MonDie

It's been a few months since I read this thread, but I had an interesting epiphany. I think the most offensive and off-putting features of this Israeli assault echoes some of the problems with our current system of government in the US, which are the problems of un-accountability.

The disgust is not at Netanyahu's choice to strike back at Hamas, but the overkill of the response.  Moreover, the issue is not that the US is aligned with Israeli, but that there seems to be no conditions upon which the alliance is predicated.  In our own democratic process, we are constantly trained by the media to view politics through a two-party lens, but the fundamental problem with the current situation is a lack of accountability, a problem which this two-party lens offers no solutions for.  Approaching accountability as a politically partisan problem assumes that conflicts of interest stem from party allegiances and not from the perpetrator's personal interests or his personal relationships to whomever are the direct beneficiaries of his corruption.

The current system of deregulation championed by the likes of Ronald Reagan, Billl Clinton, and Newt Gingrich (and Jimmy Carter too if he hadn't been outflanked) is not a system of unilateral, top-down accountability, but a system of diffuse, decentralized conflicts of interest.  It was championed by the same greedy people who bend the rules with the cost-benefit analysis of what if I get caught.  Moreover, the conflicts of interest it has unleashed are not solvable thought a party-based system of accountability.  Nonetheless, our minds always go back to the "tactical framing" encouraged by media.  "But the Republicans are even more ultra-wealthy and corrupted than the Democrats," they moan.  Moreover, when Netanyahu's IDF bombs another hospital or schoolbus, they just cry Hamas.

Part of the reason Hamas gets so much flak is because their actions are shrouded in the moral ambiguity of being the underdog, because Israel has the upperhand.  You can't blame the Israelis for wanting to have the upperhand.  We are inherently self-interested (egoistic), which means we want to do what we want and not what somebody else wants, and self-centered (egocentric), which means we think our perspective and ourselves are right and that contrary perspectives and people are therefore wrong.  Moreover, Israel inherently wants to have the upperhand.  Why wouldn't they?  And that is why we've chased the Gazans into the corner where they're currently trapped.  However, the overkill of the response from Netanyahu's IDF is not just a predictable response to the trials of conflict, it is an underhanded way of dealing with the situation.  When it's in secret, it's called cheating.  Out in the open, it is called political violence.  Netanyahu rose to power with the help of political violence, and he uses Hamas's violent tactics to justify violence against non-violent Palestinians.  He can operate in this way because he has dismantled the mechanisms of accountability from within and his US alliance has no clear conditions he's violating.  Netanyahu was on trial for corruption prior to the October seventh attacks. Moreover, the US is also guilty of war crimes,  so that probably wouldn't be a condition upon which the Israel alliance rests.

The solution to these problems doesn't come from switching to the other side, it comes from holding people accountable.  If I knew what the words "Apartheid," "Colonialism" or "Genocide" meant, then I could explain whhat they mean in this context.  For now,  all I see is brutality caused by brutal tactics from amoral people who've calculated that they likely won't be held accountable.  Biden is looking to alleviate the burden of Netanyahu's assault on Gaza, but the hope for accountability, accountability for anyone other than Hamas, was killed when Netanyahu dismantled the courts.  Make no mistake though, Netanyahu is just another agent of unaccountable corruption looking to implement more deregulation, to personally benefit from it, and especially to dismantle anything that would hold him accountable.  He was on trial for corruption, until he intervened.

On 4/25/2023 at 2:12 PM, TheVat said:

Yep.  As @zapatos mentioned, it would be a kind of Catch-22: if foes trust each other enough to know their five warheads won't be attacked, then they wouldn't need the warheads in the first place.

Powerful arms tend to lead to arms races and insane buildup of stockpiles.

Of course diplomacy will involve reconciling differences of perspective and distrust of a purported perspective.  It seems like the perspective, for these purposes, would have three main components: the perspective on what is, the ideals about where to, and the power dynamics of how, or with what means/by what means.  Of course, a person who privileges his own ideals or own purposes might utilize deceptive means that misrepresent any of these, so we try to embed aspects of our ideals into the power dynamic itself, such as ideals against misrepresentation or deceit.

It is like agreeing to the rules of a game.  In diplomatic frameworks, players agree to certain rules.  Perhaps, like how two checkers players agree to the rules of checkers.  Of course, the checkers teams legitimately might prefer checkers to mahjong, or agree to the rules for the sake of fairness and honest cooperation.  That would be diplomacy.  Moreover, if some guys are playing mahjong, you might then point a weapon at the people who don't play checkers or don't play according to the rules of checkers, viewing them as unpredictable, incomprehensible, or mischievous for playing by their own rules which weren't yours. In that case, genuine idealism, or perhaps correct trust in what really is genuine idealism, where the idealism regards the rules of how the game is played, seems to be the way out of this unstable dynamic.  We can of course look at history through other lenses with other values.  If you value human life, then you're against genocide, and you probably don't want a leader like Maoist Polpot, capitalist Pinoche, or fascist Hitler or Mussolini. 

Nothing, if it can rotate.
Oh, just delete this. I had two proofs.Everything after the first *spoiler* bracket disappeared. I'm running NoScript on Ubuntu Firefox.

I have no skill here, but it's an idea. It seems like it would be possible to create a robo-mod, separate of the forum software, that would take whitelist or blacklist requests from a pinned thread. It probably will need to un-delete accidentally deleted threads.
For security, run from any system or VirtualSystem or any network or 5Gbs/month hotspot. It only needs the scripts and the account password.

It would navigate with the keyboard:
Tab + Enter to navigate;
arrows and Ctrl+C/V to copy/paste thread titles;
Ctrl+Alt+T to open Ubuntu Terminal and then to paste posts or titles into Bash scripts, scripts which then decide whether to repeat the same macro or execute a new macro that will execute a new script, for example a script that deletes the second or third thread in All Activity after the top ones have been whitelisted.

Possible hurdles:
it will need the power to un-delete threads that are not whitelisted in time, or else it cannot run constantly and run on a whitelisting principle
--it shouldn't accidentally delete a whitelisted thread if it doesn't have to reload the page, unless it isn't whitelisted in time--;
it may need to ignore troll posts by simultaneously copying the username or user status and the user's posted content, which are in separate boxes;
the robo-moderator would preferably have forum privileges limited to deleting or undeleting threads;
OR ELSE, it needs a very clever algorithm for combining the lists via commands like Bash diff command;
Ubuntu Terminal, which would take script prompts, only takes paste commands via mouse and not keyboard.

*KEYBOARD NAVIGATION: mouse navigation would have to respond to differences in box size, but the keyboard can hit Tab 27 times or 27 + 5*Z number of times.

11 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

There is no "we". Each of us can try to to affect what we are able to reach. Voting, writing letters, protesting, getting arrested, turning off the air conditioner, donating money, eating less meat, practicing birth control, picking the slugs off our lettuces by hand instead of setting out poison traps.   We can each do something.

I agree, the cows need to stop reproducing.

Feel-free to Popper or Whewell me on this.

Define "crazy."  That's your hypothesis (Step 2), which solves an emergent system, and regarding the system:  Are the inputs clearly observable or at least definable, or the outputs?  Are some inputs potentially wrong or still unknown?  Is the whole system and its outputs complex and noisy, or homogeneous and null?  Can you tell?  Can you observe the whole system well, or the relevant outputs?

1. Observe precedes 2. Hypothesize.  You can "work backward" (i.e. backward chaining) or work forward.  To falsify, reduce to definable inputs that constrain emergent outputs.  Assuming this isn't just philosophy, some inputs are ill-defined, wrong, or obscuring/obscured.  Try working backward.

Working backward ramble, because WTH:

The biosphere isn't a big ball of gas, and we aren't rocks, we're endotherms.  If the biosphere receives unexpected complicating inputs, they are likely biological and metabolic, and the single most likely complicating input is us, a lot of us.  Except, it's in an indirect way, because our brains have invented extended homeostasis with artificial metabolism.  A brain will tell you that brains and their conversations are notoriously hard to reduce, but their metabolism is simpler, and inventions simpler still.  We need to simplify their metabolism by removing the livestock animals and the extensive enclosures, or by integrating them with the natural ecosystems.  The sun's nuclear fusion and the chloroplast (/cyanobacteria) are nature's ultimate power source, and man-made systems clearly subvert this, unintentionally destabilizing species, ecosystems and the biosphere.  Blam!  There it is!  We subvert the natural metabolic order because we're hungry, cold, and artificially smart.  Applied to livestock farming, we are growing cows instead of growing photosynthetic food for wild bovines, which would be more sustainable???

Sorry, it has been more than a decade.

19 hours ago, CharonY said:

[...] The urgency now is really driven but the fact that weather patterns seem to change within our lifetime whether it is true or not. Sure, we likely can leave it to future generations to sort out. However empirically we have seen that without urgency we won't do anything. [...]

Future generations to sort out how?  By disrupting more ecosystems?

Co-occurring anthropogenic stressors reduce the timeframe ofenvironmental viability of the world's coral reefs

---

Ala dimreeper, it's looking like Doherty's "F*cked Forever."

On 2/22/2023 at 4:38 PM, TheVat said:

 

Sociopath and psychopath are both used to refer to what's clinically known as ASPD, or antisocial personality disorder.  What's disturbing is that the horrible things that happen in war are mostly done by ordinary people who are not in the 1-2% of the population estimated to have ASPD.  Plain old human nature, conditioned in a certain way, can wreak atrocities.

Further commenting on this careless decontextualizing of categories.  The personality disorders framework can type the pathology where pathology has presented, but not normal individuals like the five-factor model does.  To type normal personalities, lowering the thresholds could impair the fitness of the model from which these categories arise. For example, maybe a normal-range person meets multiple criteria sets simultaneously, but maybe those "exclusion criteria" were meant to cancel eachother out in cases of extreme imbalance.

Psychopathic, narcissistic, and antisocial personalities shared antagonism (reverse-Agreeableness) and grandiosity (reverse-honesty-humility).  Antagonism: unsympathetic, unsharing, and opaque, and usually grandiose.  Grandiosity: attention-seeking, entitled greed, and instrumental exploitation.  The low consientiousness that distinguishes psychopathy and antisocial personality particularly is impulsive, improper, reactive, and over-stimulating.

On 2/22/2023 at 1:25 PM, J.C.MacSwell said:

It would be hilarious if not so tragic for both Ukrainians and the Russians they are responsible for.

On 2/22/2023 at 5:55 PM, iNow said:

Once you've convinced people to believe in absurdities it's not hard getting them next to commit atrocities. 

'Grandiosity' is mania, but I lack a better term.

Obviously tendencies can be amplified or suppressed, like through feedback, like a game that (is supposed to) keeps you alive.

blah... groggy

Paranoid conspiracist cap on:

Does the biohazard mail service run from China to USA?  Could we maybe eventually prove what happened, based on what was shared?

Presumably, the zoological samples were already in stomach acid, and that's the thing noone is talking about.

On 11/25/2022 at 8:47 PM, TheVat said:

  Sometimes people get psychology, which remains a mix of art and science, confused with neuroscience, which is more the scientific approach.  Seems like there are branches that are closer to neuroscience, like psychopharmacology, where they draw on disciplines like biochemistry, genetics, etc.  Other branches, like Jungian analysis, tend more towards an intuitive art of observing a human psyche.  

There are interdisciplinary categories like behavioral science or cognitive science which, as their names imply, lean more towards the array of techniques called "the scientific method."

There's a fairly wide spectrum in how all these branches work, with counselors whose primary tool is empathy at one end, and neuroscientists whose primary tools are technology, clinical studies, and rigorous data sifting, at the other.

Psychology is categorically obscure, but reducing psychology to brain imaging is like reducing physics or biology to telescopy or microscopy.  Quantifying the content of communication should matter.

Neuroscientists, like all scientists, rely on the reliability of a basic willingness to communicate.  Psychologists and anthropologists quantify not only communication, but communication patterns and ability, and the emerging social behavior and cultural activities.  You can ignore good communication when it works and superfluous communication when it's insubstantial, but don't forget that bad communication will waste resources, time, cognition, public trust, and everybody's credibility.  Of course, that might seem insubstantial to a narrow-minded person awaiting a paycheck.

On 2/11/2023 at 11:32 AM, Agent Smith said:

What's this unifying psychological theory you refer to?

How about any logical framework of mental representation, adaptive behavior, or verbal communication that mutually reinforces the data analysese? 

Psychologists use experimental and mathematical techniques to more precisely quantify the relationships among the observable variables that are only passively observed by the layman, like personality traits for instance. If the development of a reliable and precise measurement tool isn't scientific, then what is? But the layman might not understand the math, and what is psychology separate of these mathematical techniques if there isn't any unifying psychological theory that unites the discipline of psychology? This can make it seem more like a massive data collection operation than a scientific endeavor.

On 11/27/2022 at 6:29 PM, Agent Smith said:

🙂

Spoken like a true psychologist. In me haste I failed to recognize the complexity of the subject and give due credit to the dedication and brilliant work of psychologists the world over. Gracias.

I'm not as up-to-date with psychological techniques as I'd like to be. I'm sure there are well-tested methods in use in the diagnosis & management of mental illnesses. Do you know of any, other than psychometrics?

An excellent observation. It'll be interesting to watch how neuroscience will get along with psychology. 

Or Behavioral Ecology bolstered by the occasional MRI data.

On 11/27/2022 at 8:13 PM, Peterkin said:

Actually, that is the branch of which I'm most skeptical. I have never been particularly well versed in clinical psychology; my only experience is in counselling college students. The heavy stuff, I only know at second hand, from the patient's side: two close friends with long-standing mental issues who have tried a number of approaches over the years. Approaches, rather than treatments; it's really not like mainstream medicine. I understand hardware pretty well; I'm comfortable in most hospital departments. The psych ward, though, behind the closed doors with heavy wire mesh panels... that's another country - which, I suppose, is why so many people are reluctant to acknowledge it.

The more interesting condition to me is chronic depression. It's a bitch of an illness: it turns bright, talented, interesting people into morbid slugs. And I'm glad somebody's willing to help them - I don't care if it's a priest, a psychiatrist or a voodoo mambo!  Not every approach works - not by a long chalk! And what works for one person might be no use to somebody else. There are some constants, but successful therapies are usually arrived-at through trial and error.

The other friend has ADHD, well controlled now, with a combination drug and personal routine regimen. As a child in the late 50's, he was called hyperkinetic and there was very little anyone could do for him, except the exercise I mentioned earlier. He should have become a great soccer player - except that he literally could not keep his eyes on the ball.  Since the medical and educational establishments have been taking the problem seriously, he's had considerable coaching in how to manage the symptoms himself, so that he can live a normal life.

 

On 11/28/2022 at 2:20 PM, Peterkin said:

Like every other mental illness, the problem begins with a normal emotion or idea applied in excess or inappropriately. Fear is normal and healthy in cases where an animal is aware of a imminent danger or probable threat. It becomes unhealthy when extended to situation where there is no danger. For example, fear of falling off a high place is appropriate when one is standing on a clifftop and the possibility of falling over the edge is real. When standing on an high observation platform, surrounded by steel and glass, with no possibility of falling off, it's inappropriate, but still normal, because the fear is triggered by visual association. When standing on a chair, it's neurotic: a phobia, but still manageable. When standing on solid ground, afraid to step out the door, it's a serious problem. 

I do not see the relevance of Putin.  

Most measurement tools are trained on ordinary people whom the rater already can intuitively understand.  Yet, the most extreme aberrations are the source of the most intrigue and the most worry, and they may have nothing to teach, especially if they're lying.  Nature doesn't lie, nature isn't machiavellian. 

Many would probably fancy themselves to be the real psychologist in the room.

This addendum is probably not premature.  I'll also add that kombucha usually seems to work even though it is low sugar.

The last thing I tested was a mouthwash, and it didn't work.  I awoke after 4-5 hours.  Sleeplessness is one of two major effects I might experience when the rinsing liquid isn't effective.  Then I was awoken again, still tired, when we began moving the furniture.  That night I tried a sugar free energy drink, swishing some around and drinking the rest in the morning.  I awoke after 4-5 hours, and I drank the rest of the energy drink and showered on the next morning.  My tiredness combined with the circus-sized showerhead and lack of water pressure adjustment caused me to splash some droplets onto my lips.  This would normally be expected to interfere with the outcome, but this was shower water from the new house, not the old house.  On the next night, I tried a different sugar free energy drink, and I awoke after 4-5 hours but sleep returned surprisingly easily.  Since then, the old set of effects have changed and the sleeplessness hasn't returned.  It would appear that sugar free energy drinks and mouthwash do not work, and that was the last test I could do.  Nonetheless, a morning stuffy nose, the other main symptom and a symptom I've experienced for the last decade, is what persists.  I swapped my toothpaste out, and I still awoke with a stuffy nose.  I will have to figure out what is different with the water here before I continue onward.

I've also had a sugar-free, carbonated drink called Xevia.  It is about as ineffective as water for this purpose, but it appears to allow the stuffy nose to persist whereas diet soda at least eliminates the stuffy nose.  It is the sleeplessness that has disappeared completely.

The mushroom juice did allow me to sleep, but the mushroom juice was the only thing that kept me from falling asleep with a clogged, leaky nose symptoms that I usually experience when I accidentally touch my food.  I guess the ineffectiveness is two-dimensional, but the mushroom juice was the only thing apparently exhibiting this second dimension of ineffectiveness.

Addendum to that last part: I have had states where I would consistently sleep for 6-1/2 to 7 hours and then sleep would not return even though I didn't reach seven hours of sleep.  It was like something else counteracted the sleeplessness, but only for 6-1/2 hours.  The mushroom juice kept me up for so long that it might have overridden that.

On 11/13/2021 at 10:02 AM, exchemist said:

I really think you need to consider more anti-psychotic treatment. I'm no doctor, but some of what you are posting seems to me to have the hallmarks of mental disturbance, e.g. the irrelevant and implausible statement about people withholding money to starve you. 

I never hallucinate; I've always only had pseudo-hallucinations.  I was diagnosed over seven years ago.  Why would I pay outrageous american healthcare bills if it will not help me?  Someone who owed money still owed me another $200 which they aggressively disputed.

---

I cracked a steam method, but I'm trying an easier method.  I will have in in under a week, and we will be moving in over a week.  The toothpaste is reacting with something on my pillow, creating a cocktail that is alternately focus impairing, scatter braining or conversely energizing, angering.  Although room temperature water is ineffective, what appears to be more effective is drinks and maybe especially sugary drinks and canned vegetable juices and soup liquids, but maybe not oily mushroom juice and some olive juices.  If anyone has a liquid to recommend, recommend it now.  I will have the final results in a week, and then we will be moved.  I won't have time for the complex task of pouring hot water over my pillow case as it is elevated above the ground or placed over non-porous surface covers like tin foil, so I'll probably be putting it on a clothes line.

Thank you.

Preview

Preview: the steam method involves steaming your face and then wiping your lips with a wet tissue.  The wet tissue doesn't need to be hot if the steam was hot.  However, you also have to dunk your toothbrush in hot water and remove it before the water cools.  Something on the tooth unsticks in the hot water.  It begins to restick as the water cools, making the method incomplete and rendering the container un-reuseable.

The new method involves rinsing your mouth as you brush your teeth, but water as it turns out does not work, or not room-temperature water.  Don't gurgle it or tip your head back or leave the toothpaste in your mouth too long, but spit it out and rinse it out ASAP as or after you have brushed your upper teeth front and back and the toothbrush has contacted your lips at the corners and the base.

on the tooth*brush*

Sticky stuff on my toothbrush.

Thinking about it, I think it may be most important to distinguish between the formalistic communications of science and the informal dialogues that have occurred since before humans could write.  We speak informally all the time, but a scientist would be wrong to express his atheism in his capacity as a scientist.  Ideas about the divine are informal, and they might not be scientifically meaningful let alone scientifically testable.  Thus they should be responded to in an informal way.  In science and the peer review process, the aim is an objectivity that is independent of the observer, and it would be important to disclose subjectivity if statements were subjective.  In informal communication, it is already assumed that ideas are subjective, contextual, or approximate.  Thus it would be redundant to preface a statement with terminology like "My feeling is that..."/"I think that..."/"What I'm saying is..."/"I imagined that..."/"My tentative conclusion is..."

Informally speaking.

Also, can the scientific method be tested scientifically?

3 hours ago, beecee said:

Any and all challenges of atrocities, war crimes, as a sweetener if you will, to withdraw, that "may  be" effective if he is backed into a corner, and may go to placate the average Russian Joe Blow, ( or keep them in the dark) when this debacle is finished. I thought that was pretty clear. Just a thought though.

Admittedly, this is more mathematical and logical but not very scientific.  Anywho.  If the concession was on the table already, Putin would know the probability or the threshold is possible enough that the concession was on the table already, it hypothetical can go on the table, and it might be placed on the table again.  Even if military withdrawal is inevitable, Putin may hold out for the concession anyway, knowing what he knows.  IMO this is the problem of post hoc negotiating: shifting goal posts, and setting bad precedents.

Fortunately, most people, who do not have inflated egos or a self-absorbed desire to over-extend their control, can be reasoned with about certain ground-rules and their benefits to community and the shamefulness of violating them.  Unfortunately, they can still have massive blind spots.

Apparently most Ukrainians know Russian, both Slavic languages along with polish, but not vice versa.  Russians are obviously slavophobic toward Ukrainians, and that is why they assumed an easy victory / easy reunification, with a people whose language they don't even understand.  Russian-speaking Slavs need to make sure that this war inflicts maximum damage on Putin's popularity and legitimacy, which amazingly has not happened yet.  Let's withhold nukes from all unilingual societies.

I learned a little Spanish in highschool, which I never used. 😕

Bilingualism is linked to "cognitive flexibility", and "verbal intelligence" is inversely related to prejudice.

 I would say, long-game is de-radicalization, or to counter pro-Putin propoganda in Russia and neighbors like Belarus or Azerbaijan (where another conflict is ongoing).  Then, short-game is to engage in diplomacy with everyone interested in peace, at the official level, popular level and international level.  Nobody threatens a counter-attack hoping to be called on their bluff, unless they're a weapons manufacturer.

Has Putin already suppressed the protests in Russia?

REVISION OF:  "The problem with using too much liquid is that the substance will get washed into the mouth before it is removed, but it needs plenty of motion, not plenty of liquid. ... You can't rinse all of the inside of your lips without accidentally ingesting some of that water, even if you spit it out and try rinse it out. ..."

This was based on a hypothesis that seemed to be the only hypothesis that could account.  It's also true that solids would pick the substance up if the lips had been wet within the hour.  This is potentially a confound since the act of rinsing was also incidentally moistening, and I would typically eat after doing it whereupon the solid foods picked it up.  This became a repeated observation.  However, I distinctly remember thinking that I wasn't going to drop the other hypothesis even though the two hypotheses potentially confound one another.

However, I found more corroboration for the hypothesis that foods could pick it up if the lips had been moist, and I would privilege it over the excess-liquid-spillage hypothesis, if the latter didn't also make a lot of sense and moreover to find corroboration.  That is, finding corroboration in the unsafeness of drinking from large bottles upon awakening, rather than small bottles, and how this was consistent with a spillage hypothesis that was only a small leap and could seem to be operating in at least one other context where no other hypothesis seemed to suffice.

I won't be able to finish because people are withholding all money from me, into starvation.  This much became clear:

Whether it starts on the lip's corner from sleeping on my side (it probably does), it inevitably migrates across the lips where it becomes stuck on the surface, or dare I say in the epithelium, but the lips are sticky.  You can remove it by getting the lips mildly wet (?: setting for between immediately and twenty/thirty minutes) and applying plenty, plenty of motion (?: with two different paper surfaces).  After going through ten tissues, I removed most of it, maybe close to all of it.  The problem with using too much liquid is that the substance will get washed into the mouth before it is removed, but it needs plenty of motion, not plenty of liquid.  ?: Why accidentally rinsing any liquid into the mouth causes detectable effects, (?: is that it probably has some sort of rinsing half-life, (?: or whatever is exposed does before more of it loosens up and becomes exposed)). (-- In that case, avoidance is probably a much worse strategy compared to removal.)

The thing causing delayed sniffles has disappeared again.  Alas, if your wipe doesn't accidentally contact your face, you don't need to wipe your cheeks or the cheek that was on your pillow.  You should wipe outside skin before inside the lips, starting from a broad cheek area, moving to a narrower cheek area, then start wiping in the lips.  This seemed to work before this mystery substance disappeared again.  This also seemed to mitigate the other substance's effects slightly even though I didn't do the entire lips, but I might not be able to confirm this.  You can't rinse all of the inside of your lips without accidentally ingesting some of that water, even if you spit it out and try rinse it out.

 

 

I slept like a baby. 😂

I have had dark circles under my eyes for some months or maybe a year.

You can stick your tongue at the can, if you're choosing avoidance over removal.  Without the tongue, the can's liquid goes toward the corners, and this tongue-ing seemed to mitigate the effects.

The mystery substance that caused a more delayed sniveling seemed to sit around in the saliva.  This became clear when I experienced its effects immediately after lying on my side.  However, it still had a pretty consistent onset time of two-and-a-half or three hours.

Finished!

On 8/4/2021 at 3:51 AM, iNow said:

Interesting. Can you find a way to have the water chemically analyzed?

I don't know if I can conduct a test for it until I know what it is or at least how it is behaving, and the situation is becoming more complex as I collect more observations.

 

On 8/5/2021 at 4:44 AM, Endy0816 said:

Maybe metal contamination? Might be worth looking at buying reverse osmosis system if bottled water doesn't cause issues.

I will definitely check it out for resonant observations.  I also have my old chemistry textbook that I read the first half of.  Stopped before Lewis Structure.

---

I've been feeling agitated for the last five or six years, and I began thinking aloud after I quit the prescribed anti-psychotics.  The agitation--the restless scatterbrained thinking aloud--got noticeably worse after I started rinsing my face with water.  Something else, though, was causing the allergic response. 

Whatever was causing the agitation seemed to be remaining active for so long that it was sitting in wait on my pillowcase, where the contaminant would pass onto my cheeks where I would rinse it onto my mouth by pouring more water onto it.  In contrast, whatever caused the allergic response seems to be more soluble such that it rinses away more easily, but the allergy contaminant also has the ability to invade the aqueous solution on the wet tissues.  Recently, I've been wiping my mouth with wet tissues, but the wet tissues seem to pull in the contaminant from wherever they can: the surrounding face, or the edge of the plastic bag where the baggie opens.  Imagine somebody trying to spot mop a floor covered with a dried goop, a dried goop that becomes liquid again whenever it contacts the moisture of the water from the mop.  That dried/wet goop is the allergy-causing contaminant.  The full coverage of the residue over all the lips is a problem because you will eat or drink it multiple times: you eat the inside of your lips, then your toothbrush will replace it with contaminant from the lower lip or the lip's corners, then you eat it again.  I will say this tentatively, and I will revise it if I am wrong, but the best approach seems to be to let the external skin dry after wet wiping it externally and before wiping inside mouth.  You also have to open wide for the corners and wipe the inside corners carefully, so you don't draw in more from the surrounding skin.  I am not sure how long it takes to build up inside the lip's corners*.

Regarding the lip's corners. I seemed to be experiencing poor concentration related to the lip corners, poor concentration that wasn't noticeably until twice it manifested as physical fatigue combined with overwhelming inattention that was hard to ignore.  Get it?  Overwhelming inattention that you can't ignore?  Yeah, I need a method to asses it.  I am not sure how long it takes to build up yet, but I had literal mental and physical fatigue when I finally noticed it.  Anyway, it seems to peak after two hours or from one-hour to three-hour, and to last for a total of seven (7) hours.  Incidentally, the allergic thing usually sets in after ten minutes, but when I began wiping my lips, it started producing a more enduring allergic effect lasting from two-and-a-half hours until five hours or so, and this happened regardless of whether it was ingested from my hands or from my lips.  Talk about unnecessary confounds!  How am I supposed to assess my own ability to concentrate?  Anyway, the solution to these problems, tentatively, is to very carefully wipe inside the opened lips after allowing the external skin to dry after being wet wiped.  Otherwise, there is an alternative and pretty straightforward, albeit messy, method: pour the water onto your lips while lying down. -->

Pour the water onto your lips while lying down.  Clear water that won't stain.  Patiently pour gently from a small or low-filled bottle so you don't get it up your nose, or else it will be carrying something else with it.  And get the bottom of your lip too, or else the remaining contaminant will get spread around by your toothbrush.  In fact, a rectangular shaped section of skin surface is probably more optimal than a lip-shaped section.

Other discoveries:

Whatever is causing the diahrea, probably the stuff on my cheek, only has this degistive effect after being heated or being exposed to chemicals, including a disinfecting wipe and a sensitive skin wipe, but this chemical product also removes from the surface very, very.  That is, if you don't toothbrush your way into a round two.  The over-heated form might have an onset of less than an hour rather than more than an hour.

Plastic bags as gloves still cause problems if you have to reach into a deep container, because you still have to touch the edge of the bag to open it.  I will have to work this out somehow.

Regarding soda cans, open them carefully with a firm grip, and do not pour anything onto the can after opening it with your hand.

Here is Francesca Fiorentini's reporting from early July, prior to Kabul's surrender.  Afghanistan is 50:00 onward, and the finance angle is from 90 onward.  (Empire Files is good for Israel Palestine.)

From a scientific perspective, one might analogize that the Taliban, a supposedly "primitive" culture, pushed out the foreign invader like it was influenza, a naturally occurring viral infection.  All the Taliban needed was a real boogeyman like what humans have evolved to detect.  Although agnostic atheists are only pushing for what seems like the next logical step (i.e. why not ditch the God too?), it is worth noting how we've wandered, or carelessly stumbled, into a supposedly modern culture of hyper-individualism and continual oligarchy.  What do the Taliban have that we have willingly surrendered to the marketing and propaganda that have mangled/modernized our values into accomodating whatever corrupt, lying oligarchs they propped up?  Trump started the withdrawal, Biden carried through with it, and neoliberal imperialists and war racketeers were all-along profiting from mediocre work.  Meanwhile, communist China actually seems to be adopting the empirial strategy of bolstering its allies through infrastructure projects of the sort that we cannot even commit to here in the continental USA.

On 8/25/2021 at 10:28 AM, Alex_Krycek said:

Let's also not willfully ignore the principle driver of the war: profit.

For the defense contractors who made billions during this crusade, the current result, shambolic as it may appear, is actually fairly promising for their industry.  It means then can do it all again some time in the future.

^{S&P 500}

• ^{Total return: 516.67 percent}
• ^{Annualized return: 9.56 percent}
• ^{$10,000  2001 stock purchase today: $61,613.06}

^{Basket of Top Five Contractor Stocks}

• ^{Total return: 872.94 percent}
• ^{$10,000  2001 stock purchase ($2,000 of each stock) today: $97,294.80}

^Boeing

• ^{Total return: 974.97 percent}
• ^{Annualized return: 12.67 percent}
• ^{$10,000  2001 stock purchase today: $107,588.47}
• ^{Board includes: Edmund P. Giambastiani Jr. (former vice chair, Joint Chiefs of Staff), Stayce D. Harris (former inspector general, Air Force), John M. Richardson (former navy chief of Naval Operations)}

^Raytheon

• ^{Total return: 331.49 percent}
• ^{Annualized return: 7.62 percent}
• ^{$10,000  2001 stock purchase today: $43,166.92}
• ^{Board includes: Ellen Pawlikowski (retired Air Force general), James Winnefeld Jr. (retired Navy admiral), Robert Work (former deputy secretary of defense)}

^{Lockheed Martin}

• ^{Total return: 1,235.60 percent}
• ^{Annualized return: 13.90 percent}
• ^{$10,000  2001 stock purchase today: $133,559.21}
• ^{Board includes: Bruce Carlson (retired Air Force general), Joseph Dunford Jr. (retired Marine Corps general)}

^{General Dynamics}

• ^{Total return: 625.37 percent}
• ^{Annualized return: 10.46 percent}
• ^{$10,000  2001 stock purchase today: $72,515.58}
• ^{Board includes: Rudy deLeon (former deputy secretary of defense), Cecil Haney (retired Navy admiral), James Mattis (former secretary of defense and former Marine Corps general), Peter Wall (retired British general)}

^{Northrop Grumman}

• ^{Total return: 1,196.14 percent}
• ^{Annualized return: 13.73 percent}
• ^{$10,000  2001 stock purchase today: $129,644.84}
• ^{Board includes: Gary Roughead (retired Navy admiral), Mark Welsh III (retired Air Force general)}

https://theintercept.com/2021/08/16/afghanistan-war-defense-stocks/

Another war finance story: we wasted trillions beefing up bulky fighter jets rather than improving on an older, lightweight design.  It was TYT.  I'll find it.

Lockheed Martin.  "U.S. Military Admits Trillion Dollar Mistake" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbzEMdJBagg

I love Mr Bungle.  I never listened to Faith No More.  We need moral behavior, not moral frameworks.  One-Two Punch.

Thank you Anna Biishiki? What you do is important.

---

I've been waking up late every Monday.

*oops, sinusoidal is a math term

I am not on any drugs.  I took anti-psychotics for about a year about five years ago, but otherwise I hardly ever taken an Aspirin.

---

Also, looking at the splash patterns in the sink, I'm wondering whether some sink splashing reaches my moustache region when I am rinsing my lips and not rinsing above my lips.  That could be why the moustache hairs are problematic.

But, per the above, I still remember what I ate: rod-shaped cookies first, and then bagels yesterday.  The bagels didn't touch my moustache region but only a wider area of my lips, after my lips were extensively rinsed, and the effect was unusually severe despite the extensive rinsing.  I don't know what is happening today, the day after, but something is going on, and I'm tentatively blaming the sink.

I'm carefully biting my crackers out of their bag after running out of bottled water, and I'm pulling out the ones that might have touched my lip.  I just had another flare up and it made me momentarily reconsider, but I'm pretty sure.

Another Addendum:  Two days ago I decided to snort the water into my nose until my nasal passages were clean.  I may have actually re-sensitized myself to the effects if it could have splashed from the sink to my nose, essentially refilling my nasal cavity with more of it so that I experience a more enduring sinusoidal effect.

On 7/26/2021 at 5:48 AM, studiot said:

Advice in here might help.

https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/1198665.Tired_or_Toxic_A_Blueprint_for_Health

🙂

 

I don't know why the book summary is missing.  I already have general biological knowledge and personally acquired medical knowledge.  Even at sub-sniffling doses I can feel restless and scatter-brained, but this effect oddly doesn't increase proportionally to the sniveling and on a few occasions has been quite intense in the absence of any sniffles.  I don't know whether to blame it on histamine.

Anyway, I have just confirmed that I am washing it from my cheek rather than washing it off from my lips.  I should probably partition my pouring technique into two different steps, so that my pouring doesn't just grab more from the periphery as it washes away.  I poured out more than a few ounces this time, and I still had issues.  On the prior night I tried putting plastic over my face, but I was touching the plastic as I was tearing the ear holes.  Working it out later, I realized that I had indirectly touched my cheek on the very periphery of where I would pour the water, and it was its location on the periphery that allowed it to act as a reservoir of sorts.  I still don't know what happened with the facemask.  The facemask was never an issue UNTIL I tried pouring water (and sweetened tea) over it, and was only an issue immediately after, not thereafter.  It probably tends toward an equilibrium with however much is on my lips whenever my lips are touching the mask.

Do I have to add a warning?  Do not put plastic over your face.  Especially, do not put plastic over your face overnight!  It wasn't even necessary.

... Because you could suffocate due to the non-breathable, non-porous nature of the material, i.e. the plastic.  I use plastic to keep things dry.  I was reluctant to put it over my face.

I have been allergically responding to the tap water, and I think I have worked out the hydrodynamics of it well enough to post it with some certainty.  I don't know where my mom's apartment's water comes from.  Any help understanding this would be appreciated.

Main allergic response: The first thing I addressed was the tableware.  Yes, tableware and silverware washed in tap water is the #1 culprit if no action at all is taken.  My fingers were the number two culprit.  Even accidental contact with fingers was noticeably aggravating to my allergy.  Rinsing my fingers with store-bought water was ultimately more wasteful than simply using inside-out bags as gloves.

Indigestion: I have also had some big problems with my toothbrush since I began sequestering it.  This phenomenon was unique because it wasn't an allergic reaction, but it seems to happen consistently.  I think the toothpaste and maybe something else is reacting over night on the toothbrush, so I have to always always rinse my toothbrush before using it, ... lest I risk digestive issues.  Beware, these digestive issues are exacerbated by energy drinks - it happens an hour after whichever happens after the other, the energy drink or the toothbrushing.

Smaller allergic response: Other more negligible exposure points, negligible as they were, were illuminating.  Some wrappers allow hit or miss transmission, and the best solution is to bite the corners off before pulling the wrapper open.  It is possible that pouring over a horizontal surface splashed a negligible amount back into my water container, but I am not sure anymore because it was a wide-mouthed bottle, which has its own problems if my lips aren't rinsed.  In any case, if the surface isn't solid or isn't horizontal, it isn't an issue in any degree.

It also gets ingested from my lips in negligible amounts, presumably when certain circumstances convene.  For example, moustache hairs can be problematic in unpredictable ways.  I just learned that (with moustache hairs) I am able to ingest some via my pillowcase.  (I hadn't shaved, ) I poured about half an ounce of water over my lips, being sparing with my water, but instead of washing off my lips I washed down whatever was beside my lips after it leaped from my pillowcase to my face.  I will soon explain how this pertains to tableware.  Any effects of ingesting it from the lips are negligible, but the effect I just described seems to interact with what is eaten or drank.  Thick foods, like doughnuts and thick cookies, and plastic bottles, contrasted with cans, seem to allow it to pass into my mouth from my lips in negligible quantities.  It seems to rinse from my lips more easily than it rinses from fabrics.  When I rinsed my pillowcase contact point with insufficient water (maybe half an ounce of water), my lips became a noticeable exposure point.  The same thing had happened with my fabric facemask, but I poured out at least ten ounces of water over it.  Compared to my lips, It rinsed down the fabric at less than one-tenth the pace, requiring more than ten times the water.  I have not clearly recreated either effect more than once, but the implication is that tableware, despite being the worst unrinsed, is also the easiest to rinse.  Nothing to my memory contradicts this.  All of these were negligible exposure sources, and none caused the digestive problems that I had with my toothbrush + energy drinks.  Cans are better than bottles, but I don't like wasting the water rinsing the rim of the can because I didn't want to remove the can carefully.

Thanks.  I hope I don't have to edit this.