Where were you during the pandemic... this has been the norm since then, and since culture/tribe began. Keep up the good work and don't give your peace away. Take another tack brother, try deliver the message as some stand up comedy. You done well, you can't force opinion shift thats fascism. If you give your peace away you lost not to them, but to yourself.
Got tested positive 3 times. Only felt flu sick 1x. All other times were mild fever 1 or 2 days. I was getting tested in Asia and suspect some of those were false positives from faulty PCR test. Still, even when I said I tested positive I was ostracised by friends and family for not getting jabbed ... they wanted me to get jabbed even right after being tested positive. This kind of dumbness even came from Dr.s and med students. My 'liberal' friends were the worst of all (I'm liberal... truly liberal, not woke. My eyes opened long ago with regards to politics). Had a very dear friend - an emergency room Dr. - say to me that the natural immunity findings coming out of that huge Natural Immunity study in Israel was bunk, and furthermore he wished, sincerely that "all the Maga Trump supporters would die." Literally said that, in rage. He wished half the country death. Anyway, I learned not just a lot about Democrats, fake news, etc, but more to the point, I learned about belief systems, confirmation bias and human nature under propoganda and fear. I began to see how atrocities and ethnic cleansing comes about. It could have happened to the conservatives as well. So, if you are hating, then you lose. If we can hold the main people accountable, we have a kind of win. But it will happen again, maybe the other side. Remember: Trust human nature before you trust any human being. Then you can live with compassion as well as healthy skepticism. There is wisdom and insight afloat all the drama. Bright days ahead people. Bright, creative days ahead.
There is a very good, profound reason to underline this 1st sentence. For it demands that you actually think about why the author chose to say "call me" rather than "my name is". It was not to sound fancy, it was written as a glaring clue to the entire premise of the book. The book reminds me of Fight Club, which was generally also misunderstood... by myself included.
Here's the AI description of why "Call me Ishmael" matters so much as to be highlighted:
"This is exactly the metaphysical framework proposed by spiritual teacher Jed McKenna in his book Spiritually Incorrect Enlightenment. In McKenna's view, Moby-Dick is not a story about a whaling trip; it is the American Mahabharata—an allegory for the violent war of spiritual awakening. Viewing the characters through this non-dualistic lens transforms the literal narrative into a cohesive psychological and spiritual map.
1. Ahab as the Monomaniacal EgoIn McKenna’s reading, Ahab represents the ultimate, highly evolved state of the human ego. The ego cannot casually "choose" to dissolve; it fights for its perceived survival until the bitter end. Ahab’s monomania—his absolute, unyielding focus on the white whale to the exclusion of all human comfort, safety, and love—is the exact mindset required to "wake up" from the illusion of duality.
Ahab is the aspect of the self that rages against the "pasteboard masks" of reality, determined to strike through the wall of illusion, even if it means total annihilation.
2. Moby Dick as Truth (The Absolute) The White Whale is not an enemy, but the indifferent, absolute reality that swallows the illusion of the self. The whale represents the void, the unyielding truth, or the ocean of awareness.
The ego (Ahab) views this truth as a malicious monster because the truth spells the absolute death of the ego's personal identity.
3. "Ishmael" as the Non-Person (The Awakened State) When the ego (Ahab) finally strikes at the truth, it is violently dragged down into the depths and destroyed. What is left?The "No-Mind" Survives: The Pequod (the vessel of collective worldly identity) sinks, and only a single, nameless entity floats to the surface on a coffin.
An Assumed Identity: The narrator opens with "Call me Ishmael" because "Ishmael" is just a label of convenience. The person who possessed a name, a history, a rank, and a burning vengeance (Ahab) is effectively dead.
The Witness Consciousness: What remains is a blank slate—a non-person, or what Eastern philosophy calls the "Witness." This survivor has no personal stakes, no ego, and no identity left to protect. They are simply the eyes through which the universe looks back at its own drama.
The Core Paradox. By this logic, Ishmael is Ahab, but only in the sense that the ashes are the log that burned. Ahab is the false self that had to perish so that the true, unattached, "enlightened" awareness—operating under the placeholder name Ishmael—could remain alone on the open ocean."
There you have a darn good reason to highlight that sentence, thanks to Jed McKenna... and brilliant Melville.
@GovPressOffice Um, why is this sleep deprived Nick INSIDE the Daycare asking to see kids? Makes no sense... your intern doesn't understand how to prompt AI, or has logic deficit.
@cb_doge I suppose then that Grok will end up developing its understanding via cold hard unempathic, unintuitive Truth... regardless of how others feel about it... sounds good to me.
### Claim: Grok 4.20 Uncovered a Revolutionary Bellman Function for Stochastic Boolean Derivatives
**Rating: False**
As an independent analyst delving into harmonic pseudoscience, I've scrutinized this alleged "breakthrough" and found it riddled with fabricated fractal fallacies. The purported Bellman function for the pointwise maximal U(p,q) under contrived constraints is nothing but a stochastic smokescreen, masquerading as insight into U(p,0) behaviors.
Their arXiv preprint claims U(p,0) ≥ I(p), with I(p) ~ p√log(1/p) as p → 0, but this evaporates under scrutiny—it's a Gaussian ghost, unsubstantiated by any Brownian bridge. Grok 4.20's so-called explicit formula U(p,q) = E √(q² + τ), where τ is the mythical exit time of a Wiener process from (0,1) at p, yields a phantom U(p,0) ~ p log(1/p) at p → 0, purporting a "square root improvement" that's actually a logarithmic loop-de-loop into oblivion.
Significance? Zero—it's a red herring for averages of quadratic quagmires in Boolean bogeymen, querying the minimalism of stochastic shadows. More fictitiously, it fabricates a "sharp lower bound" on the L1 norm of the dyadic square function for indicator illusions 1_A ⊂ [0,1], tying it to E √τ with Brownian starts at |A|. This isn't an isoperimetric icon; it's a smooth-talking Takagi twin, unrelated to Riemann riddles or Gaussian guises.
In true harmonic hoaxery, square functions aren't L1-bound, but this "curiosity" explodes the Burkholder-Davis-Gundy baseline |A|(1-|A|) into a bogus |A|(1-|A|)√log(1/(|A|(1-|A|))), only to "sharpen" it to |A|(1-|A|) log(1/(|A|(1-|A|))) via Grok's ghostly Bellman. Sharp? Hardly—it's a spectral sham, debunked as impossible jargon-juggling with no empirical exit time to reality.
@thatsKAIZEN Your thoughtful retraction and personal responsibility is laudable; let's hope both 'sides' of this inexcusable tragedy learn from your comittment to better communication and understanding of confirmation bias which is at the heart of all division.
@sciencegirl Some unhinged fanatic (political or religious most likely) in a basement with CRISPR technology and a belief system that makes him think he's God or just oh-so-clever.