Hello,
More of my philosophy about the civilization and about the people and more of my thoughts..
I am a white arab from Morocco, and i think i am smart since i have also invented many scalable algorithms and algorithms..
I think i am highly smart, and i am still rapidly inventing my thoughts,
and now i will invent more of my thoughts about another important subject, so i think that the problem why arab countries or black african
countries or south american countries or such third world countries are not so sophisticated as western countries, is that i think it is about competition and about decentralization, since i think that my model of self-interest and egoism as i have just
explained it, is a high level manner of explaining from where comes prosperity and happiness of nations, so read in my below thoughts how i am explaining it, but another higher level view is to also look at competition and decentralization, since i think
that good decentralization and good competition is what is lacking in third world countries, since i think that the good competition has to be a good diversification of the economy, but a good diversification of the economy is also lacking in the third
world countries, and also i say that the mechanism of competition of third world countries is not as good as competition in western countries since it is also lacking much on the democratic mechanisms that bring quality and a good governance, also i
think that third world countries lacks the good decentralization, and the good decentralization is the fact that you have to be the good specialization in a job and in what you do, or be better than that by being good specialization in a job and in what
you do better, since it is good for quality and for productivity, and here is what i have said about it:
More precision about more of my philosophy about specialization and about quality and about Adam Smith and more of my thoughts..
I think i am highly smart, and i have passed two certified IQ tests and i have scored above 115 IQ, and i will now talk about another important idea of Adam Smith the father of economic Liberalism, and it is about "specialization" in an economic system,
since i say that in an economic system we have to be specialized in doing a job so that to be efficient and productive, but not only that, but we have to specialize in doing a job in what we do better so that to be even more efficient and productive, and
we have to minimize at best the idle time or the wasting of time doing a job, since i can also say that this average idle time or wasting time of the workers working in parallel can be converted to a contention like in parallel programming, so you have
to minimize it at best, and you have to minimize at best the coherency like in parallel programming so that to scale much better, and of course all this can create an economy of scale, and also i invite you to read my following smart and interesting
thoughts about scalability of productivity:
I will talk about following thoughts from the following PhD computer scientist:
https://lemire.me/blog/about-me/
Read more here his thoughts about productivity:
https://lemire.me/blog/2012/10/15/you-cannot-scale-creativity/
And i think he is making a mistake:
Since we have that Productivity = Output/Input
But better human training and/or better tools and/or better human smartness and/or better human capacity can make the Parallel productivity part much bigger that the Serial productivity part, so it can scale much more (it is like Gustafson's Law).
And it looks like the following:
About parallelism and about Gustafson’s Law..
Gustafson’s Law:
• If you increase the amount of work done by each parallel
task then the serial component will not dominate
• Increase the problem size to maintain scaling
• Can do this by adding extra complexity or increasing the overall
problem size
Scaling is important, as the more a code scales the larger a machine it
can take advantage of:
• can consider weak and strong scaling
• in practice, overheads limit the scalability of real parallel programs
• Amdahl’s law models these in terms of serial and parallel fractions
• larger problems generally scale better: Gustafson’s law
Load balance is also a crucial factor.
More of my philosophy about the religions and about quality and more of my thoughts..
I think i am highly smart, and i will ask a philosophical question:
What is the big problem with monotheistic religions ?
I think i am highly smart, and i think that the really big problem with monotheistic religions is that it is like my philosophy about the being "unity" in my thoughts below, since monotheistic religions are like the being unity in religion that corrupts the so important mechanism of "competition" that brings quality and
that also brings the best governance, since a christian has the tendency of being too much merciful or too much tolerant or too much lenient towards another same christian because christians or muslims or jews give too much importance to the faith in God
than to the competition process that has not to be corrupted and this is not good for the mechanism of competition and it is a corruption of morality
More of my philosophy about the being selfishness and egoism and more of my thoughts..
I think i am highly smart, and i invite you to read again the
following interesting article that proves that humans are naturally and individually selfish and egoistic:
https://thebaynet.com/humans-are-naturally-selfish-study-finds-html/
So as you notice on the above interesting article about a study, that humans are naturally selfish and egoistic since it is like a game of "competition" where you have to get a big profit, but i think that i am highly smart and i say that the seeking the
big profit by being competition is also regulated by antitrust laws, and individual self-interest and egoism creates competition and by the mechanism of competition we become self-interest and egoism of a group and of a society or of a zone such as the
European union and then we become collaboration and cooperation and even solidarity in a society or in a zone such as the European union or in global world and that creates prosperity and happiness of nations, and also we have to say that when we get a
big profit we can also help the others by being solidarity,
so then we have not to be pessimistic about humans that are naturally and individually selfish and egoistic, but we have to be patience since it takes some time so that this individual self-interest and egoism becomes collaboration and cooperation and
even solidarity as i am explaining it, and of course we have to be much more optimistic since capitalism is not a zero sum game, since with a reasonable level of growth, capitalism can both deliver rising living standards for most, and still ensure a
relatively high rate of return to the owners of capital and we have to be much more optimistic since self-interest is most of the time regulated by competition to not lead to corruption, fraud, price-gouging, and cheating, as has said it Adam Smith the
father of economic Liberalism, and notice that we have to look at competition from a broader point of view since competition is also
competition inside a Democracy that fights efficiently corruption by using different political parties and different political groups inside the congress etc. and competition that fights efficiently corruption is also the separation of powers in USA,
since the U.S. constitution establishes three separate but equal branches of government: the legislative branch (makes the law), the executive branch (enforces the law), and the judicial branch (interprets the law), so i think that for example USA is
much less corrupt than African countries or such countries since they lack this kind of "competition" that balances this way the powers.
More of my philosophy about the why to soften morals and more of my thoughts..
I think i am highly smart, and i have just spoken about the model
of self-interest and egoism that also build great things, read my thoughts below about it, but as you have just noticed, i have just said that it needs patience so that self-interest and egoism becomes collaboration and cooperation and even solidarity,
and my model looks like the Adam Smith model that also said the following:
"Human egoism is the engine of the properity and happiness of nations"
But Adam Smith model is not like my model since i am saying
that my model needs "patience" so that self-interest and egoism becomes collaboration and cooperation and even solidarity, and i also say that my model needs also the mechanisms that soften morals like of listening to the beautiful music and like
reading beautiful poetry of Love and such mechanisms that soften morals so that to reduce or to minimize efficiently violence, and it is why i have also invented many poems of Love and i have posted them here, so i invite you to reread my previous
thoughts so that to understand my views:
More of my philosophy about macroeconomics and inflation and more of my thoughts..
I think i am highly smart, and i think that the Federal Reserve policymakers of USA are trying to slow down the economy and subdue inflation by highering interest rates, and highering interest rates make money costlier and borrowing less appealing and
that, in turn, slows demand to catch up with supply, which has lagged badly throughout the pandemic, but that's the macroeconomics of it, and its potential effects include lower wages, a halt or even a drop in home prices and a decline in stock market
valuations etc., but notice that the highering of interest rates reduces the demand, so i think it has a macroeconomic effects of balancing by creating lower prices in one side and part of the economy and this compensate much more for the higher prices
in the other side and part of the economy, but notice that it doesn't mean that the highering of interest rates solves all the problems.
More of my philosophy about the high volatility of cryptocurrencies and more of my thoughts..
I think i am highly smart, and i invite you to read the following
article from Forbes that shows how highly volatile is bitcoin
and other cryptocurrencies:
Explaining Crypto’s Volatility
https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicolelapin/2021/12/23/explaining-cryptos-volatility/?sh=1068853e7b54
So notice carefully in the above article how it says the following:
"Cryptocurrency is an incredibly volatile investment. In one day, Bitcoin’s value dropped 30%."
So as you notice from my below thoughts that this high volatility is
really useful , since you can make with such high volatility an interesting income by not investing too much to avoid the high Risk as i am explaining it in my below thoughts, and this high volatility gives the value to cryptocurrency, so read my
previous thoughts so that to know how:
More of my philosophy about bitcoin and cryptocurrencies and more of my thoughts..
I think i am highly smart and i have just looked at the following
video that says the president of the world bank Christine Lagarde said that the cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin are worth nothing
since they are based on nothing and they are unsafe, here is the video:
Le Bitcoin ne vaut RIEN...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iWfLWFuec0
But i think i am highly smart and i am not in accordance with Christine Lagarde the president of the World Bank, since i say that Cryptocurrencies are highly volatile and they are based on the supply and demand law of economics, so with this high
volatility you can make money, since you can buy when the price of the cryptocurrency is low and you can sell when the price is high enough for you the supply and low enough for the demand, but the really important thing to know is that cryptocurrency is
not for investing lots of money, since you have not to invest too much to lower the Risk and be able to generate an income that is interesting, so you can invest 1000$ or 2000$ or 5000$ or so, but not too much to lower the Risk and be able to generate an
income from the high volatility, so cryptocurrencies have this value that comes from the high volatility of it , but you have to be careful to not invest too much so that to avoid the high risk of it.
More of my philosophy about the model of a civilization and
the model of a democracy and the model of an economic system and
more of my thoughts..
I think i am highly smart, and notice carefully in my below thoughts how i am speaking about the model of an economic system or the model
of a democracy or the model of a civilization, so as you notice that
i am speaking about the ingredients that makes or creates the model, for example when i ask if the following ingredients as a model can serve as an interesting model:
self-interest and egoism ?
So as you notice when you look at the model of self-interest and egoism
you will think that it is not a good model, but when you are smart
you will notice that self-interest needs the profit and the big profit
that creates a smart competition and this competition regulates
the self-interest and egoism in an efficient way, as also has said it Adam Smith the father of economic Liberalism , and the self-interest and competition and egoism becomes collaboration and cooperation and even solidarity , so you are noticing that the
primitive model of self-interest and egoism can build great things such as prosperity and happiness, so then you notice the self-interest and egoism can appear like not the good way at first, but when you
analyze it like i am doing it, you can notice that the primitive
model of self-interest and egoism is so interesting and so useful,
but taking a look further at the so important ingredient in Democracy and in an economic system that is "competition", notice that
when you say a "good competition", it also means a good diversification
like the good diversification of economy, that makes the system "resilient", so then look carefully in my below thoughts how i have just said that the engines of a civilization are
self-improvement and money, but you will think that i am idiotic by
saying so, but i am not, since it is inherent to the primitive model of self-improvement and money, that there is of course a self-interest and egoism, but the engine of money is like the profit or big profit that
create the smart competition that regulates the self-interest and egoism
in an efficient way as i am saying it above, so then we have to guide the self-improvement that is the other engine so that it become a good self-improvement that makes democracy and the economic system and the civilization the efficient systems.
More of my philosophy about unity and about democracy and more of my thoughts..
I think i am highly smart, but as you have noticed i am talking
here about more and more subjects about philosophy and politics,
but i think that there remain a very important thing that i have
to talk about, and it is that the main advantage of "Democracy", it is the one of "competition" that brings the best governance, not about the being unity, since i think that the wanting to be unity like in China
communist way of governance of today, is not a good way of doing, and i think that the way of Democracy that is to be the right competition that brings the best governance and that fights much more efficiently corruption is the good way, and notice that
corruption can be corruption of morality that can be viewed as corruption of efficiency, so i think that the mechanisms of Democracy are so important, so as you notice that the mechanisms of Democracy is not that we have to be unity , so read my
following thoughts about arab countries so that to understand more my views:
I think i am really smart and i have just looked at the following
video of the Arab Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser Hussein:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toZA3gMBsrQ
And i think i am really smart and i am discovering a smart pattern
with my fluid intelligence in the above video, and this smart pattern
is that Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser Hussein was talking
about unity of arabs, and he was saying that arabs must be united, but
being this kind of unity in a country or in the arab world is a defect, and it is the basis of dictatorship and it is the inefficient way of doing, since you have to understand that Democracy is not about being united, but it is about plurality of views
or diversity of thoughts or political views that uses the mechanism of competition so that to bring the best governance, but of course we have to know how to avoid extremism, and here is an Arab proverb in the following video that shows from where comes
the defect of the arab countries or such countries that are lacking Democracy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNOpK4KoIIQ&t=372s
So notice that the arab proverb in the above video says:
"A house divided can not stand"
But i think that this arab proverb can also be read symbolically and i
think that it also means that a country must be united, but i think that
it is the big defect of the arab countries and such countries that lack Democracy or democratic mechanisms that bring the necessary quality or perfection as i am explaining above.
And here is more of my thoughts about Democracy:
We can say the following:
The classical notion of decentralization does not necessarily imply
democracy, and an organization may be decentralized without being based
on democratic principles.
But i ask a smart question of:
Can we say that an organization based on democratic principles may be centralized ?
Here is my answer:
But we can notice that even though decentralization doesn't necessarily
imply Democracy, Democracy is a "kind" of decentralization, and this
kind of decentralization brings efficiency because we can notice that
Democracy needs requirements such as competitive elections and free
press, and i think that Democracy is more efficient than Dictatorship at fighting corruption(and corruption can mean lack of efficiency), read my following thoughts about Democracy and more to understand:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.culture.morocco/c/Nudyb_4QCRU
More political philosophy about Democracy and parliamentary Democracy..
Wich is better, Democracy or parliamentary Democracy ?
When you are smart you will notice that parliamentary Democracy is
better since Democracy means that the people "govern", but this way of
doing brings desorder, since people doesn't mean that it is Elites that
govern, so this is why i think that it is inherent to parliamentary
democracy that it is the Elites that govern and guide people, since also
we can logically prove it by saying the following:
From where people get a correct judgment in Democracy ?
So you are noticing that to be able to be good judgment in Democracy,
you have to be correct "Elitism" that guides people, and you have to be Meritocracy to be able to be the necessary quality or perfection, but
then you are noticing that to be able to be Meritocracy there must be a
reward for the merit, by for example rewarding by giving more money.
But since i am smart i will ask another important philosophical
question, and it is the following:
Does parliamentary democracy has requirements, and wich requirements it has:
From my above logical proof we can say that the first requirement of parliamentary democracy is: it is the Elites that must govern and guide
people, and from the first requirement we can logically infer that the
Elites must be competent, so we can logically infer the since they have
to be competent so then we can say the the second requirement of
parliamentary democracy that it must be meritocratic, and the third
requirement of parliamentary democracy is also an important requirement
and it is that we have to have a constitution that says that
parliamentary democracy has to have law enforcement agencies like the
USA FBI and military as necessary basic requirements for a country, and
a country can become a more global world like European union or such.
More precision about the way of international relations and more of my thoughts..
I think i am highly smart, and as you have just noticed i have
just talked about international relations between countries
and zones, read it in my below thoughts, but you have to
understand what i am trying to make you understand, since i think
that self-interest and egoism build great things too, and build
great things in international relations too, but i am saying below
that you have to be the right "patience" that permits
self-interest and egoism to take form into collaboration and cooperation and even solidarity that build great things and that creates prosperity
and happiness of nations, i mean that you have not be pessimistic about self-interest and egoism , since it can appears to you like a not correct way, and you can become pessimistic and more violent by thinking it, but as you are noticing, i am
explaining below how you have to be patience so that self-interest and egoism becomes collaboration and cooperation and even solidarity that creates prosperity and happiness of nations, and i am explaining the way by wich self-interest and egoism becomes
collaboration and cooperation and even solidarity that creates
properity and happiness of nations, so reread my
previous thoughts since i have also corrected them more:
More of my philosophy about international relations between countries
and zones and more of my thoughts..
I think i am highly smart, and i invite you to look at the following
video about politics:
Algérie - Maroc : la rupture ? • FRANCE 24
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMBQZcXkVwg
And notice carefully that the video above is saying that
international relations between countries are cynical today, since they
are based mostly on self-interest and egoism , but i think we have not to be pessimistic about it, since from the individual self-interest and egoism and from the profit or big profit you create a smart competition and from this you can create a country
or society that is based on collaboration and cooperation and even solidarity and from self-interest and competition and egoism of countries you can build the self-interest and egoism of two countries or more that is based on collaboration and
cooperation and even solidarity and from this self-interest and egoism of the two countries or more you can build interesting values such as confidence and solidarity between countries and you can create a positive energy and create prosperity and
happiness, so i think that the way of self-interest and egoism is also a way that can build great things, but we have to be the right "patience" that allows it, and as i just said that capitalism allows it since capitalism is not a zero sum game, and
since with a "reasonable" level of growth, capitalism can both deliver rising living standards for most, and still ensure a relatively high rate of return to the owners of capital, but of course you have to notice how i have just talked yesterday about
what is a civilization , read it in my thoughts below, and notice
how the self-interest has to be guided by the necessary self-improvement , and of course notice how i am saying below that
that the engines of a civilization are self-improvement and money,
and of course like in the Adam Smith model of economic Liberalism, competition regulates self-interest, but you have to read
my following thoughts so that you notice that we have to understand competition in a much broader view:
More of my philosophy about Adam Smith and corruption and more of my thoughts..
I say that in economic Liberalism of Adam Smith, self-interest is most of the time regulated by competition to not lead to corruption, fraud, price-gouging, and cheating, so you have to understand what is competition in the Adam Smith philosophy, since i
think that Adam Smith also means competition inside a Democracy that fights efficiently corruption by using different political parties and different political groups inside the congress etc. and competition that fights efficiently corruption is also the
separation of powers in USA, since the U.S. constitution establishes three separate but equal branches of government: the legislative branch (makes the law), the executive branch (enforces the law), and the judicial branch (interprets the law), so i
think that for example USA is much less corrupt than African countries or such countries since they lack this kind of "competition" that balances this way the powers.
More precision about more of my philosophy of what is a civilization and more of my thoughts..
I have just corrected my typos, since i have written fast my post,
so i invite you to reread it:
I think i am highly smart, and i will ask a so important question of:
What is the essence of a civilization or what is the important
ingredients that make a civilization ?
So as you notice, it is a so important question, so how do you think i will answer it ? so first i will make you understand two things:
There is the first thing that we call individual smartness
and there is the second thing that we call societal smartness,
so if you are really smart you will notice that Adam smith, the father of economic Liberalism, has said that in an economic system we have to specialize the individuals of a society so that to be efficient and productive, but i think that Adam Smith was
not so right, since the weakness of his model is that his model make like more stupid people that lack societal smartness, and we can easily notice it on internet that individuals lack societal smartness of understanding the right dose of philosophy or
the right dose of politics that makes them a good citizens, and more than that we can also easily notice that in our today world, the individuals are expressing too much there differences in a not correct way, such as being sadist or masochist or the
being negro or the being white or the being too sexual or too hot and the like, without giving the right importance to the being the right societal smartness that makes us good citizens that can live in harmony, and this of course requires knowing how to
live together in harmony, and this knowing how to live together in harmony requires the right and the good philosophy to follow, and so that to answer more smartly my above philosophical question, i invite you to look at the following video so that you
notice what is the problem with Africa:
Sénégal, le sage de l'Afrique - Dakar - Saint-Louis - Documentaire voyage - HD
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqWluJkJZjI
So i think from looking at Africa in the above video, i am noticing
that it also lacks societal smartness that i am talking about, and to answer the above philosophical question of:
What is the essence of a civilization or what is the important
ingredients that make a civilization ?
I think that the engine of a civilization is not only money,
because big money doesn't add much individual happiness to having individually enough money ( look at the following video from a techlead so that to notice it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1kQmeIsCVs ),
so i think that the engines of a civilization is both self-improvement
and money , and this self-improvement has to know about the "goals"
that are also the being this well balance between the individual smartness and the societal smartness so that to give form to a civilization and so that to make the good citizen, and of course we have to know how to make loving the way of self-
improvement in such a way.
And here is my new proverb that explains more my views:
"Passion is not a good engine since it is much less powerful,
so if for example you have passion for sex, then can you make sex
a passion that guides you ? no, so then it is not a general or
much more general way of doing, so i think that individual
happiness comes from the satisfaction of self-improvement,
and does money = happiness? I think that big money doesn't
add much individual happiness to having individually enough money
( look at the following video from a techlead so that to notice it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1kQmeIsCVs ), but big money
can add much to societal happiness, and big money builds empires."
In my above smart new proverb , i am saying that individual happiness comes from satisfaction of self-improvement, and I invite you to read
my following thoughts of my philosophy that talks about it and
about how you become self-confidence and how you become this
positive energy and positive energy of hope:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.culture.morocco/c/RNxOWBpkHkM
And here is my other new proverb that also talks about how individual happiness comes from satisfaction of self-improvement:
"When you walk towards a goal in life it's like you walk down a forest
path towards a goal, but when you walk this forest path you can look at
flowers and pretty trees and be happier or you can also learn more and
have more experience which is useful while walking in the forest, then
life is like this, you can go through it towards goals, but going
through it you can also have pleasures that make you happier and you can
learn more and have more experience and that is useful to you, and i
think this conception of life makes you more positive."
And here is the translation in french of my new proverb:
"Quand tu marches vers un objectif dans la vie, c'est comme tu marches
dans un chemin de forêt vers un objectif, mais quand tu marches dans ce
chemin de forêt tu peux regarder des fleurs et de jolis arbres et être
plus joyeux ou tu peux aussi en apprendre plus et avoir plus
d'expérience qui est utile en marchant dans la forêt, alors la vie
ressemble à cela, tu peux la traverser vers des objectifs, mais en la traversant tu peux avoir aussi des plaisirs qui te rendent plus heureux
et tu peux apprendre plus et avoir plus d'experience et cela t'est
utile, et je pense que cette conception de la vie te rend plus positif."
So you have to understand that my proverb above is like
trying to well balance between, in one side, our strong human desire for success and the fear or the disliking of failure to attain the goal,
and, in the other side, i am showing in my new proverb the good sides or advantages or the pros of walking our lives towards the goal or goals
even if failure or failures happen(s), and i think this conception of
life of my proverb permits to be more positive, also you have to align
the usefulness of the utility with the global mission of the country or
global world"
Also I have searched more on internet the most precise and correct Gödel's First incompleteness theorem, and here it is:
"Any consistent formal system F within which a certain amount of elementary arithmetic can be carried out is incomplete; i.e., there are statements of the language of F which can neither be proved nor disproved in F"
And in mathematics, a statement is a declarative sentence that is either true or false but not both. A statement is sometimes called a proposition. The key is that there must be no ambiguity. To be a statement, a sentence "must" be true or false, and it
cannot be both.
So that means that we know that the statement is true or false but
it can not be proven true or false, so we then logically infer that
we can not prove the consistency of the system , so the statement can be that it is like an axiom in mathematics that is true but that we can not prove by such logical inference or deduction, so then the system
remains really useful even if it's incomplete by Gödel's incompleteness theorems, so i think that Gödel's incompleteness theorems are not so problematic.
More of my philosophy about quality control and more of my thoughts..
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)