I am overcome with curiosity about who did this and why. The fact that nobody has claimed responsibility makes no sense. If this were a politically motivated attack, domestic or otherwise, it would almost defeat the point to have the name of your cause omitted from those initial headlines. And sparing the lives of the bystanders also doesn’t make sense for a political attack. I heard the NRA gave warnings but the reason why it’s basically unheard of is because it defeats the point of terrorism. The reason why Muslim extremists, the bonafide experts, make a point of killing lots of people is because it’s effective. What political organization has it in for att?
It can’t be political. Every day that goes by without someone claiming responsibility, the probability of it being political decreases exponentially.
But at the same time, this doesn’t seem like the work of a lone wolf. Lone wolfs usually try to kill people. And almost invariably they fail miserably, killing practically no people at all compared to the number of people that would have been killed at the hands of someone smart or competent with a weapon. And bombs stand out as being difficult for lone wolves to get right. For a lone wolf to build a working bomb and detonation system and have everything work perfectly the first time would be the exception, although not the only one.
This was done by one person. Not a typical lone wolf but someone who was smart and methodical. And I would guess he was in the vehicle when it exploded. He was either insane ala templeOS, had no motive ala Mandalay bay, or a disgruntled employee.
There are many strategies that don't necessarily involve large human collateral damage but are still politically motivated.
The Provisonsal IRA in N. Ireland during the Troubles was often times either targeting security forces, collaborators or commerical activity. Ostensibly the goal was to make the UKs continued involvement in N. Ireland untenable from an economic and political stand point. The IRA was quite aware
that too many indiscriminate killing of N.Ireland civilians would be detrimental to their cause.
Patents holding things back is a feature. It encourages innovation because patents give a lot of security to innovators. Even if you found a way to incentivize innovators while simultaneously subjecting them to the ruthless meat grinder called the free market, it would just result in everything changing all the time. There’s no hurry. Technological progress isn’t always neutral, either. A new technology, even medical technology, could change the equation irreversibly in a very negative way. We’ve just been lucky recently.
I was listening to a podcast with Shawn baker (I believe that was his name) who is an advocate for the carnivore diet. Besides describing all the strange and unusual remissions of autoimmune problems that people experience after switching to a carnivore diet, he gave an account of his journey leading up to becoming a diet luminary.
He tells some really interesting stories about being a surgeon in iraq and then his surgical practice in the United States. Being a man who values results, he began to recommend lifestyle and diet changes to his Patients, finding that sometimes it even made surgery unnecessary. And according to him this upset the hospital. He went on to explain the surgeries are very profitable for hospitals and that because of this they are over-prescribed. People are having unnecessary surgery all the time.
Ever since then I have been keeping my eye out for further evidence if this is true or not. It strikes me as plausible.
“ meaning we’ve been wrong about some basic ways in which the brain and immune system are connected.” I’ve been screaming this at my doctors for years. For those who don’t want to read the article, the quote sums it up. They discovered new lymphatic vessels in the brain in 2016 where previously the brain wasn’t thought to have any.
2 years ago I had a stressful life event. I became schizophrenic because of it. I accidentally discovered that ketosis cures the schizophrenia. It turns out a doctor at Harvard has been sounding the alarm about this and nobody is listening to him [1].
After researching these things somewhat deeply, it appears that almost all diseases that involve the death or inactivity of neurons (Alzheimer’s, schizophrenia, autism, etc) are sometimes caused by “inflammatory signals,” as I call them, which interfere with the metabolism of glucose. Note the way I worded that — there’s more than one way for those neurons to become deactivated. What we currently think of as being a single disease might be many diseases, many different types of pathology that ultimately lead to the silencing of the same general population of neurons and thereby causing the same symptoms. The point is that the metabolic angle doesn’t explain all neural pathology, so keep that in mind when ketosis is found to only put 20% of schizophrenics into remission in the next five years.
There is currently exactly one study looking at the effect of ketosis on schizophrenia, in Finland, and it keeps getting delayed.
When a cells glucose metabolism is interfered with by inflammatory signals, ketone metabolism is not affected apparently. Plaques are a downstream effect of metabolic dysfunction, not the cause.
Doctor Mary Newport has been sounding the alarm for years after witnessing the remission of her husbands Alzheimer’s following administration of ketogenic foods and nobody is listening to her [2].
Doctor Robert Naviaux at UC San Diego is provoking astounding recoveries in children with autism with a drug that is thought to interfere with immunological signaling [3]. If you have chronic fatigue syndrome, pay close attention to this.
In a bizarre plot twist, people who eat nothing but beef are experiencing the most miraculous recoveries from autoimmune problems that I have seen so far in becoming preoccupied with this general area of research [4][5]. It appears that ketone bodies are somewhat anti-inflammatory [6] but their main benefit is providing fuel that can power cells that are being shut down by inflammatory signals, whereas the carnivore diet seems to deactivate inflammation that is currently underway for many people.
This is 100% a medical revolution that is still in the pipes. The work being done in this area of brain inflammation and inflammation in general will rock the medical establishment, cure thousands of diseases seemingly overnight and turn a burning light onto the cruel and sordid apathy that has infected western medicine in the last 80 years.
It's not just mental health that the ketone diet could contribute to, but other aspects of immunity as well. A recent paper showed that a normally-dormant subset of T-cells was activated during ketosis, and that this led to protection of mice from the influenza virus:
Ketogenic diet activates protective γδ T cell responses against influenza virus infection.
Total layman here and know almost nothing about biology. But I'm skeptical of this comment mainly because your sources are youtube videos. Which of course doesn't necessarily mean they're wrong, but I wanted to go over some of the people behind these. Some of them (e.g. Dr. Steve Phinney) seem like area experts, some I wasn't able to verify credentials of (e.g. Dr. Mary Newport) and some seem to have controversial (and possibly fringe?) opinions regarding nutritional science (i.e. Jordan Peterson, who is a psychologist not a medical expert).
So may I please ask experts chime in here, how reliable information in this comment? What are some papers one can read on this issue? [1]
[1] Except obviously OP. But OP is from 2016, and if this is understood, I expect there to be more papers on this? Also the relationship between parent comment and OP paper isn't clear to me, so maybe an expert can explain whether the parallel is justifiable.
Ketogenic diet as something beneficial for certain disorders -- including brain disorders, like epilepsy -- is extremely well established science and readily googled up:
I've also heard that some people experience "miracle cures" eating an all beef diet. Or a vegetarian diet. Or a vegan diet. Or a ketogenic diet. Or from fasting.
The gut biome is barely understood and 70 to 80 percent of the immune cells in the body can be found in the gut. So it shouldn't exactly shock people that messing with diet can have dramatic health effects.
The problem is we aren't at a point of being able to reliably say which weirdo diet to apply to which conditions in some kind of completely reliable fashion and our understanding of why and how those things help is in its infancy.
(I am not a doctor. I don't play one TV. Verifying that what the GP is saying is not straight up crazy talk is not hard at all, though the comment is a hair overenthusiastic as if this is absolutely some kind of solved problem when it probably isn't.)
I think you're right on the money here. We just don't understand anything like a direct cause and effect between all the variables of personal gut biomes and genetics that create the metabolome.
My n=1 experience has been that a fasting-mimicking diet where I emphasize low protein (especially BCAAs) for several days functions as a great reset after I refeed. I think if nothing else people may benefit from "jiggling the handle" metabolic fixes from temporary diet alterations, and various diets may push the microbiome, metabolism, and immune system to a more beneficial state, but that will look different for each person. I also think that starving out various gut bugs of certain nutrients like starches, protein, (yes, we know fat and carbs can be bad in excess. But too much protein isn't often talked about!) sugars, etc. will exert selective pressure on them. The ones that can cooperate with the body will gain over the ones that just extract easy nutrients. And of course, many things like antibiotics just blow away the whole ecology, like burning down a rainforest. It takes a long time to recover.
I like to think of diet as a supply chain: if there's an excess of something, it's going to take cellular work to use it or put it somewhere else for later (e.g. fat, waste). If there's an overabundance of building blocks, the body will not be pushed to scavenge for those from old, broken down cell materials and they'll pile up. So changing the inputs up can give some pathways time to catch up. Fasting in general can also function in that way. The only problem is that it's kind of miserable to do, just like exercise.
I'm not an expert, but I wouldn't be surprised if some of these cases were different forms of GLUT1 deficiency, or similar, which have shown improvement with a ketogenic diets.
Jordan Peterson and his daughter don’t need to be experts in order to offer their anecdotes. Instead of relying on experts, who universally reject everything I’ve said, crack open a biochemistry textbook. But be careful, the most popular biochemistry textbook in the United States, the latest edition from 2017, states plainly that a ketogenic diet always leads to diabetic ketoacidodis. This is false, thousands of people have been in ketosis for months to years at a time without developing diabetic ketoacidosis.
If the textbooks that the doctors read don’t get all the details right then how are you supposed to trust doctors to get the details right?
And why should you trust them when they have nothing at stake? Meanwhile your life is at stake. Guess who is going to sweat all the details and consider every possibility, doctor or patient? Here’s a clue, when is the last time a doctor cracked open a textbook for your sake?
I had schizophrenia and the doctors told me I was peckish. They didn’t listen to me. And they certainly didn’t listen to me when I told them ketosis was curing my symptoms. Just wait until it’s your turn to have a medical problem that the doctors don’t believe is real. Then you’ll look back on this comment very differently.
I forgot to mention, the links are for YouTube because more people prefer that. You can find the relevant papers in their descriptions or by googling the relevant names.
> I had schizophrenia and the doctors told me I was peckish. They didn’t listen to me. And they certainly didn’t listen to me when I told them ketosis was curing my symptoms. Just wait until it’s your turn to have a medical problem that the doctors don’t believe is real. Then you’ll look back on this comment very differently.
Ok but how do you know your anecdote is merely coincidental? How do you know there is a strong causation without data?
When it's your own body, it's fairly easy to gather a lot of data.* Most people eat multiple times per day. If you are on the diet and symptom free and then off the diet and your symptoms come back, it gets to pretty quickly be hard to pretend this is merely "wild coincidence."
Yes, you need more rigorous documentation to get it into the medical literature and prescribed by doctors and yadda. But experimenting on yourself? It's totally possible to draw a firm and reasonable conclusion that "X diet is helpful for managing my symptoms and making my life more functional."
If it's subtle or really complicated, a journal and making one and only one change at a time are enormously helpful "best practices" for self experimentation.
But for the assertion here that "ketogenic diet helps with schizophrenia," neither a ketogenic diet nor schizophrenia are subtle things.
And that last tip of separate things by X hours? That's actually a generally useful thing that applies to a number of things.
Calcium and iron interfere with each other, which is likely why a kosher diet has edicts against consuming beef and (I think) cheese/milk products together in the same diet. I try to separate them by at least 30 minutes, especially if I am specifically trying to treat anemia or a need for calcium. (But I generally try to separate them because consuming them together amounts to wasting the nutritional resources they represent.)
Zithromax (plus related drugs, I think) and magnesium are supposed to be consumed separately. They use the same attachment sites on a cell and actively interfere with each other's absorption. So consuming them together means you don't get the magnesium you need and you are undermining the effectiveness of the drug you are on.
In the opposite direction, some things need to be consumed together for best effect. This is the principle advocated for in the book Diet for a Small Planet that promotes protein complementarity as a means for vegetarians to get enough protein.
In later writing, she says she regrets making it sound so challenging. Most historically vegetarian ethnic diets already use ingredients in the appropriate ratios, so many traditional dishes already fit the model she advocates for.
The book also has a few really excellent recipes in it, so it's worth having even if you skip the first half of the book which is a political work outlining how beef contributes to civil war and starvation globally and proving that all countries, even poor countries, can feed their people on traditional locally sourced diets. What we can't do is sell imported beef to peasants and expect them to be able to afford it as a staple and a lot of starvation is due to war (often civil war) cutting people off from food access.
It's more complicated than that and if you want a stronger argument for promoting vegetarianism as the practical choice for reducing some of the problems in this world, it's got some excellent information in it, better than a lot of the BS scare tactics and high-handed moralizing that is all too common. But you can just flip to the back of the book and look up Complementary Pie (a bean and rice quiche dish) or Mjeddra and happily go to town cooking.
Watch the first video cited in my comment. I find it to be more convincing than reading the paper. It’s a doctor at Harvard who has witnessed the remission of very serious textbook schizophrenia after administration of a ketogenic diet. If you can trust anyone’s judgement, you can trust his. He swears by it. He also wrote an article in psychology today about it.
The ketogenic diet has many side effects and it can be very harsh. Because of this, I found myself going on and off of it frequently in the beginning. My psychotic symptoms, just as described by that doctor, came and went in perfect correlation with whether or not I was in ketosis. I would wake up in the middle of the night multiple times, getting just one or two hours of sleep. This is a textbook aspect of psychotic disorders. Then when I was in ketosis I would get a full nights sleep like a baby. It could not have been the placebo affect. There was nothing else that correlated with the changes in my symptoms. There was no ambiguity, it was extremely obvious.
Putting all of that together, I think it’s quite convincing.
I absolutely agree that advocating for yourself as a patient is important and that you are the best guardian of your own interests .. but I also know that one symptom of schizophrenia is strongly held delusional beliefs.
Peterson had been talking about the difficulties of benzo addiction and the epidemic of addicts in the US before he got ill. He was aware of the risks and his behaviour shows us it is possible to get off benzos with a trip through hell and specialist treatment.
The peterson formula is to talk about a social problem empathically and with some expertise. Then he goes through the problem personally and models behaviour. Lastly he lectures people on what should be done. It's good at making people roar with outrage sometimes, but its mostly notmal teacher stuff turned up to 11.
I’m still new to it but the concept is fascinating. Advocates point out that most plants are inedible while most animals are edible. Also, all of the nutrients required by the human body are present in animals, if you eat their organs. There is a small amount of vitamin c in animal meats, but it turns out you only need large amounts of vitamin c if you are metabolizing mostly carbohydrates. Compare this to the heavy supplementation required on a vegan diet, it seems a lot more likely that our bodies are designed to eat animals. There are massive holes in the studies that connect meat with colon cancer and other diseases — it turns out there isn’t a single randomized, controlled study that looks at that.
The science is not all sorted out and I can't find anything that's a nice succinct summary, but locally grown, grass-fed beef is very likely much better for the environment than the way beef is typically produced these days. Beef does not have to be some giant environmental disaster.
> Beef does not have to be some giant environmental disaster.
I disagree. A giant environmental disaster is inherent in man's livestock addiction -- even if you disregard the unsustainable emissions that come with it:
> Livestock takes up nearly 80% of global agricultural land, yet produces less than 20% of the world’s supply of calories […] If everyone were to adopt the average diet of the United States, we would need to convert all of our [global] habitable land to agriculture, and we’d still be 38 percent short.
It would be fair to point out that a lot of land suitable for grazing is unusable for producing wheat or other staple products. Grass grows almost anywhere, including places too rocky, uneven etc. for mechanisation to move over. But beasts can walk where machines won't be able to.
There is a reason why transhumance (moving cattle to high places for the summer to eat mountain grass and grow fat on it) has been practised since before civilization. Ötzi, the famous dead from the Tyrolean glacier, was probably a transhumanc-practicing pastoralist, 4000 years ago.
One of my all time favorite books is called "How to lie with statistics." Your source in no way rebuts my comment.
First, one of the reasons humans consume beef (as well as certain other kinds of meat) is that cows can convert grass to protein, something humans cannot do. So in savannas, eating animals that convert the grass to protein is one of the ways humans make life work at all.
Second, much of the world's beef supply is not grass fed. It is corn fed.
This gets done in part because it makes the beef fattier and thus makes it more profitable. It also makes it less healthy to eat and much more land intensive and wastes the thing that historically made cows valuable to humans.
In a scenario where we raise products like corn -- that the human body can already use for its protein content -- and feed it to cattle to produce beef, yes, that's hugely, hugely wasteful. It's also problematic that we ship so much beef long distances because of the energy costs involved.
If you work on moving towards grass fed beef and local consumption, you begin to dramatically reduce the resources involved in consuming beef.
Additionally, I am not advocating for the entire world to move to a 100 percent beef diet. That's crazy talk on the face of it.
Most religions advocate for a vegetarian or semi-vegetarian diet. Religion tends to contain historic wisdom concerning what works well for humans based on firsthand observation.
But there is plenty of room for the occasional human "carnivore" as well as for some people continuing to eat beef regularly. We don't need to vilify the consumption of meat in order to pursue environmental goals.
If eating beef helps eliminate health issues in some people, then letting those people eat beef is likely to be less resource intensive than insisting they eat a vegetarian diet and take a boatload of drugs.
This is a problem space I've thought about a whole lot. I have a serious medical condition that I control with diet and lifestyle. I wanted to be vegetarian and I tend to eat less meat most of the time than most Americans, but I also sometimes eat beef for medicinal purposes and I eat bacon somewhat regularly because bacon fat is one of the fats I tolerate well. My body misprocesses fats and there is a somewhat long list of plant oils I actively avoid.
I am supposed to be on thousands of dollars of drugs every month even when I'm not actively sick, just as "maintenance," and more when I'm actually sick. If the dollar value of the drugs I'm supposed to be taking is any measure at all of their environmental impact, then eating some meat is vastly less environmental burden than the drugs I am supposed to be on.
No one but you is saying "We should all just eat like carnivores" and you said it sarcastically. That extremist scenario is nothing anyone is genuinely advocating for.
I am all for making it easier and "cooler" for most Americans to eat less meat on average than they currently do. I am also for letting a small number of weirdos peaceably coexist with the rest of us who choose to eat nothing but meat because they find it beneficial to stubborn health issues that doctors don't know how to fix.
The way you lower our aggregate carbon footprint with regards to diet is you make it easier to find good vegetarian options. I don't eat hamburgers. Finding some source of protein at a fast food joint that isn't a fucking hamburger can be challenging.
Fortunately, affordable and convenient vegetarian options are somewhat easier for me to find than they used to be, such as vegetarian pizza and bean burritos. So my life works better than it used to because it's so much easier than it used to be to find something cheap and readily available wherever I go that isn't a fucking hamburger.
Hamburgers tend to be pretty goddamned disgusting, in part because we typically use the lowest quality beef to make them on the theory that we can just grind it up and turn it into a patty and la la la not listening on that detail of "garbage in, garbage out."
That's true, but you certainly can't feed 7 billion people on an all-beef diet from locally grown, grass-fed beef.
With some simple math, assuming people could eat 500g of meat a day, each person would eat an entire adult cow every ~3 years. So you would need a population of ~2.5 billion cows every year to support this - and that's assuming that there is no waste, that we could consume the entire weight of an adult cow (including bones), and that 500g of meat per day is enough.
No one in their right mind anywhere in the universe would, in all seriousness, actually advocate for all humans everywhere to eat an all beef diet. That's so ridiculous on the face of it I didn't feel I needed to say that.
Most people who advocate for a healthier diet actually intend for a vast majority of the population to adopt their recommendation - vegetarians and vegans and people who recommend the food pyramid or the balanced plate and so on intend for, ideally, the entire population to follow this recommendation.
So if someone comes and recommends an all-meat diet as being healthier for almost everyone than the current plant+meat based diet; and someone else points out that it would be an environmental disaster; and you talk about how local farming can mean that meat eating is not necessarily that bad for the environment - then your argument is only relevant if it is still true when a significant proportion of the population follows this new diet. Hence my extrapolation to ~7B people following said recommendation.
To call a diet sustainable or unsustainable, it only makes sense to talk about its impact IF it caught on for a significant proportion of the population for whom it is recommended. There is no unsustainable diet if we're only thinking of a few people following it. I could recommend an all-Saffron diet and you could call it sustainable if only 10 people have to follow it.
So again, an all-meat diet, even if it were actually healthy , would be an unsustainable recommendation to make for the general population. It may well be a very good recommendation for people with specific conditions, and it could be made sustainable if those people were a tiny minority of the population. For the general population, the only possible diet that doesn't bleed the earth dry is one that is mostly vegetarian, with some amount of meat maybe once a week or even more rarely.
I think most people do this thing of wanting everyone to try it for two reasons:
1. Humans routinely make the mistake of thinking that what works for them will work for everyone.
2. The world is full of assholes who give people a really hard time for being the weirdo doing the weird thing, even if it isn't hurting anyone at all, so people want everyone to do it to try to defend against the negative consequences of being the weirdo that people will give hell to for simply being weird.
And yet even vegetarians can't all get on the same page, which is part of why we even have the world vegan to distinguish some subset of extremists from the rest of them. Similarly, there are myriad sects of Christianity because even people who all agree that they believe in Jesus Christ can't get on the same page about a lot of things and Islam is an extreme example of that: Just as Christianity grew out of Judaism yet it seen as distinct from being Jewish, Islam grew out of Christianity.
A man who grew up Muslim told me Jesus Christ is one of the major saints of Islam. It does not entirely eschew the ideas of the Christian Bible, it just believes in and celebrates a more recent prophet, the Prophet Muhammad.
Muhammad ...was an Arab religious, social, and political leader and the founder of Islam. According to Islamic doctrine, he was a prophet, sent to preach and confirm the monotheistic teachings of Adam, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and other prophets.
I have zero fear that all of humanity or even the majority of humanity will start consuming an entirely beef-based diet any time soon. I think it is high time we got over our delusions that all humans everywhere will ever be on the same page at the same time on any given topic and embrace the fact that people eat different, people express spiritual beliefs differently and so forth and it's actually okay and for the best to let some people have their extremist diet without treating them terribly for finding something that works for them and without acting like that needs to become the new norm for everyone else as well.
There has to be a word for this kind of nit-picking. It's usually done by way of extrapolating to the limit as a counter-example, as if there is anything that is perfectly good or bad. I guess faulty generalization? I've certainly been guilty of it in the past but I do try to catch myself and talk more about where tradeoffs intersect or how one might extrapolate.
In this case we're not in a position to adjust our biology, so maybe lab-grown meat has more benefit than to sate the ethics of those that would otherwise avoid it on the same grounds.
The voltage induced in power lines would destroy lots of things connected to them and would require replacement of trillions of dollars of equipment. So it would be permanent in the sense that you couldn’t fix all that equipment by turning it off and then on again.
I heard an expert say that the whole thing could be avoided by simply adding grounding wires to power lines. They kind of already do this for lightning — a grounding rod is shorted by a special material that becomes conductive at high voltage. The high voltage is “dumped” to earth. Put enough of those on power lines and the excess voltage might never reach sensitive equipment down stream.
What a great post. What is the interstellar medium? Did the 12% figure include the aspect of multiple events paving roads for one another as mentioned later in the article? It reminds me of SARS, everyone knows it can happen and when it did our lack of preparation was shocking. And if this happens, once again the people hoarding toilet paper and food rations will be vindicated.
It seems like keeping your gear in a faraday cage would be enough to protect it, along with a really nice UPS and fiber optic IO. I’ve been meaning to buy some kind of fiber optic IO hub but they don’t seem to make one that’s appropriate for electro-isolation.
You could effectively build your own fiber optic I/O hub via fiber optic Thunderbolt cable to a Thunderbolt dock. Alternatively, build one via a combination of (1) fiber ethernet, (2) fiber HDMI/DP extender(s), and (3) fiber USB extender(s).
I personally thing Shulgin was having a very horny time in his life when he was experimenting with 2C-B and the drug is not particularly that aphrodisiac.
That being said of the psychedelics I researched it is one of the ones were the body feelings don't impair penile sexual function.
I'd recommend these for a tactile psychedelic. I wouldn't say the experience is overtly sexual at all, but it doesn't get in the way and like many other activities the experience is enhanced.
The guy on YouTube called high intensity health is a keto diet evangelist who wears a real time glucose monitor to study more closely what’s going on biologically with ketosis and blood sugar. He’s reported that being in stressful situations, like being late at the airport, can spike your glucose even when you’re in ketosis and kick you out of ketosis. I’ve experienced this too with the resurgence of inflammatory symptoms that are usually gotten rid of by ketosis.
Some great GCM experiment(er)s out there. This guy commits to a 2 week test of potato starch, sharing screenshots, etc. I dig HIH, too, for his info, but I stop at vegan intermittent fasting vs. full-time carnivorous keto.
I knew from as far back as I can remember that I was totally different from most people. I always thought that most people were the same. I grew up stricken with independent mindedness. If you are smart enough to blend in despite having a completely different way of thinking then it would be ok but I am the kind of person who cannot hide what’s inside. It ruined my life. Most people live a life of luxury simply by the virtue of their brain. Even poor people have the ability to enjoy human connection with other people. That is luxury to me. Most people don’t even understand that something so fundamental can be absent, they don’t even know it exists as it’s own thing. Most people completely miss all the details. This essay really speaks to me.
In 2010 when I would try to explain what was going on with Tesla and who Elon musk was, literally nobody believed me, took me seriously or demonstrated any ability at all to think for themselves and come to the correct conclusion through the special combination of single minded intuition and logical deduction that is described in the essay. I noticed that people always reacted the same way, no matter where they came from, mentioning something about golf carts. There was an emotional component where when I would get close to making a breakthrough, an emotional wall would go up. This emotional wall was the same in everyone and it was a very strong pattern. Having an emotional disconnection with yourself is important to being able to believe things that are upsetting or having your world view tossed. It’s not a choice to be disconnected and for me it’s a medical thing.
Because of my insights about Tesla and other things related to my special way of thinking, I am retired. And I still say it isn’t worth it and I would give it all up to enjoy the amazing luxury of being a normal person.
I identify with both your sentiment and what PG wrote.
Going through life with this feeling of disconnection is very consuming, and can have severe consequences personally and professionally.
Time is especially unkind for independent thinkers who do not achieve what others consider success, fast enough. Being unconventional and 'creative' while young is something passable and understandable... maybe even fashionable depending on where you live. But being of the same mindset and past your thirties is not generally acceptable, unless you have show a measure of financial/professional success.
I would love to see PG write about this, if he has experience observing or living through these sentiments.
Gun activists have been waiting for a Supreme Court majority that actually does its job. I would expect people’s 2nd amendment rights to be restored in CA soon.
It can’t be political. Every day that goes by without someone claiming responsibility, the probability of it being political decreases exponentially.
But at the same time, this doesn’t seem like the work of a lone wolf. Lone wolfs usually try to kill people. And almost invariably they fail miserably, killing practically no people at all compared to the number of people that would have been killed at the hands of someone smart or competent with a weapon. And bombs stand out as being difficult for lone wolves to get right. For a lone wolf to build a working bomb and detonation system and have everything work perfectly the first time would be the exception, although not the only one.
This was done by one person. Not a typical lone wolf but someone who was smart and methodical. And I would guess he was in the vehicle when it exploded. He was either insane ala templeOS, had no motive ala Mandalay bay, or a disgruntled employee.