget it. leave him in the past with aristotle. start the kids off with modern physics.
Wednesday, February 10, 2016
so, this is now my vlog page and it's where i'm commenting on current events and shit as well. but, the following page may be of more interest to you.
it won't be of frequent use, but it will be solely focused on my record collection - old music that i've at some point actually bought.
https://plus.google.com/117744600467962080117/posts
https://www.youtube.com/user/dkdghfhjfdhfchlfa
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLtoy6ABQovnt5dNL2fUbRir0gcYQUleEa
it won't be of frequent use, but it will be solely focused on my record collection - old music that i've at some point actually bought.
https://plus.google.com/117744600467962080117/posts
https://www.youtube.com/user/dkdghfhjfdhfchlfa
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLtoy6ABQovnt5dNL2fUbRir0gcYQUleEa
as i'm going through and archiving posts one by one, i'm running across some videos that are set to "private". i cannot access these discussions.
this is different than videos that have been deleted or profiles that have been removed. unfortunately, google fucked this up. before it disentangled youtube from google, those posts could be read on google+ - even if the videos had been deleted. now, they've been removed along with the videos.
part of the reason i moved to youtube was because i liked the integration. part of the reason i'm moving out is that the separation makes the platform useless. as these posts come down, the comments will disappear and become unrecoverable. so, what's the point of making them?
examples of destroyed content:
1) i had a long discussion about punk rock on a video for death. this was permanently destroyed when the video was taken down on copyright infringement.
2) i had a long discussion about language on a video for la dispute. destroyed, in a copyright takedown.
so, why would i continue to use the platform when i know the content will eventually be destroyed?
i'm going to put out a public request that the videos set to private are temporarily republished (and i'm informed of it) so that i can get the conversation out. as the page strips down, these posts set to private will reveal themselves as all that is left.
i'm not going to be able to recover any of this.
another thing that's happening repeatedly is that threads that i muted have evaporated altogether.
as a consequence of all of this, i've actually made the decision to refrain from using the comments section at all. google/youtube does not seem to have the slightest interest in developing the platform as a permanent record. to be frank, i'm not sure what the point of having comments is at all if the author is to lose all their content at the whim of somebody else.
once this page is wiped down, i will be commenting entirely on my own site - and those comments will be sent out solely through rss.
please follow my lead on this. let's decentralize...
i'm not going to pretend that i thought the move to google/youtube would be permanent. but, it's absolutely inconceivable - and totally unacceptable - to have entire conversations disappear like this.
i mean, imagine waking up and finding out that half of your facebook profile had just disappeared because of copyright claims. or that all of the tweets that you made about a specific topic have evaporated.
they had a good idea in integrating. it's not up to me to tell them how to run their network, either. but, the way they separated the two products was a disaster.
i would have never moved here if it wasn't for the integration - i want a feed of my comments. and, i gave them some time to work it out. but it's not being fixed. so, i'm out of here.
this is different than videos that have been deleted or profiles that have been removed. unfortunately, google fucked this up. before it disentangled youtube from google, those posts could be read on google+ - even if the videos had been deleted. now, they've been removed along with the videos.
part of the reason i moved to youtube was because i liked the integration. part of the reason i'm moving out is that the separation makes the platform useless. as these posts come down, the comments will disappear and become unrecoverable. so, what's the point of making them?
examples of destroyed content:
1) i had a long discussion about punk rock on a video for death. this was permanently destroyed when the video was taken down on copyright infringement.
2) i had a long discussion about language on a video for la dispute. destroyed, in a copyright takedown.
so, why would i continue to use the platform when i know the content will eventually be destroyed?
i'm going to put out a public request that the videos set to private are temporarily republished (and i'm informed of it) so that i can get the conversation out. as the page strips down, these posts set to private will reveal themselves as all that is left.
i'm not going to be able to recover any of this.
another thing that's happening repeatedly is that threads that i muted have evaporated altogether.
as a consequence of all of this, i've actually made the decision to refrain from using the comments section at all. google/youtube does not seem to have the slightest interest in developing the platform as a permanent record. to be frank, i'm not sure what the point of having comments is at all if the author is to lose all their content at the whim of somebody else.
once this page is wiped down, i will be commenting entirely on my own site - and those comments will be sent out solely through rss.
please follow my lead on this. let's decentralize...
i'm not going to pretend that i thought the move to google/youtube would be permanent. but, it's absolutely inconceivable - and totally unacceptable - to have entire conversations disappear like this.
i mean, imagine waking up and finding out that half of your facebook profile had just disappeared because of copyright claims. or that all of the tweets that you made about a specific topic have evaporated.
they had a good idea in integrating. it's not up to me to tell them how to run their network, either. but, the way they separated the two products was a disaster.
i would have never moved here if it wasn't for the integration - i want a feed of my comments. and, i gave them some time to work it out. but it's not being fixed. so, i'm out of here.
Tuesday, February 9, 2016
see, the results are still early, but it's easy too see what i'm saying.
suppose there were only three candidates: rubio/cruz, trump and one of the others. let's say bush.
the math of just combining everybody is of course perilous. but, it's hard to see how the argument is otherwise. would kasich or christie supporters pick rubio over bush? highly doubtful.
so, given the numbers at 8:11, you'd have:
bush: 41.9
trump: 34.5
rubio: 21.3
once you do that, trump begins to fall apart - because the people that were backing him to block the tea party now have a better candidate. what's left are independents and idiots. and, it doesn't take long for bush to run away with it.
in the end, it may not be bush. it might be kasich. it won't be fiorina or carson. it probably won't be christie. but, it's these people that aren't getting coverage that are the actual serious candidates - so long as most of them drop out.
even if only christie and fiorina drop out and bush and kasich split the difference, it forces the right of the party to make a choice between rubio and cruz in order for one of them to remain competitive.
suppose there were only three candidates: rubio/cruz, trump and one of the others. let's say bush.
the math of just combining everybody is of course perilous. but, it's hard to see how the argument is otherwise. would kasich or christie supporters pick rubio over bush? highly doubtful.
so, given the numbers at 8:11, you'd have:
bush: 41.9
trump: 34.5
rubio: 21.3
once you do that, trump begins to fall apart - because the people that were backing him to block the tea party now have a better candidate. what's left are independents and idiots. and, it doesn't take long for bush to run away with it.
in the end, it may not be bush. it might be kasich. it won't be fiorina or carson. it probably won't be christie. but, it's these people that aren't getting coverage that are the actual serious candidates - so long as most of them drop out.
even if only christie and fiorina drop out and bush and kasich split the difference, it forces the right of the party to make a choice between rubio and cruz in order for one of them to remain competitive.
the comment section in this video is a veritable two-minutes of hate.
ol' dubya has always made me sad more than he's made me angry. it's partly because you could see it coming so clearly. but, something that's even more depressing and even more disturbing is that all three of the major candidates on the republican side (trump, cruz, rubio) make bush look like a kitty kat.
and, they make his brother seem outright electable, in comparison.
ol' dubya has always made me sad more than he's made me angry. it's partly because you could see it coming so clearly. but, something that's even more depressing and even more disturbing is that all three of the major candidates on the republican side (trump, cruz, rubio) make bush look like a kitty kat.
and, they make his brother seem outright electable, in comparison.
i'm not sure when the primary starts announcing results, but i want to make a few comments about trump. can he actually win?
well, if the republican field doesn't narrow pretty soon, he sure will. but, let's not be confused about what the "lanes" are.
the media keeps putting rubio in the "establishment lane". this is really some kind of hilarious slip-up, indicating that they're viewing their role pretty actively. "establishment" isn't an issue, or a place on the spectrum. it's a source of funding that indicates this guy doesn't care about you.
so, there is no "establishment lane".
there is a "tea party lane". that lane has cruz and rubio in it. they are each other's competition. one will absorb the other. it's also the "goldman sachs lane".
there is a "trump lane". he pays his own tolls. and, he's ringing his own bells, too.
then there is the "moderate lane" and just about everybody else is in it.
in order to beat trump, what the republican party needs pretty soon is to have the race narrowed down to a candidate from each of these lanes. the media gets this part right. but it seems to want to put rubio in the moderate lane, thereby actually making trump the most moderate candidate. which is horribly fucked up. but, what's really going on here?
my guess is that they wanted to initially go with rubio, but cruz pulled some strings. or his wife did. so cruz took his place as the bankers' darling. but, rubio is still on the pay roll. so, rather than throw him away, they're floating him as a "moderate".
despite the reality that he's off the spectrum.
it's cruz' wife that will need to take the blame when this whole thing collapses and trump pulls away by cementing moderate support, which rejects rubio as too extreme. because, that's what they're trying to do: run cruz on the right and rubio in the centre. but they're both on the lunatic fringe, in terms of policies. leaving trump as the least insane option.
so, can the rest of the field pull together? my money is on bush. the top three in new hampshire are going to be the same as in iowa, but it doesn't matter - it's whomever comes in fourth that really matters, and who needs to convince everybody else to step down.
if they can walk into the next primary with a reduced four candidate field, trump will bleed to the moderate and it's just a matter of time before the moderate eventually catches up - forcing the right to pick between rubio and cruz. and, then it's a two-way race - with trump reduced to irrelevancy under the challenge of a united party.
but, if they keep the field split, then that vote never coalesces and trump wins by default - because he's less scary than rubio or cruz.
whatever happens, i think it needs to be acknowledged that trump has irreversibly altered the nature of american politics.
the attack ads against him paint him as somebody that essentially has no political ideology. and, he doesn't seem to be really upset about it. and, voters don't seem to be, either.
this idea that money runs politics has been well understood by everybody for a long time. but, candidates reject these accusations as slurs.
trump seems to actually take pride in it. and, nobody seems to really be outraged or shocked by it. it's hard to see how that gets put back in the tube, now that it's out.
well, if the republican field doesn't narrow pretty soon, he sure will. but, let's not be confused about what the "lanes" are.
the media keeps putting rubio in the "establishment lane". this is really some kind of hilarious slip-up, indicating that they're viewing their role pretty actively. "establishment" isn't an issue, or a place on the spectrum. it's a source of funding that indicates this guy doesn't care about you.
so, there is no "establishment lane".
there is a "tea party lane". that lane has cruz and rubio in it. they are each other's competition. one will absorb the other. it's also the "goldman sachs lane".
there is a "trump lane". he pays his own tolls. and, he's ringing his own bells, too.
then there is the "moderate lane" and just about everybody else is in it.
in order to beat trump, what the republican party needs pretty soon is to have the race narrowed down to a candidate from each of these lanes. the media gets this part right. but it seems to want to put rubio in the moderate lane, thereby actually making trump the most moderate candidate. which is horribly fucked up. but, what's really going on here?
my guess is that they wanted to initially go with rubio, but cruz pulled some strings. or his wife did. so cruz took his place as the bankers' darling. but, rubio is still on the pay roll. so, rather than throw him away, they're floating him as a "moderate".
despite the reality that he's off the spectrum.
it's cruz' wife that will need to take the blame when this whole thing collapses and trump pulls away by cementing moderate support, which rejects rubio as too extreme. because, that's what they're trying to do: run cruz on the right and rubio in the centre. but they're both on the lunatic fringe, in terms of policies. leaving trump as the least insane option.
so, can the rest of the field pull together? my money is on bush. the top three in new hampshire are going to be the same as in iowa, but it doesn't matter - it's whomever comes in fourth that really matters, and who needs to convince everybody else to step down.
if they can walk into the next primary with a reduced four candidate field, trump will bleed to the moderate and it's just a matter of time before the moderate eventually catches up - forcing the right to pick between rubio and cruz. and, then it's a two-way race - with trump reduced to irrelevancy under the challenge of a united party.
but, if they keep the field split, then that vote never coalesces and trump wins by default - because he's less scary than rubio or cruz.
whatever happens, i think it needs to be acknowledged that trump has irreversibly altered the nature of american politics.
the attack ads against him paint him as somebody that essentially has no political ideology. and, he doesn't seem to be really upset about it. and, voters don't seem to be, either.
this idea that money runs politics has been well understood by everybody for a long time. but, candidates reject these accusations as slurs.
trump seems to actually take pride in it. and, nobody seems to really be outraged or shocked by it. it's hard to see how that gets put back in the tube, now that it's out.
streaming media sites like spotify are not the future of independent music. rather, what i'm doing at this very moment - telling you to buy a couple of my records or to stop wasting my time, to fuck off and to stop following me on the internet - is the future of independent music.
as consumers, you have a choice to keep art alive. if you choose not to do this, the era of art as an accessible product for middle class consumption will end. the era of consumption will end, altogether.
this is the future that the internet is leading us towards:
Music is banned in Khomeini's Iran
On the grounds that it stimulates the brain
We've done him one better in the land of coke & honey
using music to put people's brains to sleep
Ever wonder why commercial radio's so bad?
It's 'cause someone upstairs wants it that way
If the Doors or John Lennon were getting started now
The industry wouldn't sign 'em in a million years
So what do we get
GOVERNMENT MUSIC
Christian censorship and taxed blank tapes
Shoppers strung out on our false hopes
Will flock to obey
as consumers, you have a choice to keep art alive. if you choose not to do this, the era of art as an accessible product for middle class consumption will end. the era of consumption will end, altogether.
this is the future that the internet is leading us towards:
Music is banned in Khomeini's Iran
On the grounds that it stimulates the brain
We've done him one better in the land of coke & honey
using music to put people's brains to sleep
Ever wonder why commercial radio's so bad?
It's 'cause someone upstairs wants it that way
If the Doors or John Lennon were getting started now
The industry wouldn't sign 'em in a million years
So what do we get
GOVERNMENT MUSIC
Christian censorship and taxed blank tapes
Shoppers strung out on our false hopes
Will flock to obey
Monday, February 8, 2016
08-02-2016: day lost to editing
tracks worked on in this vlog:
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1
i can think of a lot of better ways to spend public money than buying new jets.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/justin-trudeau-canada-isis-fight-announcement-1.3438279
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/justin-trudeau-canada-isis-fight-announcement-1.3438279
the documentary that they're "debunking" is obviously flat out ridiculous. the fact that this could even get published is astounding. but, i mean, we're talking about a country where over 90% of people are theists. it's a level of gullibility that should only seem shocking outside of context.
but, i've never seen this argument presented to me in terms of architecture magic in the first place. meaning that i'm kind of taking this as tearing down a strawman. i mean, it's great that you've "debunked" the claims that aliens made the pyramids via levitating rocks. that's a relief. really. but, it was hardly the go-to argument in the first place.
i haven't finished watching this, yet. but i do hope that it at least mentions the elijah story. it's the comparative mythology that this discussion needs to be centered around, not outlandish and easily debunked claims about hauling rocks around.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTW1BB46FIc
but, i've never seen this argument presented to me in terms of architecture magic in the first place. meaning that i'm kind of taking this as tearing down a strawman. i mean, it's great that you've "debunked" the claims that aliens made the pyramids via levitating rocks. that's a relief. really. but, it was hardly the go-to argument in the first place.
i haven't finished watching this, yet. but i do hope that it at least mentions the elijah story. it's the comparative mythology that this discussion needs to be centered around, not outlandish and easily debunked claims about hauling rocks around.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTW1BB46FIc
bernie...
i know i said i'd be quiet about tactics regarding the americana part of this, and i am going to be quiet, and you should thank me for being quiet. but, the foreign policy thing?
there's not a democrat in the country that is really excited about carrying on the obama foreign policy. it's actually laughable that clinton sees her time as secretary as some kind of asset. she was an absolute disaster, and it should be spun around as a weapon against her.
nobody wants continuity in foreign policy. throwing the neo-cons that obama brought in out on their ear is a great idea, and people will be highly receptive to it. this is actually something you can use in your favour: do we want four more years of bush-obama neo-con foreign policy, or do we want a new approach?
everybody wants a new approach. you'll even swing conservatives in the general, on this.
i know i said i'd be quiet about tactics regarding the americana part of this, and i am going to be quiet, and you should thank me for being quiet. but, the foreign policy thing?
there's not a democrat in the country that is really excited about carrying on the obama foreign policy. it's actually laughable that clinton sees her time as secretary as some kind of asset. she was an absolute disaster, and it should be spun around as a weapon against her.
nobody wants continuity in foreign policy. throwing the neo-cons that obama brought in out on their ear is a great idea, and people will be highly receptive to it. this is actually something you can use in your favour: do we want four more years of bush-obama neo-con foreign policy, or do we want a new approach?
everybody wants a new approach. you'll even swing conservatives in the general, on this.
see, it's kind of a shame. because i actually kind of wish the old hillary was actually a candidate. even the old hillary was well to my right, granted. but, it's pretty lonely out here. and, i know i need to compromise in making voting decisions.
i legitimately could have voted for the old hillary. not the new one, though.
if she manages to win this thing, you could see historically low levels of turnout - if a third party doesn't appear in the vacuum. it could take turnout well under 50%.
turnout in 1996 was 49%.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RokOLdsZLgQ
i legitimately could have voted for the old hillary. not the new one, though.
if she manages to win this thing, you could see historically low levels of turnout - if a third party doesn't appear in the vacuum. it could take turnout well under 50%.
turnout in 1996 was 49%.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RokOLdsZLgQ
Sunday, February 7, 2016
obvious drug overdose.
D'Ascoyne
No, it was an accident.
deathtokoalas
+D'Ascoyne well, i suppose that very few people intentionally give themselves strokes by overdosing on cocaine.
D'Ascoyne
+deathtokoalas Didn't you watch the video? It wasn't a drug overdose! She fell and injured her neck during a photo shoot.
deathtokoalas
+D'Ascoyne i bet she had mono in high school, too.
D'Ascoyne
No, it was an accident.
deathtokoalas
+D'Ascoyne well, i suppose that very few people intentionally give themselves strokes by overdosing on cocaine.
D'Ascoyne
+deathtokoalas Didn't you watch the video? It wasn't a drug overdose! She fell and injured her neck during a photo shoot.
deathtokoalas
+D'Ascoyne i bet she had mono in high school, too.
actually, my initial impression is that the guy in the van is drunk and the people on the street are doing everything they can to get him out of the car - especially after the first smash.
i mean, if you watched somebody you know get into a car while shitfaced and then proceed to ram into a basically parked car? you'd rush the car like that, too. you might even punch the guy in the head to knock him out.
i mean, if you watched somebody you know get into a car while shitfaced and then proceed to ram into a basically parked car? you'd rush the car like that, too. you might even punch the guy in the head to knock him out.
this is completely irrelevant.
what's next, beyonce? a concept record about the iraq war? or, to be more precise: a celebration of capitalist excess, with random and disconnected images from the iraq war?
i can see it. booty dancing through abu ghraib. bdsm to the beat, baby. waterboarding made real, baby. plus, interspersed sexy images of guantanamo. shameless, sure. but, how many records can it sell?
there is no imagery in this video except the imagery of bourgeois excess.
this woman is not your ally; she is your master.
what's next, beyonce? a concept record about the iraq war? or, to be more precise: a celebration of capitalist excess, with random and disconnected images from the iraq war?
i can see it. booty dancing through abu ghraib. bdsm to the beat, baby. waterboarding made real, baby. plus, interspersed sexy images of guantanamo. shameless, sure. but, how many records can it sell?
there is no imagery in this video except the imagery of bourgeois excess.
this woman is not your ally; she is your master.
Saturday, February 6, 2016
if you think this isn't political.
i mean, get real.
but, i'm not really particularly upset. obviously, i think i'm presenting a valid opinion, and it should be contemplated. but, am i having a hard time understanding why this is a poor product for google to sell to advertisers? i'm not.
the reason i'm not yelling and screaming - and others might - is that i understand what the platform is. i understand that i'm the product. and, i don't begrudge the platform for rejecting the content.
it's still available for viewing. that's more important to me. and, maybe if enough people watch the video and think about it then there will come a day when it will no longer be considered poor content to sell to advertisers.
but, you want proof i'm edgy? actually edgy? i can't monetize a substantial number of these. and, i'm not going to pretend i'm confused about it.
i mean, get real.
but, i'm not really particularly upset. obviously, i think i'm presenting a valid opinion, and it should be contemplated. but, am i having a hard time understanding why this is a poor product for google to sell to advertisers? i'm not.
the reason i'm not yelling and screaming - and others might - is that i understand what the platform is. i understand that i'm the product. and, i don't begrudge the platform for rejecting the content.
it's still available for viewing. that's more important to me. and, maybe if enough people watch the video and think about it then there will come a day when it will no longer be considered poor content to sell to advertisers.
but, you want proof i'm edgy? actually edgy? i can't monetize a substantial number of these. and, i'm not going to pretend i'm confused about it.
again...
given the historical circumstances regarding the current state of electronic music, i do not want to come down on this too hard. but, i have to be blunt. it's great that some of the bigger promoters are trying to look around to find some kind of artistic counterweight to the blunt artlessness of modern dance music. but, if what you're presenting is this? then, i won't blame the kids for walking out and muttering "this is boring" under their breath. because, they're right.
this has a time and place. namely at 4:00 am, when you're winding down. or, if you insist on billing it, in a hippie/psych pit.
it doesn't make sense to bill this as a headliner in a dance club. and, it's dangerous. because you're not really opening anything up. rather, you're erecting a brick wall.
given the historical circumstances regarding the current state of electronic music, i do not want to come down on this too hard. but, i have to be blunt. it's great that some of the bigger promoters are trying to look around to find some kind of artistic counterweight to the blunt artlessness of modern dance music. but, if what you're presenting is this? then, i won't blame the kids for walking out and muttering "this is boring" under their breath. because, they're right.
this has a time and place. namely at 4:00 am, when you're winding down. or, if you insist on billing it, in a hippie/psych pit.
it doesn't make sense to bill this as a headliner in a dance club. and, it's dangerous. because you're not really opening anything up. rather, you're erecting a brick wall.
Friday, February 5, 2016
so, this video is obviously just a shell to get people to watch the episode where trump becomes president. i haven't seen it - i guess that was after i tuned out, some time in the 90s. but, i'm sure they went to town with it. and, if anything is going to sink this nincompoop, it might just be that.
so, well done. and, good thinking. that's using your head, mindchop. applauds.
but, the truth is that there's actually a wide assortment of things that i remember (from just the early days) that fit into the farmville type category, where they're foreshadowing a dystopian future in ways that are eerily predictive. i'd have to sit down and think about it. or, maybe watch them all from start to finish (now, that would be a mindfuck). but, if this was done slowly and methodically, rather than to just get a point out? i suspect it would be really profound, actually.
so, well done. and, good thinking. that's using your head, mindchop. applauds.
but, the truth is that there's actually a wide assortment of things that i remember (from just the early days) that fit into the farmville type category, where they're foreshadowing a dystopian future in ways that are eerily predictive. i'd have to sit down and think about it. or, maybe watch them all from start to finish (now, that would be a mindfuck). but, if this was done slowly and methodically, rather than to just get a point out? i suspect it would be really profound, actually.
i don't have a tv. and, that might be a part of jeb's problem - the fact that so few people watch tv, nowadays. but, let me say this: this is the most media coverage of him that i've seen since his campaign started.
i actually had to check the other day to see if he was even still running. and, i think that might be what we're really seeing, here. this might be the first example of a campaign that died due to focusing almost solely on traditional media.
he might be all over cnn, nbc, fox - i'd never see it.
and, let's be clear, here: i never thought i'd say a bush is the preferable candidate. but, look at the alternatives. if this is a "republican cycle", and we're stuck with that outcome, i'd rather him than anybody else. he's an ass, but at least he's not insane.
so, you know: sorry to burst your dot-com bubble, but you need to hit the interwebs, jeb.
you see this term moderate thrown around.
rubio is not a moderate. total outlaws on abortion is not moderate. total. moderate. #!.
jeb is really the only moderate in the field. and, if he can't compete then what that says is that the party has rejected moderates.
i actually had to check the other day to see if he was even still running. and, i think that might be what we're really seeing, here. this might be the first example of a campaign that died due to focusing almost solely on traditional media.
he might be all over cnn, nbc, fox - i'd never see it.
and, let's be clear, here: i never thought i'd say a bush is the preferable candidate. but, look at the alternatives. if this is a "republican cycle", and we're stuck with that outcome, i'd rather him than anybody else. he's an ass, but at least he's not insane.
so, you know: sorry to burst your dot-com bubble, but you need to hit the interwebs, jeb.
you see this term moderate thrown around.
rubio is not a moderate. total outlaws on abortion is not moderate. total. moderate. #!.
jeb is really the only moderate in the field. and, if he can't compete then what that says is that the party has rejected moderates.
absolutely.
what america needs is more gridlock, more obfuscation and more stasis. none of these "deals".
think about it. a deal is co-operation. co-operation is practically communism. it's unamerican to have deals.
the real america is about the hobbessian condition of decentralized anarchy, where everybody fights everybody else until nobody is left standing. did our forefathers cut deals with the indians? no - we killed them. that's america.
so, to hell with any new deals. let's tear down the rest of the old ones. and, let's be left with just one deal - a raw deal: a social contract directly with goldman sachs, with president cruz as the lesser half of a governing team that ensures it: no new deals!.
i will support the first candidate that promises to pass absolutely no legislation.
what america needs is more gridlock, more obfuscation and more stasis. none of these "deals".
think about it. a deal is co-operation. co-operation is practically communism. it's unamerican to have deals.
the real america is about the hobbessian condition of decentralized anarchy, where everybody fights everybody else until nobody is left standing. did our forefathers cut deals with the indians? no - we killed them. that's america.
so, to hell with any new deals. let's tear down the rest of the old ones. and, let's be left with just one deal - a raw deal: a social contract directly with goldman sachs, with president cruz as the lesser half of a governing team that ensures it: no new deals!.
i will support the first candidate that promises to pass absolutely no legislation.
i was initially thinking that getting saetia back together might be interesting, as i bet they'd be able to build on all that potential they had if they could approach it with a bit more maturity.
and, i listened to this...
and, i thought "what is this trash?".
WHAT HAVE I DONE
and, i realized: it doesn't say saetia.
and, i couldn't care less about this than i do.
in darkness, and alone, i quietly closed the tab and carried on.
and, i listened to this...
and, i thought "what is this trash?".
WHAT HAVE I DONE
and, i realized: it doesn't say saetia.
and, i couldn't care less about this than i do.
in darkness, and alone, i quietly closed the tab and carried on.
just another thing.
i've changed the profile to allow for my birth date, which is 1981, to be public. that's not an error. i am actually 35 years old. really.
i'm entirely aware that i literally look half of my age. or, let me rephrase that. i look precisely like a fashionable (and single) 35 year old woman - but i can very easily be mistaken for an unruly-looking 17 year-old boy. is that really particularly unusual?
while i acknowledge that there are some advantages to looking young, especially considering that i do not at all act my age, i also need to point out that i'm at the age where a significant generation gap exists. i'm not 17 years old. i'm 35 years old. i identify as generation x (people born from 1965-1985). that might be your parents' generation. and, i'm consequently a little bit leery about being hit on by 17 year-olds. or 25 year-olds, for that matter. of either gender.
and it does happen. which is why i'm pointing this out.
so, yeah. i'm old. we don't need to draw attention to it. but, it would be nice if we all realize it. if you see me out or about, just understand that i'm there to see the show and nothing more.
no: i don't want to hang out with a bunch of kids. i'm friendly. sure. but, no.
no: i don't want to get hit on by kids.
and, no: i'm not going to hit on children.
but, when you center your life around music as much as i have, you don't grow out of it. it's a lifelong thing. i'll be continuing to attend small shows when i'm 50, so long as i don't get bounced. not for the people, and not for the scene. just for the tunes.
this message will self-deconstruct....
it's not just an internet/distance thing. don't be embarassed if you thought i was in my 20s or younger. i get it all the time.
when i went to see jimmy chamberlain a few months ago, i ended up having a smoke outside with a kid from in the bar. i could see he was in his late teens. i ended up giving him a pumpkins lesson (he was there to see the sax player). but, his jaw just dropped when i told him my age - because it opened up a generation gap. he thought he was talking to a peer, at first. then, he felt like he was talking to an adult, and that changed his entire perspective of the situation. he visibly didn't like the idea of "smoking an adult".
then there's the kid in the unit upstairs. he seems to be in high school. and, it took him over two years for him to realize i wasn't in his age group. he seemed offended that i was keeping my distance. he kept obviously waiting for me to ask him to come hang out. but, i hardly want to hang out with the high school kid upstairs. it's just that he had no idea, right. he can't be more than 18, but he interpreted me as in his peer group; the feeling was not at all mutual - i immediately interpreted him as a kid. a few months ago, i gave him a link to my bandcamp site and i think he finally figured it out, because he's seemed more cognizant, since.
so, it's not just you. it's everybody. online. in real life. it's just how i look. and, in fact, it runs in the family - it's those finnish bottleneck genes. everybody from finland is like this.
i've changed the profile to allow for my birth date, which is 1981, to be public. that's not an error. i am actually 35 years old. really.
i'm entirely aware that i literally look half of my age. or, let me rephrase that. i look precisely like a fashionable (and single) 35 year old woman - but i can very easily be mistaken for an unruly-looking 17 year-old boy. is that really particularly unusual?
while i acknowledge that there are some advantages to looking young, especially considering that i do not at all act my age, i also need to point out that i'm at the age where a significant generation gap exists. i'm not 17 years old. i'm 35 years old. i identify as generation x (people born from 1965-1985). that might be your parents' generation. and, i'm consequently a little bit leery about being hit on by 17 year-olds. or 25 year-olds, for that matter. of either gender.
and it does happen. which is why i'm pointing this out.
so, yeah. i'm old. we don't need to draw attention to it. but, it would be nice if we all realize it. if you see me out or about, just understand that i'm there to see the show and nothing more.
no: i don't want to hang out with a bunch of kids. i'm friendly. sure. but, no.
no: i don't want to get hit on by kids.
and, no: i'm not going to hit on children.
but, when you center your life around music as much as i have, you don't grow out of it. it's a lifelong thing. i'll be continuing to attend small shows when i'm 50, so long as i don't get bounced. not for the people, and not for the scene. just for the tunes.
this message will self-deconstruct....
it's not just an internet/distance thing. don't be embarassed if you thought i was in my 20s or younger. i get it all the time.
when i went to see jimmy chamberlain a few months ago, i ended up having a smoke outside with a kid from in the bar. i could see he was in his late teens. i ended up giving him a pumpkins lesson (he was there to see the sax player). but, his jaw just dropped when i told him my age - because it opened up a generation gap. he thought he was talking to a peer, at first. then, he felt like he was talking to an adult, and that changed his entire perspective of the situation. he visibly didn't like the idea of "smoking an adult".
then there's the kid in the unit upstairs. he seems to be in high school. and, it took him over two years for him to realize i wasn't in his age group. he seemed offended that i was keeping my distance. he kept obviously waiting for me to ask him to come hang out. but, i hardly want to hang out with the high school kid upstairs. it's just that he had no idea, right. he can't be more than 18, but he interpreted me as in his peer group; the feeling was not at all mutual - i immediately interpreted him as a kid. a few months ago, i gave him a link to my bandcamp site and i think he finally figured it out, because he's seemed more cognizant, since.
so, it's not just you. it's everybody. online. in real life. it's just how i look. and, in fact, it runs in the family - it's those finnish bottleneck genes. everybody from finland is like this.
Thursday, February 4, 2016
i'm not actually posting pictures from five years ago. rather, i'm
removing pictures from the last five years. but, there's a process to
ensure the transition remains documented on the timeline, which now
exists in the form of a read-only cv.
i'll be done in a day or two. i will actively continue to update the cv. i will not actively be posting here.
i'll be done in a day or two. i will actively continue to update the cv. i will not actively be posting here.
history repeats itself as farce, right?
listen: this is better than most of the "new" techno that i've heard over the last fifteen years. which is not to reduce the entire century to this dj set, so much as it is to point out that it's a little better - and actually encourage it, as the miniscule level of progress out of the abyss of absolute trash that it represents. this appears to be very trendy and whatnot. so, i don't want to come down on it too hard, lest i encourage a dubstep revival.
but, even, so...the truth is that this is what it would sound like if somebody took the 90s and watered it down to it's most basic level. and produced it with a hard beat. this is acid again, i guess.
and, i know that every other artform stagnated in the 90s, so techno shouldn't be any different, right? it's not fair to hold it to a different set of standards based on arbitrary projections created by the feeling that history was over, and there was nothing but future ahead of us. but, there was a lot of mental baggage attached to it, dammit.
i'm not bitter. really. i'm not coming down too hard. or not trying to. i see what the alternative is. really. it's just a little frustrating when "forward-thinking" means "could have been released in 1993".
in 2016, futuristic means not 80s.
seriously.
retro means 80s.
futuristic means 90s.
it's total artistic stagnation. fukuyama may have been wrong about equality, but he seems to have been right about music.
it's been 1995 for twenty years.
and, that's an entire life time, now, for some people that are old enough to get into clubs.
maybe my alter-reality will help break it open a little. give it a kickstart on an alternate evolution.
listen: this is better than most of the "new" techno that i've heard over the last fifteen years. which is not to reduce the entire century to this dj set, so much as it is to point out that it's a little better - and actually encourage it, as the miniscule level of progress out of the abyss of absolute trash that it represents. this appears to be very trendy and whatnot. so, i don't want to come down on it too hard, lest i encourage a dubstep revival.
but, even, so...the truth is that this is what it would sound like if somebody took the 90s and watered it down to it's most basic level. and produced it with a hard beat. this is acid again, i guess.
and, i know that every other artform stagnated in the 90s, so techno shouldn't be any different, right? it's not fair to hold it to a different set of standards based on arbitrary projections created by the feeling that history was over, and there was nothing but future ahead of us. but, there was a lot of mental baggage attached to it, dammit.
i'm not bitter. really. i'm not coming down too hard. or not trying to. i see what the alternative is. really. it's just a little frustrating when "forward-thinking" means "could have been released in 1993".
in 2016, futuristic means not 80s.
seriously.
retro means 80s.
futuristic means 90s.
it's total artistic stagnation. fukuyama may have been wrong about equality, but he seems to have been right about music.
it's been 1995 for twenty years.
and, that's an entire life time, now, for some people that are old enough to get into clubs.
maybe my alter-reality will help break it open a little. give it a kickstart on an alternate evolution.
i can appreciate long periods of sparse music if they have some purpose, but this is really just monotonous. worse than that, it's unabashedly hipster. take the intro, for example. blatant emulation of glass jar by gang gang dance - spliced with what sounds like autechre samples. and, it just spurns on and on from there with no aim or purpose.
it has the atmosphere of idm, sure. but, the construction is truly every bit as stupid as any other disco/club music i've ever heard.
and, what's with the audience? just a lot of poseurs. they're there to be seen; they don't care what they're listening to.
i mean, you got me there for a minute. nibbled.
but, no. it's just more brainless dance music for zombie drug addicts.
it has the atmosphere of idm, sure. but, the construction is truly every bit as stupid as any other disco/club music i've ever heard.
and, what's with the audience? just a lot of poseurs. they're there to be seen; they don't care what they're listening to.
i mean, you got me there for a minute. nibbled.
but, no. it's just more brainless dance music for zombie drug addicts.
Wednesday, February 3, 2016
ok, so i'm going to comment on this, finally.
basically, i think the entire thing - as tends to happen on the internet - has been outrageously misunderstood. this, basically, is the reason i stopped reading my facebook feed. something gets misunderstood, and it gets shared in the wrong context. then, it gets shared a million times in the wrong context. the number of people that bother to do research or think about it is basically zero. so, the end result is not that millions of people are brought to some higher understanding, but that millions of people are badly confused. it's a great example of how the internet has amplified the fact that we're all thoughtless cretins (even while providing us with the tools to transcend it).
what i think they were trying to do was create a franchise. it was less about mcdonalds suing burger king, and more about opening up a starbucks on every corner. what they were trying to do was create a "* reacts" video for just about anything you could imagine, and have it all use the same format.
so, they have their existing reacts franchises. what they wanted to do was allow that concept to explode by allowing others to use what they actually have trademarked - their logos, their music and the other aspects of their format that make them unique. so, you'd have somebody in the north doing "inuit react", somebody in russia doing "russians react", somebody in africa doing "zulus react" & etc - all in the relevant languages, for the relevant markets, and all being fast-food type franchise spin-offs of the copyrighted burger.
there are reasons to criticize this. but, what has gone viral is just factually wrong. yet again. can somebody drop me a line when they can find something viral that isn't factually wrong?
the error was that those few seconds of the video where he talks about copyright, and which really have almost nothing to do with the actual idea expressed in the video, should have been completely edited out. not because they're horrible; because they should have known that people would be too fucking stupid to get their heads around it.
basically, i think the entire thing - as tends to happen on the internet - has been outrageously misunderstood. this, basically, is the reason i stopped reading my facebook feed. something gets misunderstood, and it gets shared in the wrong context. then, it gets shared a million times in the wrong context. the number of people that bother to do research or think about it is basically zero. so, the end result is not that millions of people are brought to some higher understanding, but that millions of people are badly confused. it's a great example of how the internet has amplified the fact that we're all thoughtless cretins (even while providing us with the tools to transcend it).
what i think they were trying to do was create a franchise. it was less about mcdonalds suing burger king, and more about opening up a starbucks on every corner. what they were trying to do was create a "* reacts" video for just about anything you could imagine, and have it all use the same format.
so, they have their existing reacts franchises. what they wanted to do was allow that concept to explode by allowing others to use what they actually have trademarked - their logos, their music and the other aspects of their format that make them unique. so, you'd have somebody in the north doing "inuit react", somebody in russia doing "russians react", somebody in africa doing "zulus react" & etc - all in the relevant languages, for the relevant markets, and all being fast-food type franchise spin-offs of the copyrighted burger.
there are reasons to criticize this. but, what has gone viral is just factually wrong. yet again. can somebody drop me a line when they can find something viral that isn't factually wrong?
the error was that those few seconds of the video where he talks about copyright, and which really have almost nothing to do with the actual idea expressed in the video, should have been completely edited out. not because they're horrible; because they should have known that people would be too fucking stupid to get their heads around it.
so, i'm actually partly through clearing out the page. i'm going to be moving posts to an appspot site, where i can properly format them - facebook is useless, in terms of spreading information. it's still useful for concerts. and drive-by postings. but, i'm hoping all this changes.
the platform just sucks. it's the developers. it was never great, but it was workable for a while around 2012. they've removed the things that once made it usable.
for example, now you can't even tell the algorithm which posts to highlight. so, when i post things to this page, i have no control over how it's presented. that's entirely unacceptable to me. so, i'm not even sure i want to reduce the page to a cv. i'll have to see.
but, this will be my last regular post here. i've been saying this for a long time, but i'm finally actually almost cleared. the post will not be up long.
i just want to drop my perspective of the american election before i go quiet.
i've been waiting for the establishment to put down a candidate that will defeat clinton, and at this point this seems unlikely. remember: clinton is not the establishment candidate. that is why she lost in 2008 - the establishment rejected her. which is not to say she is anti-establishment, either.
stated tersely: clinton would love to be the establishment. she's spent her whole life trying to become the establishment. she happily produces establishment talking points. she takes their money, even. but, they will never let her win. they will never bring her inside.
even THEY think she's fake.
what we've seen develop is that the establishment has abandoned the democrats. well, it's been eight years. time to rotate. predictably. they're giving clinton some cash, but it's a kind of contingency plan in case things go wrong. what is more accurate is that they seem to be abandoning her. the banks are actually probably rooting for sanders - not because they want him to win, but because they see him as an easier candidate to beat. there's a lot of disinformation out there about this.
the money is firmly on the republican side. and, that is where the smart bets are.
i think it's clear that i'd be rooting for sanders. but, i'm going to go with:
rubio: 2-1
trump: 5-1
cruz: 10-1
bush: 15-1
clinton: 20-1
sanders: 100-1
that's what the money says, right now.
whoever comes out of the republican field will almost certainly win.
that's the real election.
again: i'm concluding that the fact that there has been no big money candidate sent to beat clinton means that there is no big money behind the democrats; rather, the big money is allowing sanders to openly run amok. it seems like a bankers' consensus to elect a republican.
but, like...
you gotta...
clinton is not plan B. she's, like, plan F.
the platform just sucks. it's the developers. it was never great, but it was workable for a while around 2012. they've removed the things that once made it usable.
for example, now you can't even tell the algorithm which posts to highlight. so, when i post things to this page, i have no control over how it's presented. that's entirely unacceptable to me. so, i'm not even sure i want to reduce the page to a cv. i'll have to see.
but, this will be my last regular post here. i've been saying this for a long time, but i'm finally actually almost cleared. the post will not be up long.
i just want to drop my perspective of the american election before i go quiet.
i've been waiting for the establishment to put down a candidate that will defeat clinton, and at this point this seems unlikely. remember: clinton is not the establishment candidate. that is why she lost in 2008 - the establishment rejected her. which is not to say she is anti-establishment, either.
stated tersely: clinton would love to be the establishment. she's spent her whole life trying to become the establishment. she happily produces establishment talking points. she takes their money, even. but, they will never let her win. they will never bring her inside.
even THEY think she's fake.
what we've seen develop is that the establishment has abandoned the democrats. well, it's been eight years. time to rotate. predictably. they're giving clinton some cash, but it's a kind of contingency plan in case things go wrong. what is more accurate is that they seem to be abandoning her. the banks are actually probably rooting for sanders - not because they want him to win, but because they see him as an easier candidate to beat. there's a lot of disinformation out there about this.
the money is firmly on the republican side. and, that is where the smart bets are.
i think it's clear that i'd be rooting for sanders. but, i'm going to go with:
rubio: 2-1
trump: 5-1
cruz: 10-1
bush: 15-1
clinton: 20-1
sanders: 100-1
that's what the money says, right now.
whoever comes out of the republican field will almost certainly win.
that's the real election.
again: i'm concluding that the fact that there has been no big money candidate sent to beat clinton means that there is no big money behind the democrats; rather, the big money is allowing sanders to openly run amok. it seems like a bankers' consensus to elect a republican.
but, like...
you gotta...
clinton is not plan B. she's, like, plan F.
if you can believe this, it seems like the clinton campaign's paid army of online social media zombies is pushing a protocols-like jewish banker theory to attack sanders as a "communist jew" pushing a zionist agenda with "jewish bankers money".
trump, it appears, does not have a monopoly on the resurrection of goebbels.
trump, it appears, does not have a monopoly on the resurrection of goebbels.
Tuesday, February 2, 2016
my experience has actually always been that the people with the most fearful attitudes towards death are religious, whereas atheists tend to take a more healthy approach of resignation and acceptance. and, i don't think that's a coincidence, either.
if what drives religion is the fear of death, or perhaps of irrelevance, then it should logically follow that the way to abolish religion is to foster rational attitudes about the inevitability and certainty of death.
it's a cultural revolution, of course. and, it certainly intersects dramatically with the traditional approach of using reason to counter superstition. but it approaches the issue from a psychological perspective. and i do think that, even if my cause and effect analysis is lacking or incomplete, that this is fundamentally a problem of psychology.
if what drives religion is the fear of death, or perhaps of irrelevance, then it should logically follow that the way to abolish religion is to foster rational attitudes about the inevitability and certainty of death.
it's a cultural revolution, of course. and, it certainly intersects dramatically with the traditional approach of using reason to counter superstition. but it approaches the issue from a psychological perspective. and i do think that, even if my cause and effect analysis is lacking or incomplete, that this is fundamentally a problem of psychology.
turns out that the conservation laws are wrong: our bodies can create energy out of nothing. who knew?
maybe it's the answer to the energy crisis, too. and, hey - maybe we don't have to eat at all.
it's actually hard to even know what the study is suggesting, as the claim is terminologically incoherent. when one speaks of burning calories, that is a measure of work that is being done. the claim that sedentary people burn the same number of calories as active people is a contradiction in terms; it cannot be what the study actually says. this is a total fail at the editing stage, to the point that whomever oversaw this report should really be fired.
i flipped through the study, and it's suggesting that your body will adjust through subconscious and autonomous functions to ensure that the total number of calories burned is static. even that seems outrageous - you want to think of it as a rate game. so, a reasonable claim would be that if you start exercising then your internal metabolism slows down a little. conceding the point doesn't really get one anywhere: even if this is true (and it is really not that unlikely) then it follows that, if you want to lose weight, you simply need to do even more exercise, so you're overpowering your body's metabolic response.
i mean, your body can only reduce the amount of energy it's burning to a certain point. eventually, the exercise will always win - unless you're attached to an iv while you're on the treadmill.
otherwise, we've got bigger problems than a crisis in nutritional science. we'll need to start over again with physics, too.
----
Mick Biggins
Yeah, the body plateaus after you grow comfortable with your levels of exercise - but this article isn't comparing no exercise vs. moderate exercise, it compares some exercise with more. People who get no exercise whatsoever will still benefit from starting a workout program in conjunction with a proper diet. 300 calories is virtually nothing. If you really want to lose weight, eat an adequate amount of the right foods and run your BMR number with a calculator online. Adjust diet to fit the BMR and hold a deficit of 1,000 or more calories daily, you'll see a significant difference. After adjusting my diet to equal what my body burns in a day without exercise (BMR) then doing a 1,000 calorie deficit's worth of exercise daily, I lost around 25 pounds in just over a month: 235 down to 210. High calorie deficits might not work for everyone, but drop pop and sugar and exercise more, and you'll see the difference. Good luck!
jessica
the idea that weight loss plateaus at a certain point is equivalent to claiming that your body has the ability to spontaneously generate energy out of nothing.
do you have any proposals for a physical mechanism that would allow for this?
maybe it's the answer to the energy crisis, too. and, hey - maybe we don't have to eat at all.
it's actually hard to even know what the study is suggesting, as the claim is terminologically incoherent. when one speaks of burning calories, that is a measure of work that is being done. the claim that sedentary people burn the same number of calories as active people is a contradiction in terms; it cannot be what the study actually says. this is a total fail at the editing stage, to the point that whomever oversaw this report should really be fired.
i flipped through the study, and it's suggesting that your body will adjust through subconscious and autonomous functions to ensure that the total number of calories burned is static. even that seems outrageous - you want to think of it as a rate game. so, a reasonable claim would be that if you start exercising then your internal metabolism slows down a little. conceding the point doesn't really get one anywhere: even if this is true (and it is really not that unlikely) then it follows that, if you want to lose weight, you simply need to do even more exercise, so you're overpowering your body's metabolic response.
i mean, your body can only reduce the amount of energy it's burning to a certain point. eventually, the exercise will always win - unless you're attached to an iv while you're on the treadmill.
otherwise, we've got bigger problems than a crisis in nutritional science. we'll need to start over again with physics, too.
----
Mick Biggins
Yeah, the body plateaus after you grow comfortable with your levels of exercise - but this article isn't comparing no exercise vs. moderate exercise, it compares some exercise with more. People who get no exercise whatsoever will still benefit from starting a workout program in conjunction with a proper diet. 300 calories is virtually nothing. If you really want to lose weight, eat an adequate amount of the right foods and run your BMR number with a calculator online. Adjust diet to fit the BMR and hold a deficit of 1,000 or more calories daily, you'll see a significant difference. After adjusting my diet to equal what my body burns in a day without exercise (BMR) then doing a 1,000 calorie deficit's worth of exercise daily, I lost around 25 pounds in just over a month: 235 down to 210. High calorie deficits might not work for everyone, but drop pop and sugar and exercise more, and you'll see the difference. Good luck!
jessica
the idea that weight loss plateaus at a certain point is equivalent to claiming that your body has the ability to spontaneously generate energy out of nothing.
do you have any proposals for a physical mechanism that would allow for this?
the first thing that crossed my mind was "i bet there's a lot of conservatives that mistakenly think they're leftists posting on the video about cultural appropriation".
ignore them. the ones that aren't racists (most of them are racists. what they're actually opposed to is miscegenation. they want racial segregation, of the old-timey conservative type: separate but equal.) are idiots.
the song? meh. i liked them better when they were pretending to be u2. and, i didn't like them much then, either.
i'd suggest looking into some old george harrison records, instead.
ignore them. the ones that aren't racists (most of them are racists. what they're actually opposed to is miscegenation. they want racial segregation, of the old-timey conservative type: separate but equal.) are idiots.
the song? meh. i liked them better when they were pretending to be u2. and, i didn't like them much then, either.
i'd suggest looking into some old george harrison records, instead.
you know, it was irritating when this went mainstream.....15 years ago? it was a stupid fad. it would go away like all the other stupid fads.
it's past the point of annoyance, now, and even past the point of dismay. it's just befuddling. what the hell does anybody get out of this absolute trash?
who buys this garbage?
it's past the point of annoyance, now, and even past the point of dismay. it's just befuddling. what the hell does anybody get out of this absolute trash?
who buys this garbage?
Monday, February 1, 2016
you know what's hilarious?
i pride myself on being ahead of the curve. it's repeatedly demonstrable.
i'm just seeing this now - early on the morning of feb 1. and, i had decided to do a react series as a parody on my channel on jan 25. i upload staggered over eight days, so the vlog for the 25th will come up tonight a little after midnight. i split the reacts section off when i uploaded yesterday, and published it prematurely to get the playlist to show up on the front page. i have three further scheduled uploads and a few more in the editing stage.
i'm not using the fancy graphics; my parodies are extremely tongue-in-cheek. even if you're smart, you're probably only picking up a fraction of it. it's by design. you're not as much of a nerd as i am. trust me. so, you can't keep up.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2UqT6SZ7CU
i'm going to be reacting to political speeches, history documentaries, chomsky lectures and whatnot. and, i'll be speaking in complete sentences.
mostly.
i pride myself on being ahead of the curve. it's repeatedly demonstrable.
i'm just seeing this now - early on the morning of feb 1. and, i had decided to do a react series as a parody on my channel on jan 25. i upload staggered over eight days, so the vlog for the 25th will come up tonight a little after midnight. i split the reacts section off when i uploaded yesterday, and published it prematurely to get the playlist to show up on the front page. i have three further scheduled uploads and a few more in the editing stage.
i'm not using the fancy graphics; my parodies are extremely tongue-in-cheek. even if you're smart, you're probably only picking up a fraction of it. it's by design. you're not as much of a nerd as i am. trust me. so, you can't keep up.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2UqT6SZ7CU
i'm going to be reacting to political speeches, history documentaries, chomsky lectures and whatnot. and, i'll be speaking in complete sentences.
mostly.
Sunday, January 31, 2016
Saturday, January 30, 2016
idek
i took one of these tests too and found out that i was part middle eastern, north african, and south asian. crazy isn't it? i thought i was just half jewish half white.
WashashoreProd
That doesn't sound too far off, actually. Most Jewish people, except converts, have clear Middle Eastern ancestry to begin with, and North African people are more or less white if you're not an Islamophobe.
idek
how are north african people white, theyre black. im so confused
Wabbi wasabi
naaaah they are white xD north africa people are mixed with arab, and it's also fully arab people there
idek
i have never heard of this. i just assumed all people from africa are black. obviously they would be mixed with arab since they are so close. do you know any articles that talk about this sort of thing bc it doesnt really make any sense to me why north africans and arabs are considered white in the US
WashashoreProd
Most people from north Africa are either more or less indigenous (Berber, Egyptian) or a mix of indigenous with a bunch of other things -- Arab, European, Phoenician, whatever. I think Morocco and Algeria have a bunch of people who have some Basque or Gothic DNA in them somewhere that came from ancestors who were kicked out of Spain after the Reconquista (which probably would make them extra-white). I think the dividing line, if such a thing can be said to exist for a concept as muddy as race, is probably somewhere around Sudan/South Sudan. (Not to mention the Sahara Desert, the main reason the Romans and the Bantu peoples never came to blows.)
Of course, Egypt probably has a fair bit of east African DNA floating around from the upper Nile area because of trade connections to Nubian and Ethiopian nations in the old days, and I'd be shocked if most north African nations didn't have a decent-sized population of people of sub-Saharan roots whose ancestors came relatively recently (like, after 1000AD and the spread of Islam), but for the most part I think most people from North Africa would be considered white to someone who wasn't racist.
idek
long story short almost everyone is somewhat mixed and race is just a social construct made up by society to separate people. i wouldnt say its racist if someone who is north african said they werent white.
Wabbi wasabi
My friend is from morocco and that is in north africa, but even if we are both african, she consider her self as arabic or white, i told her once that she is african,she did not believe me and disagreed, because her mother told her that she was Arab or white since she was a little girl,most people I've met who is from the north Africans do not consider themself as african, because that is "black" and they look down on them, not everyone is like that, but most I've met
WashashoreProd
As for what makes someone "white" or whatever -- according to one probably-arbitrary count, there's something like seven "races" (really just broad genetic groups that probably represent settlement waves out of Africa; the number is not to be taken too literally).
The closest to the "original" human race would probably be either the Khoisan (southern Africa) or the Indian Ocean negritos, who look more or less black but have wildly different genetics from any of the African groups. "White" or "Caucasian" is kind of a catchall term for the group that settled from northwest India to Europe and north Africa, with some admixture of Neanderthal; most of the Afro-Asiatic and Indo-European speakers fit into this category, including basically all of Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East (except for Ethiopia; east African -- Ethiopian, Somali, etc. is a group unto itself). "Asian" (in the east Asian sense) I think may have branched off of "White" relatively late, and covers basically everyone whose ancestors came from anywhere between the east side of the Urals down to South America.
The people we would think of as "black" would be from west and central Africa, of which the Bantu are probably the single largest group. They probably started in central Africa (they are part of the Niger-Congo language group), but spread all over the continent south of the Sahara; for example, Swahili is a Bantu language originating from East Africa, and a lot of black South Africans are actually a mix of Bantu and Khoisan. (Nelson Mandela looked like pretty much a straight-up mix of both, for example.)
Finally, you have the pygmy groups and the Australian aborigines. The pygmy peoples of Africa represent a separate group that seems to be slowly merging with the black west/central Africans. I'm not sure what the deal with the Australian aborigines is; I believe they're a separate population entirely but I really don't know, and of course by now there's been a lot of European and southeast Asian mixed in as well.
BenjoJames
Erm...where did you think Jews came from?
idek
i know all jews come from the middle east but i just never thought about it
jessica
the dividing line in antiquity was the sahara, and it was really only in egypt where there was substantial mixing.
the indigenous inhabitants are called berbers and are of white-tanned complexion, similar to spaniards or italians.
the carthaginians/phoenicians set up in modern day tunisia and created an empire that included northern africa and southern europe. they built cities all along the mediterranean. the actual fact is that a huge amount of the urban civilization in southern europe developed out of white african colonization.
the carthaginians were eventually conquered by the romans, who incorporated the whole of northern africa into their empire. when you put the roman and carthaginian colonization of north africa together, that's over a thousand years.
the region did not pass directly from romans to arabs. there was a period of chaos in between that lasted several centuries and saw large waves of migration from germany into northern africa - just as it was elsewhere in the roman empire during the empire's collapse. there was a relatively powerful swedish kingdom in the region of tunisia for a few generations. in the end, the emperors (and justinian, especially) retained enough control to settle the barbarians in the countryside.
vikings also settled in north africa in substantial numbers.
there has even been substantial french migration since napoleon.
i took one of these tests too and found out that i was part middle eastern, north african, and south asian. crazy isn't it? i thought i was just half jewish half white.
WashashoreProd
That doesn't sound too far off, actually. Most Jewish people, except converts, have clear Middle Eastern ancestry to begin with, and North African people are more or less white if you're not an Islamophobe.
idek
how are north african people white, theyre black. im so confused
Wabbi wasabi
naaaah they are white xD north africa people are mixed with arab, and it's also fully arab people there
idek
i have never heard of this. i just assumed all people from africa are black. obviously they would be mixed with arab since they are so close. do you know any articles that talk about this sort of thing bc it doesnt really make any sense to me why north africans and arabs are considered white in the US
WashashoreProd
Most people from north Africa are either more or less indigenous (Berber, Egyptian) or a mix of indigenous with a bunch of other things -- Arab, European, Phoenician, whatever. I think Morocco and Algeria have a bunch of people who have some Basque or Gothic DNA in them somewhere that came from ancestors who were kicked out of Spain after the Reconquista (which probably would make them extra-white). I think the dividing line, if such a thing can be said to exist for a concept as muddy as race, is probably somewhere around Sudan/South Sudan. (Not to mention the Sahara Desert, the main reason the Romans and the Bantu peoples never came to blows.)
Of course, Egypt probably has a fair bit of east African DNA floating around from the upper Nile area because of trade connections to Nubian and Ethiopian nations in the old days, and I'd be shocked if most north African nations didn't have a decent-sized population of people of sub-Saharan roots whose ancestors came relatively recently (like, after 1000AD and the spread of Islam), but for the most part I think most people from North Africa would be considered white to someone who wasn't racist.
idek
long story short almost everyone is somewhat mixed and race is just a social construct made up by society to separate people. i wouldnt say its racist if someone who is north african said they werent white.
Wabbi wasabi
My friend is from morocco and that is in north africa, but even if we are both african, she consider her self as arabic or white, i told her once that she is african,she did not believe me and disagreed, because her mother told her that she was Arab or white since she was a little girl,most people I've met who is from the north Africans do not consider themself as african, because that is "black" and they look down on them, not everyone is like that, but most I've met
WashashoreProd
As for what makes someone "white" or whatever -- according to one probably-arbitrary count, there's something like seven "races" (really just broad genetic groups that probably represent settlement waves out of Africa; the number is not to be taken too literally).
The closest to the "original" human race would probably be either the Khoisan (southern Africa) or the Indian Ocean negritos, who look more or less black but have wildly different genetics from any of the African groups. "White" or "Caucasian" is kind of a catchall term for the group that settled from northwest India to Europe and north Africa, with some admixture of Neanderthal; most of the Afro-Asiatic and Indo-European speakers fit into this category, including basically all of Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East (except for Ethiopia; east African -- Ethiopian, Somali, etc. is a group unto itself). "Asian" (in the east Asian sense) I think may have branched off of "White" relatively late, and covers basically everyone whose ancestors came from anywhere between the east side of the Urals down to South America.
The people we would think of as "black" would be from west and central Africa, of which the Bantu are probably the single largest group. They probably started in central Africa (they are part of the Niger-Congo language group), but spread all over the continent south of the Sahara; for example, Swahili is a Bantu language originating from East Africa, and a lot of black South Africans are actually a mix of Bantu and Khoisan. (Nelson Mandela looked like pretty much a straight-up mix of both, for example.)
Finally, you have the pygmy groups and the Australian aborigines. The pygmy peoples of Africa represent a separate group that seems to be slowly merging with the black west/central Africans. I'm not sure what the deal with the Australian aborigines is; I believe they're a separate population entirely but I really don't know, and of course by now there's been a lot of European and southeast Asian mixed in as well.
BenjoJames
Erm...where did you think Jews came from?
idek
i know all jews come from the middle east but i just never thought about it
jessica
the dividing line in antiquity was the sahara, and it was really only in egypt where there was substantial mixing.
the indigenous inhabitants are called berbers and are of white-tanned complexion, similar to spaniards or italians.
the carthaginians/phoenicians set up in modern day tunisia and created an empire that included northern africa and southern europe. they built cities all along the mediterranean. the actual fact is that a huge amount of the urban civilization in southern europe developed out of white african colonization.
the carthaginians were eventually conquered by the romans, who incorporated the whole of northern africa into their empire. when you put the roman and carthaginian colonization of north africa together, that's over a thousand years.
the region did not pass directly from romans to arabs. there was a period of chaos in between that lasted several centuries and saw large waves of migration from germany into northern africa - just as it was elsewhere in the roman empire during the empire's collapse. there was a relatively powerful swedish kingdom in the region of tunisia for a few generations. in the end, the emperors (and justinian, especially) retained enough control to settle the barbarians in the countryside.
vikings also settled in north africa in substantial numbers.
there has even been substantial french migration since napoleon.
Friday, January 29, 2016
Thursday, January 28, 2016
i think cenk sort of explained this well, but not really.
the time aggregate isn't useful because it "balances out error". that's not actually a real thing, mathematically speaking - error just doesn't "balance out" like that. that said, if you want an aggregate to "balance out error", what you need to do is do them all at the same time. so, if you had ten firms all doing polling in the same region over the same weekend? then, it "balances out" - because you're increasing the sample size, basically. more people, less error. but it has to be apples and apples.
taking a poll from two weekends ago and averaging it with a poll from last weekend doesn't balance anything out. rather, it amplifies error - because you're aggregating apples and oranges. if you're actually concerned about predicting results, aggregates should be completely ignored. a single snap poll from a trustworthy firm is always better than an aggregate over disparate time periods.
so, why do they do this?
because it's a good measure of branding. it's the kind of thing you do when you want to measure market response to a cereal ad. and, the people that are doing this largely look at the situation as comparable to measuring attitudes in response to advertising. in fact, a lot of the time that's what they're actually being paid to do - not predict outcomes.
so you shouldn't pay very much attention to the rcp averages. it's bad methodology. instead, key in on reliable firms using reliable methods (live interview phone calling) and key in on their most recent snapshots.
the time aggregate isn't useful because it "balances out error". that's not actually a real thing, mathematically speaking - error just doesn't "balance out" like that. that said, if you want an aggregate to "balance out error", what you need to do is do them all at the same time. so, if you had ten firms all doing polling in the same region over the same weekend? then, it "balances out" - because you're increasing the sample size, basically. more people, less error. but it has to be apples and apples.
taking a poll from two weekends ago and averaging it with a poll from last weekend doesn't balance anything out. rather, it amplifies error - because you're aggregating apples and oranges. if you're actually concerned about predicting results, aggregates should be completely ignored. a single snap poll from a trustworthy firm is always better than an aggregate over disparate time periods.
so, why do they do this?
because it's a good measure of branding. it's the kind of thing you do when you want to measure market response to a cereal ad. and, the people that are doing this largely look at the situation as comparable to measuring attitudes in response to advertising. in fact, a lot of the time that's what they're actually being paid to do - not predict outcomes.
so you shouldn't pay very much attention to the rcp averages. it's bad methodology. instead, key in on reliable firms using reliable methods (live interview phone calling) and key in on their most recent snapshots.
they should send her to the icc while they're at it.
i don't support capital punishment. but, what she did in libya deserves it, if anything does.
kelamuni
that old crook is deluded. more vapid right wing conspiracy theories.... and obama is a muslim from kenya. pfft. what a bunch of clowns.
jessica
it's quite vast, isn't it?
i don't support capital punishment. but, what she did in libya deserves it, if anything does.
kelamuni
that old crook is deluded. more vapid right wing conspiracy theories.... and obama is a muslim from kenya. pfft. what a bunch of clowns.
jessica
it's quite vast, isn't it?
i could do without the right-wing drooling. and, his logic is erected on screwy edifices. but, he is actually expressing a kind of epiphany on the issue that one hopes is visionary: the future of israel-palestine relations lies in integration, not in segregation. there is no peace in segregation; there is only peace in integration.
a one-state solution, followed by a civil rights movement, is the only possible path forwards. it may take a generational overturn for this to be understood.
a one-state solution, followed by a civil rights movement, is the only possible path forwards. it may take a generational overturn for this to be understood.
Wednesday, January 27, 2016
who cares?
i mean, there's a lot of reasons to avoid alcohol.
1) it makes you retarded.
2) health issues.
3) did i mention that it makes you retarded?
but, whether it's a "sin" or not shouldn't be in the list.
well...unless you're already retarded, i guess.
maybe that's it - maybe this religion thing would make more sense to me if i were to drink myself into a retarded stupor for a few years first.
explains the success of aa, anyways.
i mean, there's a lot of reasons to avoid alcohol.
1) it makes you retarded.
2) health issues.
3) did i mention that it makes you retarded?
but, whether it's a "sin" or not shouldn't be in the list.
well...unless you're already retarded, i guess.
maybe that's it - maybe this religion thing would make more sense to me if i were to drink myself into a retarded stupor for a few years first.
explains the success of aa, anyways.
whenever anything financial goes viral, you can be certain it will be misunderstood. on finance, the left is just as clueless as the right, too.
what this company seems to be doing is actually trying to privatize the loan process, so that your debt is traded on an open market between individuals. this isn't big government centralization. rather, it's a decentralization of the process - and, if followed through logically, threatens to return us to the days of private slave trading.
your student loan debt will be converted into a bond that can be traded on the market. it stands to reason that the person that owns your debt owns your labour, too. so, what happens if they want to cash the bond in?
what this company seems to be doing is actually trying to privatize the loan process, so that your debt is traded on an open market between individuals. this isn't big government centralization. rather, it's a decentralization of the process - and, if followed through logically, threatens to return us to the days of private slave trading.
your student loan debt will be converted into a bond that can be traded on the market. it stands to reason that the person that owns your debt owns your labour, too. so, what happens if they want to cash the bond in?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)