58cd554 new style in test3.js
3f804d0 update test3.js
ccb6521 experiment implementing usq clock in js
5cd27e6 add stats.html to @submitReceivers in access.pl
d50d565 add to scratch2.txt
7162dc3 rename preferences.template to settings.template
I've always had this fetish for women in crewneck sweatshirts. A few years ago I discovered sites like Etsy, where I could save photos of models wearing that type of clothing. I saved photos in a giant folder initially, then I started categorizing them, like if they said "Ohio State" on them i would put them in a sub folder called "Ohio State" or some other sports team, etc. Then I discovered Instagram; I did the same sort of thing, but also followed some models or just girls that I thought were really hot. THEN I started grouping photos of a model, like say if they were a fan of a certain team or went to a certain college I would save all their photos under one of those subfolders. Following so far? Somehow I got the idea to write erotica stories on word documents that I would tie to that girl in that folder. It could be some really extreme femdom or some sort of vanilla romantic thing. I basically chose my favorite sweatshirts from one subfolder (for instance, the best of the "U Miami" folder) and line them up in five rows of five, a total of 25 photos. Then for each photo, it would be like a different chapter of story, so basically 25 bullets a word document. So for whatever line I was on, I would open the corresponding photo of that sweatshirt and go through all the photos of a girl while I was masturbating, like I was imagining her wearing that, but also getting off to photos of her half naked in other photos. Not weird enough? I ALSO have a playlist on youtube with sexual music, and I use a song from that playlist for each line. So if the song in the playlist is number 32 on the playlist... that's what I title the photo, so I know to go listen to that while I masturbate to that "chapter" How do I decide which folder to pick for my solo session? I use a random number generator from google and let that algorithm decide.
See how psychotic that is? I could never let anyone in real life know that. Can't believe how much time I put into that, but I did find it mentally stimulating and it also helped me to not get fixated on one article of clothing on a girl because while I was looking at pictures of sweatshirts, I was also training my brain to appreciate other physical aspects of a woman.
America has a very well disguised propaganda system. The oligarchy has convinced 10s of millions of Americans that
healthcare should not be a right
if it costs anything other than a small fortune you're a socialist who hates America
providing free healthcare will bankrupt the country
if you get sick, it's God's will (and that you are a bad person)
other countries who do provide free healthcare have awful health services compared to the US, and are weak nations without strong militaries who can't afford to defend themselves.
And these people don't even realize how overt the propaganda is.
Imagine if your finger had about 10,000x the nerve endings, but just at the last knuckle and fingernails aren’t a thing. That’s somewhat equivalent. Now imagine that feeling attached to your groin and the feeling radiating deep to your core.
Ejaculation has the same heart stopping sensation as a good sneeze, as well as a evacuating feeling like a good poop or like when you finally pee after holding it for a long time. But again, all this radiating outward from your core in the direction of and through this groin appendage, almost convulsing at times. Your whole body gets hot, and there’s a brief moment almost like passing out, then reality comes flooding back in as you catch your breath and recover.
Translation: "Government tyranny needs to embrace the digital age. It sometimes takes hours or weeks for legislators to draft unconstitutional legislation to suppress one group or another. No, what we really need are fully automated algorithms to suppress the people's rights. Also, that way when the algorithms invariably 'malfunction', screwing over millions of people in typical government fashion, we can just shrug and point to the computer. 'Sorry. Can't do anything for ya's. The computer told me to do it.'"
O’Reilly: But if we think about what better government would look like, it would be more data driven and decisive about its goals. Instead, we have this crony capitalism where interested parties have too much influence. It's as if the way Google dealt with spammers was to sit down with them and agree how much of the pie they would get. When people say, "We need to fix the internet," I say: No, we need to fix the fact that there are groups of people who have very narrow special interests, people who are holding the world hostage and keeping us from doing the right thing on issues that matter a hell of a lot to everybody else. Quite frankly, we need government that is focused on the public interest in the same way that tech companies, at their best, are focused on the interests of their users.
ZEIT ONLINE: My initial question was referring to an idea you wrote about in 2011: You proposed something you called "algorithmic regulation," the use of algorithms in government. What good would that do?
O’Reilly: Technology companies have learned something profoundly interesting – that you measure outcomes and then adapt really, really quickly, based on this new data. Typical government regulation, by contrast, is set in motion and is expected to be good for 10, 20 or 50 years. That doesn't work anymore. We need to help government learn faster from its mistakes.
ZEIT ONLINE: But the political system isn't set up for this kind of rapid decision making.
O’Reilly: Then maybe we need a new kind of political system.
ZEIT ONLINE: What might that look like?
O’Reilly: If you think of Google as the government of the web, they have criteria for when they consider a web page to be useful: how many people link to it, how much time people spend there, whether they return to the search and so on. They have built a system where they say: This is what good looks like. When Google noticed in 2011 that all the content farms …
ZEIT ONLINE: … providers that are producing and publishing a huge number of articles or videos with the goal of generating as many clicks as possible …
O’Reilly: … were coming up with lousy content that Google thought was good, they updated their algorithm and basically wiped out a whole lot of these companies. I am a fan of a stronger, more principled government that really works for the people. And that does mean rapidly reevaluating things.