@wabinab

No Title 1.2 One's reading Meditations by Marcus Aurelius, translated by George Hays. Some thoughts. https://vreeman.com/meditations/ Really, be grateful one lived in this age, and not his age. He has to recede to *logos* due to a lack of books to read. After all, how much books do you expect when paper nor printing machine were invented? Papyrus has limited word density per piece, and copies of book are done by hand. If there are too many words... One tend to think, or perhaps, majority of readers tend to think, Marcus leave these lessons for us to learn, that he is a Stoic. Probably. For one, it's clear that the Author (George Hays) mentioned the book without the title, was more of a diary, or a record of principles that Marcus learned. To learn a principles, Ray Dalio would make a mistake, before the principles is written down for future reference. Furthermore, Marcus's meditations isn't even purely principles. Whereas principles may be more unique, less repetitive; if you read his book, one find lots of repetitions. Example: to honor death. Death is a common phenomena, and one could die soon after this article's published, who knows? Or one could die in a distant future... To think that one graduate not long ago, and not long ago is years back, and one feels like it's not long since 2022 and it's already 2024, and it won't be long before it's 2030 and 2054. Time passes without one knowing it, especially if one fills it with enjoyment. Back to the topic. While it's not exactly true, one would write about something when one suddenly learn about something that happens recently in one's life. Albeit, it's a struggle. From what one learns, one tries to apply the lesson in the future. Yet, it's not always sucessful. One may fall for the trap again and again and again. Therefore, one'll learn again and again and again, and write it, blog it, again and again and again. If we assume the "books" as papyrus that goes to the right. That is, except book 1, the rest is like a diary record that, once finished, goes to another diary record, in chronological order; he may seem to struggle with difficulties in accepting death, hence he keeps writing about it book after book after book. It so falls into one's mind. Humans aren't perfect, we already know that. So what makes us thing Stoic are perfect, or Stoic are following the principles that they wrote about? Probably meditations is a struggle that Marcus kept failing to attain, so he wrote it down, struggle again to attain and attain and attain. It's this struggle that one respect him for, as one of my idol/role model. For the last person that one see this struggle and treat him as a role model, was Samuel Johnson.

No Title 1.1 **To Learn From Someone Else, Not Be Someone Else** They have lessons, teachings, experiences we could learn from. We are not them, not the "modern-day Aristotle", nor "Einstein the Second". Unless we have the same name by accident? The mixin of perspectives shape us, what books we read, what we experience, and what choices we made. Are we really classifiable by personality test, as discrete groups than continuous traits? We read books written by those of the past, containing lessons which we choose what to take, and what to ignore. Feeling grateful to live later than those living earlier, as they have less books, hence less lessons, to learn from, especially before the printing press revolution. Books may be a compilation, from what lessons others learnt, into a single book as one's lesson. Books may be new, with something not derived by people of the past, not coming from anywhere else, but one figure it out, the pioneer. Are we really creating value with compilation? Probably offering a new perspective "no one else" seen before? How can one be sure one's right? How can one be sure the author is right? And with the author's difference in life target, is it not apply to one, especially when it crashes?

A Less Populated Future Is Advantageous When nearing an industrial revolution, people starts to have more children, because machines allow production of more food, which can rear us. However, it's also that the requirement for more and more food nowadays, that a more populated future isn't as advantageous as it used to be. Before, and even after industrial revolution, you may need lots of hands and headcounts to fill in position that increase yields. Some farms don't have machines yet (it's expensive when it first come out), so it's advantageous to have more children, and hence more hands, in the farm to help out, to not only increase yield but ensure no decrease in yield because of insufficient helping hands. As these machines got cheaper and cheaper, and affordable, these hands are freed and allowed to take on other jobs, while the farm maintained with less hands. Before, we need lots of brains. Inventions and stuffs don't just come from genius, but also from collective intelligence. Of course, to born a genius requires a lot of mixing of genes, and having more children increase the chance of a genius being born, without genetic discovery that could ensure 99.9% your children have the "genius gene" (or whatever it is that confirms it by-and-large). These brains are put to use that led to much more scientific discoveries, and other discoveries in other fields that are less extensive (non-scientific field invention, small invention that help a field but not significant and WOW to the world), or perhaps manipulative (how to gather wealth to increase the wealth gap even further); but as more and more brains are diverted to "how to increase the no. of clicks in users for our app", perhaps due to a saturation in the scientific field, or just not interested at all, it seems like more brain isn't necessarily needed anymore. Especially with the advent of machine learning and robotics that, the former and latter could work together to replace hands in repetitive jobs nowadays, and perhaps more creative jobs in the future (albeit, even if it's not as creative as human beings, most jobs that people take part in needs only limited creativity). It so works out that jobs position are being filled, hence more hands being freed; and it seems like those more creative jobs are in demand now. Of course, although we say we want to choose great people to do the job, which is good for the business, but it doesn't always work out that way. Not because of the flaw that will exist in hiring process, but what does the rest of us that's not that clever and can't fit the job description do? As this class grow in size, it seems a civil war/revolution is under way as they get more angry at the elites that took their job and let them stay hungry. In conclusion, there are not enough job positions to fill these people. Hence, one suggests a reduction in world population. Of course, it's not perfect, a reduction in world population in a perfect situation means keeping those elites and eliminate those non-elites, but even with genetic nowadays, we can't be sure our children will be those elites, as it's not always due to genetics that one will be elites, at least not all causing. However, with less position available, we need less people to fill the job, albeit more lousy people, hence a reduction in world population would give a better situation, to not have that many people (sometimes thousands of them) fighting for a single position, and the rest left without food, starve to death probably without subsidies and deemed able-bodied (there's no penchant for unemployment, I guess, unless government move to a more populist view to redistribute wealth, like 98% tax on wealthy that have more than, say, a million dollars, and give these tax wealth back to the poorer ones). In conclusion, the increase in human population that had helped long ago isn't helping anymore. The more people born into this world seems to only stay at home without a job position for them to fill. Even if they don't mind what job to take, including throwing rubbish job or manufacturing line rather than, say, tech jobs; there would be a limit; and the latter can now be replaced with robotics and AI (self-delivery car when you call for delivery, self-rubbish-throwing car, manufacturing-robotic-arms + advanced AI and camera tech). So, a decrease in world population is sought after. Of course, there's another path that one dream (real dream, not daydream) about. With the (probably bad) incentive to give back in web3 world **in social media** (wtf???), so people post something they earn some money; ok, good for redistributing wealth, but bad as incentives to work. Therefore, it seems that in this world, that's when AI "take over" the working population; that is, everything, including creative work like writing a program and performing scientific discovery (via trial and error which the machine can do quite easily, without needing gedankenexperimente), therefore, all could just lie down in pods where things are delivered to them, and they look at the screen in front. It's not like the movie that consciousness to upload to some magical world; no, we didn't even discover consciousness yet. However, even with consciousness still in our world, we living in pods, dopamine and serotonin injected via a lazy incentives, you could imagine it as a utopia. One would imagine, when there comes a bug where the AI couldn't fix and they have to turn to some 300-year-old (assume medicine can let us live that long) programmers (since these are the age that lived through hand-written programming) to fix a bug, because no one in the new world know how to even write a simple program more complicated than hello world, would be really funny to imagine. And that if these old multi-centenarians deceased and no more hand-written programmers, how do the bug get fixed? **Remember to Like and Subscribe.**

Do We Ever Get Out Of Our Arrogance? First thing first, one do not have an answer for the topic question, but rather a fight within one's brain on that issue, with one's previous experience. We see that some people realized their arrogance at some point of their life, hence they watch out for it. Others might be more lenient to born without much arrogance; still others born with so much arrogance they can never see past it. Discounting those that never see past their arrogance, one wants to look at those who would see past their arrogance at some point in their life, at least, they claimed. We know that we can never rate ourselves correctly. Despite one saying one understand about one's arrogance, it's another story whether one reduce it to a stage where it's majority non-arrogance; as always, easier said than done. Also, one notices that, despite one would push through arrogance so one could listen to other people's points of view that're so different from one, it's quite difficult because humans have feelings (except probably psychopaths and their equivalents); and it makes one feeling difficult when something challenged, with fight or flight responses. Yet, noticing fight or flight response as first step, suppressing it (or whatever you do to it to minimize its influence) and finish considering other people's points of view allow one to take that into account, try to find prove and disprove of that view, and mesh it into one's view and see how they work together. Ultimately, one wouldn't want extreme, but a more "center" viewpoint. Yet, in other aspects, one seems not to push past arrogance, perhaps due to strong feelings and existential risk that it poses, that triggers one to fight for it, even if one's wrong. It's usually when one used to experience something for a prolonged period of time, manage to do stuffs to get out of it, and it feels really scary to get back into that situation, therefore all oppositions must be eliminated at all costs! I wonder, oh, I wonder... do we ever get out of our arrogance? **Remember to Like and Subscribe.**

Money Losing Its Value What about the fairly recent price increase in goods and services since covid? Yeah, things you bought in supermarkets are more expensive than they are before covid. Why is the case? We usually think of something got expensive when their price increase, but what can cause such price increase? The most common one we think, is because everything gets expensive, so it also gets expensive, without knowing why. Ok, that's stupid, but most of us wouldn't care about why, we just care that it got more expensive. That's it. The more avid thinkers would came to think of its supply chain. Say, chicken needs to eat corn. Previously, corn is grown in the country; but climate change damaged the crops and lands, and corns no longer suitable to grow in the country, so they have to be imported elsewhere. Now, you're not only paying the chicken for the corn, but corn + import price. Therefore, your chicken increase in price, and it's impossible to let the chicken rearer pay for the import price himself/herself, so it's up to you, consumer, to pay the import price, to cover his/her cost. Or perhaps chicken eggs, this year, chicken lay fewer eggs in total (lower supply), but consumer still want this much eggs like last year (same demand), so demand didn't decrease but supply decrease, it increase in price. Yet, that's not the only case. There's another case. Ultimately, you need to understand that cash is subjected to lose its value. Yes, it lose value quite slow, but it can be very fast to lose its value. Is there cash that never lose it value, none. Cash always lose its value. There's a technical term for it: devaluations. Of course, there are other terms like inflation, hyperinflation, etc that isn't really important here. Let's keep things simple. Suppose your country printed $1000, and it has 1000 goods. Now, you would price each goods as $1, so that each dollar can be used to buy each goods. If you price the goods at $2 per unit, there wouldn't be enough money to buy all the goods, and if you price at $0.5 per unit, there wouldn't be enough goods to buy. So, logically, the reason you print out money is you want it to be useful. If you can't use the money to exchange for goods/necessities, what use you hold the money except to wipe your ass with it? And how are you going to sell extra goods (rotting in your warehouse) if you don't have enough money to buy them all? Therefore, you need enough money to buy all goods, but not too much. Next, suppose your country is going for war, and it needs more money to fund the war. Raising wealthy taxes isn't enough, so what's it going to do? Print money. When some organization has the ability to print money, they'll print it when they need it. Easy. Now, suppose the war ended, and money isn't burned, so there are now $5000 in circulation. However, you still only have 1000 goods. As before, money must match goods, so 5000/1000, you'd sell goods at $5 per unit (unless money is "burnt"). So, now your goods still cost that much. An apple is still an apple, just because it got more "expensive" doesn't mean its intrinsic value increases (without the case one said above, like import cost now included which before not). It's just because now there are more money in circulation, your money value decrease, each dollar can buy less stuff, that cause things to get more expensive. Of course, to your "phew", this can't go long. Like a war or civil war is needed to wipe things clean and start again; or perhaps sometimes it can be done peacefully, though usually not. Why? When you're saving for retirement, and now this money printing makes your money less value, but you don't get more wealthy, but the wealthy get more wealthy (do you see salary increase when goods and services gets more expensive? Probably no, or at least not as much, in percentage, for the majority), hence wealth gap increase, which leads to more anger at the majority, hence more easily lead to civil war, or at least more strikes. **Remember to Like and Subscribe.**

The Productivity Boom We always find ways to increase one's productivity. Albeit, using human forces alone is low productivity. That's why human created tools. It's easier to kill an animal with spear than with bare hands. Wells are preferably located close to where one needs water, otherwise it would take a long time to reach there; but it'd be better with piped water -- you don't need to move the water yourself. In the past, you probably want to hire a "fanner" to help fan yourself -- someone that holds the fan and continuously fan you. Nowadays, you could buy a mechanical fan that blows at you. Ultimately, the invention of tools are to boost productivity. Yet, when something boost productivity, it means someone losing their job. Something that previously requires human intervention now don't need anymore, making that "someone" obsolete. Therefore, that "someone" should find another job that's in a different sector after his job is replaced by machine. That creates some scary thoughts to push against these productivity tools. Example, factories allows processing something systematically, with minimal human intervention. Previously, these may be the job of humans, now replaced by machines. Controlling something could be automated by computers; previously, a human is tasked to do the job, probably. More recently, AI greatly increase productivity, rendering some tasks obsolete to current human jobs. Nevertheless, we'll fight against it, not because of the negativity that may come with it (it does have these negativity, one don't deny), but because it threaten to lose one's job. Most people are short-sighted, they won't really care much about its negativity as long as it didn't affect them, but losing one's job is affecting them, so they'd join in the fight. Nonetheless, if changes don't happen, productivity stall, and the world would never improve as quickly as it would be. Being more productive means gather more wealth; means getting more done with less effort. Little would deny productivity. Changes will certainly happen, and no one can stop if it brings productivity; unless the negative consequences are so large that no one's acceptable. Therefore, one can only learn what these new tools can't do, begin to learn in these sectors, and work alongside these tools. Think of them more as friends than enemies: and let them help oneself perform one's job more effectively, make oneself more productive. Perhaps, then, one'd keep one's job, except it got reformulated. **Remember to Like and Subscribe.** You might be interested in this article: https://www.bridgewater.com/research-and-insights/assessing-the-implications-of-a-productivity-miracle

Cancer and the Society What would happen if our society are more independent than interdependent. What one means is, essentially considering everyone is moving towards jack of all trades, than focusing on a single path. Although a few jack of all trades help the society, to link different parts of the situation together, and create new ideas; if everyone is a jack of all trades, it's cancerous. Maybe there are situations like that, I don't know, maybe there aren't. But to see from nature, cancer cells in our body, when we get cancer, are actually that -- a jack-of-all-trades cell. Because your targeting cell that's only strong at one aspect starts failing, your cells want to mutate such that it can prolonged its survival. Unfortunately, dependent societies fail when their dependencies fall apart, they're therefore leave with "no jobs" and requires re-learn something else, or rot away as evolution takes place. On the other hand, jack of all trades can do everything, so they're more likely to survive despite things fails. So, back to the topic, when your cells becomes jack-of-all-trades, it calls for a strike, like people organizing strike against their governments to protest against something. Your mutated cancer cells started the protests, and all at once, the healthy cells starts mutating to also become jack of all trades. Now, they're not specialized anymore, your organs starts failing. Your tissues starts failing. Everythings starts to get taken over by the cancer cells. They all rebel! The result, the person whom got cancer die. No wonder our society aren't composed of jack of all trades. Just look at how cancer cells spread. It would be mythical if our society survives with everyone being a jack of all trades without a (few specific) specialization. References: Exercised by Daniel Lieberman.

Top 0.1% Isn't Really Top It all has to do with comparison. Thing is, percentage is kinda misleading in situations with large numbers. For example, your earnings might be in the top 0.1%, but there are nearly 8.1 billions people, as of writing. That means, you're in the top 8.1 B x 0.1 / 100 = 8.1 million people. Still the top, but millions is still a really large number. https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/ Really, percentages comparison are mostly useful in the local. Ultimately, one should say, compare to yourself rather than compare to others; but if you really have to, let's take a look at some scenarios. Easy to understand -- schools. Assuming you're top 0.1% in your school, you're seen as one of the most clever person in your school, great! Then, your school aren't that huge, so there aren't lots of people, so you're locally top. But say, if you compare to national or international, your school lies in the bottom 10 percentile, then probably your top 0.1% isn't that top anymore, by-and-large. Of course there are exceptions where your school probably have most of the worlds dumbest people, but they also cater for the worlds most smartest and brightest kids, such that it had the widest separation range of students; but we'll ignore that rare exceptions. By-and-large, or most probable situations, are what we're looking for. Then, consider the alternative. You're earning the less among your country, you're considered the "poverty" in your country; but your country is one of the richest country in the world, and when compare with the 8.1B people, your poverty is actually top 30 percentile. So, does that put you at the top, or does that put you at the bottom? Separately speaking, you're bottom within your country, but top within the world... It all comes with point of view and how we see it. A top can become a bottom, and a bottom can become a top, just by changing the point of view. Statistically speaking, this probably doesn't make useful information for an individual; because statistically speaking, you're collecting statistics to get an average point of view, hopefully unbiased and taken into account the whole range of possibilities weighted. But if you're an individual trying to use the statistics to, say, improve your life, or find conclusions that you could target to improve your life, it might (or might not) be misleading. In conclusion, beware of the mathematics. Ensure you're clear with what "0.1%" is speaking about, nationally or internationally or locally, and what total population of that 100% it's referring to, in order to draw your conclusion accurately whether the study can be useful for you or not. The top 0.1%, just isn't really the top, at least not always.

The Brain Cycle If you know, our human brains can't multitask. Search online, you'll find that our brain are tasked to do one thing at a time. The illusion of multitasking is actually your brain switching from one task to another very quickly rather than really doing things in parallel. That means our brain has a fault. If you're a "chronic multitasker" (considered a disease in one's opinion), you'd probably had great difficulty doing single-tasking. The brain had got used to switching so quickly it's hard to settle down. Then, why is it considered a disease? Well, if you ever try both multitasking and single-tasking, you'd notice that single tasking (no switching tasks) puts your brain in a calm, relaxing way to deal with stuffs. Yes, some stuffs are stressful, no matter if you're single-tasking it or not; however, consider you're doing simple tasks that doesn't take much brainpower, doing it single-taskingly actually implies less strain than when doing multiple such tasks at a time. The topic today, is about brain cycle. Let's first understand: when you switch from one task to another, there's some "remnant" left behind that occupies your brain resources. It's like a short-term memory to cache where you'd left off, so when you return to it, you'd continue to pick up from where it is. To switch from one unfinished task to another, one recommends writing the task down, sit there doing nothing for 5 minutes (or you can go to toilet, drink some water, basically nothing that occupies your brian resources), then that 5 minutes clear the task from your brain into the piece of paper, then you can start something new. You would not want something to keep occupying your memory while you want full focus on something new. However, it so happens that sometimes, when you finish something, your brain can immediately disallocate the memory in the brain and you don't need to wait 5 minutes before switching to another task. One called that the "brain cycle", because when you finish one task, a cycle is complete totally, nothing left behind; then you can immediately start another cycle to do something new, related or totally unrelated. It doesn't always works though; if you're too excited with the current job that when you finish something, your brain comes up with something new, then you need to write down that something new somewhere, brainstorm it all out first, before you can clear of your memory. It's a process to calm yourself down, ask your brain that we have something else to do at the moment so anything you come up with, we'll write it down and read it back next time, to continue with the task that we haven't started yet. Conclusion, no specific conclusion. Read back to the paragraphs and each is a conclusion per se. **Remember to Like and Subscribe.** Some note on multitasking. While some multitasking is clear, others aren't thought of as multitasking when in fact they are. For example, using more than one computer screen is considered multitasking. Unless you're doing a single job and only that job (like game programming requires 2 screen sometimes); otherwise, one screen do one thing, another screen do another thing, is considered multitasking. Also, multitasking have a difficulty of choice. You can't choose to prioritize which one to do first. Not only that, but each task inflicts temptation on you to do this for a while, the switch to do that for a while, to calm the bull inside your heart. That's probably it. Leave a comment if you know something extra about multitasking other than the obvious ones.

We Live In The Best Era, We Live In The Worst Era Ever since the industrial revolution, our world had changed, for the better or for the worse. The changes are inevitable, as if stagnant water cause pests to infest the water, getting dirty as it continues to be stagnant, changes clear them out. Yet, humans are imperfect. Similarly, the changes we made are started out as an experiment, imperfect; and until today, it's still imperfect, and will always be. Several things changed. While industrial revolution allows for lowered price from mass manufacturing, it means cheaper means to produce house appliances, like chair, desk, bed, etc; and the invention of office works means that we freed ourselves from having to walk a lot. Plus, the invention of cars, elevators, trolleys, etc that saves us energy also means we can save as much energy as possible. The result? We now need exercise to ensure physical activity. For the better, improvements in medicine means longer lifespan. For the worse, improvements in back-laying chairs and office works means we don't maximize our healthspan. The digital revolution changed lots of things, and that's really a lot. Some are great! Others, not so great. Yet, considered how technology had been misused all the time it was invented. Computers was originally created to solving some problems like mathematics that it's hard to do on paper or in our brain; at the cost of brand new addiction called computer gaming. The internet was invented so we have easy access to information, no more outdated libraries that tries to keep lots of books but couldn't keep everything, so essentially a giant library with access via a computer (and other smart devices); at the cost of mindless browsing for cute cat pictures, recklessly binge-watching NetFlix or YouTube or whatever other stuffs. The initial invention of instant messaging and emails were to communicate important information that can't wait until you see each other again, basically, and replace the physical letters that takes ages to send; at the cost of, ok, this is a big cost. It makes people easy to pull out of conversation, to ghost other people midway, to ignore without letting them knowing its being ignored so basically waste their life and we don't feel the bad because we can always blame them. And then someone comes up with an idea: what if I can invent something to pull people's attention so they never had to leave the screen? Here you go, social media. Since text messaging had already made a wreck in our relationship, let's make it more worse by allowing people to feel that they had relationship in the vast space by pulling the threads, and feel sober if they pull out from it a few seconds after. It allows us to not learn the arts of communication, problem solving when we have emotional issues, and settle things down together when things become difficult. We gain, but we lost. It never seems to me that any problems were really solved. While we were worried about insufficient food and water and shelter in the past, now we were worried about health, about friends, about access to whatever, about goods. It seems that our worries had just transferred from one aspect to another, without a decrease in its strength. If we define the strength of our worries in the past as 1, it's still 1 today; it's just what we worries about different from what our ancestors worries about. Sometimes, one feels a lost of direction in the future: is it worth it for the improvement? Logically, one knows it's inevitable. Yet emotionally, it's a different answer... Perhaps we never understand life after all. And perhaps, we never understood what we really want. **Remember to Like and Subscribe.** References: Exercised by Daniel Lieberman.

One Speaks Like A Dumb Shit Despite learning about how to converse with others, for example with questions; but when it reaches some time, then there are two ways to continue. One, resort to asking the same question again, but since they're first asked probably real long time ago, now they would have a different answer. Really, these prompts are really useful, but it seems like one didn't use it quite often anymore on closer friends; and one don't know why... Second, you speak like how you normally speak. Thing is, if one is a dumb shit, and only learns how to speak more friendly in the first way, then resorting to the second would means self-doubts. Which is why this article. One isn't sure, is it the correct way to speak to someone by just having one speaking and one listening? It starts making more sense, to have an exchanging conversations feels more satisfied than a one way conversation. Of course, when we're conversing, it's more of one way, since conversation is basically one listening to what the other person's talking, and trying to understand what they means (Dr. K said this, and one agrees). Then, it also make sense that throughout multiple conversations, we would have someone speaking and someone listening, albeit in a more exchangeable way. A more, fair way. But one feels one is dumb, being the one that's always speaking. When things got quiet for a long time, it seems that none of us could muster another stuffs to speak; perhaps because of laziness to think about what to speak about. Or perhaps, we thought that stuffs in life is just too boring to share, when they are not, sometimes they are as interesting to the other person. We only feel boring because we don't realize the other person doesn't know about it. Or because we realize, but we're too lazy to put it into words, so we wait. It's feeling sad. Grief. Sorrow. For having a fair conversation is what makes a conversation continues; that makes both feels satisfied at the end of the day. And failure to meet only makes things worse. Of course, you probably have a different criteria, different people different, one understand; so, did your criteria meet most of the time? At least, it's about time to muster a change, as this isn't what one wants. Always on the lookout to make situations better. In your stance, it's time to find something that you can speak about in life, that you're willing to share to one another, and share them. If you have quite a number of things to share, but feel they're too private to even share it with closer friends, it's a shame. Probably it's your issue, and it's time to lower your barrier and determine what is "real private" vs "fake private". Have a chance to speak, and let the others have a chance to speak theirs. It's a strong feeling when someone don't give you the chance to speak. It's also a strong feeling when you want someone to speak and they don't, provided you give elongated pause in between for them to step in. The balance between is what makes conversation interesting; what makes conversation feels good. So, shall one muster the courage to always speak to the other person about issues, so to reach a consensus on what's what. On some things, we could make sacrifices: since one would like their sacrifices, one should also allow oneself to sacrifice if they need one to. On other times, independent of sacrifices, disallow alternatives. For example, one could sacrifice in other field, but one had a principle that: you must not look at your phone when we're speaking to one another, and no slightest tolerance for that, ever.

There's Something Weird About Fiction Stories One can't really say what makes the weirdness, so let's share and see if you, fellow readers, could notice something. Some stories are written from a first person point of view; it seems that it's readable, provided it retains one's interest, irregardless of whether the character is male or female. For example, *Divergent* Series. Then, there's like *The Secrets of the Immortal Nicholas Flamel* series also seems interesting, written in 3rd person's point of view. One didn't really read much English fiction, so others like *Harry Potter* or others one isn't sure how the plot moves. Conclusion is, it's readable. You can replace yourself with the character and there feel no separation; probably because the author made it seemingly fit. It does not, however, works that way in Chinese novels. Probably because of the genre one reads about (玄幻，科幻). In brief, one can only read those whom protagonists are male and not female. It seems one could not treat oneself as a female like one in English novels. If you really want one reason that one could identify, it's being too gender-stereotyped. Ok, as male protagonists, there are 2 types of stories: one with girls, and one without. Girls, could be a single girl, or dozens of them. Sometimes, the male protagonist meet at least a single girl everytime he moves place, so that's multiple woman. And the women will stick to the protagonist as if they can't live without him. Then, single woman are better; yet it seems there still gives the impression of the stereotype, even if the woman is also a strong woman, it's more of a leaf to the flower (the flower being the male protagonist, the female the leaf). Then, in contrary, female as the protagonist of the story also identifies such: be it they're strong, superb, or whatever, it seems that it's how a strong woman would act out, which as a male, one can't put one's shoes to "being" one. If you can understand what one means: while you can emphatize with someone and tries to understand what they speak in their own words, you're not them. If that explains better... In first thought, one thought it may have something to do with the third-person view instead of first-person view; because when you see in first-person view, you'd get sucked to forget the gender and continues watching as "I", your ego, unless in specific scenes when the protagonist met her boyfriend/his girlfriend/whatsoever relationship that reminds. One don't know. Then, it probably have something to do with the language written. One doesn't relate very strongly when the text were written in English than if they were written in Chinese. It gives a different impression and different feeling saying the same sentence translated in different language. That probably have something to do with it. And finally, because one seldom reads English Fiction novel, it probably is one's inexperience and only reading those that are interesting that causes; while for Chinese novels one'd been reading this for a decade long that, with a few occasional monthly pause, it's been almost all time long. So that may identifies as another. In conclusion, fiction stories are weird. Some can be read irregardless of its gender; other text can't. That's the main difference one wants to speak about -- main feelings that feels weird. Though, one can't identify what's the exact cause of this weirdness... **Remember to Like and Subscribe**

The NFT Dilemma Consider this: the person is building a POS system on web3, and thinks of dispatching an NFT that links to a physical object and sell to to the customer. Now, consider this: The customer buys the apple to eat. The salesperson dispatches the NFT to the customer. The customer went home and eat the apple. How do we burn the NFT away **without the customer doing it manually**? Do we control the camera at the customers' home so it can spy on whether the apple is eaten or not? Or perhaps you inject a chip at the center of the apple, such that it detects bites from the owner, damaging the chip (yes, human eating silicon) and rendered the NFT "burned"? Solution Well, the person building the POS system is getting too greedy and wants to link everything they have to the internet. Untimately, the person forgot that the importance isn't in the NFT but the physical apple. Hence, by not getting too hyped on NFT, you don't dispatch an NFT, then you can get the apple to work well. Other physical objects that could last longer could get linked to an NFT. But of course, chips probably won't be able to detect the conditions of such objects (at least most object, unless the object is devices like computers or smartphones, etc that could interact with the chip). So how do you know if the tyre is in good state or broken state without having to change it manually? I don't know. Just to say, don't get too hyped out. Really, most people don't even care about collecting receipts after they bought something. Some even asks the cashier to keep the change. These people may be one of us. Only the nft lovers probably would prefer otherwise. So, remember what goals you're trying to solve at first, than try to getting too hyped.

Dealing with MODBUS OK, particularly, one was dealing with this sensor thingy that comes with quite a bad documentation, so it was painful dealing with it. The first thing, after you get it powered up and connected on MODBUS/TCPIP (assuming you don't use the older RS232 or RS485), it's to **find the damn IP address**. Basically, when checking the documentation, it tells me it has an IP address of 192.168.0.X, where X is what you have to find yourself. So, let's get to the steps. First, when connected via ethernet, most probably the device has IP but the computer can't detect it, so you need to change the ethernet's IP address first. On windows, this means going to "Network and Sharing Center" (type `npca.cpl` in command prompt), and check the Ethernet. You're gonna go to "Properties" (right click and click properties from the dropdown, or double click and click properties on the modal), wait for the page to load, then click on the "Internet Protocol Version 4 (TCP/IPv4)" twice, it'll open up a modal where you can choose "Use the following IP address". Now, when we don't know the IP address, what we're gonna do is just simply put in an IP address, so for example, I just randomly choose 150 or whatsoever (whatever IP that's not being used at the current moment) so that's 192.168.0.150. Then, set subnet mask 255.255.255.0. **Leave Default Gateway Empty**. Then, click "Ok" all the way out. If you now type ipconfig on cmd, you should see the new IP. Next, download an IP scanner, such as Angry IP Scanner (or another one on your choice). First, remember to include the port to scan, which is 502, by clicking on "Tools" --> "Preferences" --> "Ports" and add it on "Port Selection" textbox (text area). Then, choose to scan IP range from 192.168.0.0 to 192.168.0.254. Upon finish scanning, find the one that has port 502 open. Mine, I got 192.168.0.18, **and remember this may be different from what you set earlier** since you picked a random guy to fix ethernet no 192.168.0.x issue (otherwise it'll give you a random ip like 169.254.y.z which we don't want). https://angryip.org/ Now that you get the IP, you can start the **client** to see if it can get data or not. For example, some people use the Modbus Poll (Modbus Master Simulator) and ensure you scan the holding registry (40000-40999); at least that's in my case, I'm checking for data stored inside the registry to get started. But if you use something else like Modbus Monitor XPF, it uses the address of 6-digit rather than 5-digit, so 400,000-400,999 instead of 40,000-40,999. So, it's the same, but different convention. https://www.modbustools.com/download.html https://www.modbusmonitor.com/xpf-help Now, what you need to remember, is change the SlaveId scan to 255 (It's called UnitId in Modbus Monitor XPF). By default, UnitId is 1, which isn't the broadcasting ID. Broadcasting ID means whatever the actual UnitId is, it can be read from 255 (provided you only connect one single device). Then, checking the documentation, they probably write down the default UnitId for you. In my case, it's 254. So, I could either read the device data from 255 (broadcasting), or 254 (device-specific). Next, is to change its parameters. For example, if you want your device to connect to the router rather than directly to your computer, you would change the gateway, the ip address, and possibly the subnet mask. Also, you may decide to change the device id, etc. But you have to be careful, because if you make a mistake and click save (on one's device, that's changing the "port" address to save internet configuration), there's no way to connect back; **unless your device has a built-in factory-reset button**, which isn't in one's case. For example, one can't connect one's device because one accidentally save port from 502 to 1, and until I checked port 1, one didn't manage to connect and couldn't find the problem. Then, you could proceed on. Here are some problems one encountered while playing with the sensor (not necessarily fits the title of ModBus but yeah one's gonna put in anyways even if it's out of topic). Calibration Sensors come with default factory calibration data, and it's crucial to understand how calibration works. By right, one don't understand how it works in the beginning. For example, one thought that the calibration has two poles: min and max. So by setting min to "true" when I give it an input signal of 0V, it calibrates to that, then setting max to "true" when I give it an input signal of N Volts (via a sensor output or a battery, depending how you play with it), then it'll calibrates to that value. But it seems not. Therefore, it seems like one couldn't calibrate it to factory data after one calibrate it oneselves. Later, one pull all the values from holding registries, and one saw that they're calibrated to min = 0, max = 4095, so that means that the range is now reset to factory calibration (ignore the fact that there may be accuracy/precision loss in calibration, which one encounters, without knowing the reason; perhaps because one give it an input larger than it can take that causes it to lose some calibration accuracy/precision???). If we instead set it to min = 0, max = 3000, then the actual factory calibration is still there, but your display (especially if you use percentage) will range from 0-3000 instead. Though, other default types like 0-10V if you don't set to min = 0, max = 4095, would be inaccurate (unless your device has some loss of precision/accuracy that you may say that, min = 0, max = 4092, to recalibrate for the inaccuracies). In this case: After testing with a meter that you believed/proved is more accurate and precise, the actual value of the battery is 7.52V, but your device shows 7.59V. Therefore, raising the "min" would help. Here, we set min = 118, max = 4095. Now, it can recalibrate to approximately correct values. After testing with a meter that you believed/proved is more accurate and precise, the actual value of the battery is 7.52V, but your device shows 7.45V. Therefore, reducing the "max" would help. Here, we set min = 0, max = 3977. Now, it recalibrates with approximately correct values. (**max values are guessed, untested**) As for how the values are selected? In the first case, you change to "raw" with batteries pluck in, see the values is 3111, then 7.52/10*4096 = 3080.192 \approx 3080. Therefore, you're gonna raise the min slowly by slowly until it displays the desired. Unfortunately, it isn't as easy as 3111-3080 = 31 then you can say min = 31; which doesn't work. As for other methods, one isn't sure. Data Types Ok, most modbus has a `u16` data type, which ranges from 0 - 65535 inclusive. However, that's not always the case. For example, even though that's the only possible store, they could store an `u32` data type by taking up two registries; or they could just store `u8` that is parse-able with just normal `u16` type; and sometimes, if they need negative, they could use `i16` data types. That's what happens in one's case. For most except the sensor readings and an address, it uses the `u16` data type (or parse-able `u8` to `u16`). Then, there's the address which one don't know how to parse, but it seems like it's either 4 registries of `u32`, or two pair of registries of `u32`, perhaps as a decimal value, one before the dot, and one after the dot. Both probable. For the sensor data, on the other hand, it's `i16`, because a 10k Thermistor has a standard range of -50°C to 150°C (although one isn't sure why one's sensor supports only -50°C to 110°C for 10V standard, weird). Anyways, the focus is on "negative", which means we need to use a signed integer (`i16`) instead of an unsigned one (`u16`). Therefore, it needs to be parsed differently. Sensor Limitations If the sensor receiver machine says it can afford 0-10V (well, not mentioned explicitly but from its choices), then don't insert something that's well passed 10V. For example, one tried 12V, and then the current starts leaking into other ports as well. So, that's unprotected. Addressing/Registry Standards Yes, the documentation might mentioned what addresses/registers are available, save what information, read-only or read/write. But, there are quite a lot of ways to interpret. First, is it input register or holding register, which input register starts with 30x and holding register starts with 40x. Then, is it 5 digit or 6-digit: which actually depends on the library or program you used. Say, one program, one could access the register address 0 with 400001 and another with 40000. Now, see another difference? Some addressing starts with zero so you need to add 1 to all listed address, while others follow the computer convention and starts at 0. One used to accidentally write into the wrong register; nothing too bad happen, sometimes they have write protection; but it's possible to get things really bad like write the wrong ip or port then you don't know which one you write, and you cannot reset, so you need to try connect and can't connect, etc. Conclusion All in all, MODBUS isn't easy to deal with. The internet does have a list that says this is what and that is what, but one haven't found a good explanation site that could tell you what each of each means, hence this blog. Generally, you could experiment around and see what works. There are ways to try it out! **Remember to Like and Subscribe!**

Question About Analog and Digital You know, we have things about analog and discrete/digital in the world, and now there's the new analog and digital computing. One think that the development of analog computing is great, providing it's benefits as defined. Though, there are some more fundamental question to ask; which isn't really related to the computer, but to how the world works. For our sounds are analog signals, travelling in waves. And there are lots of other waves out there. That's basically analog. You decode the wave, or the "height" of the wave, then map it to something, then that's the something you would like to get out of. Then digital are just zero and ones. These may be a bit confusing, bear with me, because one's confused oneself. One like to think it this way. If you studied quantum computing, you'd know about wave-particle duality. That is, analog and digital/discrete are actually a result of the same thing, honestly speaking; but of course, it's more complicated than that. The digital part could be think in terms of quantum, where you have energy levels n = 1 as zero, and excited state n = 2 and above as one. And is there quantum wave? One isn't sure. But at least, in the larger scale, there is waves happening. Then, what if observation causes wave-particle duality to break down, particularly into a particle, or a wave, but not both? Then, does it break down when we read data from an analog/digital computer? Digital computers get affected by high energy particles, and accidents could happen where it excites a zero into a one, causing your computer to misbehave/malfunction due to memory error, for example, when it hits your RAM. Does that happens also to analog, if analog signals are actually wave-particle duality, and they are made up of quantum particles? If yes, it might change the peak and trough, and it similarly cause memory error, or does it goes unnoticed because the new peak/trough we could decode it somehow?

The Importance of Pause In Communication Sometimes, you notice that people speak without pausing. It's clear that they come to the end of the sentence; yet they can't stop speaking. There are a few reasonings behind this. One, their head thinks faster than what they can speak, therefore, they machine gun it out. Second, they don't care what you have to speak, only what they need to speak it out. The latter, you would have them cut you halfway through conversation, or after a short pause you're to being conversing, then 1 second later they'll cut you off, and continue speaking doesn't work because it would be fighting for whose voice is louder. In both case, it doesn't matter. Ultimately, conversation means letting the other person understand what you're trying to convey. Of course, in between people whom knows how to communicate, you'd know that speech is one-sided, meaning that one get to speak, and the other listen (without conversing their side). But let's just say most people didn't understand that; therefore, in normal conversations we're trying to convey to some people what we think, and we want them to understand rather than speaking to the air. It's crucial, then, to communicate it in a way that the other person can understand; and that's where pause comes in. Thing is, when someone is receiving information, it doesn't goes in smoothly. They need to decode the message that you'd encoded to tell them; and if you didn't know, there are 1) lots of information to decode, and 2) lots of ways to decode an information. You could mean something by saying "I love you", for example, but it may be understood differently by the other person. Unknowingly, they actually consider a few choice and choose the one most plausible based on their past experience and putting you in their shoes (supposingly you should put yourself in others shoes, but in fact if you let your unconscious do the work, it's the other way round of putting others in your shoes). This isn't immediate, which takes time. Hence, after a long speech, a few seconds of pause makes their brain digest the information before continuing on the speech. Without the pause, things don't get digest and assigned to even short-term memory, therefore when you continue speaking, they'd be asking questions that you'd already told them, if you're not the second type narcissist that keeps speaking without stopping to hear their questions. As for the second one, that's slightly different. There's an extra negative feeling attached with it. When you stop someone when it's their turn to speak, or you don't attend to their body language signaling it's their turn to speak, and you continue speaking, they'll stop listening to you or just by right go away (because they can't even say goodbye without you stopping to let them say so). This hence violates the rule of balance between both person: it tipped the balance that only you speak without their turn of speaking. Do note though, in any case, it's almost always the speaker's fault if their audience can't understand what they speak. Of course, there may be more possible reasons that you can prove it's the listener's fault, such as their inability to listen (clinical diseases), or listeners actively refuse to listen; but comparing their probability, the speaker's fault occur more often than listener's fault. Thing is, if you already know that the listener won't be listening, you'd not speak to them in the first place. Example, if you know someone of narcissist whom never let you speak, would you even approach them to speak in the first place? Most likely no unless forced to. But the other way round, a narcissist speaker approaching a listener? Yes, it's most likely. One listener go away, there are lot more listeners out there to assert their "speaking skills". In conclusion, it's important to learn how to speak. Although there are many tips and tricks, we today speak about the importance of pausing during your speech, to let your audience digest what you speak. Don't worry, they probably would wait for you unless you pause for too long (15 seconds, etc). And in long pause, one usually told one's friend to wait for a while for one to digest and collect what one wants to say before continuing, so just a few more extra seconds there allowed. Hence, remember to pause in your conversations! **Remember to Like and Subscribe!**

Common Sense Isn't That Common What is common sense? Common sense is, by its root, some experiences that had been repeated again and again, until it's viewed as the norm. And what is science? Science is trying to disprove a hypothesis, and when cannot disprove, will **temporarily** become the truth. See the similarities in definition? So when it comes to science, when you disprove something, like Einstein proved that Newton's formula is just an approximation that isn't totally correct, or perhaps Pluto used to be a planet but was disproved against, or if you're someone aiming for healthy eating, what fad we have in the past isn't the fad we have today: as science growth, new nutritional diet keeps changing. So when you're looking at science, we understand that we need to keep up to date, rather than stay on the same place. That isn't quite true for the rest of humanity, at least, isn't what most people expect. People want confirmity, people want static; people don't want hypothesis, people don't want dynamic: that's because it makes easy for the brain to learn something when it haven't learnt; but it's extremely difficult to relearn something that you already make it a "common sense". And with the malleability of science, that perhaps keeps changing (relatively) fast, it's no wonder that people can't keep catching up with so much other things they wish to focus on, and just **doesn't have enough attention** to continually keep up with the news. Me inclusive. But that isn't the topic: the topic is, by prefering static and confirmity, we make something that's originally "temporarily true" and "may change in the future" a "common sense", when it isn't common at all; and still subjecting to change. Let's look at a story. You probably thought that short-sightedness is due to too long looking at screens, or at least something near like books, causing muscles to strain and become near-sightedness. However, more recent researches suggests that short-sightedness is caused by the lack of the hormone that signals our eyeball to stop growing. (View the video to not get confused by my statement). The hormone only grows with longer exposure to sunlight, and as you know, bookworms stay in the libraries, and people nowadays watch stuffs under the shed (of our roof), hence lacking the hormone. If we instead watch screens or read books under sun exposure, it'll fare better. (Of course, don't get dehydrated, don't fall sick, etc, "common sense"). https://youtu.be/vbCobKbLJls?si=V1nYh6jA_3ZiSzET Now, why do one brings this topic online? Cause most people are so into the common sense, that they thought their "common sense" are easily understood by other people, when it isn't. This is when "common sense" clashes. What one viewed as "common sense", you might view as "weird". Let's take an example: I'm living in Eastern countries, and it's viewed that wearing too little in public (just an underwear, with/without a bra depending on your gender) is liable of getting jailed or at least fined; which isn't really the case in quite a number of Western countries. While to us it sounds "common sense" that wearing too short in public is a bad thing, can easily lead to cultural shock, and isn't respectful; others might view as "huhhh???" Another thing is an unwillingness to change, or you could call stubbornness, fixed mindset, etc. When someone tries to explain about what had changed since we last learn, someone unwilling to change probably view that as an attack to their inner self, to disprove their status, and to downplay them. Hence, viewing it as an attack, we normally goes into a defensive mode, to defend our cause rather than trying to understand what's new. "Huh, I have my own proof that I'm correct, you're wrong!" When replied "No, I'm sharing a fact to you.", encountered with "No, what you say is wrong." https://www.amazon.com/Mindset-Psychology-Carol-S-Dweck/dp/0345472322 In conclusion, "common sense" isn't that common after all. It's really just something that we keep experiencing that we treat it as something that's common. When what we experience is different from what other experience, we'll have a "common sense clash", and communications trying to clarify (or attack/defend the other person, if you're a bad communicator) the differences escalates difficulty. When some "common sense" is hold as saint, or by someone hypervigilant, a statement that disproves such common sense would be viewed as an attack to their "saint" or their "inner self", hence triggering defensive responses to eliminate all cause of uncertainty, be it murder/jailed (remember Copernicus? Galileo?) or avoidance. So, it's time to accept that common sense could change in the future, and we shall accept the new "common" sense as time goes.

Selective Detachment Ok, One personally don't understand what does "detachment (from the ego)" really means, so one can't really explain to you, fellow readers about that. But one do learn that, some people misunderstood "detachment" with "don't care"; though there's some subtle differences, and it really isn't the same. Though, "don't care" is indeed one element of a lot more elements in detachment, from one's understanding. But what one wants to talk about isn't detachment itself and its definition, but "selective detachment". That is, if you (mis-)understand detachment as "don't care", when should you not care? Or more accurately, when should you detach? One situation is when you can't think clearly anymore. A.K.A emotionally hijacked. When you are overwhelmed with emotions, the emotions that are evoked probably are a doing of your ego, perhaps a hypersensitive survival mechanism. To get away from your ego's doing, you know the drill, detach from your ego. That is, "I don't care what I feel right now, that doesn't matter, but I know there's something important I want to solve, and I can't let my emotions overwhelm me at this moment as it disturbs me from solving the problem." Sometimes, the emotional overwhelms may not be extremely strong, such that you it tweaks how you think but you don't notice that your thinking got tweaked. In that case, you also need to detach, so it doesn't do anything bad to your thinking, hence sabotaging the problem solving phase. So, when you get emotionally hijack, detach. (See note 2) Second, when you got controlled by your ego. Ok, the situation above is a subset of this second point. What one means is, say, you're a person that "live to eat", not "eat to live". Therefore, your ego is controlling you to eat and taste more of the food, rather than you eating the food because you energy is low (see note 1). By detaching from your ego, you take control of your life and tell your ego, "no". Another example is exercise for couch potatoes. As you know, exercise first start as a "sour" experience before they gradually becomes enjoyable. And to overcome the "sourness", it's important to detach from your ego. So, when your ego comes to control you, detach. Third, when your ego blocks you from doing something that you have a high chance of feeling regret if you don't do it. And this is a subset of the point above, if you'd noticed. Say for example, you want to go to meet someone in real life, but because of your timidness and the anxiousness that's overwhelming you (if you feel the same as me when meeting someone in a long time), you decide not to. Or perhaps you want to make friend with that someone but you feel you may be too aggressive approaching him/her, but when you really approach it's nothing more than a surprise to the other person. Or perhaps you want to go swimming but you just can't find the correct full-body shirt because you're shy that people will see your chest and belly (for non-restrictive countries where you don't get caught if you don't wear shirt only pants, please check law before doing this). All in all, your ego blocks you from doing something that other people enjoy doing and you keep convincing yourself that you can't do it. That's the time to detach from your ego. By "I feel that way yes, I acknowledge it, but I don't care, I'll just do it anyways." it's the only way to not feel regret afterwards. In conclusion, although one do know that ego comes in most of the time and control us, and we let our ego do the work most of the times, unless we're monks that tries to detach our ego as long as we're surviving, there are times that ego becomes the road blocker, and it's something within your control that you can change. Remember, you can't change someone else, but you can change yourself, and your ego is something you can dealt with. Therefore, if it becomes a road blocker, it's time to at least temporarily put it down, forget about the "faces" and "pride" that have does no shit other than increasing the burden of regrets you got, and go ahead to do it anyways. Success or failure isn't the key, the key is you had done it, and the result isn't important. **Remember to Like and Subscribe.** Note 1: Why "energy low" rather than "hungry"? "Hunger" is a misperception that your body needs energy. For example, people probably don't need to eat after dinner, to allow your digestive system to slow down and rest -- that's why we have people fasting all around the world. But if you're used to eating at night, not eating will induced the feeling of "hunger" even though you're actually not hungry. How do you know you're not hungry? If you gradually reduce how much you eat at night until you don't need to eat at night anymore, you'll notice the feeling goes away, a prove that you are not on "energy low" but just the misperception "hunger". Note 2: According to this video, there's some long term bad effects if you separate your emotions from logic. But of course, there are also long term bad effects if you don't separate your emotions from logic. Say, your friend send you a text message (that don't have any body language) and he/she may be neutral but you percept it as negative, disregarding other possibilities. In that case, if you don't separate your emotions from logic, you have a much much higher chance of losing your friends, cause you'll end up sabotaging the relationship rather than thinking how to solve the problem or trying to clarify with the other person what he/she actually meant. You *believe* what you think is correct (emotionally hijacked). What do we do? The choice is yours to pick. https://youtu.be/aEGukyCsHMg?si=PO8Ls_1g9FshBH0z

Discussion on Processing Emotions I really think this YouTube Video by Dr. K is interesting. Especially something that relates to blogging, which is: (these aren't the exact words) https://youtu.be/7AywxObPgeM?si=NMZats5NquCNz8Ec *Because we don't have time to process our emotions, when they overflow, we vent them on the internet, somewhere in the corner (that can/can't be seen). But that only vent the shallow emotions, and after that, we get back to distractions, and we allow it to fill up, then we vent again.* Just to catch up with the video, we're discussing about emotional processing; and Dr. K discussed that we requires time and space to process our emotions, especially deeper emotions. And whatever anger, etc we wrote on the internet have to do with shallower emotions. It's interesting though, cause he mentioned that journaling could make up the time and space to process the emotions, and if you consider blogging as journaling, it probably does make up some time for processing emotions. Though, I'd say the time and space isn't sufficient for the brain to process everything, if you don't give it enough time. And of course, going back to distractions immediately after "venting" (or blogging) is a bad act; and allowing your brain to stay instead by doing nothing or going for a walk or play with your dog or etc would be a better choice, away from technology of course. And miraculously, one also did it before. If you heard one's past article, some described the stress that had one experienced; while even before one came into read.cash, one used to vent on personal websites that are only shared with the some friends (though they don't read, cause they don't care, they have too much business in their own life to care about lol). Even nowadays, one take blogging for granted, as a platform not only to share one learn, but to share what one feels, albeit censoring some deeper emotions that one won't want to share publicly. Another interesting idea discuss is "relying on dopaminergic effect to numb the problem" and "the problem stack upon each other until they explode". One think it's interesting to mention "dopaminergic effect", so that means activities that release dopamine, meaning any activity that generates pleasure, whether be it addictive substances, addictive contents, or mindless scrolling, if you can understand what one means implicitly, the categories (and list of activities) that each describes. And using dopamine to numb our feelings? It's clearly what we're doing. And as our dopamine receptors decreases so we don't feel as much as we used to, we need more of the contents to "get high" (that's why some drug addicts take more and more drugs), it'll end up to a place where the numbness can't numb anymore, and everything just explode. Up till now, you might be confused; "I didn't get the point, what are you trying to convey in this article?" Nothing, actually. One suggests you watch the video instead, it'll be more interesting that way. And one really just describes some interesting points one heard from the video. Also, watching the video probably won't get you as clueless as reading this article, lol... Anyways, out for today. **Remember to Like and Subscribe!**

The Willingness to Accept "Oh no, that's stupid. How could you do it like that, it has to be like this and this, not that." **For a single problem, there are many ways to solve**. However, some people's perfectionism doesnt allow them to do the contrary. For example, after trials and errors, they found that "one" solution that's the most effective and efficient. Then, they ignore the other trials that they made before, in such way that they say, "oh, that's wrong." instead of "oh, that's not as effective as what I'm doing now." Yes, both are rejecting, but **converting mindset from the latter to the former, is the biggest error they made**. Lets recall, we mentioned that there are lots of ways to solve a single problem. That means, even if the solution isnt as effective and/or efficient as the one you're currently using, it still solves the problem. Some people may choose not to directly use the most effective/efficient solution, especially if its not as easy as something of the lesser. In physics, you can see this in F = ma law being used more than Einstein's formula. In other worlds, newbies may choose to learn from the beginning and hence trample along the path that you went before finding out it isnt that effective. However, what I see is people **see what they used to do as a "mistake",** hence punishing those people that tries to learn and want them to jump immediately to the end: the most efficient solution. What this only teaches is someone **whom only understand "we should use the best solution"** **but don't understand why nor how the solution is the best,** since we define a better/best solution based on comparison, and no comparison, nothing is the best, only "no choice". Irregardless, you might have encounter what mentioned above in work or daily life. The worse why one wrote this article, because one encounted it in games! Can you imagine, a game is something for you to waste your time on and relax, enjoy; and they make it like a workplace where it put extra stress to your life instead of a haven to release/numb your stress. Anyway, let's state a few examples one heard and encountered. For example, there was a friend of friend, whom only eats "good food". So when my friend brought him/her to a market and eat, it disgusts. He/she just couldn't find "good food" in the restaurant that meets his/her baseline expectation. But in that country, "good food" is much rarer to encounter than find a shop that looks decent and can sit down and call something. So, with "no choice", he/she is forced to eat less-than-good food. Another example, another friend of friend used to only sit at the back of a car, so it becomes a habit. Even if there are only 2 people, the preference is driver + someone at the back of the car. Or perhaps the driver wants to speak to the person but he/she only wants to sit behind the car so the sound have to echo to the back rather than to the side. Or for other reasons. Untimately its not that bad, just awkward. But you get what I mean by seeing the "front seat" as not a choice that could be taken. And in the former, streetside food is generally considered "inedible". Is this habit changeable? Of course yes; but only with a willingness to accept change. If the person is calling a less-than-effective solution "stupid" or "cannot be done", then one see its more of "the person's problem" than a "you problem". Trying to be clever and unable to accept something decent, the situation stays where it is. Unless the person changes himself (which you can't do anything about it, cause you can only change yourself), otherwise, it's considered unchangeable. And what means change? A willingness to accept something less than effective/efficient. **Remember to Like and Subscribe.**

Our First Impression of Random Probability Baseline is Wrong Iwrote an article on probability last year, and I thought I'd like to expand on another perspective that we mistakes with probability. What one used to notice is how we thought of random probability baseline, our first impression is wrong. Only deeper thoughts reveal what the actual "random probability" is. One would use machine learning in my examples because that was when one first noticed the mistake. https://read.cash/@wabinab/game-probability-d9c0baba **Before I start, the values here are fake. I just make them up, and sarcastic-ify them to ensure the example is clearly presented.** Consider an untrained machine learning model that tries to differentiate a cat with a dog. Its predictive power is 5 percent correct. Training it for 10 cycles (you could treat "10 cycles" as some kids going to school to attend 10 lessons) its predictive power raise to 33 percent. Its certainly doing better right? And can we use it in real life? Probably not. Now, consider what a random probability would do: tell whether it's a cat or a dog by flipping a coin (assume a fair coin, 2 sided). We would say, its 50 percent probably it'll be head (which we assign it to a dog) and 50 percent tail (assigned to cat). Now, compare it to your machine learning model, do you still think it's useful? Probably not. Flipping a coin does better than predicting with the machine learning model. The baseline for random guesses is 50 percent. We had fall into a rule called "anchoring" (if you read "Thinking, Fast and Slow" by Daniel Kahneman before) where we thought the baseline is 5 percent, but actually it should be 50 percent, since when we first build a model, we want it to do better, perhaps far better, than random guesses. https://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/dp/0374533555?presearch08f-20 Now consider similar example. A machine learning model tries to predict between 6 classes: Cat, Dog, Elephant, Eagle, Cow, Goat. Still, we have 5 percent predictive power before training, and 10 cycles of training raises it to 33 percent. Is it doing better? Yes. Can we use it in real life? Probably... yes...??? What is the baseline? It could not be 5 percent unless it coincides. Now, the clue had been given. Get an equally-probably 6-sided die. If you assign each of the class above to 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 respectively, roll the die to get what you have. That's a random probability. For a die, the probability of each face is 16.667% (unlimited 6 after the decimal, but we rounded up. We get the probability by dividing 100 percent by 6). Now, 33 percent fares better than 16.667 percent, so the model is usable in real life, it could predict better than random. Though, perhaps we could make a model that does better. Anyways, the focus is, our first impression (anchoring) is wrong on our base probability. By being careful on not being anchor and calculate our base probablility ourselves, we could avoid the anchoring and know what a random outcome could be by dividing 100 percent by the number of classes that thingy would predict, assuming equal situations. (Unequal situations is possible, but that's not something that I wanna talk about here, nor is it something that I'm an experienced/expert enough to talk about). So, mind your probabilities! **Remember to Like and Subscribe.**

Mosquito Record 2 (This is a diary record). Previously one wrote about mosquito here, and today one would like to make a note on a new mosquito species one saw. Unfortunately, one quickly flush it down the toilet and there are no images on it, worrying it might bring diseases. https://read.cash/@wabinab/lets-speak-about-mosquitoes-af5294c2 From one's perspective, the new mosquito is a failure mutation. Previously one mentioned that, mosquito now are 2-3x smaller than what used to be 1-2 decades ago, and one mentioned there are anopheles instead of just aedes found around (at least compared to internet anopheles it seems like same species). The new failed mutation mosquito consists: 2-3x larger than the mosquito 1-2 decades ago. It has a black head and thorax, but a striped yellowish hue abdomen. It is unknown whether it can fly or only "jump". One tries to electrocute it, but it got lucky and stand on only one pole of the electric swatter*, and "flew" away. About 1.5 +- 0.5 meters away, one found it lying on the ground, unable to fly, but can still move its legs. Because one pinch it up on one leg, one isn't sure if it can still walk or not. That's the new mosquito. A hypothesis is the mosquito is a failed evolutionary merge between Aedes species and Anopheles species. That potentially explains the black stripes (from Aedes) and yellow hue (from Anopheles) in its abdomen. As for why it enlarges to that size, we don't know. Perhaps Mother Nature got its mutation wrong. With the toilet now down the lavatory, we couldn't confirm. So be careful. According to Wikipedia, there are quite a genera of mosquitoes there. One isn't sure if they listed moderns only, or includes those from dinosaur periods. Anyway, one only heard of (modern ones) the Aenopheles and the Aedes, one vector for Malaria, one for Aedes. The others may be more "country specific" and not known worldwide. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosquito And what one wants to say is, do you guys notice how fast species evolved? It doesn't seems like how we heard, taking millions or billions of years to change. Or perhaps this is just a small evolution? Do take care though, what if we have a new species of mosquito that merge? And what disease would it vector? *P.S. if you don't already know, you only get electrocuted if you stand on two poles. That's why bird don't get electrocuted standing on power grids. Extra Info on Housefly One haven't mentioned this before, but housefly have also mutated in the past decades. It used to be this medium sized species, but now the medium sized is gone, mostly replaced by small size species, and occasionaly you can see giant sized species. The small size species are generally attracted to my dogs, having 10s of them stick to his buttocks while he lie down napping. They seems to like the smell of dogs more. In one period where one had no dogs, this species is less seen than the giant ones. Sometimes, they also like their own species' corpse. This means if you have an electric swatter, you could kill dozens of them quickly by laying their corpse below the electric swatter and wait for them to come before quickly "swipe up" and they'll be electrocuted. The giant species are true "housefly" in which they love to go into homes to stick to your food (and lay their eggs there). However, this species, although still quick in reaction, isn't quick with their body reaction anymore. In fact, their giant size (compared to their wings) greatly decreases their agility to change direction quickly enough, nor are they flying fast enough. But of course, it's still not easy to catch this with an electric swatter, at least for normal human reaction: you may react to it, but your hands cannot move fast enough to where you want it to be. Talking about electric swatter: note that the small ones are easily electrocuted to barbeque (you know they die when you smell barbequed housefly, and see white smoke rise from their corpse). However, giant housefly don't get kill so easily: you might need to electrocute them for half a minute or so to get them barbequed. Otherwise, they'll paralyzed for some time before waking up and continue flying as if nothing had happened.

The Theory of Transfer of Happiness? Ok, let's talk about something, still not-making-so-much-sense today. As the title suggests, does happiness transfer from one another through an event? Originally, I want to call "law of conservation of happiness" so it sounds cool, like Energy; but considering the difficulty on quantifying "happiness", and "law" means there need to be sufficient proof, unlike "theory" which could be a hypothesis, we'll stick to the "theory of transfer of happiness". Ok. Let's look into it. What happens if someone falls down in the middle of the road? Adult reaction would be rush to help the guy out of the road quickly, not only to not block the road, but to prevent potential accidents. Children, however, would prefer to laugh at the man whom falls on his feet. It's generally the case for children when they play and someone fall down or getting injured during the play, the rest would laugh at him/her before they try to help her. Laughing first, helping second. Generally, it triggers that seeing someone in pain makes us happy, as it contradicts the boringness of plain background, something striking in the events, aside from enjoyment of a certain activities. It's just like in adulthood, when a long-time friend come and visit you. Surprise, if you like the person, you'd feel amazed. A stone drop in a pool of puddle. With this, we can see that, while that one person injured is in sadness, his original happiness had transferred to other people in the surrounding area. Though, because it's not "conserved", there are more people being happy than more people being sad. If the video is uploaded to news or YouTube (and similar video-sharing platforms), more people got happy watching your agony! That's how happiness had transferred. **Transfer of happiness from one to the many**. Let's look at another example: winning a competition, or winning a lottery. Basically, "winning" in general. Things that you can win generally are not "everyone had their fair share, everyone perhaps are equally happy (ignoring the greedy ones and the difficult-to-satisfy ones, and...)", you get what I mean. Something balanced for equity, though certainly couldn't satisfy everyone the same as the majority (because greediness, etc are always at work in certain individuals that demands more than the surrounding gets), aims for everyone getting equal of the share, at least. Competitions, however, is a transfer of happiness from the majority of participants to those whom get price, most probably top 3 or top 10, or even just top 1. It's more like an aggregation of happiness to the pyramid's top, without an equal distribution (1st place certainly feels more happy than 2nd place, and 2nd place isn't guarantee to be happy and might punch 1st place in the face for not getting 1st, due to envy). Generally, the majority whom got nothing but put in cash (for the lottery) to buy a number are at a loss, while the top are at a gain. **Transfer of happiness from the many to the one**. (or the few). What if the competition is a group competition. Example, football games, or other games that requires teaming? While some international/national sports on TV probably have their team players learning how to behave even if they lose, with mindset that they could always win back the next time, it's not always the case if you'd look into something more private, like school casual plays during physical education sessions. The thing is, not everyone likes playing football (or other ball, we'll just stay with football as the example here, but you could generalize to other games like basketball, badminton, etc), and not everyone is equally strong. When you're on the losing team, you're more likely to blame the goal keeper for not catching the ball, perhaps even voicing it out or shouting it out to the goalkeeper, when the other team score one goal. The other team won't stop the calling out however, as it's "none of their business". We're just playing ball, and we win, that's it! And generally, when a game ends, even internationally, the losing team would feel sluggish, including their supporting audiences, while the winning team would be roaring (from the players and the audiences). Perhaps no one lose control, but we can see that it transfer happiness from the losing team (and audiences) to the winning team (and its supporters). **Transfer of happiness from the many to the many.** Of course, the last is **transfer of happiness from one to one**, which still we would use competition as the case, but consider you're playing a game of two, 1V1 than many V many. Generally, what we learn two things is: If you're going to play games that aren't "all that wins", you'd consider trying to win alternatively (this time you win, next time I win, then we swap again) rather than one keeps winning consecutively. On one hand, if one keeps losing, he/she might not want to play with you again, at least in that game. On the more serious note, it could damage your relationship with the guy/gal because winning/losing is so important to him/her that it could put your relationship at stake, especially if you consider how difficult it's to make friends in adulthood (for the majority) and losing (non-toxic) friend(s) for a stupid game is, unacceptable. It's better to choose or design games that does not favor winning/losing, but synergy. Second, and also the conclusion of this topic, we see that happiness aren't lost in the way they are. They're just being transferred from one to another. And perhaps you might ask: what if the person in hurt isn't known by other people? So no one to laugh at? And those who knows him are the only ones to worry about the person? Generally, you'd see that happiness isn't conserved; but if you consider it conserved, who knows if "one to many", the "many" might have your happiness? And generally, it's a hypothesis, that means it doesn't always true that happiness transfer is real. After all, one mentioned it's "not making so much sense" at the beginning of this article. :D And another case being a widespread of sadness, especially when between a group of greedy people. For example, we have seen from novels etc where several countries just found a "new land" and they group together to attack it, however, with everyone being greedy on their part, they do not agree on their distribution of the land after it's being successfully conquered. Everyone ends up unhappy. So that's like a mass spreading of sadness, like diseases! **Be sure to Like and Subscribe!**

The Earlier You Sleep, The Later You Fall Asleep This would be the most illogical article one writes about: **the earlier you sleep, the later you fall asleep.** That is, if you sleep at 1am, perhaps you'd fall asleep immediately, but if you sleep at 11pm, you'd probably fall asleep after 2pm. What happened? Ok, presumably, we have biological clocks. If you'd used to sleeping from 9pm and wakes up at 5am, that's your clock. However, if your sleeping schedule is, say, 1am to 9am, then that's another biological clock. Then, you're told you need to wake up early the next morning, so you decide to go to bed early. Unless special cases which makes you really fatigued, like above-normal hard-day (physical) work, or an intense use of brain that causes headache pushing you to sleep, changing of biological clock, earlier or later, would disrupt its rhythm. That causes you to fall asleep later than if you'd normally sleep at. If you choose to sleep later, you'd start feelings your organs are burning as they start cleaning your bodies even when you're still awake, asking you to go to sleep. If you sleep early, your body tells you: "it's not the time to sleep yet, so wake up and do something until you're exhausted, then go to sleep." The latter, because your organs already started working, it causes you to stay awake even if you feel tired (illusionarily), and laying in bed won't immediately get you to sleep. You're already out of your "most easily feel asleep" period. As for early sleeping, your brain just can't stop thinking about stuffs (at least for normal people whom probably doesn't practice meditation or mindfulness). You tell your brain to stop? Stop kidding, it overwhelms you. The only thing you can do is to be an observer and watch it does its job for hours and hours until suddenly, no thought comes out anymore, which is then even if you force it, you can't think of anything, then you naturally go to sleep (perhaps about the time you go to sleep usually). However, with one caveat: because you sleep for such long hours when you're not feeling tired, your brain might tells you to wake up, which disturbs you again for longer time, until your body can't take it and exhausted only both brain and body feel asleep (perhaps later than when you usually feel asleep). So what can you do in such times? To foster an environment that's getting you better sleep. For example, body-temperature showers before sleep, and sleep in cold environments (that get your blankets on). This ensures you can feel the "cold" in the surrounding, which helps you to fall asleep quickly. Though, make sure it's not freezing though, which would likely keeps you awake. And keep watch for temperature when you started sleeping: if it feels warm, and you usually put on your blankets to keep heats in (which gets hotter over time), it'll ensures you stay awake until you turn on the air-con, and opening the blanket letting cold air in to remove the excess heat. Generally, you don't have body contact (with/without thin shirt layer) on something that exchanges heat quickly, like metal (and perhaps wood), so as you sleep in a position for long, it traps so much heat that you'd want to change a position to sleep for a while, before it gets hot again. That's why you need a colder environment to remove the heat away, or your skin would be burning. And sometimes, the first day of changing rhythm doesn't get you good sleep. It takes a few days to get used to it. Getting earlier/later to sleep is similar to changing time zones when you travel, especially transatlantic to countries having > 4 hours difference than your country, plus or minus. When you first arrive, you'd probably opt in to sleep at your previous country's time zone, perhaps start sleeping during 5am (local time) and wakes up at 2pm (local time) (which, for example, translate to maybe 10pm to 5am your previous country's time). So, don't worry if you can't get a single day of good sleep, but you'd give your best shot to slowly tune in to the local timezone, back to your 10-5 sleeping schedule. In conclusion, sleeping earlier does causes you to fall asleep later, when it fluctuates your biological clock, as the title suggests. :) **Remember to Like and Subscribe!**

Most Accidents Are Potential Ones Ever felt relief when you try crossing a road and almost got hit by a car because you didn't saw the car, and the car didn't saw you, until the last instance? Ever drive a car and temporary lose focus for up to a few seconds, and realize that you almost hit something? Or perhaps, you think you should drive towards the right, but your hand does the opposite (steering towards the left), almost resulting in an accident? These aren't real accidents that happen, nor are they recorded as happened cases; but they are potential, they are "almost"; and most of our accidents are these "almost". It's really difficult to track how much "almost" we had met, but if you try to remember back into your past, you'd find that, rather than ending up in a hospital, most of the cases are an "almost" which didn't have catastrophic impact, but indeed could lead to a catastrophic ones. You might think, oh, such luck one had. But luck is luck, it's not something that we can control, hence it's unreliable. Even in game, luck is defined as a factor that increase the probability of something happen (like opening a rarer game object), or decrease the probability of something happen (increase chance to dodge attacks): it's **not** something **will be avoided nor something will happen.** It's still a probability, not a certainty. Therefore, while luck helps you evade potential accidents, if you aren't careful enough and put yourself in such danger again, luck may or may not help the next time. That's why, if you check aviation history, accidents are rare because they not only learn from actual mistakes that happens, but also potential mistakes. For example, even on the ground, jets are checked by engineers for even a loose screw, especially fighting jets that flies at supersonic speed; but also commercial jets (though not that frequent). You don't believe, but a loose screw could rip the jet apart in upcoming consequences. Nonetheless, this attitude requires effort to maintain, and aviation had laws to ensure its maintenance nowadays. In the past, though, some parts doesn't follow the procedure, and they aren't discovered until actual accidents happens, perhaps even multiple times. Not sure about nowadays, though, whether there are still places not following procedures. Yet, of course, we mentioned the attitude requires effort, and the effort isn't easy to apply to the general public. Pilots and crew members are, a small population, a subset of a larger population. Compared to the number of people driving, they're relatively little. Cars, on the other hand, having weaker enforcement, plus bribery allows buying driving license without passing the test, or given pass the test even if it slightly doesn't follow procedure; you can see why there are lots of accidents. Furthermore, while there are laws like: cannot look at your mobile phones while driving; it's not true that everyone follows; and there's no black box like on the plane that record what the driver are doing while they're driving. Hence, it's up to the drivers to follow the rules and regulations, and make your own rules and regulations, to ensure their own safety. Anyways, with more people not following safety precautions, it could lead to more potential accidents if drivers aren't aware. And we are just speaking of one side: driving. There are lots of cases in life that could have potential issues, that may or may not cause your life, but say, lose your job, or perhaps lose something. If you could make up laws that preclude from putting you in such situation, perhaps, you could live with fewer accidents around you! **Remember to Like and Subscribe.**

Feelings: Easily Surges Up, Difficult Calm Down It's certainly not like throwing a pebble into a lake surface. That flops, and dies out. However, feelings greatly depends on your expectations: and a violation of expectation tends to stay longer than one that does not. For example. If you expect to not work on Sundays, but your boss keeps pings you saying things are urgent urgent urgent, then it violates your expectation. Solution might be simple, easy to solve, doesn't take more than a few minutes or even half a minute; but your feelings afterwards doesn't immediately go away. It has something to do with worries: you tend to overthink. What if the solution doesn't totally solve the problem? Or it could be you're doing something relaxing and the "pebble thrown" disturbs your perfectionism of "relaxation". Violation of expectations means you keep getting angry about it, and you can't stop getting angry about it. Anyways, it might take half an hour, or even longer just to calm down, depending on how much expectations is violated. Even worse: if you solve one problem, you calm yourself down, then your boss come with another problem. The sinusoidal wave of how your feelings are means, the second time, it's not easily calm down anymore. The thought of sabotaging work came into mind in the first place. It's a promise violated. In case you're easily thrown off, you might start smashing furnitures! Continual violation of expectations is the recipe to quit something. The feeling surge happens even if it doesn't happen often. Only that you're more forgiveable (maybe, if you're a forgiving person) in the case where feelings are surge rarer (perhaps once per year at its peak frequency, averaging once every few years) than if your boss doesn't know what it means by urgent (by marking every single item as urgent so nothing is urgent and everything is urgent). All in all, forgiveness doesn't replace your day ruined. What's ruined is ruined, carved into history. And like you need to pay more to cover insurance if your insurance paid at least once for you, it's the same your boss pay to what you feels when he/she surges your expectations. Of course, this doesn't limit to boss surging feelings. It's just an example that comes to one's mind immediately. You might as well make up for different situations, like getting an unexpected call during holidays, or perhaps someone ask you to not do your "stress relieving activities" (exercising, going to the park, etc) to urgently solve their problem (that probably have nothing or little to do with you, and mostly something that can wait but the person dealing cannot wait, and since he/she is feeling agitated, he/she decides that the whole world should now focus on him/her and feels agitated too! Otherwise unfair)** All in all, it's easy to change something into an urgent situation, as it's something carved into our gene in the past to deal with dangers lurking ahead. However, it also means it's difficult to calm ourselves down thereafter. When you just faced a danger and get out of it, you tend to be more cautious towards your surrounding in case it happens again, and slowly dies out as time passes. You can see this in action: when you learn something new from a painful lesson, unless you make it a habit or the lesson is sufficiently painful for you to remember it forever, you most probably take it into mind for a short period of time, perhaps a few weeks to a few months, before it get forgotten into the back of your mind. Reason? You have so much other things to deal with, and our brain isn't good to take in things unlimitedly into the foreground. Perhaps in the future you might remember it again, or something triggers your memories and your action put forth to try keep it in momentum, but that requires effort, or luck. Unfortunately, there aren't much way to solve the problem other than "your choice". It's your choice to tend to the attention, and it's your choice to not tend to attention. It's your choice to postpone something if you think you need it postponed. Of course, the result of the action, what others reactions are, isn't calculated in this formula. Perhaps your choice may cause you to lose your job, or perhaps losing your friends (the one concerned), well, you already take that in mind when you make your choice, didn't you? **Remember to Like and Subscribe.** **Some stories: While one was a child, one have this thinking really strongly. If one couldn't fall asleep, my parents should tend to my unrestfulness. Of course, I don't really shout out to wake them, but I used to move a lot while sleeping with them so to "disturb".

Let's Speak About Mosquitoes Hmm, the most annoying creature on Earth. I wish, dearly, that it is EXTINCT!!! Okay, let's talk about some observations where one lives. Albeit, mosquitoes are quite annoying all the times, but in the recent years, it seems to have mutate for it to reproduce better. First, mosquitoes are much smaller. In the past, aedes mosquitoes are a relative size. They were small, but not as small as they are now. In fact, their size shrink to about half or a third of which they used to be. You know it as the old species still remains at a rarer occurrences, and the new, smaller species thrives more. Second, they no longer land first then sting. That is, previously, aedes mosquitoes will fly slower as they reaches your skin, put their legs on your skin, then tilt their head, prick their mouth into your skin. No more now. With the invention of electric swatter, this procedure is too slow, allowing them to be killed. Hence, they evolved to land-and-prick: which means they land mouth-first rather than leg-first. They prick into your skin first before their leg touches (if their mouth is long enough). This way, they can suck multiple times and be full. Third, they're more reactive. That is, their reaction speed increases already. Also, they're more sensitive now. Previously, your hand may fly past and they're slow to react, but now they react almost as fast as a houseful (except they don't fly as fast as a housefly yet). This means, instead of having a single bump on your leg, you get a collection of bumps aggregated at a certain part of your skin (multiple prick, multiple bumps, logic). Moreover, their bumps aren't itchy now. Old mosquitoes sting used to be itchy, but newer mosquitoes, perhaps they have some changes in the sting left behind inside your skin, causes pain instead. If a bunch of mosquitoes sting you at different part of your body skin, you feel pain throughout your surface skin. That's for aedes mosquito. Final observation. In my house, I noticed a mosquito yellow in color. It seems like it's anopheles mosquito, but I'm not sure, as it look much like but not exactly the same as images online. In the past, my country only have aedes mosquito. So that's another observation. That's it for today! Still, I wish mosquitoes are extinct, so I can release my attention on them when I go outside in the future. **Remember to Like and Subscribe!** Edit 22/07/2023 Sequel here on a new mosquito species one found today. https://read.cash/@wabinab/mosquito-record-2-adb8b6ec

Huh? What Can We Do? We make mistakes. Especially during learning process, we make lots of them. Even a usual day, boring as it is, we may make mistake(s). Perhaps after we make a mistake, our boss are angry at us, or maybe we hurt a friend's feeling, or perhaps, in the extreme, we end up in jail. What can we do? Well, keep moving forward. We try to get our apology, sometimes promising not to do it again. We try to get ourselves out of jail. And we try to be more careful next time. Yet, how life feels when you act more careful? The thing is, "careful" isn't relaxing, it isn't in the middle of a momentum which can keeps going. In another sense, unless you make something a habit, you continually exerts efforts to keep things going. That isn't easy, and most probably, it couldn't last long. You could make "being careful" a habit, carving "better safe than sorry" into your soul for every action you're to take in the future; yet, if you're a person that likes adventure, perhaps you'd lose your taste on new stuffs. Being careful means laying back to the grounds that we already know so well and extensively avoiding new lands that trample into the unknown. It means no new stuffs being learnt, only preserving old stuffs; at least in the extreme. More averagely, you'd side more with defensive than adventurous unless the situation couldn't be defensive (e.g. when you're put in a place where there's totally no prior experience could help). Even learning process, we couldn't remember every single fact. We rely on our underlying conscious to learn things that we couldn't remember correctly, it telling us the path to take, and we hope we got it correct. Thing is, rarely can we pick up more than 3 things at once without special training. Perhaps with a memory palace you could, if it triggers. Otherwise, you'd most probably remember only the last 3 lessons you've learnt in the recent past. If things get more distant, you slowly forgot the negative feelings that led you learning those lessons in the first place, speeding up the process of forgetting the lessons, until you make the mistake again. What says if a learning process have lots of things to remember: again, without special training, you won't remember everything. All in all, we're just a regular human. We make mistakes, we try to learn from them, and we wish we won't do them again (at least in the short future). We aren't perfect. So the next time you make a mistake, **keep moving forward**. And most importantly, knowing now that we aren't perfect, we should expect that others aren't perfect too! Since we can make mistakes, and we make lots of them, we expect others can also make mistakes, and make lots of them. If someone make a mistake, take your time forgiving them, caring to know that he/she is just a regular person, like you are! Of course, if someone keeps making the same mistakes over and over again, it's another story. But if someone keeps making *different* mistakes, it's worth forgiving. You know, you can't learn a new lesson from a totally unrelated mistake, right? And you think you lay down rules before they start can get them to not make mistake? No way! It wouldn't work that way. Not even if you stick the rule in front of them while they work: that burdens them from keep looking at the rules for each and every step to take, which is annoying and tiring. So guys and gals, keep moving forward, and help others move forward. Speak calmly to solve a problem, believe we can reach consensus. Acceptance is the key, synergy is the team key. Let us walk together! Leave any comments below if you've something to add! **Remember to like and subscribe!**

Keep Healthy Even If Drown By Busyness Life these days, aren't always as balanced as they are in the past. Looking through, it ranges from people whom work relatively little (or even not working), able to enjoy holidays travelling to wherever they want, whenever they want; to people whom can't even sit still (a.k.a. workaholics, their will or boss's will). It targets, therefore, to find a balance. One isn't sure about y'all, but for one, totally not working is a "cannot sit still" manner, at least if lasting for a long time. One feel one could rest if one had done the day's work, and the rest is one's reprimand toward oneself; however, if one does not do anything for a few days, it is depressing. It feels like time is passing through and one is the boat that floats down the path, watching the boat gradually getting rusty and sinking. Therefore, we need to have work (in fact, one use the word "need" here rather than "want"; cause it's a "need", a crucial element), and at the same time we cannot only have work. What work you do lies down to your interest. For one, it's something that will calm one's mind down. For example, if you ask one to work on something repetitive, it doesn't calm one's mind down, so one don't consider it as work, even if being paid a decent amount. On the other hand, programming for one is calming one's mind down: it's something that one uses one's brain, and this is important to calm one's mind. No brain using, no calming. Working on something tiring physically also calm one's mind, but it's not as effective as programming, and it has to be tiring, pushed to the edge of one's limit (but not over the limit: that ends up in hospital). And for those whom work all day long? It's not healthy too. One never believes you cannot stop for a moment: it's only if you choose to stop for a moment or choose not to. Other reasonings are inconceivable. No boss can control you: you control yourself. Perhaps you feel afraid, but there's always the choice to quit the job if boss wants to murder you, albeit slowly. Remember, all choice are only available when you're alive, not when you're lying in the hospital bed feeling remorse, nor when you're in heaven/hell. One thing you can do is exercise, even if for a short while a day. One exercise 15-20 minutes a day and it feels nice. Before one exercise, one used to have short breathe, or even the feeling of unable to breathe, because there's something stuck in one's oesophagus (you call it gullet, or throat pipes that links your nose and mouth to lungs and stomach). As a result of short breathe, one easily gets mad, bang the tables, and smash the furnitures (pillow, really, too poor to break stuffs). And it recides **most** of the time when one starts exercising. Thing is, if you do push ups, it'll starts your breathing back again. You could do the full push ups (not ankles on the floor, please) slowly, breathe in with each down, and breathe out with each ups; or you could do half push-ups (a.k.a. the push up that doesn't go all the way down, just halfway) if you only have triceps muscle but not biceps, but this requires you doing real fast (60 push-ups per minute) for 80-120 push-ups, and breathing is breathe in, hold for a few push ups before breathe out in "steps". You feel the speed when you know you can't breathe in and breathe out in a single step, but breathe in 10-20% with each up/down. It should be strong enough to push back whatever blocking the oesophagus. The only time one feels blocked again is when things get tense; you know how things get tense if you work... Nothing is always smooth. Similarly, sometimes you just need time for going outside and see the greenery. Take a walk in the arboretum (some place where you don't need your brain to think). How to decide? You should not need your brain to cross the road, because it should have no cars (park should have no cars: if it has bicycles, try walking on the grass outside of their way). And it should be green: not filled with the noise of cities and surrounded by buildings (at least not too near). It's a good choice when you start feeling the headache. At least, one never use headache-painkillers with greenery (and sleep afterwards). It's helpful for one, as headache means excessive use of eyes (not sure for you, but as a short-sighted person, one almost only feels headache with excessive use of eyes, irregardless of eyes feeling hurt or not). Most importantly, for exercise, don't stop! A habit means something that is repeatable without stopping, and this means including the weekend. One used to exercise 6 days a week, excluding Sunday. One Monday, one feels too lazy to restart. That day, one decide: no more holidays on Sunday, and no more holidays when one go on holidays (that is, even exercise when going abroad travelling). It's the habit that allows things to keep going without you exerting your will to keep it going. In conclusion, brain feels clearer, breathe deeper, and you feel more healthier. It's never too late! Start now. **Remember to Like and Subscribe.**

Foreseeing And Changing The Future Regrets aren't good feelings. We always wish that we could see the future. That way, we could prevent regrets. However, do you know that we already can see the future, in some sense? In fact, it lies down to what causes the future to happen that allows us to foresee it. For example, in the past, people could predict rain coming when they see dark sky. Nowadays, with big data (on meteorology), we could predict weather for the next few days, with relative accuracy. To define future, **it's the will of decision that shapes the future**. Hence, in order to see the future, what we actually want is to gather information about the "will of decision" that allows us to make that prediction. For example, the cloud decide it'll gather enough rain in few hours, and the wind decide to blow in a specific direction. Using these information, we could predict where the rain will fall. And it's not just rain. If we know what other people think and the decisions they are to make, we could predict their upcoming course of action. Of course, we don't always know what others are thinking. In some cases though, like fighting, people could sense what moves their opponents will make based on the starting move, or a sudden jerk in hand/legs in a certain direction. Mostly these are train via experiences. Though, we do know what we are thinking, to a certain extent, so we could predict what futures we are shaping ourselves. And what does it means by **changing the future**? It means, **by disturbing the course of actions that someone are to take**. For example, in games, if your opponent are to make a move attacking you, you could set up a barrier/shield to block that attack, nullifying it. Otherwise, you could "daze" your opponent (if it has the function to do so) to stop your opponent right on track. In real life, it's the same thing. Knowing what people think, you could try to convince them to change their course of action, hence changing the future; or you could take actions to prevent their course of action to result in a certain result that you wouldn't like to see, bending it to your will of what futures you want to see. Similarly, if the sky is going to rain and you don't want it to rain, you could fire missiles to bomb the clouds, disturbing its formation before it reaches its final destination. That's changing the future. In conclusion, foreseeing (predicting) the future and changing the future is nothing more than gathering enough data to extrapolate, and taking actions to change the current course of actions. The difficulty doesn't come with changing an action, at least its usually not the most difficult part; but collecting data is. No one is going to tell you what they decide to do next all the time, our thoughts are shared with each other neither. Moreover, our prediction from other people's facial expression, body language, and what they show are only a prediction, which usually we add our own experiences trying to interpret what they're going to do, and when our experiences doesn't sync with their experiences, our predictions might well go wrong (badly). That's why there are lots of regrets out there!