Still have three songs that I downloaded but haven't reviewed:
'Ievan Polkka Remix— Dance Version [1iVMYTbqmeU].webm'
'Barbie Girl - Aqua ｜ DARK ORCHESTRA Cover (Gothic & Haunting) [ZIYM1wgylXQ].webm'
'Barbie Girl Cover – Aqua ｜ Powerful Orchestral Version ｜ SONARA [xyN1IU25wL4].webm'
Mentioning 요요미 - Barbie Girl (Aqua) 가로 Cover by yoyomi because Korean.
The game described here wasn't worth posting:
30 Sep 2026
Poll: "Do you want English to remain the main language of the United States of America?"
AoE2: save custom civ set as a string (~60 bits, 10 base-64 characters)
All of Us Are Dead written, released when? Covid connection?
Poll: "Do you believe that the gender that has the advantage regarding obtaining material things also has a moral advantage?"
upload '夜店正妹的騷樣 [Sexy Naughty Bitchy Me - Tata Young] [a +0.16s,+audio iFP72-_fX1Y].mp4'
higher quality 'Moskau - Bronken Rust, Joan Nal [PdMyhySUqNs].webm'? start, end cut off? audio quality seems bad?
higher quality 'Rob Mayth - Barbie Girl (Radio Edit).flv'
replace audio, delay audio for '【和訳／意訳】Barbie Girl - AQUA [e3dYnYnpSC0].webm'
comment 2M4ZH6uqrmg, fade the 10-sec background loop into itself
"You are getting distracted by bad solutions." "X is a problem. Y is the solution."
Poll: "Which is more important: what color Ariana Grande's hair is, or whether TSA officers are allowed to sit on chairs while checking passports?" https://www.cnn.com/2026/09/29/us/tsa-officers-chairs
Game: Random number is generated, like by rolling a die. 10% chance of a prize. Result is hidden for main player. 10 other people take turns looking at the hidden result. Main player tries to guess the result based on their reactions. If main player guesses right, they keep the prize. If they guess wrong, they lose 10% of prize to that player.
If there is no prize, then the prize goes to the other players. Main player still guesses the result based on their reaction. If they guess right, they take that player's prize.
10% chance: guess "is a prize", keep 1/10 of prize.
90% chance: guess "no prize", gain 1/10 of prize.
(Changed 'reward' to 'prize'.) For the game to be interesting, the small prizes must be 1/90 the size of main prize, adding up to 1/9. Main prize $900, small prizes $10.
Secondary players go in random order. More information should result in a better guess, so later players might blame earlier players. Whether players with low winnings or players with high winnings go first, others will blame them.
Probably more interesting: biased towards guessing "no prize". Make small prizes $30.
Something about trying to guess the completely random number after it's been rolled but before anyone has seen it. 10 possible results, which could be numbers or something more interesting like an animal. Each player receives a visual indicator of the result they think has already happened; a badge to wear, or a sign. If they guessed right, their winnings from the round are doubled? Possibility for collaboration, letting people keep money when it would be doubled. So it has to stay zero-sum: double their prize before there's a chance to lose it.
The 'winning' prize for the main player is randomly chosen after all predictions have been made; it is not just the result they predicted.
Comparison to Mafia: in Mafia, objective is just to win. It does not suggest that the goal is to get the most money, or to take money from other people. Players who have died can still learn from the game by comparing what they know to be true, to what others believe to be true based on limited information and discussions. (For example, commandant learns true information, but may not be able to convince others of it, and all players who are not mafia know that they are not.)
"In China, rich people don't feel as guilty for pressing button to be happy, compared to rich people in the US"
"If you achieve success, is it morally acceptable to stop trying as hard?" Prediction: males yes, females no.
Interpretation: males try to fix problems, but only problems that seem achievable by them. Link between problems and reward, to justify placing the social demand on the group of having the responsibility for fixing problems.
"Deliberately making noise from movement during mafia awake phase of night as a civilian: other than just making the game more complicated, it deliberately blends states of guilty and innocent. Draws accusations of guilt, which are contradicted by the truth of innocence upon death or at the game's end. Not useful in current game, but useful in future games as mafia."
What if you contacted 1 million random poor males, convinced them that this idea would fix problems, made them aware of the other males who knew of it, and asked them all to sign a petition?
Would they sign it? Or would they ask, "what do I get out of this?"
What do they get out of it? Suppose there are a billion sad people in the world (who become happy because of this idea). Each male is responsible for making 1000 people happy. What does someone who does that deserve?
___
Update 30 Sep 2026, 20:16
What if the petition said, "People should use this idea and everyone who signs it should get $50,000"?
___
Update 30 Sep 2026, 20:32
Was confused by the order of posts on Ariana Grande's Instagram profile. So I did a search, "are instagram posts shown in chronological order on a profile?"
Found this: Instagram is finally letting you rearrange your profile grid. Here's how to do it - Fast Company
The other big request
Meanwhile, perhaps the biggest complaint about Instagram (and Facebook) is how extraordinarily hard it is to reach user support in the case that your account gets hacked or you get locked out of it. Helplessly watching as hackers post on your account can be tremendously frustrating.
Hardly the only company with bad customer service. People also say this about Blizzard, the developer of World of Warcraft. When I was trying last year to stop my Aion character from deleted due to inactivity (last played in 2010), I was surprised when my ticket to NCSoft (NC, not to be confused with North Carolina or a Chinese insult) customer service resulted in them helping me, and in a short period of time.
Of course, it's about money. Maybe it would be profitable to help the average customer. But if you ban people from submitting tickets for what they see as legitimate issues because they submit too many, it would cause bad publicity.
What about this: user offers an amount of money. It could even be a variable amount, and users who offer more money get helped first. (It might be better not to allow this, even if it's more profitable.) After the issue is resolved, the user chooses whether to give all of the money to the company, or to donate it to a charity, if they feel what the company did does not deserve to be rewarded.
The company cannot track past choices and punish people who did not donate to the company with worse customer service in the future.
___
Update 01 Nov 2026, 14:02
This post has now been published, after a month.
Regarding the note: 'Moskau - Bronken Rust, Joan Nal [PdMyhySUqNs].webm' is a low-quality reupload of a popular video, which I'm linking because lack of registration of AI songs on song fingerprinting services makes it impossible to find the source deterministically: MOSCOW (Moskau) | Epic Orchestral Version | Anthem of Nations | Cinematic Russian Symphony
I downloaded and saved eight AI versions of this song, and this was the only duplicate. (There was another duplicate, but it was two videos by the same creator, on the same channel or a clearly related channel.) Another version of the song that also had Russian lyrics, that I didn't save, said it was translated especially by the channel; this video says nothing about the translation. Most comments are not in English; the few Russian comments suggest there's nothing wrong with the translation:
Белая сила РоссияAI can remake a song in a certain style, following its directions, but the result may end up mediocre if the human giving directions chose a bad combination of elements. It's novel, but the process that leads to it is easy, making novelty unremarkable.
Чёрная сила НАТО
Добрые всегда выиграют!!
Мы с вами 🇷🇺❤🇹🇷 (18 upvotes)
My song-playing script that's intended to wake me up succeeded in waking me up. I had sort of woken up over a hour earlier and noted a few songs that were playing, but I went back to sleep until the song Rockabye (mentioned here) started playing.
And I thought, "water trade!" Wikipedia says,
"Water trade" redirects here. For the Japanese nightlife industry, see Mizu shōbai.
About that verse, someone on genius.com added an explanation that says, "in the music video, the main character is a pole dancer at a seaside bar", but I'm not linking the site because once it loaded I tried to copy the annotation and close it and it took about a minute to close, and once the tab closed, the memory and swap my browser was using decreased by 1700 MiB; my computer only has 4 GB of memory, closing the YouTube video I just linked freed up 300 MiB, and with just four other tabs open my system says 1947 MiB used, 927 MiB free, 1051 MiB buff/cached.
So, "water trade" only means the s*x industry in Japanese, but it could have been a deliberate reference.
Another page that I found from a search for the meaning of the lyrics, from 9 years ago: The song "Rockabye" by Clean Bandit--am I the only one that doesn't get it?
The OP is critical of the central character in the song. I am supportive of that character. Maybe six years ago, at a moment when she was sad, my youngest sister asked my mother, "Aren't you glad I haven't had a baby?" Saying that it would have made getting her degree difficult, etc. Her boyfriend, whom she met in college and who was younger than her, had left her around this time, and my sister said that this was his period of being poor, which is sometimes followed by a period of being rich. It's reasonable to guess that he would not have broken up with my sister if he wasn't poor.
My sister didn't ask me this question, but I think she wouldn't have been surprised if she had asked me and I had said I wasn't glad that she hadn't had a baby. It's possible that the reason she stopped going to high school, fought with our mother, and ended up being forced to go to a juvenile detention center was that I was living outside and sending emails about this idea, as that was when I heard from my oldest sister that this was happening. My mother and two youngest siblings had a joint email account, and I don't know who might have read the emails I sent to it.
The best point in this article: Micro Enterprise Federation Condemns Government's 'Desk-Bound' Pension Policy
Concerns about job market contraction and the proliferation of “split part-time jobs” were also raised. “Small businesses lacking the capacity to maintain employment will become extremely hesitant to hire new workers due to institutional coercion,” the federation warned. “To avoid severance pay burdens, they will mass-produce ‘ultra-short-term part-time work (fewer than 15 hours per week),’ which will paradoxically deprive vulnerable groups of stable employment.”
Note that if society used this idea, workers who were given fewer than 15 hours of work per week would not mind as much.
I don't really think it's bad if some small businesses close because administrative burdens and capital costs increase. But if they don't close, but rather survive by making the lives of workers worse, the policy that causes it is problematic.
I am checking @Partisangirl's Chirp Club account for another two days, and she posted this, a comment about a video while linking to another video:
https://x.com/Partisangirl/status/2116987632316244406
The video she linked generated controversy: 26k likes, but the three replies that Chirp Club shows to me while not logged in (in the past, it would show 0 replies when not logged in) are all critical of it: 4.4k likes, 3.1k likes, 2.7k likes (from @Partisangirl). The video makes sure to mention countries like Sweden, which are rich rather than poor, to suggest that migrant workers are not poor, which would suggest a higher propensity for crime "others".
Just like the US, Australia has a history in which it treated the native peoples very poorly at many points in time; the dominant culture is one that arrived within the past few hundred years. This leads to people attempting to be nice as a sort of apology for the actions of their ancestors.
Reason for this update: around the time I was waking up, I was thinking "people just don't understand". "People" basically means my oldest brother, but I infer that other people might think the same way. I mentioned in my post to Yoko Ono on 18 Mar 2025 (not even in an update, but in the original post) that my brother criticized this idea. Now that I think about it, about a year ago I forwarded the email my oldest brother sent me, about two years ago, to someone else. I won't find it and copy it here because of length; what I said above should have been about two paragraphs, not ~16.
SCENARIO: Someone works X hours. Possibilities:
1) They want to work more. Employer wants them to work more.
2) They want to work more. Employer wants them to work less.
3) They want to work less. Employer wants them to work more.
4) They want to work less. Employer wants them to work less.
If you include "wants to work the same amount", it gets more complicated to talk about. Just assume that wanting to work more, or less, can mean "wanting to work even one second more or less".
(This is sort of a followup to this post, hopefully not repeating it.)
Possibilities 1 and 4 should not be stable.
That leaves possibilities 2 and 3. The point being, conflict between what the employer wants and what the worker wants is expected. It is not symptomatic of a badly-designed system: it is an inherent property of any system of employment.
___
Update 01 Nov 2026, 23:59
US President Donald Trump posted an image that combines his appearance in the past with his appearance now. (An archive site does not have a helpful description.)
I'm saying this because it isn't obvious: as a citizen of the US, I would prefer that someone from the US shared this idea rather than someone from Korea.
When US President Donald Trump first took office, in 2017, I made a petition on the White House website asking him to share this idea. Bookmarked these at some point between 19 Jan 2017 and 30 Jan 2017, links no longer work:
End War and Unemployment | We the People: Your Voice in Our Government
I don't know how many signatures they got; I would guess zero. At least one of them mentioned US President Donald Trump, asking him to share this idea. The failure of these petitions is not a reason for him not to share it.
___
Update 02 Nov 2026,REPLACE TIME
I think this is a useful question: have I not suggested that former US Vice President Kamala Harris share this idea because she lost the 2024 US presidential election?
Is it possible to 'lose' to a greater degree than to be living outside, i.e. homeless? In Jamie Johnson's documentary Born Rich (2003), Donald Trump's daughter Ivanka says,
I remember once my father and I were walking down 5th Avenue, and there was a homeless person sitting right outside of Trump Tower. And I think I was probably maybe nine, ten, something like this — it was around the same time as the divorce. And I remember my father pointing to him and saying, "You know, that guy has $8 billion more than me," because he was in such extreme debt at that point.
But Donald Trump wasn't homeless.
Since I started this weblog when I was living outside, how can I say that someone should not share this idea because they are a 'loser'?
I have no idea if Kamala Harris knows of this idea, just as I have no idea if US Vice President JD Vance knows of it.
Perhaps people who acquire power and influence in this world also tend to think they don't deserve to be thought highly of; for example, it used to be the case that people with power had it because they had defeated the armies of other people, sometimes personally slaying their enemies in battle (at 3:55, there is a cut to the battle, skipping the speech shown in another video). The challenge, then, is finding someone who has influence and the willingness to use it.
Initially, there was also the problem of contacting them.
___
Update 03 Nov 2026, 17:05
Previous update was posted at 02:47:54. I truly did intend to remove "REPLACE TIME"; it would be dishonest to suggest that I did not notice after posting that I made this error, and it would be dishonest to suggest that I replaced it with the correct time before I clicked Update.
I am no longer pretending to be dead, which I started doing on 26 Oct 2026.
Unrelated things, no particular order:
Lol Kim Jong-un uses daughter to divert attention from nuclear ambitions, alliances
People breaking the law for personal profit 1,132 Foreign Delivery Riders Caught This Year; Government Implements Strict Deportation Policy
I was reminded that @Partisangirl (Syrian Girl, Maram Susli) exists because of something that Madison aka Giggly retweeted or commented on last year. She still has the same profile picture as when I first saw her on Chirp Club, which might have been in 2014, when there was fighting between Israel and Gaza.
I do think this profile picture makes her look pretty. Of course, she has makeup on; I don't know whether to characterize it as "heavy makeup". I might have sent at least one message to her then; I feel like the fact that she's using the same profile picture is a reason to think that I did send her a message, even though I can't remember. I think it's fair to say that I might have avoided trying to talk to her then because that picture makes her look pretty.
There was something I said to my friend Hime, probably in like 2007, in an email: rewording it badly, because I can't remember what I said then (I should still have the email), sometimes you just need something to do. The context was a relationship. Basically, if you aren't sure if someone cares about you, you can sort of waste time. Preferably in a way that helps other people, but "it's hard to know how to help the world", so just playing a game can be enough. For me, talking about and sharing this idea is a way of wasting time.
So these various factors: the situation where you have the option of sacrificing X to help someone in your group by X/2 (I linked to the wrong post when I mentioned this recently), the fact that it's easier for males to see an "obvious path in life" of earning more money, and the logic that it therefore makes sense to assign the attitude of "do things that aren't rewarding" to females. It's why I think it's fair to say that a lot of time, younger females who are 'activists', doing public things that are intended to help other people, are not currently in a relationship. These activities might sort of be a way of wasting time, as I suggested to Hime.
The logic was simple: Park Geun-hye might not share this idea if there's a possibility that someone from the US could share it. Again, the obligation that southern Korea has towards the US, like from the spending from soldiers from the US military bases in southern Korea. Asked Google's Gemini,
>how much do us soldiers contribute to southern korea's gdp?
Relative Share: $2 billion against a $1.8 trillion GDP translates to approximately 0.1% of national output.
Also, I had been thinking about what I said was the interpretation if Demi Rose did not share this idea: "it means she thinks she has never acted in a way that could be said to have harmed me"
Have I acted in a way that has harmed other people? Definitely, yes. If I had not studied at the common table in 2009, Kate would not have felt she knew more about me. When I was studying there, she sat down to eat food she had made and smiled at me before doing so. If I had not been sitting there, it would have been one less instance of her smiling at me, and that would have decreased the chance that I thought she might be interested in me — which may or may not be true. So, it would have meant a higher chance that she would have married someone and had children.
Maybe I harmed @Partisangirl.
So, my thought process on 30 Nov was something like: I could say something that relates to @Partisangirl. But, she isn't actually that influential. I should not try to concern Park Geun-hye with something that isn't important. So it made more sense to mention US President Donald Trump.
But, consider how sometimes, male leaders in companies avoid meeting with female employees in private. This is intended to reduce the risk of nonprofessional interactions, but it can also mean the female employees have fewer opportunities for career advancement, due to not being as close to the male leader as male employees are.
So this was why I decided to mention both @Partisangirl and US President Donald Trump. It was not intended to harm @Partisangirl.
But, maybe it will harm her. This would be sad. But sad things, and sad outcomes, are common: I think that most divorces are sad, and that the people getting divorced would both be happier if they avoided the divorce.
What do I gain from checking @Partisangirl's account past the three-day time limit? Nothing, except ~300 dead soldiers per day.
I said to Sherine that everything was my fault, and I think she might have said "ok" in response. Suppose this is true: then 300 soldiers dying per day is my fault. (I saw a recent video title, "10k Russian dead in <month>", which is 300 per day.)
So now saying someone is Muslim is defamation. https://x.com/Partisangirl/status/2117705766442610787
Re: https://x.com/Partisangirl/status/2117715765533254131
Have you heard of the US and other Allied prisoners-of-war, who were killed by US submarines? "More than 20,000 Allied POWs died at sea when the transport ships carrying them were attacked by Allied submarines and aircraft."
One of the US submarines mentioned has its own article, where someone took the effort to write, "the submarine did not know that the ship was filled with Allied POWs". The person who wrote this felt like it was important to mention, that the submarine didn't intend to kill ~1000 people from the same side.
The attack on the USS Liberty is not a reason for the US to treat Israel as an enemy. Mistakes happen in war.
@Partisangirl mentioned a day or two ago that the US had bombed Syria. This was true: Trump bombed Syria using cruise missiles in 2017, which resulted in almost no casualties because the US informed Russia, who informed Syria; and the US bombed the Syrian army by mistake in 2016. The report is a bit technical; it mentions "Dynamic Targeting", in contrast to a second process, and the audience is supposed to be someone who understands it. It also assigns some blame to intelligence, which reminded me of the book that I saw at the public library in 2005, before I joined the US military, but never ended up reading: Intelligence analysis : a target-centric approach. A key point that I remember from what I read is that analysts should try to reach accurate conclusions, rather than searching for evidence that confirms an objective that decision-makers have already decided on.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_M1_Abrams#Gulf_War
Of the nine Abrams tanks destroyed, seven were destroyed by friendly fire and two intentionally destroyed to prevent capture by the Iraqi Army.
In the US military, I was in what's known as a cavalry unit, although there were no horses. The unit trained with the M2 Bradley, although I don't believe I ever actually saw one of these vehicles in the field. (As an intelligence analyst, I never trained around any vehicles, other than the time I obtained a license to drive the M577 despite not having a state driver's license.) I overheard someone describing an event that had happened a few years before: friendly fire, a Bradley was using live ammunition and mistook another Bradley for the range target, which I guess was vehicle-shaped. So they fired at that vehicle, with the rounds piercing the armor, but fortunately not injuring any of the crew. It was covered up, because the people responsible did not want to get in trouble.
It's sad that the leader of the US has to personally correct misinformation like this: https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/117553650492622207
That Chinese (Taiwanese) film, The Post-Truth World (2022).
Would it have been better if I avoided mentioning @Partisangirl on 30 Nov, and only mentioned US President Donald Trump?
I did these searches yesterday; wasn't sure whether to save them, because they don't really explain anything important, but I went back and opened the tabs in which I had done the searches, so I could copy them to a new file:
What I would say to @Partisangirl if I thought she wanted to hear from me: I don't know much about the US–Iran conflict, but from what I've heard of US ships still getting through, it's a plot to raise oil prices to benefit the US and Iran, and save Iran's oil for future decades when prices will be higherI guess this is relevant, the searches that I did consider worth recording at the time that I made them (recorded in my notes file, 'online tasks2, 16 Sep 2022.txt'):
About the video: "Better to be a dog in peace than a human in war". If she doesn't want the fighting to end, she can't expect people who do want it to end to care about the consequences of the conflict. In the poll I suggested, it seems she would answer that it isn't acceptable if a policy helps Israel. Of course, the poll is not about what people think, but about what they say.
What should people think if the poll was 40% people saying "not acceptable if it helps Israel", 0% saying "not acceptable if it helps Arabs", and 60% saying both are acceptable? It means Arabs are 'mean', not willing to compromise, and at fault for any failure of negotiations towards peace.
She acted concerned for 40 people kept in a torture building for a long time. Is she concerned for the hundreds of Ukrainian and Russian soldiers dying every week, or even every day?
It's a complete failure of perspective, and that leads to bad judgements about the actions of other people when they pay no attention to a problem one personally thinks is important.
Females saying that it's unacceptable to criticize females certainly leads to females having a disadvantage when it comes to having attitudes and knowledge that people will accept. This is the outcome that females, as a group, have chosen. Some people can adapt to and overcome challenge; other people cannot.
I think it was significant that Trump posted a bunch of things at 23:00 GMT. If @Partisangirl is part of a government conspiracy, she should have taken this into consideration. I hope her actions will not lead to an outcome that she regrets
02 Nov 2026
blog post updated at 02:47:54
"I'm not emailing @Partisangirl to point out that small nuclear weapons still need about the same amount of fissile material so are very dirty, with radioactive contamination, because females act like it's bad for males to point out mistakes that females make"
"I'm assuming that @Partisangirl doesn't know about this idea because she hasn't said anything interesting and caused me to stop checking Ariana's accounts"
no audio 1pJGQIaGGj4?
In 2011: if I had to choose one person to share this idea, it would have been US President Barack Obama.
The name of the fourth Chinese person whose account I am regularly checking, though I'm just checking a video she deleted as I don't have a URL for her account, is 揽月: "Reaching for the Moon". The first person I deliberately tried to share this idea with in 2011 was US President Barack Obama.
Now? I am no longer expecting or asking him to share this idea.
Suppose I sent an email to everyone in the world describing this idea. People would expect a leader to make a decision about what to do with it. That's what leaders do; compare the Hindmost (furthest back) from the Ringworld novels, or this quote from Terry Pratchett's Small Gods:
“The merest accident of microgeography had meant that the first man to hear the voice of Om, and who gave Om his view of humans, was a shepherd and not a goatherd. They have quite different ways of looking at the world, and the whole of history might have been different. For sheep are stupid, and have to be driven. But goats are intelligent, and need to be led.”
(I'm ignoring any semantic or thematic contradiction between these two literary references)
If the world had no leaders, no one that other people look to as decision-makers, I can say that I am biased and would want someone who looks attractive to share this idea. Even if an attractive person and an ugly person had the same chance of getting people to listen to them, I would want the attractive person to share it.
One reason that attractive people often have an advantage, like getting paid more, is that other people want attractive people to think highly of them.
But someone with 10 milllion, or 100 million followers (notice how I'm not saying 6 million, 17 million, or 362 million) does not know most of their fans. There is no reward for being a fan of someone who is this popular, or at least no reward that comes from that person.
There is another reason: if an attractive person does something 'good', people will have a higher opinion of attractive people. This is a better outcome than people having a negative opinion of attractive people.
___
Update 03 Nov 2026, 21:17
Poll: Which side would you put yourself on: rich countries, or moral countries?
- Rich countries
- Moral countries
- I am against both
- They're on the same side
Poll: Which side would you put yourself on: rich people, or moral people?
- Rich people
- Moral people
- I am against both
- They're on the same side
You have to ask both of these questions, and compare the results. Do people who side with rich COUNTRIES also side with rich PEOPLE?
Related:
https://x.com/Partisangirl/status/2117825422121734167
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/2117666899844866098
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/2117663863856377923
(Someone might make decisions based on the question, "is doing X helping good people?" Rather than, for example, "Are the lives of all people in area Y, whether they are good are bad, improved if X happens?" This is, I believe, the same mindset that leads to corruption and incompetence in countries with high religiosity: it makes people think that anyone who criticizes the current way of doing things is a bad person, because change inevitably harms some people.)
Chemical weapons,
https://x.com/Partisangirl/status/2117828487725846988
In the Syrian civil war, the rebel side sometimes killed civilians. I sort of remember a suicide bombing or something, that killed a bunch of students at a school. It wasn't unusual enough to have its own Wikipedia article, in a war with 300k civilian dead. Should the weak side in a conflict be excused when they do bad things, just because they're weak? If they are excused, then it can lead to the strong side doing bad things as well.
Do Muslim people choose to be poor? If they suffer because Jewish people are rich, such as if the US's $4 billion in military aid to Israel each year is because of lobbying by Jewish organizations and donors rather than because of political and religious affinities and shared ideologies or some other reason (Arab states were mostly on the side of the USSR during the Cold War, and so helping Israel allowed for testing weapons etc.), why do Muslim people not choose to be rich, and by doing so, end the problems they encounter due to being poor?
Why can't Muslim people answer, "They're on the same side" to the questions at the start of this update?
This is a little repetitive, sort of asked the same thing in the posts addressed to Imane.
Anyway, three days are up, so I will stop checking @Partisangirl's account, as I said I would.
___
Update 04 Nov 2026, 14:32
I thought of something that required going online:
ask AI, did Thailand ever say where they tracked MH370 going?
But I just made a note of it, instead of going online. I'm not pretending to be dead. The reason I didn't want to go online was that I was pretending to still be asleep.
I sometimes try to wake up earlier than would be expected from when I go to sleep. For example, a day ago, I set my phone's alarm, and so I recorded these split times on a stopwatch:
1. 05:19:25.38
2. 06:40.33.13
3. 07:48:20.57
4. 08:27:04.27
Stopped: 08:40:00.05
I realized that my phone's screen is only 10 fps, and the last digit of the stopwatch is always 8, so I need to press it 0.08 sec before the second flips to get '.00'.
It's hard for me to wake up even with an alarm because I don't really benefit from being alive: the short story that inspired the title of the previous post. But the point is, is it dishonest for me to pretend that I'm asleep by not going online? At some points in the past, I have done some brief web activity just after waking up, or even done a single (ICMP) ping to Google, to indicate that I was awake.
If one were to modify the question from the previous update, like so:
Poll: Which side would you put yourself on: honest people, or dishonest people?
- Honest people
- Dishonest people
- I am against both
- They're on the same side
I would choose the first answer.
Various actions in the past decade seem to have little purpose other than to communicate that someone knew of this idea.
Suppose that public figure X knows of this idea. In two months, someone — maybe X, maybe not — shares this idea. Someone asks X at a news conference, "When did you learn of this idea?" Does X tell the truth?
I think that they should, and they should be penalized if they do not tell the truth: "A lie is justified if you do not benefit."
This reminded me of one of the oldest possible lies I have encountered in my life: when I was uncertain in 2007 if Mei had died and her Hotmail email account had consequently expired, or if she had deliberately closed her account. One official webpage said accounts closed after 30 days of inactivity, another official webpage said they closed after 90 days. The fact that I sent more than one email after getting an error message suggests that I suspected from the start that she might have just blocked my email address, rather than her account being closed.
The particular events that led to this aren't that important; it could have happened a year earlier, while I was in training for the US military. The important question is really, "At any point, did Mei intend to make me think that she didn't l*ve me?"
If she did, then I should honor her wishes and stop caring about her, even if I only learn 19 years later that she intended to make me think this.
So this is the possible lie that I need to pay attention to: whether she is acting like she never intended to make me think that, when the truth is that she did.
If she did intend that, then my explanation for why it happened is simple: I was poor. It meant I couldn't talk to Mei as much as I would have liked, and I had to do something which risked me dying. Just now, I was thinking of a question like this:
"When you are 15 years old, cruel aliens visit you and inform you that they will be watching you and if you ever make anyone think they're in a relationship with you, the aliens will k*** you. They show you definitely-not-AI-generated videos of them k***ing other people who didn't believe them. How does this prohibition affect your life?"
I note that a double translation by Google, from English to Chinese and then back, correctly guesses the meaning of "k***". This process also did a good job in converting old English to modern English, when I was reading a week ago about fighting in 1622:
Richard Pace (planter) - Wikipedia
The first individual may or may not have killed an English settler: he was wearing the individual's hat, but if he tried before he was killed to give an account of what had happened, history has not recorded it. History doesn't even accurately record in what month he died. But if his death did trigger the war, then I think it's like the question of sacrificing to help a group member: starting the war was harmful to the group. But it helped the individual known as Nemattanew, even though he was already dead, and the benefit he received was lower than the cost to the group.
With the second article, the praise received by the native male who betrayed one group, his tribe, to help another group, his religion, shows why Christianity was rejected in some countries like China (the 'Boxer Rebellion' or 'Justice Harmony Group Movement') and Japan. Also, when looking up the Eight Virtues of China, I first guessed 'Seven virtues', which are in fact a set of values in Christianity, with minimal overlap with the Eight Virtues. They share Justice, but Christianity is missing Peace (preventing conflict between groups), Loyalty, and Honesty.
So, it's like the 'evil supercomputer' question and the 'button that lets you be happy' question.
___
Update 04 Nov 2026, 17:47
US President Donald Trump should immediately share this idea if he thinks it was a mistake for US President Barack Obama not to share it at some point before the Sewol ferry sank in 2014.
At least, that's what I think right now. For example, maybe US President Donald Trump thinks that Obama should have shared it in 2012, if Obama learned of it then. Or maybe he thinks that Obama should have shared it in 2014, before the Sewol ferry sank. Maybe China made MH370 vanish because of the 01 Mar 2014 Kunming attack. If the US knew that China knew of this idea (such as if the US shared this information with China), then perhaps the disappearance of MH370 was something that the US should have predicted, and acted to avoid by sharing this idea first.
About https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/117560785494219046: it's kind of funny, I had just been thinking of how dark it was. I have not done anything today: last night, I watched a few minutes of a game-related video before I got the vp9 bug, and then I went to sleep for ~12 hours (waking up at one point to write down a name I had thought of, which I later remembered was from a book: Jason Cosmo). I went to sleep not long after midnight, I have not done anything, and now the sun has gone down.
I learned a day or two ago that China does not use daylight savings time. So I wonder: in countries without it, do businesses still open at the same time in the morning, in the summer and winter? (Equator does not have summer and winter, but for the same reason no need for daylight savings time.) Maybe 200 years ago, humans found it easier to wake up with the dawn, and businesses wanted to accommodate this schedule as sunrise changed throughout the year.
What if a business made a decision to open "one hour before dawn"? This might change by a few minutes each day. Someone might have to use the Internet to determine the exact time the business opens on a particular day.
___
Update 05 Nov 2026, 19:19
I lied or was wrong again.
"no more blog posts for a week no matter what happens, and I'm checking YouTube comments after the week is up as well"
05 Nov 2026
"I would prefer if a bunch of people didn't think that my name is the one listed on the weblog for the idea"
If former US President Barack Obama knows about this idea, he isn't treating it as important. He isn't treating the kidnapped Chibok schoolgirls as important. Compare how the former leader of China was at a party conference, and there was some kind of disagreement, and he was led out. The public does not know what happened, just that he disagreed about something.
But forget that. Just look at his time in office. Things that I criticize:
- not closing the Guantanamo Bay prison, which he promised during his campaign for office to do
- drone strokes in Pakistan and Yemen
- military intervention in Libya
- taking the side of the rebels in the Syrian civil war. Direct support to them was minimal until the Islamic State renamed itself from ISIS, but it was clearly not to the benefit of the Syrian government for actions like the Battle of Khasham to take place.
Also, consider if the Syrian government had chosen a different policy: instead of allowing prisoners to starve to death in jail, it could have posted videos of them online and asked for food donations for them. Maybe Syria didn't want to admit that it was poor. But it was poor.
Syria protested the presence of US forces in Syrian territory, never authorizing them. I asked an AI, "which article of un charter prohibits interfering in civil wars?" and it said,
The relevant provision is Article 2(7) of the UN Charter, which prohibits the United Nations from intervening in matters essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state, including civil conflicts
See: United Nations Charter.
There are many people who think the US acted in a moral way by interfering, even though it contravened the UN charter. Of course, many other states were doing the same thing as the US, including Arab states like Jordan. But I don't think it was the moral thing to do, especially if any states involved in the conflict knew of this idea, as a way to prevent war. Wikipedia article for Arab Spring § Causes:
Numerous factors led to the protests, including issues such as reform, human rights violations, political corruption, economic decline, unemployment, extreme poverty . . . Other analysts blamed the rise in food prices on commodity traders and the conversion of crops to ethanol. Yet others have claimed that the context of high rates of unemployment and corrupt political regimes led to dissent movements within the region.
The second sentence of the article says,
It began in Tunisia in response to the death of Mohamed Bouazizi by self-immolation.
And the article for this person says,
Bouazizi stood outside the office in the middle of traffic and shouted, "How do you expect me to make a living?" before dousing himself and igniting himself with a match.
So were Arab governments bad? Was the leader of Syria bad, because Syria did not have enough jobs? Was the best thing the US could do was to provide covert support and diplomatic pressure with the goal of toppling Syria's government? What policy, exactly, did they think a replacement government should have, that the current one did not?
Obama's actions made him an unattractive person.
___
Update 05 Nov 2026, 23:25
If a Muslim-majority country that knows of this idea thinks that US President Donald Trump should not share it, they should share this idea within three days, comment on this post, or send an email to the address listed on the About page for the author of this post.
Naturally, it's possible that a country knows of this idea and does not want US President Donald Trump to share it, but will not do one of these things. I will assume that no such country exists if none of these things happen.
Just sharing this idea directly might not be the most effective: for example, people might use it, but a bunch of people might first say that it's stupid. In a social graph, the people who can be easily reached with a message also tend to be the people someone cares about, and someone sharing this idea might not want to make those people exhibit a stupid reaction. So making polls etc. first might be better. I am just naming "sharing this idea" as the action since that's the most likely to generate news stories etc. that I will hear of.
A few days ago, US President Donald Trump posted this AI-generated cartoon: https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/117537191170456651
It's possible that a Muslim person could find it offensive, and a reason to say that US President Donald Trump is an unattractive person.
___
Update 06 Nov 2026, 00:07
Poll: "A new idea will fix an important problem, but 25% of people will misunderstand it and publicly say that it's stupid. Would you prefer that your friends learn of it first, or your enemies?"
I am concerned that even if someone created this poll and measured people's opinions, someone who wasn't sure how to answer this question might still not share this idea because it could reveal that the reason they weren't sharing this idea was that they didn't know the answer to this question.
Is this update important? In the last mass email I sent about this idea, in January 2013, I said, "don't be afraid of making people you know look stupid." It wasn't supposed to be about people looking stupid because they didn't understand this idea, but rather, people looking stupid because they didn't expect that the person sharing this idea would do something like that.
