tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12572607851164415612024-03-18T02:48:50.727-07:00Melki Hassa's BlogMelkiHassahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02252455670073041053noreply@blogger.comBlogger411125truetag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1257260785116441561.post-72263827219221765012024-03-16T03:36:00.000-07:002024-03-16T03:36:48.637-07:00This could reduce gang fights, maybe<p>Because gang disputes are evil, when you remove a chunk of the evil the interests would reduce. So if you legalize gang fights, maybe create a special area like special economic tax free territories we have now, and then you inform to the gangs that you knew were in a tension with each other, you'd reduce the chances of that happening. </p><p>Maybe an increase for non deadly fights, but deadly gang battles should be able to be reduced just by the act of legalizing and organizing it. Because they were fueled by evil.</p><p>If they wanted to do it without supervision anyway, then I don't know, but still my point if you organized it and legalized it, they should be less likely to want to do it. Such event should add nuances to the way of the gangs and eventually reduce the chances of "traditional" practices.</p>MelkiHassahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02252455670073041053noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1257260785116441561.post-19807633604990450642024-02-21T21:59:00.000-08:002024-02-21T22:10:04.652-08:00Lawful Professional Private Police v.02<p>As a supporter of many Libertarian ideas I anticipate that governments would face a state where the police departments would be understaffed. In such occassion the government would gather funds from the people and finance private police entities that had the professional education to be professional police forces. Then the role of the original police would be changed into becoming reviewers or overseers of the new "mercenary police forces". I mean this in the context of occassionally not permanently.</p><p>This is pretty flexible in a way that we would want a stable income for the police but we also want no incentives to play any "crime farming" game. We could choose an insurance style setup where the "mercenaries" were employed by insurance companies, or just a dedicated company. We could also choose a kind of militia setup where regular people were rewarded for doing police works as long as they were disciplined in the law (because it is imperative for them to not be draconian for their own unjust desires). To have this be more potent we should have better lives for those who otherwise wouldn't conscript.</p>MelkiHassahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02252455670073041053noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1257260785116441561.post-68438983681224295332024-02-12T23:25:00.000-08:002024-02-13T20:12:02.690-08:00Is charity unjust? v.11f<p>Before I get to other points I'd say that charity is not always unjust and so not always just. <strike>The thing is monopoly exists in this world, meaning that you could look for systems and procedures that had prevented selling below cost in the past, if such were not found then pretty likely injustice had happened in the economy, there was a mutilation (the cutting off of competitions by selling unprofitably), unless the monopolizers were angelic. </strike>The problem is that people had been cut off from being able to contribute to the economy, I blame monopolistic practices for this however I was wrong in judging all monopolies as bad, I shouldn't have said that and instead should've pointed out that some unfair competition schemes are and have been difficult to address.</p><p>So in the face of injustice you'd want to make it right, using whose money? Robbing other people? even if you robbed the monopolizers, it is still an act of injustice and its going to build the momentum of injustice, To use your own money?, yes this is good although other times it is not going to be enough (2024). The popular best way would be to gather up the disposable income of the public, for example collective charities for ex-cons that were clearly and officially wrongly punished and haven't been compensated enough by the country. Another example would be to gather up charities for orphans those who because of the injustice of either nature or humans were orphaned, such orphans are like us, the embodiment of human beings, and for them to be in this world without being evil is virtuous. Another, the elderly who were inadequately rewarded. Such Just charities would increase the prosperity of the economy (because its meritocratic).</p><p>The lack of such adjustments in the economy are going to encourage evil behaviors more and more, making everything unsafe and bad for business scaling ups. Obviously because it is the glorification of evil/injustice or ignorance of the presence of injustice, which is also evil. </p><p>Charities like those are important but what if charity went to those who were arguably not like that but its legal to do so? This is the purpose of this blog. </p><p>Evil in the economy attacked the opportunity of prosperity, meaning what is your faith? How prosperous could the minimum of every relatively non criminal people were supposed to be if the economy wasn't evil? Based on that figure, if charity lifted some people out of poverty to that point, that would be a correction. Still the argument would be, wouldn't it supposed to go to productive people or merit based, rather than charity? Justice is when everyone gets whatever they wanted and needed whenever they wanted and needed it, if we weren't being meritocratic we would sabotaging the progress towards justice therefore unjust. But then who would be the judge and what would be the remedy? Cause if the remedy means taking away from those who legally owned properties, that means a violation against the law and the law is the progress of humanity, it is not to be taken lightly. </p><p>If you hosted and nurtured unjust behaviors especially out of despise of the law, to act upon your own judgemental sentiments, it may not be impossible for you to be able to attack your targets and improve the prosperity of your targeted economy, but after that the administration that had been nurtured is going to want to go for the inside (since the outside accesses had been depleted). For illustration if you took the properties of those who had received charities but deemed to be non contributive to the economy, and successful in doing so, the next target would be the people who were deemed worthy but not as much, and its going to keep on and on until the economy became poor, and everybody would be equally poor but one guy, the supreme leader. And its only logical then to say that that guy too would be poor (in terms of value). </p><p>So meritocracy is not always tied to individuals, it could be an organization, a configuration, or a spirit. If you were to be a reciprocal person you should care about this as well, embrace your instinct to connect with new people or to be interested in new things, such are reciprocal as well. </p>MelkiHassahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02252455670073041053noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1257260785116441561.post-75949588579504879172024-02-07T09:37:00.000-08:002024-02-07T09:37:38.206-08:00The Aim<p>To be honest I rather have a robot as my boss, except when I'm doing human to human work, but for a mechanical pre programmed work I rather have a robot as my boss, not an AI cause they're weird, just a plain old robots. The robot would pay me based on pre programmed assessments, no drama, no politics, just payments and performance. Yet AI would be able to do the job so I might not be able to see that future for me.</p><p>So many resources, so little attribution. Why is it that the world is so big and full of energy, but for us we are poor?</p><p>Actually farming is supposed to be able to be done by individuals, and not just few specialized varieties but most nutritions that we needed. We ourselves should be able to trade with the people who grew the missing nutritions, at least just within one network, not over myriad of steps like we have right now (2024). In that case having AI replacing us is fine, cause the attribution would be to us, the sole owner of the venture. </p><p>Such I meant not for everything, cause it is great to have a global community. To have local essensialities and global party is the aim. When we had reached sufficiency on essensialities but its still in the hands of the people far away, we are not there yet. </p>MelkiHassahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02252455670073041053noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1257260785116441561.post-38219104215832767452023-12-14T14:11:00.000-08:002023-12-14T14:36:47.310-08:00I don't know what the title is supposed to be... "Women"? v.02b<p>What's the most irresponsible Gender in the world?</p><p>That's not fair, not all women, and I agree that's right, but that's the problem. When you're scrutinized you went spread, when you're attacking you went united, "Believe all women" really? is that really the solution? and you knew that it is wrong as well, but I think not all of you knew that the solution is the opposite of that? But hey who cares not that I'm going to be responsible for perpetuating all that, right?</p><p>Harvey Weinstein for example or people like that, let's not use him in particular. People like him could've been just a regular perverted guy who started of just keeping it to himself, but because of his position lots of women, or guys, gave him plenty of sugars, and then he got addicted. I'm not a psychologist, just seeing the news and rumours that kept on being repeated about some high stakes deals in businesses. So, "Believe all women" should be "Scrutinize all women" wouldn't it? like we scrutinize men. Where were all of those cookie monsters, the sugary dealers when Harvey Weinstein went to court? Where were all the women judges in the layer of the undocumentable unwritten gossip world (unproperly speakable), the part of the world that doesn't supposed to exist. The maintainers of this filth, where are your judges? Then after that some would blame men for not believing women, no, you victimized yourselves by going out into the market world, the business world, forcing people to not be able to scrutinize you like everybody else, defining a new kind of cruelty that's not actually cruelty, and would not be culturally cruelty when applied to men. </p><p>I don't hate women I hate the fact that they get away with things and ended up making reality of what actually good, their enemy because of that.</p>MelkiHassahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02252455670073041053noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1257260785116441561.post-18163920718406904862023-12-03T13:27:00.000-08:002023-12-03T19:49:08.428-08:00My Nyap Nyap video v.02b<p>So I made a nyap nyap video in my gaming channel where I speak random words. The purpose of this is just to make content when I'm bored or to make some kind of weird content where I could sprinkle some brand names or something.</p><p>However, neurotic force in the world seems to me always want to make negative meanings of everything so, even when you're nyap nyaping and could consistently be interpreted negatively in a way, it doesn't necessarily mean that its your sayings (the derivative) it could be the encryption key, malintently made, or its just the brainstorming of negative energies around you, to make sense of them. Just, creepy people who wanted to extort people kept on trying to have something on you is an unfortunate existence in this world.</p><p>Therefore, I say stop irresponsible neurotic talking where you're stealing contexts to talk about other things that is the person or the people around you. You can't be answered, you can't be corrected, and just a guaranteed dissatisfaction and animosity all rounds. Also the interpreting keys are neuroticism, the most negative meanings are the answer, BAD for the economy.</p><p>Why don't we talk clearly, and responsibly so that everyone's mistakes could be understood? Instead of heading towards less and less safe environment, we take the opposite direction and resolves and resolves and resolves.</p><p>You have the right to remain silent, everything you said or do could be used against you in the court of who's the biggest bully. Your lawyer is the mercy of the crazy neurotic people and if you retract yourself reputational henchmen/women would be pursuing your bounty. All hail gossip.</p><p>What an abomination</p>MelkiHassahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02252455670073041053noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1257260785116441561.post-26022356497575810682023-11-21T01:01:00.000-08:002023-11-21T17:05:56.722-08:00Transition to Merit offense mode v.05b<p>If an economy was sick and tired of being played like a tool and be passive about it by retardation, injustice, and evil, it can choose to went on the offense by being consciously meritocratic.</p><p>It might be problematic but I recommend:</p><p>1. Reward people less per time and more per job, readyness and availability could be a job as well, but not for everybody, so per job.</p><p>2. Reward availability separately from action. Both deserve merit but both are different.</p><p>3. Proceed on abolishing severance payment so that people could diversify too not just corporate entities.</p><p>4. Print money for heroes like doctors and pay fixed income for their availabilities. Subscription merits. Again these are two different instances.</p><p>5. Implement Golden Stickers so that people could contribute to IP and also receive serotonin. But this one doesn't have to be the 5th step, implement this immidiately</p><p>In the end I predict constant increase in levels of availabilities in mutual solutions.</p><p>In most of my theories though, I don't account for sabotage, its very situational sometimes, thats just the problem people would have to face in all progressions. Also part of what makes humans important.</p><p>------------------</p><p>Example: 1000 people subscribed to a fire department. Each pay 100 per day so the squad got 100.000 per day.</p><p>When there's a fire and it took half day to quench it. They are not paid for availabilities anymore (50.000). The one whose house got burned then rewarded the department for their action, of course he/she would consider his/her sub all this time (+/-). Honestly this part is tricky for me... year of jubilee? 2 parts of subs? Maybe 3 parts is also viable where the third part goes back to the customers with no incidents (an incentive) so this is also an education on saving/investing.</p><p>Problem: If somehow 2 houses were on fire at the same time and the department could only helped on one, they might be liable for not only the paid availability money but also the damages since the second house could've contracted some other fire department instead. So in this situation legal professionals would probably had some answers.</p>MelkiHassahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02252455670073041053noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1257260785116441561.post-45852566307184573082023-11-14T14:09:00.000-08:002023-11-14T14:48:40.418-08:00This is why people don't trust you with money v.04e<p>If you hate on some "rich" person claiming that he didn't deserve that much money, that means that the money he/she got or the assets he/she got was debt not owned. So which one is it? Has he or hasn't he been paid for his/her deeds?</p><p>Edit:</p><p>So if he was claimed to had not been deserving for what he/she had, that means he had always been in debt, therefore even when the claim was only partial, when he had ever been not in debt? (The sentiment brought upon sum of double minuses, or more cause you're basically claiming random things that he/she owned at any points in spacetime, which would translate to, everything!)</p><p>So this is why irresponsible talking is the one at fault, especially because money is official and written in value, it is always going to be in conflict with the culture.</p><p>Is this the love of money? In a limited sense yeah when money is about honesty. Anyone even non christians should be able to relate that the bad love of money means to prefer money than paying people their due, or to prefer money than to actually solve the problem tasked. </p><p>---------------------------------</p><p>So if you are not going to say why and how one has been overpaid or another has been underpaid out in the open, responsibly gave the platform for rebuttal, don't act on it. </p><p>Edit: Even when you've said it openly and received your responses you should still observe the law, or to have discretion over your actions whether it is good or not.</p>MelkiHassahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02252455670073041053noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1257260785116441561.post-50290166204099115802023-10-18T16:04:00.006-07:002023-10-18T16:25:35.347-07:00What time is it? v.03b<p>Labor Unions should cut it out on being communists. Why can't you guys be like the "Accountants' union", "Engineer Union", "Medical Doctors Unions" ?? What makes you different from them? </p><p>But you guys are so insecure, sensitive, and at the edge of violence because your dignity was shared... absorbed by those who don't deserve it. </p><p>Is minimum salary meritocratic? at micro obviously not, at macro given the time of rampant labor piracy yes and that's as a whole, in general. When people have stopped being pirates then the relativity would shift but I'm not here for that. Is severance payment meritocratic? It is as if someone looked at meritocracy in the face and say f you, then created severance payment. They are both different. </p><p>------------------------</p><p>You know what's the problem with communism? They average everything, the best to the worst, the good to the bad, they mix it making this gooey brown golden sh** concoction of dissatisfaction, insecurity, jealousy and malice.</p><p>------------------------</p><p>The military industrial complex is not going to run out of business in the time of meritocracy (if done properly), because there's always scumbags pure scumbags that wanted to take away from merit. There... isn't that solves the dillema? Just be meritocratic (policy/law, audit, Truthfully)</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/YLJ3xAhYYUM" width="320" youtube-src-id="YLJ3xAhYYUM"></iframe></div><br /><p><br /></p>MelkiHassahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02252455670073041053noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1257260785116441561.post-71944841263545848902023-10-16T17:57:00.000-07:002023-10-16T17:57:00.659-07:00Weapon crackdown<p> I was thinking how to reduce the risk of undocumented weapons. </p><p>You could use high punishment and low punishment. For example if you produced your own weapon you're subject to punishment but if you didn't brand your weapon then its definitely more malicious, so at least brand your weapons as yours. </p><p>If the people wanted to buy undocumented weapons as well as the info about its whereabouts (in order to track them down), attributable weapons are clear from unbranded weapons so the people could focus more on the unbranded weapons.</p><p>False brands are subject to intellectual property violation, but its illegal?, slander and defamation yes but also trademark leeching too. The violation wasn't necessarily against the trademark owner but against justice.</p>MelkiHassahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02252455670073041053noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1257260785116441561.post-30667242624430703662023-09-22T17:11:00.010-07:002023-09-22T17:52:06.818-07:00Equilibrium Tax v.06 (Bad)<p>Despite the amount of money issued by banks/central banks, there's this thing when the circuits of commerce reached an equilibrium of price. The difference between the amount of active money in the equilibrium circuits and the total money issued are the magnitude of risks of the equilibrium disruption in total. The manifestation of the risk could be dispersed throughout different circuits such as the circuit of food disturbances, the circuit of oil / gas, the circuit of currencies, etc, or it may be focused on one. </p><p>In order to reduce the impact of the disturbance the government may implement equilibrium tax, when all extraordinary flows of money were taxed like vat. The proceeds would be used to lessen the problems caused by the disturbance. Obviously we also would want to identify whether the disturbanced were maliciously orchestrated or were they just common scarcities or curiousity phenomenons / marketing phenomenons. </p><p>The problem is the magnitude or the percentage of taxes were determined by the authority (as with any other taxes and freights) therefore we need some kind of measures to anchor how should the tax be set. As illustration cars, houses, and mobile phones are not frequent flows of goods therefore most likely it wouldn't be relevant. Rents and salaries though are frequent but we want the people to be able to move around more in this case, especially towards the rural or new areas. </p><p>Not all equilibrium taxes are the same and the subjects could also vary from individuals or groups. However if one were to anticipate group labelling to prevent coordinated attacks, one must also consider the time factor, the space factor, the context factor where and when some individuals could be relevant for the label, because things could oscillates or orbiting around in label, and such too would be correct. </p><p>Housing prices could be weird though, because they were meant to locals and even though foreign participation could be good for the economy, similar impact could be emulated if they "disturbed" the property supplies. But is the equilibrium tax or similar would be the right solution? or the only solution? weird cause housing really is not a frequency thing.</p><p>Now this concern I think is the most important for me, education causes disturbances in the equilibrium. When people became smarter, the equilibrium changes... now this, THIS is the inherent job of the current style government already, must be, so no extra work this is the job of any governments. So and so all the more reason to implement ways so that they could focus firstly on this. </p><p>At the end of the day when one has became a part of a circuit, he/she/it wouldn't be disturbing anymore. They? could be, of course</p><p>-----------------</p><p>Edit: Everything is the government's job, yeah </p><p>------------------</p><p>Edit2: Shit now I realized, we are fighting against entropy here. We can not do this</p>MelkiHassahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02252455670073041053noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1257260785116441561.post-2282056719563442872023-09-06T15:12:00.008-07:002023-09-08T02:39:16.195-07:00A Case for Peace, and why Nuclear war is away v.05d<p>Simply put we are at peace because of goodness in the world. I mean the goodness in this world outweighed the bad, and that's also another reason to support our governments. But which side of the government? Definitely not the corrupt side because that's not good. Good things are harmonious, they support each other, and that's why peace is definitely good.</p><p>So the misconception that I wanted to argue here is that the chaotic side of the people, the things that are not clear, are not good because they reduce the power of property. When we transact outside the realm of officialness there should be a strict discipline not to traverse beyond the lines of official properties. You can't insinuate that "oh that thing is officially yours but that's not actually yours you know", property is property and because property is property the danger that's over there threatens the property that is over here. "If what I have is not truly mine then what difference would it make if everything collapsed?"</p><p>So Law and Contracts and above that Justice is the pure good side that's carrying us all. Could Justice be unofficial? definitely, and if so we should be able to make a case for it out in the open. Does the obscure side of countries and companies, such as the intelligence and corporate espionage are always bad? No but how could we draw the line if we couldn't tell apart good from bad? </p><p>But this post is about nuclear safety not all about unofficial careers, even though beyond my knowledge such might be mostly relevant in some obscure way.</p><p><br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/OFtNChII78k" width="320" youtube-src-id="OFtNChII78k"></iframe></div><br /><p>----------------------------------</p><p>People said this generation might be a weak generation that's going to create "difficult times", yet people also don't want implement clearness and black on whiteness making those who are not reciprocal or those who aren't grateful obvious. So, what would be the solutions? War on the innocents? No! Let's just stand our ground and fight when the enemy was being the enemy. </p><p>Every era has its solutions, why are we living in delusions? Say reality is now but its nothing but an illusion. The Truth is not all fiction, the part that wants to be Itself is not the part that doesn't. So break apart and tear apart, cause what the other one is is just not wanting to be alone in its desire for self destruction.</p>MelkiHassahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02252455670073041053noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1257260785116441561.post-63372827829264265352023-08-17T23:17:00.002-07:002023-08-17T23:17:25.442-07:00The Turtle just can't win the race<p>A lot of times solutions need hard work to maintain, when people work hard and won against problems that's glorious. Hard work comes with plus and minuses that's just the way it is. The Turtle is trying to minimize the minus by looking at the law while the rabbit took the jump and risked it. </p><p>Both could be glorious on their own merit, but when the Turtle gets ahead that means the Rabbit experienced a lot of minuses and a tragedy has happened. These rabbits suddenly became re:zero, they are the victim and the "lazy" turtle is the one to blame, they swarmed the turtle and took from it what "supposed" to be their expected rewards. They should've always be ahead of the low lives Turtles. </p><p>So for you guys who actually have spent for accountants, lawyers, notaries, and admin staffs I applaud you all. Becareful of the wounded Rabbits some of them are looking at you in envy and the consequences of you breaking even a little bit of law is somewhat multiplied by the factor of their spite.</p>MelkiHassahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02252455670073041053noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1257260785116441561.post-43569602173543117892023-08-13T17:34:00.005-07:002023-08-13T21:35:30.910-07:00Money Matters v.04<p>Money Matters because it is clearly written. You might rely on people to help you out without money and that works, but not all the time. </p><p>So not loving money should not be interpreted towards, putting your faith in the worse direction.</p><p>The point of money is administering help, being reciprocal, and being accurate in terms of magnitude.</p><p>Help doesn't need money all the time, but if you could make things easier and smoother with money, why choose what is harder?</p><p>---------------------</p><p>So here's an argument, people who love money preferred to not give money, instead they just gave gestures. </p><p>(Of course this is just symptoms, evil people tend to want to use what people are saying for crooked meanings) </p><p>So what does proper attitude towards money is supposed to be? Proverb 3:28</p>MelkiHassahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02252455670073041053noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1257260785116441561.post-8746424790257772192023-08-11T06:39:00.001-07:002023-08-11T06:44:48.470-07:00Motto Motto v.02<p>The Spirit of Truth is God</p><p>Improve one's self to be Just and to be able to live in the Law. </p><p>Let's make "After Law is Freedom" real</p><p>Talk through the front door, be auditable, be accountable (Psalm 139:23-24)</p><p>Kill Evil, make evil dead </p>MelkiHassahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02252455670073041053noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1257260785116441561.post-58255082852569593872023-07-24T19:56:00.009-07:002023-07-24T20:16:55.157-07:00The next step of human civilization v.03d<p>Throughout our time we have learned top bottom leaderships, we have produced history and laws pertaining the ins and outs of governments and institutional coordination. But there are just things that can't be solved top bottom, the pervalence of its focus, the relevance of its mission has begun to really saturate. </p><p>Next is the people, we need the people to be responsible and how to be a responsible "being lead" people or how to be a good nakama is going to be the legacy of our time. </p><p>----------------------------</p><p>Cause it is now the question of to whom the technology serves, rather than oh these helpless people...</p><p>If we won't acknowledge this and take up our duty to be good, the whole thing might embrace the regress towards the past again, such out of the inclination to use tools that are relevant for that time. </p><p>I mean that's normal and reasonable to look to the past and recoordinate but if the past is poor and undesirable, and that's the tool we have to thrive in such world... abandon those tools.</p><p>----------------------------</p><p>What is "Just" in my point of view is an economy that's dynamic where mesh is utilized, centralized is utilized and people come and go and dance in harmony. Being at the top would be glorious but also only flows, or only natural and when you do you do when you're not you're not any less admirable/honorable. </p><p>Invest in diversified portfolio, your property is your own. Leadership is a responsibility not a reward.</p>MelkiHassahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02252455670073041053noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1257260785116441561.post-1939901069563356822023-07-21T20:18:00.010-07:002023-07-24T02:41:52.510-07:00The Bargaining Chip of the Bullying Demon v.05<p>Look what I'm going to write here is just my side of the matter, like describing an elephant in the dark. Although I concluded that people are not talking about this conspicuously. </p><p>The problem starts with people are not appreciating teachers enough. Which in turn built momentum towards under appreciation of the press, because you supposed to appreciate good information but you've built the habit of dismissing it. Then sponsors came and its getting more and more unpleasant for the reporters to talk against the interests of the sponsors. </p><p>So the skewedness of the news, and then after a while arise this hostility against criticism. Because what sells in the market had been built on top of this reputation sterile from the "fire". Then comes innovation and people started to realize that businesses fall due to innovation and "spreading too thin" is a thing that could kill an industry. </p><p>But instead of telling people that, the customers, they use underhanded communications and virtue signalled towards the administrations that had existed or the mentality that had existed that is spiteful towards criticism. Why is this happening? Probably people thought that there's some competitive edge in keeping this "understanding", probably they wanted to look down on other people, probably they wanted to show themselves or the girl that they wanted to coitus copulum with that they're good at flirting? maybe other things I don't know. The point is now we got difficulties for entrepreneurs to spread their words out, and artificially augmented risks of getting bad reputation. </p><p>Am I right about this? I think this is logical but I have no journal article references. </p><p>Anyway my eerie concern is that the kids kept on being bullied or bullying itself had their grip in our cultures because of this. This is the bargaining chips of the demon of bullying. Some kids don't understand about this, some people wanted to specialize in other things than politics such as math, art, philosophy, etc. Instead of sharing this concerns through the front door, bullying had became the means instead. Judging from the book of Psalms bullying had been gathering momentum for thousands of years already. </p><p>But this is retarded, all we got to do is say it. I'm not saying this is the cause of the culture of bullying, but this is probably 60%. Could we stop this already, its not going to be easy even though it is such a monkey thing for us humans with developed brains to be experiencing, but it is what it is. We got to do something about it. </p><p>--------------------------------</p><p>Have faith have logic, innovation increases the level of availability of mutual solutions. You can't stifle innovation without consequences that's a price that must be paid. And I DON'T WANT TO PAY YOUR FAULT please isolate the consequences on yourself. Of course there's a season for everything, the level of availability may not increase in an instant so now, negotiation through the front door or official means is the right way to go. Just consider innovation as more sacred than zero sum, not the most sacred thing like human lives, but treat it like it is and don't violate it. </p>MelkiHassahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02252455670073041053noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1257260785116441561.post-67128404390092335932023-06-03T01:23:00.004-07:002023-06-03T01:25:00.008-07:00Traffic Jam solution anticipate v.02<p>Governments had apps for COVID prevention, so judging from such organization they could also administer similarly with traffic jams. </p><p>At busy hours people would put in their destination before driving and then like an airplane traffic controller, the police is going to use an app to notify you whether it is time to enter the traffic or not. Such scheme probably had been talked about if not prepared, but just something prevented it from being implemented massively. </p><p>However I'd say that there shouldn't be a law that punishes people for breaking this organization. It could be done just by implementing it without extra law. Before anyone become "violators" you could set up barriers like freeway entrances that would be opened by barcode scans from people's phones</p>MelkiHassahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02252455670073041053noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1257260785116441561.post-423291658086082412023-06-01T15:10:00.009-07:002023-06-01T15:29:00.863-07:00Lazyness (2023) v.04b<p>I found that Lazyness is a manifestation of multiple types of problems. That's why its so tricky to formulize. There are explanations about laziness, for example in the past I defined it as lack of diversification, there is another explanation as well out of a research result, pointing to uncertainty and certainty balance (healthygamergg, youtube 2023).</p><p>Now I wanted to say that it could come at an isolated field, where you're lazy for a thing but not for other things. I think this is about going 100 km/h towards the darkness, yes the uncertainty again but this one is tricky for the solution of building up certainties might help but not "targeted". Imagine a room where the terrain is not a certain flat tile but sometimes rocks, water, different elevations, even treadmills. Of course if something is lazy means you would already know how to finish it but its not about the work but about the world that the work takes you to. </p><p>The solution seems simple but surprisingly has conscious resistances from forces around you, which is to turn on the light. I dare to say that this is expensive and political because its lazy already otherwise it wouldn't be lazy it would just be intuitive. However, hopefully you would work around that and ignore your unreasonable anxiety, becareful not to leak the lazyness into different areas of your life given at the grand scheme of things everything has a momentum. </p><p>-------------------------</p><p>If you're stable and being contributive but the environment ended up becoming more of a menace to you or becoming more interruptive of you based on that, it might not be a crime but that environment is definitely toxic on you. Vice versa if you found that your contribution breeds even more clearance, then that's a nice spot. </p><p>Now be careful that it is easy then to be the one that is evil. A stable contribution followed by instability could catch people off guard and be considered evil, this should not be a problem if people lived by pen on paperness or contract (so contingency is always available). Contrast that to lack of clear articulation, people would always had to live by intuitions and gestures. In the later case you're socially deemed responsible (without being in writing or said clearly) for your "comfortable" behavior, which is a vulnerable thing for a person and also unnatural, not mentioning those who have decisive shares were not deep in their investments on justice. </p><p>So legalities or clear articulation is indeed good property.</p>MelkiHassahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02252455670073041053noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1257260785116441561.post-85651896661891667272023-05-23T13:09:00.001-07:002023-05-23T13:09:12.010-07:00Concerns over promiscuity <p>Firstly my preconceived notion about sex is that it's subconscious and an evolutionary product. You'd be subconsciously compelled to be the family, helper, protector, of this particular person. </p><p>1. Would this aggregation of personalities be a human?</p><p>2. Would this entity be able to correct you if you're wrong about him/her. There might be a risk of somebody who's not a part of that aggregation hacked into your feedback loop at the subconscious level.</p><p>3. Would this entity be an angel or a demon? Or would it attenuates?</p><p>4. Am I wrong? Am I half right?</p><p>5. Is it actually beneficial to keep track of this at the societal level? I know its also a part of the evolution of humanity, but what if we could tell it apart and made choices?</p>MelkiHassahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02252455670073041053noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1257260785116441561.post-63610201546083480912023-05-14T21:31:00.003-07:002023-05-14T21:35:19.384-07:00Safe deposit box insurance market application idea v.02b<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Dv97-S9ZL-8" width="320" youtube-src-id="Dv97-S9ZL-8"></iframe></div><p><br /></p>So last week CNBC posted the 2023 Berkshire Hathaway annual shareholder meeting. Watching this inspires me this idea:<p></p><p>An application for safe deposit box where by putting your assets in the safe deposit box up for insurance shares, you could obtain the income from insurance premiums from prominent insurance companies in exchange of collaterals which are contents of your safe deposit box. They could be gold, silver, property certificates etc. </p><p>People could obtain income and insurance companies could have an alternative to allocate their risks to.</p><p>------------------------------</p><p>Additionally someone who couldn't repay their debts could probably apply to insurance companies like geico for an extention. The way it works would be, the insurance company would buy the collaterized property, let the borrowers extended their debts while they use the property as repayments of new debts. </p><p>So the new debts would be repaid by "title to the address and everything on it" instead of cash. </p><p> </p>MelkiHassahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02252455670073041053noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1257260785116441561.post-84043857345093537382023-05-07T03:23:00.009-07:002023-05-09T13:01:22.857-07:00Practical Interest Rate for Mortgage v.06b<p>Pay attention to the auction price of your collateral, how much lower is it from the market price and is it consistently so. So from that number take the difference out, all of the money you paid including the principal up until now is the Practical Interest rate. It is only no longer interest, or had became the principal when it had passed that threshhold. (Still passed that threshhold it is going to be part principal and part interests ok not 100%).</p><p>If you ended up selling the property at market price then its your "profit", if things got sour and prices dropped, at least the market price would be the auction price and you've factored in your interest payments as interest payments.</p><p>---------------------</p><p>If the tax office would acknowledge this, then one could have a setup where there's extra cost at the start of your credit, or alternatively throughout the early periods, and then if in the end the credit was successful the tax would be charged. If the credit was a fail then its not going to be taxed.</p><p>Isn't it reasonable given the income tax wanted to take a share on profit? So it shouldn't take away from non profit transactions. </p><p>Moreover the government seems to like credit and considered it to be a part of its product or something. Its encouraged what I was trying to say. So why not this option?</p><p>---------------------</p><p>On the other side of the credit, shouldn't the lender/bank recorded instant repayment because of the collateral, therefore revenue? No because lets say that at the end of the credit they would recorded it as cost again when they "returned" the collateral, such practice is not conservative, its contingent towards income which is uncertain. So not an option</p><p>This then gives rise to the interests losses incurred by the government out of the whole scheme. Such is the properness of it, that is the articulation of risk exposure of the whole economy when one got into debt.</p><p>Pay attention to the first paragraph about "revenue" that's wrong, the bank or lender wouldn't incur revenues at all because the difference between market and the actual proceeds of the collateral wasn't going to be a revenue for the bank / lender. Therefore it is a real risk of debt or a real cost of the economy as a whole when one got into debt. </p><p>----------------------</p><p>Here's the thing, is having a child easier than getting into debt? Just the nature of things that order drew from chaos while proceeding forward. Therefore the right attitude is to understand and acknowledge.</p><p>Watch: <a href="https://youtu.be/Dv97-S9ZL-8">CNBC's coverage of Berkshire Hathaway's annual meeting</a>. Minute 35:55 is particularly relevant. Here Warren made a position proposition about AI and compared it to the World War, and then they answered another question about the real estate. </p>MelkiHassahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02252455670073041053noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1257260785116441561.post-13143995284575697662023-05-01T17:40:00.008-07:002023-05-02T15:54:52.014-07:00A perspective for the future in avoidance of retardation v.02c<p>This is my view of Labor's objections. If you want more salaries because the company is doing well,</p><p>1. The company's doing well is variable to the will of the customers it's not fixed, so it's going to be bonuses instead of salaries</p><p>2. If you want the variables you should be ok to take the lows as well not just the highs</p><p>3. As owners get the last shares of the income and still they had to be responsible of the risks of the company as well, including and significantly from employment risks (all kinds including regulation-wise), the risk have to be reduced by abolishing the severance pay.</p><p>4. Stop thinking that owners look down upon you unjustly, a lot of times people are protecting their interests as you're being unsatisfied with life and sabotaging and trying to put your misery on them. </p><p>5. Governments, this behavior is the behavior of teenage kids towards their parents, that's what you get for treating people as your children. It's not impossible to do that but with regulation that's coercion and children don't want to be worthy because of coercion they'd feel worthless. </p><p>6. Again communism, don't let people hide behind your competence, and don't hide behind other people's competence and merged as one monster. These competence wants to be rewarded but since they're a part of this communist monster it's a bad idea to reward them. These respectable people became unsatisfied and the gremlins ride on their discontentment as if they are a part of them, and went against the investors.</p><p>Competent people, stop mixing with ruiners of assets</p><p>------------------------------</p><p>As with most things, if a regulation were to be changed the effect is going to apply to the market not instantly. But its going to happen, say the legalization of marijuana in some places; they used to not be able to set up shops, now they could. So when would the rewards be received? When its a good business sense to do so, and it will be. </p>MelkiHassahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02252455670073041053noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1257260785116441561.post-87209903579923820982023-04-26T15:09:00.007-07:002023-04-26T17:55:49.889-07:00Romantic relations in the workplace v.04bWhen a couple broke up, or there were "casual" relationships happening in the workplace, arguments or disagreements now it's harder to settle with setting up space between the people, there's got to be hierarchy. Contrast this to a person who's not involved, differences in opinion is to be expected and discussed, negotiated. By expected it means that it should be enough and the problem usually settles, so it is kind of sus that when such solutions wouldn't work anymore why is that the case? <div><br /></div><div>Non meritocratic hierarchy as well makes things more difficult to pass... why? Am I right, or it's just me? Frictions that supposed to be normal and respected now becomes "betrayal" why so intense bro? When it had became a culture, hive culture, those who are not involved themselves got to be expected the same out of them... they'd be like we didn't sign up for this.</div><div><br /></div><div>----------------------</div><div><br /></div><div>Additional feature of the hive is that it could be a sanctuary for those who commit fraud due to its hostility against scrutiny or criticism</div><div><br /></div><div>----------------------</div><div><br /></div><div>Another bastardation would be inappropriate mistake punishments / social punishment, the culture that decent person is one who makes no mistakes. This is a force innitiation trick in order to force potential "risk" to become a part of the hive, since everyone makes mistakes there's going to be a time where the risk is going to make one, then the only (hopefully not) safe places would be hives. They appear to be fighting sometimes but for the sake of frauds they'd cover each other (I'm deriving this out of motives). Although there are indeed dire mistakes, so don't use this post to disrespect instructions.</div>MelkiHassahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02252455670073041053noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1257260785116441561.post-77563158118455526492023-04-15T21:46:00.004-07:002023-04-21T19:44:01.705-07:00Innuendo needs to stop v.02<p>In my previous post I feel like some people are going to assosiate it with the internal issues in Indonesia because I'm a Chinese Indonesian. Could a gay man talk about a guy in the context of the topic only without being assosiated with his gayness? Could a person with a gunshot wound talk about guns without it being associated with his wounds? It's possible that people would want to do that. Could we have that in the world please?</p><p>(Because obviously everything has its own context especially things that are intense needs its own context to be put in perspective. You can't steal from another context and then decide what other people are saying, idiots, and why do I have to take responsibility to talk about something in context just because I talked about something else? who gave me money to talk about your agenda? not you)</p><p>All in all the culture of innuendo needs to stop. It's as if people spraying oil everywhere and one day somebody is going to light up a match for a candle or something and he's going to be blamed for things going in flames. Stop spraying oil everywhere! Take accountability for your words and settle things on the spot. </p>MelkiHassahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02252455670073041053noreply@blogger.com0