Zicutake [Audio]

USAComment.com
Zicutake USA Comment | Search Articles










Zicutake Formation University:

USAComment.com | Search Articles of Onion.to
Search Articles of Onion.to:

Shorten that long URL into a tiny URL:
Example, enter the url: http://zicutake.usacomment.com = Tinyurl.com/hox5dyn


USAComment.com | TALK

 
Tweets by Zicutake


SEND YOUR HISTORY:

Contact Us

Friday, April 26, 2013

Loki

I put Loki down this morning. He's been my dog since July 31, 2000 until today, April 26, 2013. He was six months old when Richard, my then partner and now sainted ex, and I picked him from all the other mutts at the San Francisco SPCA. He was so calm and he had those deep soulful brown eyes that penetrated from behind the bars.

Loki and Stephen, saying hello

I was 47 when I got Loki and the photo above is the first photo ever taken of him, in the dot.com office where I worked with Chad who took the photo. Loki's calm in the cage belied his nervous nature. When I walked him out of the SPCA to the office where the photo was taken, he just about jumped out of his skin when the first car passed us by. We learned that he had been an apartment dog that had to be turned in by his first owner because dogs were not allowed. Loki was afraid of boxes in his puppyhood, and we figure he was kept in a box before we got him.

His first name was Banjo, but that did not do it for Richard and me. We picked Loki, the mischievous. His full name was Loki da Dawg. He was a doggy type dog. That's how we saw him.

But this blog post is not meant to be a life history or even an obituary. It's meant as a reflection on a dog and a man, and dogs and what they mean to us.

I put Loki down because the malignant tumors in his jaw and throat were threatening a catastrophic event, and his breathing was starting to be labored. I see no point in letting an animal under my care suffer, and the imminent suffering would have been grotesque. Outside of the cancer, Loki was still vigorous, gobbling down his breakfast on his last day, and then, albeit slowly, retracing the steps of our regular Saturday morning walk in Golden Gate Park and through the AIDS Memorial Grove. By the end of the walk, it was slow going indeed, and from there I took him straight to his demise.

Loki and Stephen, saying goodbye


This is the last photo ever taken of Loki, by me by shutter delay today in the big circle in the AIDS Memorial Grove. He would be dead less than an hour after this.

When a dog dies, it is like the loss of a limb. A dog's attention is constant; his work is to observe and, in his canine way, interpret every move his master makes. Part of the need for animal connection, I am convinced, is an inner harmony with being watched by a beast. The conversation between beast and man is not in words or in concepts, but in physicality and presence and response.

It's not like that when a person dies. This has been a bad year in my circle that way. We lost our friend Jim Gaither to a sudden heart attack last July, and we lost our friend Lindi Press to a galloping and cruel cancer on New Year's Eve. When a person dies, it is kaleidoscopic. it touches so many, alters so many paths and connections. It takes years to adjust to human loss, and even years are not enough in so many instances.

People often say that dogs are like children. It's just not true. The death of a child never ends. The death of a dog zeroes in on his few primary persons, and we feel empty and bereft. But we move on soon enough. I will never forget Loki, as I can never forget Laddie, my boyhood dog, nor Den, the husky who immediately preceded Loki. Remembering any of them makes me wistful and nostalgic. It makes me remember their presence as we wandered and cavorted and hung out. It will make me want him by my side again.


Loki on Strawberry Hill


I did some calculations, and I figure that Loki and I walked about 27,000 miles together. The photo above was taken on top of the hills above my alma mater Cal. Walking is my solace, the best way to think. Loki and I came to walk together so natively to each other, unspoken patterns repeated countless times. Loki didn't really like other dogs, especially big ones, and especially golden retrievers and boxers and big labs. So he was always on leash. I preferred it that way anyway because I walk to move along, cover distance. Dogs left top their own devices tend to dawdle or travel in circles.

I was never Loki's care giver or whatever term is preferred now. I was his master, and we had a clear hierarchy. He knew how to read what I wanted, because I taught him how, and by and large he obeyed. By and large only because I, for many years, had to take firm measures to walk past the aforementioned big dogs. But he got it, and we did it. We understood each other; we felt each other's presence.

Loki contemplating

He was a contemplative beast as contemplation goes in beasts. He showed his skepticism when he didn't cotton to an activity or a chain of events. He made his assessments rapidly and he stuck to them. My roommate called him Mr. Grumpipuss because of that long low glower he proffered as his initial position on pretty much anything outside the norm. He'd give it to me when he thought it was time to go to bed, or time for a walk. O, how I already miss that look. I want him to glare at me right now, to command with his eyes, to assent with his swinging reluctant gait in the face of an unwanted order.

O Loki, my sweet sweet dog.

Because a dog is a lot about ego, about the owner's owning. The connection is direct and unmediated and particular. With Loki gone, I am left with myself. I have one less angle, one less buffer. You know, the world is a bloody bleak place, but we hide that with our friends and creativity and actions and brainpower. And with our animals. There is a special pureness in the way that a dog obscures the bleakness, and when he is suddenly gone, by my call, that bleakness presses into my heart and makes me long for his warmth, his presence, walking still beside me as he did for 13 long beautiful years.

So good bye Loki, good bye. Good bye.

Loki snoozing in the sun



Thursday, April 25, 2013

Bitcoin panic light flashing bright amber

The once confident Jon Matonis has changed his tune a little:
More than a decade ago, regulators nearly suffocated PayPal. Now it looks like they’re trying to squelch another disruptive, innovative payments system.

At least three exchanges in the U.S. that traded the digital currency Bitcoin have shut down, apparently as a result of guidance issued last month by the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. That agency has emerged as the top threat, at least in in the United States, to the decentralized Bitcoin network – more so than the widely reported price volatility and hacker attacks.
Matonis does not include the most telling parts of the Bradley Jensen interview (my transcript).  Around 17:30:

Jensen: "I have heard through the grapevine that FinCEN has prosecutions in the works for Bitcoin broadly speaking. My guess, based on the timing of the guidance, and what I had heard previously from the rumor mill about the prosecutions, is that FinCEN put out the guidance sort of ex post facto to justify the prosecutions that they're about to launch."

Interviewer: "So you expect this to happen within in the next couple of months..."

Jensen: "Again, I've heard different rumors, it's difficult to predict, but yeah. We knew that the prosecutions were in the works, and then later the guidance came out, it seems like a sort of CYA approach to how they're doing it."
Around 21:30:
Jensen: "We knew that these guidelines and these prosecutions were in the works, even last Congress. Ron Paul was the chairman of the House subcommittee that had jurisdiction over FinCEN, and he never had a single hearing on this. Congress has dropped the ball."

Interviewer: "Why is that, do you think?"

Jensen: "For a lot of people these are relatively obscure questions... I mean, Congress is a representative body that works to meet the demands of their constituents. Their constituents are demanding a balanced budget or gun control or immigration reform or something else... those are the issues that you deal with."
Jensen, like Foseti, has lived in and knows tha USG - the real one, not the one you see on TV:
What is the purpose of an alternative currency?

Let me answer that by analogy. What is the purpose of the internet?

If you’re reading this, you use the internet to read the often unorganized thoughts of a person with strange views on all kinds of subjects. Undoubtedly, facilitating such reading is one function of the internet. In reality, however, the internet is just a way for people to watch porn.

Similarly, an alternative currency might be a cool way to create a better store-of-value – one that’s free from manipulation of central bankers and large banks. In reality, however, it’s just a way for people to break laws governing financial transactions.
It's kind of a problem that (most of) Silicon Valley thinks it's governed by the TV Washington.  SV is a very confident place.  Very confident people have a way of thinking a new reality into existence.  Reality itself changes to conform to their confidence.  Sometimes this actually works.  Other times...

Tuesday, April 23, 2013

[遊戲開發][閱讀心得]ARM模型(三) 最後一步:淘金,關於賺第一桶金的問題



今天這篇文章會是這個系列最後一篇,我希望這個ARM的模型架構能夠給予大家設計/營運遊戲時的一些新的啟發。截至目前幾乎所有遊戲相關的Business Model, ARM模型都是最核心應該要檢視的流程。還沒有看過這系列文章的讀者,我強烈建議必須依序閱讀完下列文章再讀此篇:
[遊戲開發][閱讀心得]半路出家的遊戲人- ARM模型(一)
[遊戲開發][閱讀心得]ARM模型(二) 關於留存率、流失率、生命週期的那檔兒事

當然大家會說:「Monetization這有甚麼好講的?」

不就是「逼迫誘導消費者掏錢出來嗎?」講完了,結束!

好吧!如果你認為是這麼一回事,那我今天的演講到此完畢,謝謝大家!



如果你現在手邊工作不多,或是恰巧有些空,我希望你可以花點時間聽聽Josh Williams, Kontagent在2012 Casual Connect演講的影片,雖然他全部都是英文,但我想會對你受益無窮。他所講的主題是Data-Driven Game Dev,裡面闡述著數據化開發與ARM模型一體的兩面。(連結)

數據化這件事情如果沒有ARM模型所支持的時候是很危險的事情,這就像是一個改車的飆仔少年,只顧著把最高時速衝高,犧牲了穩定性和持續性。最後原本一台很帥氣的勁戰150噴射引擎版,卻只能跑6個月就報銷了。

身為營運人員的你,是否有一早進辦公室就被劈頭問「昨天營收多少?」、「昨天營人數怎麼樣?」、「昨天那包賣得好嗎?」等諸多問題使你不勝其擾,但這又是你的Daily Job Description,你甩也甩不掉? 啊,不好意思,我又多問了一個問題。

你難道沒有質疑過:「我回答完這些問題之後呢?有改變什麼嗎?」

我這邊要引用一個Mike Sego, CEO of Gaia說的一個故事:
Mike有一天去滑雪,教練就跟他說:『你的滑雪板會往你眼睛注視處去。』

Mike表示這跟數據分析和遊戲開發一樣,你一直看著某一個數據,你的遊戲就會往那個數據顯示的地方前進。意味著如果你盯著跟獲利相關的數據一直看,你遊戲的獲利相關數據會變好。但是,這有另外一面,也許像是用戶參與度會下降、留存率會受到波動、病毒擴散會趨於緩和,這些你卻沒有注意到。

最後他說:「知道甚麼時候去看對的數字並且試著最佳化很重要。」

常常有人問我:「小愛,那你覺得我們現在該怎麼改變?」

數字應該會給你答案,但你有沒有問對數字?是在對的時候問嗎?

我再問一遍,你有沒有問對數字嗎?是在對的時候問嗎?

我們重新複習一下真正的營收獲利公式:

營收(Revenue)=人數(Users)×付費比例(Pay Rate)×平均貢獻金額(ARPPU)

所以,沒錯阿!那剛剛問的問題都問對啦!不不不…這個公式你得要用ARM架構分析之後,你才能得到真正的公式。

人數(Users)=(新取得用戶)+留存用戶


人數(Users)=(自然成長用戶+病毒傳染用戶+付費取得用戶)+留存用戶


病毒傳染用戶=上個月用戶×病毒擴散率(K Factor)


病毒擴散率(K Factor)=用戶送出邀請的比例×收到邀請的轉換率


付費取得用戶=Impressions×CTR×CVR≤用戶終身價值(ULV)


自然用戶=免費資源導入漏斗+上天燒香拜拜囉!


留存用戶=上個月用戶×月留存率


這樣也只是溫習了Acquisition和Retention那兩檔兒事,那關於付費這件事情呢? 我用掏金這件事情在解釋的原因也在這裡,大家想想看掏金這們行業的商業模型是甚麼?

把好多的沙礫放入篩子最後掏選出含有金屬質地的部分,90%可能都是矽這種沒有屁用的東西。最後的10%裡面,又可能有9%的金屬屬於低價值的銅、鉻,最後1%才是金、銀等高價值的貴金屬。

所以在ARM的架構中,你應該要問的是,這些人到底是誰?我該怎麼樣從用戶取得(Acquisition)就找到這樣的人,並且不斷的留存(Retain)這些人,進而讓他們付費。首先你必須開始分類你取得的金屬(用戶),並且分析他們的價值與屬性。

「只要會付錢的貓就是好貓?」我可以想像你一臉疑惑著看著我。

當然不是,我講一個我自身的例子,曾經我做過一款產品,我試著導入這樣的想法,找到一個測試的市場,市場環境的條件不錯。不過老闆在上品上架的第二天就問我:「甚麼時候要打廣告?要做廣宣?」

我說:「現在的留存狀況非常不好,幾乎每天都流失一半以上的會員。」
那時候的狀況是這樣的,改版的導入狀況很好,大概一天可以衝個3000到9000不等,如果沒有改版,每天新增的人數約莫是200,每天流失的人數比200還多,於是人數越來越少。我們試著針對Retention調整,解決穩定性,增加遊戲黏著度,並適度的調整商業模式提高留存下來的少數會員的終身價值。

老闆這時候就說:「你現在該開始要做營收活動了!」

但在穩定度不足的狀況下我們頻頻遇到玩家付費上的問題,被玩家罵得狗血淋頭,被玩家罵完之後,被淋狗血的頭再被老闆罵一次。

所以到底哪些時間、該看哪些數據呢? 我們下回分解。(咦!?不是說最後一篇了!!)

Thursday, April 11, 2013

Lots of Favorites Took a Dive in the NCAA Tournament

"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." -- Martin Luther King Jr.

The 2013 NCAA Tournament has to go down as one of the most corrupt tournaments in history, and believe me, that's saying a lot, because the competition is so fierce. The casualty list of favorites that were required to take a dive includes Notre Dame, San Diego State, Oklahoma State, Gonzaga, Wisconsin, Kansas State, New Mexico, UCLA, Georgetown, St. Louis, Ohio State, Indiana, UNLV and Michigan.

I'm including Michigan on that list because, even though they were only a No. 4 seed, they had more talent than everyone else and probably could have gone undefeated if they hadn't been required to throw so many games. No one else had five NBA prospects in the starting lineup. Plus, they were a well-coached team and played like it when the fix wasn't in.

(Editor's note: By the summer of 2016, all five starters from that 2013 Michigan team were still playing in the NBA. As of January 2017, Mitch McGary was no longer active, but Trey Burke, Tim Hardaway Jr., Glenn Robinson III and Nik Stauskas were still playing in the NBA.)

The second half of Michigan State's loss to Duke was also highly suspicious. If the fix hadn't been in, I seriously doubt they would have lost by 10 points after playing Duke evenly in the first half. They still might have lost, but it would have been a close, hard-fought struggle.

The most obvious fix of the season was when Michigan lost to winless (0-14) Penn State on Feb. 27 with the Big Ten championship on the line. You'd have to be pretty naive to believe that game was on the level.

After losing its first 14 games of the Big Ten season, Penn State won that game 84-78 on the strength of 10-for-20 (50 percent) shooting from 3-point range. The Nittany Lions outscored Michigan 30-15 from the 3-point line, since the Wolverines could manage to make just 5 for 20 (25 percent). The reason for the mismatch was Michigan deliberately leaving Penn State players wide open beyond the 3-point line.

The Wolverines also committed 15 turnovers, an unusually high number for a team that usually made fewer than 10 in a game. And this was against the slowest and least athletic team in the Big Ten, when a win could have meant staying in the race for the conference championship. Think about it -- it doesn't add up!

Sometimes when a team pulls off a particularly suspicious upset, such as 15th-seeded Florida Gulf Coast's "win" over second-seeded Georgetown, it's allowed to win its next game just to deflect some of the attention from its first crooked win. That way, clueless fans will say, "I guess those guys must be for real."

So after Florida Gulf Coast knocked off Georgetown, they upset seventh-seeded San Diego State in their next game and kept the score close against Florida before losing. See what a tough team they were? LOL! This was a team that finished 26-11 after a rugged season in the Atlantic Sun Conference.

Their season opener was less than auspicious, as they got blown out 80-57 by Virginia Commonwealth, the same team that got run off the floor by Michigan in the third round of the NCAA Tournament. But they bounced back nicely with a 63-51 win over Miami, which was seeded second in the NCAA. That game was probably fixed to give the FGC program a boost in visibility -- an upset against one of the state's top programs in its second year as a Division I program.

They got blown out by Duke, St. John's and Iowa State, and then lost to Maine, Mercer, East Tennessee State, Lipscomb (twice) and Stetson. But that was before they were miraculously transformed into a juggernaut in time for the NCAA Tournament.

LOL! The gangsters involved in fixing all these games must think college basketball fans are pretty naive, and they're right, because most fans don't suspect anything suspicious is going on despite all the "upsets" that wreck the tournament every year. Don't be one of those clueless fans! Be skeptical when a game doesn't add up, and then look for the telltale signs that the fix is in.

I like to root for the underdog too, but not when the favorite is taking a dive. All those "upsets" prevented some excellent matchups from taking place this season, such as Gonzaga-Ohio State, Georgetown-Michigan, Indiana-Marquette, Indiana-Michigan in the national semifinals and lots more.

Wichita State's "miraculous" run was another example of a team getting its path cleared by the other team taking a dive. In their opener, the ninth-seeded Shockers "shocked the world" by blowing out eighth-seeded Pittsburgh. Somehow the Panthers just forgot to show up for work that day.

Funny, isn't it? You would have thought they'd be excited about playing in the tournament. Instead, they played like they just wanted to go home as soon as possible. It wasn't that big of an upset except for the margin of victory, 73-55.

That set the stage for another "miraculous" tournament run. In their next game, they knocked off top-seeded Gonzaga, which had struggled in its opener. Now fans could say, "I guess Gonzaga just wasn't as good as we thought. They were lucky to win their opener against Southern. They were ripe for an upset."

Now Wichita State had some credibility, plus they caught a "break" when Kansas State took a dive against LaSalle and Wisconsin did the same against Mississippi. That meant that instead of facing fifth-seeded Wisconsin in their next game, the 13th-seeded Explorers were matched up with 12th-seeded Ole Miss. They survived that test but couldn't stop the burgeoning powerhouse from Wichita, so the Shockers advanced to the regional finals against Ohio State.

The Buckeyes threw that game in one of the most obvious fixes of the tournament. Somehow they just couldn't be bothered to show up for work that day.

After decimating the West Regional, the Shockers couldn't very well be allowed to get blown out in the Final Four, so they were allowed to take a commanding lead in the first half before finally succumbing to Louisville in a valiant effort. See how it works?

The point I'm making here is that you need to open your mind to the possibility that most of these "upsets" are not upsets at all, they're hoaxes.

In addition to looking for all the telltale signs while you're watching the games, check the box scores and look for statistics that don't ring true. For example, when Michigan lost to Wisconsin this season in the Big Ten Tournament, they held the Badgers to 17 points in the first half. But in the second half, the Wolverines surrendered 51 points and lost 68-59.

Are we really supposed to believe that a team with five NBA prospects in the starting lineup, led by one of the best coaches in the game, could give up 51 points in the second half after holding Wisconsin to 17 points in the first half?  Leaving players wide open for easy shots is a telltale sign, and this game was a prime example because it was lost in the three-point shooting column, where Wisconsin outscored Michigan 24-9.

Nik Stauskas, rated one of the top 100 players in college basketball by ESPN, who went 6-for-6 from three-point range against Florida in the NCAA Tournament, was 1 for 8 against the Badgers. That was another sign that the fix was in.

For lots more on the game-fixing scandal, see this:

College and Professional Sports Are Crooked as a Dog's Hind Leg

Wednesday, April 10, 2013

The Fixing of the NCAA Championship Game

Michigan lost the national championship game despite having five legitimate NBA propspects in the starting lineup and being led by one of the top coaches in the game. With Trey Burke, Glenn Robinson and Mitch McGary all rated in the top 15 of NBA prospects and Tim Hardaway a cinch to be drafted in the second round, the Wolverines should have won that game easily. And they would have if they hadn't been forced to take a dive.

(Editor's note: As of February 2015, all five starters from the Michigan team that lost to Louisville in the 2013 Championship Game were playing in the NBA: Trey Burke, Tim Hardaway, Mitch McGary, Nik Stauskas and Glenn Robinson.)

Louisville didn't have a single player rated in the Top 15. Not that talent guarantees success on the basketball court, as basketball is a team game. But this Michigan team was well-coached and cool under pressure when it was allowed to give 100 percent, such as the Big Ten opener at Northwestern, which the Wolverines won 94-66 while shooting 59.6 percent from the field, and the following game against Iowa, which they won 95-67.

When they were allowed to play their A game, they were very proficient at working the ball around for an open shot, and they rarely committed turnovers. There were many games in which they committed less than 10, and a few in which they committed 6 or fewer. That's saying something for a team that played at breakneck speed.

Unfortunately, the championship game was fixed, like so many other games in the tournament, year after year. The Michigan team that showed up in the second half was not the real Michigan team -- it was a team that was ordered to throw the game and allow Louisville to walk away with the trophy.

It was clear from the start that the game was fixed because the officiating was so obviously crooked. In the opening minutes with Michigan ahead 5-3, Hardaway drove in for a layup and was denied a basket when the officials refused to make an obvious goaltending call against Gorgui Dieng.

On the ensuing fast break, Peyton Siva plowed into Burke, and Burke was called for a foul despite the fact that he was backpedaling at the time. In basketball, you can't just plow into the opposing players when they've moving away from you. That's called charging, and the officials refused to make that call as well, because the plan was to take Burke out of the game early with foul trouble.

A few minutes later, Siva got away with another charging foul when Robinson stepped in front of him and took a charge. Again, Robinson was mistakenly charged with the foul. Then, with Michigan leading 20-15 and 11 minutes remaining in the first half, Burke was charged with a second questionable foul as he tried to block Luke Hancock's three-point attempt. There did not appear to be much contact on the play, if any.

As a result or those two crooked foul calls, the national Player of the Year had to sit out the next 11 minutes. That in itself is highly suspicious, because if anything, the refs usually tend to show favoritism toward the game's marquee players, especially in a nationally televised NCAA championship game. Instead, on this occasion, the game's top player was singled out to be railroaded to the bench. You'd have to be pretty naive to believe it was all just an accident.

I counted at least six blatant officiating mistakes that went against Michigan in the first half, but despite the officials' best efforts to sabotage the Wolverines, Spike Albrecht ruined their plan by scoring 17 points in the first half and leading the Wolverines  to a 35-23 lead with 3:10 left in the first half. That's when the process of throwing the game kicked into high gear.

Keep in mind, Michigan is skilled in this endeavor and has lots of experience, having thrown seven other games this season and having shaved points in many others that they could easily have won by a more decisive margin.

With three minutes left in the half, the Michigan team that had played so well in the opening minutes could suddenly do nothing right. They started missing easy baskets, fumbling away loose balls, throwing the ball away, leaving opposing players wide open for easy baskets and failing to block out on the boards, among other things. Very uncharacteristic for a well-coached team that's cool under pressure when not required to throw a game.

After going on a 15-6 run with Burke on the bench, they allowed Louisville to get back in the game with a 14-1 run of their own, including 12 points by Hancock, who was deliberately left wide open for several three-pointers, despite being an obviously capable outside shooter. Do you really find nothing suspicious about this meltdown? Michigan's 12-point lead was down to one by halftime, 38-37, and the fix was in for the entire second half.

The second half was more of the same, as the previously smooth and composed Michigan players continued to run around the basketball court like chickens with their heads cut off. The only possible explanation is that it was all in the (Louisville) Cards, so to speak.

See, Louisville has been forced to throw its share of games through the years, and sometimes programs are rewarded for their previous cooperation. Michigan's long run in the NCAA Tournament this season was probably a reward for cooperating by throwing their first-round game to Ohio University last season in what has to go down as one of the most suspicious "upsets" of that corrupt affair, and believe me, that's saying a lot.

Michigan even benefits sometimes from all the fraud that's going on. An example from this season would be the "miraculous comeback" against Kansas, in which the Jayhawks cooperated by giving away the game. Of course, if Michigan hadn't been forced to give it away in the first place, Kansas never would have had to give it back to them.

But back to the Louisville game. In addition to all the the usual mistakes that comprise the typical meltdown, such as missing easy baskets, making senseless turnovers and silly fouls, leaving players wide open, deliberately dribbling into traffic, making forced passes, missing free throws, failing to block out on the boards and so on, the second half also featured more corrupt officiating.

Burke was called for another foul when he made a clean block on Siva with 5:09 left in the game and Michigan down 67-64. Later, Hancock was left wide open for the three-pointer that put Louisville ahead 76-66 with 3:25 left and pretty much sealed the deal.

The Wolverines still had a chance when they trailed just 78-74 with 50 seconds left. But Caris LeVert stepped out of bounds with a crucial rebound that would have given them the ball and a chance to narrow the lead, making no effort to stay inbounds or pass the ball to a teammate on his way out.

You have to feel sorry for the players and coaches. Imagine what it must be like to be forced to lose the NCAA championship game on purpose and then to be sworn to secrecy about the entire disgraceful affair.

I'm having a stressed out kind of day.

EXPERIMENT.
 How my mood is altered after I puff.  


7:25 am

Anxiety level - 9

I feel shaky with anxiety and on the verge of tears. I just watched my husband leave for his job that he absolutely hates. I know we have so much to be grateful for, but looking for a new job can be sooo stressful. Hours of searching through job postings to find the decent ones, filling out applications online, trying to get time off work for interviews without raising suspicion from the boss, rejection letters, waiting to hear back from other hopefuls, drug tests, on and on!  : (  

On top of everything we have other strains and stresses of every day life. I don't know what I would do without weed. I feel like my heart would explode from anxiety sometimes. My head wouldn't be able to settle itself from worry long enough to think. My nerves would just take over. 


7:37 am

Anxiety Level - 7ish


We all have our way of dealing. I don't want to miss out on life because of stress, but sometimes that can't be done on my own. MJ helps manage my stress and pain...that's the extent of what it means to be "high" on marijuanafeeling better naturally and non-addictively. I'll say it again, you can't get addicted to weed. Watch the documentary "Super High Me" about a guy who's followed by the cameras for 30 days smoking weed every day and 30 days not, completely not addicted whatsoever. We've heard of the physical medical benefits of MJ, but what about all of the mental benefits as well?

I've mentioned that this blog is simply my true feelings about MJ; how I feel it can benefit anyoneespecially moms (and dads). If my kids were to read it someday,  I wouldn't write anything I didn't really believe. Maybe people change their minds or change themselves, but right now, as of 2013 I am thankful to have weedthankful for anyone who has weed. I'm sure a more pleasant run-in with the fellow having a little 420 than the fellow using bottles, powders, pills, and probably even most  sober! Yes, it's my experience that people who smoke MJ are more pleasant, happy and funny; who wouldn't want to be around that?

I'll also tell you the lucky kiddo indeed who's mom and dad refrain from the pills, powders and bottles and stick to a natural plant for stress relief. What fun conversations and inquisitive talks to have. I'm so thankful to know when I have to talk to my teens about the birds 'n' the bees, life realities, relating in generalI can do so after a puff! I'm also thankful my kids won't know their mom or dad to ever be alcoholics. We don't drink. Don't need to! MJ takes away all the stress that leads to the "need" to drink in the first place. Alcohol was in my family growing up; I know alcohol can be destructive and detrimental. It is my true opinion that Marijuana (once legal) will be able to help families.

MJ really is also like a truth elixir–I'm usually more apt to say how I really feel when I have a puff, almost like a new-found confidence and assuredness in speaking and communicating with others. Yes, sometimes I giggle uncontrollably. But usually, I am able to feel calm and interact with others even better because I am in higher spirits, my nerves are relaxed and my mind balanced with more clarity. Unfortunately for me, I can't tell my true feelings to my other very Christian family members–they would think me very un-Christian, and probably try to host some sort of Intervention. So it's a catch 22.

Anxiety can sure be overwhelming. But even now as I write, "high"...I just feel happy about the good things in life–instead of being overwhelmed by the bad and worries. Somehow I can relax for a couple hours enough to still fully function (fold laundry, prepare dinner, water the garden, play games with kiddos, even talk to my mom on the phone) and give my stress and worry a break so they don't take over. No, my mom does not know about my 420 status, and she can't tell whatsoever on the phone that I am any "different." I mean, c'mon–my own mom? I'm sure if I were drunk she would certainly know!

Weed doesn't impair, it levitates the inner thoughts wanting to come out and be heard which we usually keep suppressed. I want to feel happy 24/7 just because and not have anxiety and worrybut that's just not reality. I need MJ to help manage my stress. When I puff, I tend to think  less about myself and have empathy for others–people losing their homes or businesses, having major health issues, cancer patients, women in third world countries, people surviving car accidents, those who are literally without sight, without limbs or the ability to walk...What about parents who have lost a child? Things I sit and take for granted?

No.

I will be grateful for my life because it is mine. Who's definition justifies who is "worse or better" off? We must find our own treasure in pursuit of trying for a better future, building amazing friendships, creating fun memories, taking the step of marriage and children if it's right, embarking on new ideas, continually learning, over-coming trials, and realizing life truly is what you make of it. The reason we were made was not to bring glory to ourselves and so we can live great lives, but so God will be most glorified. Sometimes we can be doing everything right and we can be happy and joyful, but we won't always see the blessings here on earth. Many blessings will not come on earth but once we are in Heaven.

I know I have to deal as best I can with my hand in life; my mistakes included. I want to do the best I can. Doesn't mean I'll be perfect. I don't expect myself to be or I will hate myself at the end of the day when I don't live up. Somehow I've got to just hug myself for doing my best, even if I "mess up" or "fail" sometimes along the way. I think a reason it's probably so hard to think God will forgive us no matter what is because it's hard for us to forgive others as well as ourselves. That's why forgiveness is so important though, it's actually vital to a happy life.

No one really has a "meter" that gauges how they are doing in life. We are all kind of guessing. But if you're out there working and trying to survive while having some fun and just being a good person along the way, then good for you. If you aren't hurting other people or any living creatures, you are blessed with empathy, compassion and a good heart and are wealthy in that alone.  After I puff... I guess I feel sort of ungrateful if I let worry take over. I can say, well at least I have a healthy, happy little baby with no known medical issues. At least I live in America and have running water, constant electricity, paved roads, hospitals a plenty, generally police who aren't corrupt, rights and freedom. I can go to the store and pretty much buy any food or beverage I can think of. I have a toilet that just flushes. I have all these things, which to some people in the world are so extravagant and out of reach they can't even begin to imagine what it would be like.

And I suppose even if me or my daughter wound up with a medical condition, I would have to still be grateful during the darkest hours and the hardest trials as I find gratitude. Perhaps gratitude for health insurance to be able to try and heal the ailments, MJ + organic foods to fight off toxins, family nearby to help out...I would have to find something to be grateful for, or else I would fall apart. Weed steps in when I just can't fight my self-doubt any longer. Sometimes my faith is rock solid and sometimes it's just plain rocky. But I know I'm trying. I'm far from perfect, but I'm trying.

8:05 am

Anxiety Level - 3ish.   : )

Well I will tell you...the best part about MJ is that even right now, if I wanted to be mad or stressed out, (I guess I could make myself feel those things if I really triedbut I would have to really try!) I can't help but just feel happy instead and more hopeful. It's time to go about my day, so farewell friends, and may the force be with you.  : )

"The medulla oblongata is the lower half of the brainstem. In discussions of neurology and similar contexts where no ambiguity will result, it is often referred to as simply the medulla. The medulla contains the cardiacrespiratoryvomiting and vasomotor centers and deals with autonomic, (involuntary) functions, such as breathing, heart rate and blood pressure" (Wikipedia, 2013). 



- - - 

Click Above for VaporNation.com 



Even Women's Basketball Games Are Fixed Sometimes

Notre Dame was forced to Throw One for the Gipper in their 83-65 loss to Connecticut in the Final Four of the women's tournament on April 7. That game was fixed, just like hundreds of other college basketball games every season. Baylor's "loss" to Louisville in the regional semifinals was another obvious hoax.

One of the telltale signs to watch for when a game is fixed is when players suddenly find they're unable to make routine jump shots and layups in the most important game of the season.

Notre Dame's uncharacteristically abysmal (29.7 percent) shooting performance against Connecticut is a telltale sign that the fix was in. Against Connecticut, Kayla McBride was 3 for 4 (75 percent) from 3-point range and 2 for 16 (12.5 percent) from 2-point range. When they're not missing shots on purpose, players can usually manage to shoot a better percentage from 10 feet than they can from 20 feet. Not in this game.

The Irish (22-74, 29.7 percent)) managed 12 more field-goal attempts than Connecticut (29-62, 46.8 percent). If they'd made 10 more baskets, they would have won the game. That would have meant going 32 for 74, or 43.2 percent. That shouldn't have been too difficult, considering they shot 41.3 percent in their previous game against Connecticut, and they shot 46.0 percent against Duke in the regional finals.

Skylar Diggins (3-15), Kayla McBride (5-20) and Jewell Loyd (5-17) combined to shoot 13 for 52 from the field, or 25 percent, and yet Notre Dame made 17 for 20 from the free-throw line (85 percent). Strange, isn't it, considering they had so much trouble finding the range everywhere else on the floor?

I'm not saying Connecticut didn't have a great team. They might have won anyway, even if the game hadn't been fixed. But they wouldn't have won by 18 points, I can guarantee that. It would have been another close, hard-fought struggle, just like the first three Notre Dame-Connecticut games this season.

As far as the Baylor-Louisville game is concerned, that one was thrown at the 3-point line, where Louisville went 16 for 25 for 64 percent, thanks to Baylor leaving them wide open on purpose. From 2-point range, the Cardinals had a more typical performance, 11 for 31 (35 percent).

Baylor's Brittney Griner is considered by some experts to be the greatest player in the history of women's basketball, and the Bears also have at least one and maybe two other WNBA propspects in their starting lineup. Baylor went 40-0 last year, won 32 in a row this season and was a prohibitive favorite to win another NCAA championship. I guess it just wasn't in the (Louisville) Cards this time.

Connecticut exposed the fraud by trouncing Louisville 93-60 in the championship game. In other words, the ballclub that knocked off the greatest team in the history of women's basketball got blown out in the championship game by 33 points by a lesser team! And 33 just happens to be the highest degree of corruption available in Freemasonry. Another tip-off that it was a Masonic operation all the way.

The gangsters in charge of fixing all these games must think basketball fans are pretty damn naive, and on the whole, they're right. But I'm not your typical college basketball fan, and I can usually tell when the fix in in. After reading this blog, I hope you'll be able to as well.

Monday, April 8, 2013

Bitcoin is money, Bitcoin is a bubble

[I promise - this is my last Bitcoin post.  I fear it attracts low-quality traffic.  Comments are off.]

Someone in a meeting the other day called my theory of why Bitcoin, a useless commodity, has a nonzero price, the "bubble theory of money."  I like it.  I think it could stick.

When I first came up with this BTM (which is only a slight, slight variation of Carl Menger's theory) and posted it seven years ago, I was genuinely concerned that the global mass mind, or at least the global financial mind, might be hyper-rational and converge spontaneously on the equilibrium solution, perhaps in as little as fifteen minutes.  Resulting in unbelievable global mayhem.  Which would arguably be my fault.  And for which I would certainly be blamed.

Obviously, I had a lot to learn about the global financial mind.  No one in this business has a clue.  Everyone who thinks he has a clue has no clue at all.  The rest get by with about half of one, plus a dab of good taste and a lot of hard work.  If you have money to stash away and enough to hire a pro, find some grizzled old silverback like Cassandra and let his spidey sense do the work.  He doesn't have a clue, but nor do you.

For example, while the BTM is impeccable in theory, it does not tell you, me, or anyone whether Bitcoin is money or Bitcoin is a bubble.  If Bitcoin is money, Bitcoin at $150 is absurdly cheap.  Otherwise, it is hilariously expensive.  Bitcoin will go to zero or infinity - almost certainly the former.  What is the expected value?  Answer unclear - ask again later.

Us feeble-brained humans are uncomfortable with path-dependent outcomes.  We don't want Bitcoin, or anything, to have an arbitrary price determined merely by marginal bid and ask, let alone a multiple equilibrium - we want it to have an underlying value.  Which is a physical property, like weight or orangeness.  When I say that Bitcoin is money and Bitcoin is a bubble, your mind grows nervous, as if forced to contemplate a car that is orange and green.  Sure, it's all waves and particles at the bottom - but, really.  Physics is one thing, accounting is another.

The BTM asserts that money and a bubble are the same thing.  Both are anomalously overvalued assets.  Both obtain their anomalous value from the fact that many people have bought the asset, without any intention to use it, but only to exchange it for some other asset at a later date.  The two can be distinguished only in hindsight.  If it popped, it was a bubble.  If not, money - so far.

In any realistic economy, real or virtual, there is a demand for at least one good which is used as a "store of value," that is, not used or intended to be used by the owner, but owned simply to transfer purchasing power across time.  Nonetheless, the owner holds this good and participates in the market for it.  If many owners standardize on the same good, they affect the market for this good.  We can think of their collective purchasing power as a sort of "energy" that flows into this market.

It turns out that the correct collective strategy in this game is for everyone to standardize on the same asset as a store of value, and for this asset to be one of intrinsically limited quantity.  If the quantity is not limited, as for example in a manufactured good, a stable pool of savers will not increase its price.  If the quantity is limited, as with gold, Bitcoin, etc, the price will increase as savings energy flows in - and, of course, decrease as it flows back out.

There is no way to eradicate this effect from anything like a realistic economy.  There is always at least one bubble.  Ideally, this bubble is stable, and we call it "money."  If you try to spread savings energy across all the goods in the economy, it will stay in storable goods and not in un-storable ones.  It will flee from manufactured goods and end up in rare collectibles.  Finally, it will flee from a broad spectrum of collectible assets and end up in a single standard.  Those who are late in fleeing are, by definition, caught in a bubble which pops - and taste the pain.

You might imagine that investment transactions would neutralize or at least reduce the demand for money.  Not so.  True, instead of holding cash, you can hold a debt - a promise of cash delivered next year.  Your demand for cash, and your impact on the price of cash, is now zero.  However, the economy's demand to save cash is unchanged.  In exchange for that debt, you gave someone else a bunch of cash.  She is now the saver.

Bitcoin is an exceptionally pure test of the BTM, because it has no intrinsic utility.  It is uncomfortably reminiscent of that apex specimen of the South Sea Bubble, "a company for carrying out an undertaking of great advantage, but nobody to know what it is."  One of the problems with the South Sea Bubble - in fact, one of the reasons why South Sea Company stock could not become a new monetary standard - was the inability to define a reason why one security should be the standard, and not another.  There are Bitcoin clones, all more or less worthless.  Bitcoin is a protocol standard, and everyone in our era knows how protocol standards play: winner takes all.

When we define the essential characteristic of "moneyness" as overvaluation, not as currency, we see that commerce in Bitcoin has no direct relevance at all to its price.  If you are spending in Bitcoin, you are not holding it.  All that affects the BTC/USD exchange rate is the order book of the people who hold BTC and are willing to sell it for USD, and vice versa.

Indeed, it is logically possible to imagine an economy in which the medium of saving and the medium of exchange are different assets, and the medium of saving is overvalued but the medium of exchange is not.  This actually happens in seriously mismanaged Third World countries, in which all savings flees to gold or hard currency, and the soft currency is held only for immediate commerce.  Often with an inflation rate of double digits per month.

History has never seen a pure monetary standard like Bitcoin.  It's not only that gold has intrinsic material utility - even fiat currency, though tremendously overvalued by savings energy, has intrinsic value.  Try paying your taxes without it.  Dollars will not become worthless even if Bitcoin becomes the global monetary standard, because dollar-denominated liabilities will remain.  However, considering the price of Bitcoins in this outcome, these debts will become macroeconomically quite easy to pay - an unqualified boon in my opinion.

The dollar is already the global monetary standard - what creates any incentive to switch to Bitcoin?  If the dollar was financially perfect, there would be no such incentive.  The dollar is anything but financially perfect.

Probably the easiest way to see this is to consolidate dollars, Treasury notes, and in fact all securities explicitly or implicitly supported by the US Government - a strong argument could be made that this set now includes both the stock market and the real-estate market - as USG liabilities.  To put it crudely, a dollar is a share of stock in America.  Like a frequent-flier mile (which is also a liability), it confers no explicit rights, but can be redeemed for valuable privileges (especially on April 15).

This set of liabilities is constantly expanding - quite a bit more rapidly than the Bitcoin pool.  In plain English, USG leaks money.  It bleeds, in fact, like a stuck pig.  When we do accounting in a diluting equity like this, the rational way to track our positions is not by the number of shares, but by the percentage of ownership.  If we adopt this "normalized accounting," we see that normalized money is constantly being sucked out of our bank accounts.

Fortunately for those who live in America, normalized accounting also shows us that consumer prices in America are constantly dropping.  Price deflation is the rule.  Consumer price indexes show negligible price changes in non-normalized accounting, not only because they are fudged and rigged, but because prices are set by dollars competing for goods.  Because American spenders have fewer and fewer normalized dollars to spend every year, normalized consumer prices are also dropping.

But the quantity of these normalized dollars is constant, so they have to go somewhere.  Where do they go?  To Asia and to rich people, generally.  If we look at the prices, normalized or not, of the assets that Asians and rich people buy, we see these prices going up.  Rather rapidly.  So, for these people (who hold quite a few dollars), the dollar is a rather poor store of value.

Because it seems unimaginable that USG will repair its hemorrhaging finances, the opportunity exists for a sounder monetary standard to outcompete its notes.  However, it is only an opportunity.

USG, now and for the near-term foreseeable future, can kill Bitcoin dead as a stone by rendering it ineffective as a store of value, simply by using its gargantuan physical force to prohibit exchange of Bitcoin for dollars.  Even a credible threat to shut down the exchanges will result in an enormous demand to flee from Bitcoin, effectively popping the bubble.  If the exchanges are really and truly killed, there will be a billion dollars of Bitcoin market capitalization that has no practical way to escape.  The holders of this Bitcoin will write it off as worthless - like South Sea or Mississippi Company stock.

The best thing about this outcome, from USG's perspective, is that to those who lost money in the Bitcoin bubble, it will seem like their own fault for being such fools.  True, as a result of USG actions, their personal net worth might drop vertiginously in an afternoon.  But it's not that the evil government confiscated their Bitcoins - rather, that the market betrayed them.  As with any bubble that pops.  So, just as 300 years ago, no political resistance can save the bubble.

On the other hand, suppose Bitcoin is money?  At this point, I can guarantee it.  Either USG will kill Bitcoin, which it can and probably will, or Bitcoin will be the new monetary standard.  In this case, Rick Falkvinge's projections are quite conservative.  Simply dividing dollar supply, however defined, by Bitcoin quantity, is an extremely incorrect way to project the USD/BTC exchange rate.  On the other hand, there is no better way.

In a world in which the entire pool of savings energy has moved to Bitcoin, what is a dollar worth?  On the one hand, enormous dollar debts exist.  On the other hand, those debts themselves must be valued as securities in Bitcoin.  As the BTC price increases into the millions, the purchasing power to pay off all the dollar debts - simply by cashing in a few Bitcoins - appears with it.  There are no significant Bitcoin debts, and nor will there be any until the transition has completed.

This is a scenario in which no one wants to hold either dollars, or dollar-denominated debts, because the purchasing power of these assets in Bitcoin is constantly decreasing.  (Note that it is already decreasing - at quite a rapid clip.)  The dollar is now the bubble, and devil take the hindmost.  The savings pool evacuates this bubble, but it does not evacuate evenly or all at once.  Rather, those who get out first (like Rick Falkvinge!) become much wealthier than they were before.  Those who get out last, however, can see a fortune shrink to a pittance.  This is classic hyperinflation.  A currency never hyperinflates by itself - it always hyperinflates relative to some other medium of saving.  There is always a savings pool, and always an overvalued asset.

Tangible assets - stocks and real estate - do better.  Across a monetary transition, a house remains a house.  You can still live in it.  On the other hand, the price of a house or a stock, relative to cash, is determined by interest rates.  Before the reboot, it is determined by USD interest rates.  After the reboot, it is determined by Bitcoin interest rates - which are effectively infinite during the transition, and relatively high even when the savings pool stabilizes.

Why relatively high?  Because they reflect the actual collective time preference of savers and borrowers, rather than the political incentives of Professor Bernanke.  We have no way of knowing what interest rates in a free market would look like - all we know is that ours are way too low, resulting in extreme malinvestment and way way way too much debt.

But the most significant effects of this unlikely, but awesome, transition are politicalRick Falkvinge, who to be frank could be easily mistaken for a goddamn hippie, has only begun to imagine them.  Yes, a world in which governments were subject to ordinary accounting reality, and could not fund themselves by expanding their balance sheets, would be a very different one.

But even more important - money is power.  Today, power remains in the hands of the great fortunes of the early 20th and even 19th centuries - the Carnegies, Rockefellers and Fords, not to mention the many lesser billionaires gathered under their umbrella.  The greatest of these fortunes have of course passed out of individual hands and into those of foundation managers.  As with Obi-Wan, this has not lessened their power at all.

When instead of being determined by whose ancestors cornered oil in 1896, the distribution of great fortunes is determined by who bought Bitcoin when 10K BTC would buy a pizza - really, a no less arbitrary function - we see the balance of wealth, and hence the balance of power, in the hands of very different kinds of people.  What changes this would bring - no one can know.  Probably none, as it will never happen.

Disclosure: I have no Bitcoin.  Which is not because I disdain the great bet - but just because I'm a poor student of history.  But if you have some and think you've learned from UR, I just made a wallet: 12jmAcfRptnP7wkvepXQoYUt5yDsYxHRiZ.  Send me a little and I'll buy my wife a pizza.  Send me a lot and I'll found the resistance.  A luta continua!

Friday, April 5, 2013

时空晶体

从一个四面体星Merkaba实质上涵括了全部五个正多面体的观点来说,如果视太极Merkaba几何为时空晶体,则MKB之阴阳四面体依Fibonacci数列互旋所形成之MKB光体光球自旋便表示了空间的成立,而其自旋中脉中轴表示了时间。
中脉中轴之变化形(左右脉)为过去和未来,中脉及其变化形的关系犹如地球岁差运动之进动现象表现为地轴的周期性摆荡,以三脉观点来说,这个摆荡呈现出左右脉之DNA式的双螺旋。而理想中的非进动的恒定中轴即为中脉,这个非进动的理想恒定中轴存在于双向自旋太极MKB球环体(双向自旋若限定在各该维度下被观察时,通常被视为静态而无自旋或者自旋现象被忽略,极微观状态或跨维度时双向自旋的现象便明显地无法被回避),因而在并未跨越维度的情况下,各该维度的所谓中脉并非实存的,实存的只是这个不断处于进动状态的中轴(左右脉),这是以上下两端为阳阴两极所成之自旋球的中轴。
当上下合一为中(如上下丹合一中丹,乾坤合向太极,球体成为环体),"中"在中脉中点为中心太极,此时始有真实中脉可言,相对于原先的光体光球之阴阳二元极性的左右脉进动的自旋,这个太极中心(在中丹中心)是以中脉为其一元非极性自旋轴,在各该维度中,它只是观念与实在之间的存在,是一个有限大小的最小时空单位(如Planck尺度所描述的),就心物而言为+mv时空虚体、-mv时空实体,就太极观点而言是为双向自旋中性的mv microvita(由于中性,它不与其他+ -mv产生交互作用,因而拥有最多的时间任意度与空间自由度),这一元单极之有限大小的点之跨维度的运动便是实存的中脉,这情形在宇宙中脉中表现得更为明显(参见"宇宙中脉"一文)。因此,限定在各该维度中时,所谓的中脉只是这个个体太极中心点就其本身运动潜能所作的一个预拟投射(想象的投影)而已。
在已显现的宇宙意识之中意识密度决定mv时空晶体的振动频率而表现成维度,意识密度与振动频率成正比,在一定临界点时跳跃入更高或更低维度。在这个意义下的mv时空晶体是指一元的中丹太极,在跨维度或全维度的情况来说,它也是一个完整的太极MKB几何。
时空晶体频率上的落差存在于意识之中,调控这个落差,便形成以宇宙中脉为通道之出入不同维度,并且形成心物之间的能量交换与流通。就人的身心结构而言,这表现为光线在经由双眼之眉心轮的即时生存计时,以及顶轮松果体第三眼长时演化计时,就在这两个即时生存计时与长时演化计时之间切换。在3、6、9、12维(8、64、512、4096卦)各该稳定维度内的合体心生命存在体需要小尺度的即时计时,而在跨维度的活动上则需要大尺度的演化计时。就人而言小尺度计时在于人之意识到过去、现在、未来的时间三态的差别,这大约是12秒为一个单位,以当下为中心的12秒内为进行中的现在,也因此专注、集中、禅定等等心灵活动所表示的意识密度状态,理想上是能够以12秒的次方来描述的(持续不间断12、12²、12³秒的单一心念成为专注、集中、禅定)。就人而言,大尺度计时在于连结人的活动与大自然的活动,人是整体的一部分,这首先表现为日夜的阴阳变化,由松果体来反应。在大小尺度两种计时上的意识密度调控成立了人的超现实精神界与现实物质界。
太极MKB包含一个主中脉中轴、三个次中脉中轴,这意味着一个主时间轴与三个潜在的次时间轴的共在于同一维度内,这四个时间轴可以表示为乾坤、艮兑、坎离、震巽或反向之坤乾、兑艮、离坎、巽震。四个轴交汇于中心太极,这里是进出不同维度的端口,于人为心,物理上于天体为黑白洞,其形成意味着一定的质量密度,就"心"而言这是意识密度的表现(参见"宇宙意识密度"一文)。
灵性修炼最终归结到实际上对意识密度的调控,经由这个调控而进出或聚焦于各种层级维度并了悟生命的本质。意识密度的调控是主观心智意念(意)与客观能量运作(气)的合作,是脑心相连、表裡外内如一、上下和衷(合一为中)的结果。集中、禅定是调控的一个具体实例,而太极MKB光体或说mv则是运动的主体,mv时空晶体以各种层级的光的形式运动于宇宙的各种维度之中。
因而microvita mv微生命时空晶体是已显现宇宙之最精细与最初始的生命形态(宇宙BC循环演化离心阶段的由S转化为R的当下为其初始之点,这个初始亦为宇宙心灵之成立),本质上是太极MKB宇宙能量几何结构的显现。
时空晶体是自性、心、个体太极、mv诸多面向之共通的进一步概念落实,主要在于灵性科学地观察意识密度、波动振动频率、维度之间的关系,这是连通有形与无形、来与去的一道桥梁,生命的本身就是这一道桥梁。
*请参阅《那路塔斯的想象》118.时间晶体与时空晶体的可能性
时空晶体基本上是五个正多面体八卦的嵌套合一(右下图),理念上如同Metatron立体。但是就太极MKB而言,考虑了SRT卦爻,便形成了这个柏拉图立体嵌套太极MKB,也就是时空晶体。
时空晶体初步数据及相关图解如下:
(各图详说请参考原来各文)
1.意识密度:12秒的次方(专注12、集中12²、禅定12³)、2的次方(阴阳为2,太极2º、两仪2¹、四象2²、八卦2³、64卦2^6、512卦2^9、4096卦2^12)
2.频率:Fibonacci数列相邻两数比值之趋近黄金比率。相邻两数为阴阳互旋的频率比值,并成立整体太极MKB或时空晶体之频率。随着比值向黄金比率的趋近,它也相应了意识密度的变化与各种层级的光的速度并关系到所在维度。
3.维度:心物可以合体共在的稳定维度3、6、9、12(8、64、512、4096卦)
                                                         




参见"宇宙中脉"


宇宙意识的波动 - 密度、频率、维度。


N现在,NN当下。开合往来成就太极MKB球环体及其中脉自旋中轴。


Wednesday, April 3, 2013

Cubs Threw the NL East in '69 and the NLCS in '84, '89, '03, '15 and '17

It's easy to fix a baseball game. The pitcher takes a little something off the ball, the batter is told what type of pitch to expect, fielders intentionally misplay grounders and fly balls, baserunners make deliberate "mistakes," batters strike out on purpose, pitchers walk batters intentionally while pretending it was an accident  and umpires make crooked calls.

The Cubs have it down to a science because they've had so much practice through the years.

When players start booting routine grounders and making wild throwing errors, it's usually because the fix is in. The 2003 National League Championship Series was another prime example.

The Cubs led the Marlins 3-1 in the eighth inning of Game 6 when shortstop Alex Gonzalez booted a routine double-play ball that would have gotten them out of the inning. Instead, his intentional error opened the floodgates, and Florida (now Miami) went on to win Game 6 and Game 7 to advance to the World Series, where they defeated the Yankees.

Watch Gonzalez boot the double-play ball at the 1:40 mark, and be sure to watch the slow-motion replay: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jw3ccParGxM

Apparently Major League Baseball wanted to reward the Marlins with their second world championship in seven years. They won their first one in 1997, even though the franchise was only in its fifth year of existence.

Meanwhile, until they finally won the World Series in 2016, the Cubs hadn't made it to the World Series since 1945, and hadn't won one since 1908. Every time they got a good team together, they were forced to throw the playoffs. They also took a dive against the Dodgers in the 2017 NLCS.

Perhaps the most obvious fix of all was in 1969, when the Cubs threw an eight-game lead in August and ended up eight games behind the world champion Mets.

Evidently Major League Baseball wanted the Mets to win that year -- their eighth season since being founded in 1962 to replace the New York Giants and Brooklyn Dodgers, who had departed for San Francisco and Los Angeles, respectively. MLB officials probably thought it would be good for baseball for New York to have another successful franchise.

The Mets won it all, even though their starting lineup was vastly inferior to the Cubs' and to the Baltimore Orioles, who threw the World Series to the Mets. Not that the Mets didn't have some great pitchers in Tom Seaver, Jerry Koosman, Gary Gentry, Nolan Ryan and Tug McGraw, but maybe their fantastic run at the end of the season wasn't so "miraculous" after all. Maybe their opponents were required to throw a few games along the way.

That would explain how they managed to go 14-3 in their last 17 games in August, and 24-8 in their last 32 regular-season games during September and October. They finished the season at 100–62 after going an incredible 38-11 in their final 49 regular-season games -- a mind-boggling winning percentage of .775.

The Mets were good, but they weren't that good. Most of their players spent the year hovering somewhere just north of the Mendoza  line.

Meanwhile, the Cubs couldn't do anything right down the stretch, despite having done almost everything right in the first five months of the season. And this was a veteran team with players who supposedly were hungry for their first National League pennant and World Series.

The Cubs had an infield full of All-Stars in Ron Santo, Don Kessinger, Glenn Beckert and Ernie Banks. Plus they had Billy Williams and Jim Hickman in the outfield, Randy Hundley behind the plate, three terrific starting pitchers in Ferguson Jenkins (21 wins), Bill Hands (20 wins) and Ken Holtzman (17 wins), and a terrific closer in Phil Regan (The Vulture).

Another reason why Major League Baseball may have wanted the Mets to win the World Series in 1969 was to give their incredible season-ending hot streak more credibility. By winning the World Series over the heavily favored Baltimore Orioles, one of the greatest teams in MLB history, sports writers and fans could proclaim the Mets a "team of destiny."

That took some of the attention away from the atrocity that was committed against the Cubs that year. It gave the Mets' miraculous comeback against the Cubs an air of legitimacy.

The same goes for the Marlins' victory over the Yankees in the 2003 World Series. That took some of the attention away from the obvious hoax that was committed against the Cubs in the National League Championship Series.

The Cubs also threw the 1984 National League Championship Series against the Padres, when they blew a 2-0 lead and lost three straight in San Diego. And they took a dive against the Giants in the 1989 playoffs. (Remember Sandberg and Dawson chasing all those pitches in the dirt?)

In my opinion, the Cubs' abysmal performances against the Braves in the 1998 playoffs, the Diamondbacks in 2007 and the Dodgers in 2008 were also highly suspicious.

There's more on how to fix a baseball game here:
How Baseball Games Are Fixed

And there's lots more on the fixing of college and professional sports here, including information on who's doing all the game-fixing behind the scenes and why they're doing it: http://sportsfraud.blogspot.com

Felix Salmon's Bitcoin FUD

Felix Salmon has a very good job.  He gets paid - and paid well - to pretend to think.  He's very good at it.  You have to respect anyone who's good at his job.

But if by some misfortune you are actually capable of thinking for yourself and, worse, enjoy it, you cannot have Felix's job or any job like it.  Not only is Felix not paid to think, he is not allowed to think.  Thinking is above his pay grade, as they say in the military.  A private who thinks he's Napoleon is not only not Napoleon, but not a very good private.

Rather, Felix's job (as with all legitimate journalists or columnists - though the former are not even allowed to pretend to think, which must really sting) is to communicate the thoughts of his sources, rewording them as if they were his own thoughts.  His sources are legitimate thinkers - professors, policymakers, and priests.  Just kidding.  Obviously there are no priests. 

Nonetheless, his sources (no sources, no journalist) have obtained distinguished titles at important institutions, which is (a) very difficult and (b) something Felix probably once tried to do, but couldn't.  If he disagreed with these distinguished sources, humbly and respectfully offering his own contrary opinion, they would look very puzzled, as though their golden retriever had attempted to engage them in a debate about Thomas Aquinas instead of fetching the goddamn ball.  Then, they would find a new dog.  An excellent fido is our Felix - but the planet has no shortage of dogs.

It is fundamentally erroneous for an Internet crank like me to argue with one of these microphones.  You might as well argue with a dog, or a lamppost, or anything else that can't change its mind.  My beef is with the sources, or rather, the institutions.  Or rather, the institution

(There is really no one these days who gets paid to think.  The difference between Felix and his sources is only that Felix knows he is not really thinking, whereas his sources actually believe they are.  Nonetheless, they would not have obtained their important positions had they thought differently.  And might even lose them, or at least sink a little, if they changed their minds.  Our Cathedral is made of real stones and real mortar and is quite invulnerable to mere windy thought.)

Nonetheless, Felix is an excellent fido and has a knack for catchy summarization.  It's not as easy as it looks.  His Gladwellian airport-bestseller product is full of transparent FUD, like "OMG haxx0rs!", to which a response would demean us both.  Pretending to think is one thing.  Blatant padding, another. But there are a couple of vaguely substantive anti-Bitcoin points which deserve an equally snappy response from someone with, if I may be so modest, a clue.

The first is the "argument from instability":
This is actually a serious problem, if you’re trying to put together a currency, rather than a vehicle for financial speculation. If the currency of a country ever fluctuated as much as bitcoins did, it would never be taken seriously as a medium of exchange: how are you meant to do business in a place where an item costing one unit of currency is worth $10 one day and $20 the next?
First, every currency is a "vehicle for financial speculation."  When you exchange good X for currency A on Tuesday, you are speculating that you will be able to exchange your A for good Y on Thursday.  This is a guess about the future, ie, "speculation."  Moreover, by choosing to use A as an intermediary rather than B, you are speculating that the exchange rate A/B will not change in B's favor between Tuesday and Thursday.  Otherwise you would have chosen B.

(It's typical of our thoughtfree age that a successful financial columnist feels no qualms about using the word "speculation" as a pejorative.  Can anti-Semitic rabbis be far behind?)

Second, Felix's sources will tell him that a currency has two roles: storing purchasing power and solving the coincidence-of-wants problem.  This is because Felix's sources are thinking thoughts last actually thought in the 1930s, ie, before computers.  With these magical devices, coincidence of wants is not in principle a problem, though small frictional effects persist.

It is trivial to do business in Bitcoin when BTC/USD is unstable.  Simply post the price in USD, and use the BTC/USD exchange rate as of the transaction date.  Even if buyer and seller are both saving in USD, within a couple of seconds they can exchange in, send Bitcoin, and exchange out.  The prices realized may differ slightly from the posted estimate, but only slightly.

In the 21st century, a currency has only one role: storing purchasing power.  Or to be more exact, containing the inevitable overvaluation of at least one asset in an economy where many actors want to store purchasing power.  If you can use this store of value directly in transactions, nice.  Nonetheless, rational actors will "speculate" on their optimal store of value, and convert on the fly if needed.  Using, you know, computers.

It falls under "padding," but I can't resist this moment in which our Felix truly plays his shill card:
The overwhelming majority of dollars in the world are deposited safely and electronically in banks: there’s something weird and self-defeating about the kind of people who keep their savings stuffed under the mattress. In Hollywood, if you show someone counting out huge sums of cash, that’s an easy way for the director to say that he’s a criminal.

Oddly, I actually lived in Cyprus when I was a kid.  It's a dangerous practice for a fido to keep his boilerplate stuffed under the mattress.  He's paid well by the word - the product should be fresh. 

It's also dangerous to channel Bulgakov, whom Felix probably hasn't heard of but can Google:
'In Sawa Potapovich's masterly interpretation we have just heard the story of "The Covetous Knight."  That knight saw himself as a Casanova; but as you saw, nothing came of his efforts, no nymphs threw themselves at him, the muses refused him their tribute, he built no palaces and instead he finished miserably after an attack on his hoard of money and jewels.  I warn you that something of the kind will happen to you, if not worse, unless you hand over your foreign currency!'
It may have been Pushkin's verse or it may have been the compere's prosaic remarks which had such an effect; at all events a timid voice was heard from the audience:
'I'll hand over my currency.'
'Please come up on stage,' was the compere's welcoming response as he peered into the dark auditorium. 
A short blond man, three weeks unshaven, appeared on stage.
'What is your name, please? ' enquired the compere.
'Nikolai Kanavkin ' was the shy answer.
'Ah! Delighted, citizen Kanavkin. Well? '
'I'll hand it over.'
'How much? '
'A thousand dollars and twenty gold ten-rouble pieces.'
'Bravo! Is that all you have? [...] Where are they hidden?'
'At my aunt's, in Prechistenka.'
'And where have you put them?'
'In a box in the cellar.'
The actor clasped his hands.
'Oh, no!  Really!' he cried angrily.  'It's so damp there -- they'll grow moldy!  People like that aren't to be trusted with money!  What child-like innocence.  What will they do next?
Kanavkin, realizing that he was doubly at fault, hung his curly head.
'Money,' the actor went on, 'should be kept in the State Bank, in dry and specially guarded strongrooms, but never in your aunt's cellar, where apart from anything else, the rats may get at it.  Really, Kanavkin, you should be ashamed: you -- a grown man!'
Kanavkin did not know which way to look and could only twist the hem of his jacket with his finger.
'All right,' the artist relented slightly, 'since you have owned up we'll be lenient...' Suddenly he added unexpectedly: 'By the way... we might as well kill two birds with one stone and not waste a car journey... I expect your aunt has some of her own hidden away, hasn't she?'
Okay, that's cheap.  But it is simply lovely how much our fido loves his loving master:
Because it turns out that financial-services companies are a very important part of any democracy.

It’s because we place so much trust in banks, after all, that they are forced to take on a great deal of responsibility. Banks and central banks are given an important job to do, are regulated and scrutinized, and can be held responsible for their actions. The population of the entire country, as represented by the government, stands behind bank deposits and promises to honor them even if the bank goes bust. Money, in other words, is a key ingredient in the glue which keeps the social compact together. (What we’re seeing in Cyprus is in large part a demonstration of what happens when that compact starts becoming unglued.)

Bitcoin, in that sense, is anti-democratic...
Dare I suggest that Fido understands 21st-century democracy perfectly?  "The population of the entire country, as represented by the government."  And hence, transitively, by J.P. Morgan.  I would love to have made it up.  Crap, Orwell would love to have made it up.

But there is substance here, or pseudo-substance anyway.  The cornerstone of the attack on the kulaks and Kanavkins:
Inflation is bad, but deflation is worse. The reason is that in a deflationary environment, no one spends money — because whatever you want to buy is sure to become cheaper in a few days or weeks. People hoard their cash, and spend it only begrudgingly, on absolute necessities. And they certainly don’t spend it on hiring people — no matter how productive their employees might be, they’d still be better off just holding on to that money and not paying anybody anything.

The result is an economy which would simply grind to a halt, with massive unemployment and almost no economic activity. In a word, it would be a Depression. In order to have economic growth, you need monetary growth as well — and that’s something which is impossible to achieve in a bitcoin-based system. Currencies such as the dollar, with a central bank which can print money at will, have succeeded for a reason. As economies grow, the money supply has to be able to grow with them. And that’s why bitcoin can never really succeed over the long term.
"In order to have economic growth, you need monetary growth as well."  But standing in its way - the Covetous Knight again!  A Trotskyist, a hoarder and a wrecker!

Surprisingly, this is perfectly true.  Actually, the key to understanding this argument is to understand that everything in it is true - if you look at it from the right perspective.  Or at least, the fido's perspective.


In order to have economic growth, you need monetary growth as well.  Why?  Because "economic growth" means "increase in the number of monetary units spent by consumers."  In order to increase the number of dollars that consumers spend, consumers need to have more dollars.  But is this "real" growth, ie, more and better products, or "nominal" growth, ie, just "inflation?"  Our hedonics experts will be looking closely at the quality of the products to ascertain this.


At this point, a person actually addicted to the vice of thought might ask: in an economy with a fixed number of dollars, is it possible to have constant dollar spending, for more and better products?  Ie, in fido language, zero "nominal" growth, but positive "real" growth?  What an odd idea.

But again, Fido turns out to be perfectly right.  It is not possible to fix the quantity of dollars in our economy, because the quantity of dollars sensu stricto (that is, liabilities of the Federal Reserve) is vastly disproportionate to the quantity of debt (market capitalization of the financial system).  By well over an order of magnitude.

Imagine a Bitcoin economy in which there were only 20 million Bitcoins, but 200 million promises to deliver future Bitcoins.  It is easy to see that this debt could not possibly be valued at par.  If we started with it valued at par, we would see the effective dilution of the Bitcoin market by a flood of effectively bogus promises.  But the market, being a market, would rapidly unravel this scam and devalue the bogus promises - increasing the exchange rate of a real BTC over a bogus promise, and also increasing the exchange rate of a real BTC against all other goods.

At a macroeconomic level, this would constitute a gigantic depression, exactly as Felix describes.  The fault would be not on the hands of those who exposed and detonated the debt bomb, but those who built and maintained it.  In the dollar debt bomb, continuous monetary expansion is needed to keep the plutonium core stable, which is why Good Professor Ben is lending us $85 billion a month.  With this mega-stimulus, spending scrapes along the bottom in a stagnant desultory way.  Without it, the core begins to contract, accelerates and then implodes - just as Irving Fisher (who originally thought this thought) explained.

Fortunately, there is no significant debt in Bitcoin.  In fact, BTC appreciation is a therapy for the dollar's debt bomb - because as the "bubble" expands, dollar purchasing power is created out of nowhere.  If BTC has the unlikely luck to run to fixation and become the world's standard currency, San Francisco will be full of dollar billionaires, who will spend these dollars - creating consumer spending, ie, inflationary purchasing power.  It would be too much to say this would be a good outcome for everyone, but it would certainly be a good outcome for those in debt.

Moreover, a healthy macroeconomic system with a fixed currency supply will not create a debt bomb.  Debt bombs are created when unpayable debts are guaranteed, formally or informally, by governments who want to profit surreptitiously from seignorage - generally, in the 20C, as part of some scheme to increase consumer spending.  USG itself cannot mint BTC.  So it cannot dilute the BTC supply with bogus BTC which are half bad debt, half "FDIC put."

It's also true that during the transition to BTC, no debt will be produced and there will be no significant BTC financial system.  Real debt requires the power to profit by selling future currency for a discount against present currency.  In a USD economy in which BTC is rising at 5% a day, or whatever, there is no way to complete this loop.

The "deflation" of BTC against USD is simply a function of the shifting volume of savings between the two currencies.  At present, almost all savings are in USD (and friends).  As tiny amounts of this energy flow into BTC, BTC goes up like a rocket.  Of course, the contest is unstable.

But when the entire savings pool has flowed into BTC, leaving the demonetized USD priced as a financial instrument for its expected return in BTC (ie, a dollar is a share of stock in USG, which has lots of awesome assets but no cash and no profits), you have an extraordinarily stable financial structure.  The quantity of BTC is fixed, by math.  The energy in savings is stable, because it corresponds to the real collective desire to defer consumption.  Even the debt capitalization is stable, because the quantity of debt depends on the existence of real productive opportunities.  I believe quite strongly that in this economy, there would be no such thing as a business cycle.

Sadly, I fear we'll never know, because Bitcoin is probably going to be killed by the USG.  Not really for any good reason, not even in self-defense, but just because it's easy to kill and bureaucrats like killing things.

This is the best thing about being a mouthpiece for power.  Your predictions come true.  You argue that the abandoned church next door is a dangerous firetrap, will probably burn down, and should probably burn down before someone moves into it.  It burns down.  Good, you say!  Are you a master thinker?  Or just good friends with a master arsonist?

Power creates opinion.  If Bitcoin goes from a billion-dollar capitalization to zero, which will happen if Washington so much as squeezes lightly on its neck, it's a bubble.  The past is always perceived as inevitable.  Everyone who bought Bitcoin will feel like the world's biggest chump.  How could anyone have thought it was worth something?  When, obviously, it was worth nothing?

No, it's a pity we can't use actual thoughts as a currency.  The quantity is so limited.  And always will be.  Alas, pseudo-thoughts are everywhere and very difficult to distinguish from the real goods.