Hello,



More of my philosophy about success and the being rich and more..

I am a white arab from Morocco, and i think i am smart since i have also invented many scalable algorithms and algorithms..


I invite you to look at the following video of how Jordan B. Peterson
explain what to do to be successful:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWUplunwGgc

But i think that Jordan B. Peterson is not correct by generalizing as he
is generalizing, since I say that being rich can become the being
successful, but being successful is not being rich, so here is then my following thoughts that also speak about how to become rich, so read my thoughts below about Garry Tan so that to understand:

More of my philosophy of how i am smart and about what is smartness..

I think i am smart, and i think that smartness is not doing
mathematics, i think being highly smart is discovering smart patterns
and composing smartly other patterns with those patterns etc. so i will
give you my examples of how i am genetically highly smart, so read
carefully my following thoughts and notice how i have quickly
read a saying of Nikola Tesla and how i have rapidly discovered
smart patterns with my fluid intelligence in a form of my
showing that Nikola Tesla is not correct thinking and by discovering
other patterns with my fluid intelligence in a form of my invention of
my new proverb below etc. so read carefully my following thoughts and
you will notice that being highly smart is also quickly discovering
smart patterns in the way i am doing it below(and notice below the other
smart patterns that i am discovering with my fluid intelligence when i
am rapidly showing that Garry Tan is not correct thinking):

More of my philosophy about Nikola Tesla and my proverbs and more..

I have just looked at the following video of the sayings of Nikola
Tesla, and you can read about him here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikola_Tesla, and you can look at the
video here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnQ-o6R2wac

And i think Nikola Tesla doesn't look like me, Since of course i am also
an inventor of many software scalable algorithms and algorithms, but i
don't think Nikola Tesla was a wise type of person like me(and i think
it is also genetical in me), since for example he is saying the
following saying in the above video:

"Be alone, that is the secret of invention;
be alone, that is when ideas are born"

So i think that the above saying from Nikola Tesla is not smart at all,
since creativity needs convergent and divergent thinking, and divergent thinking needs to "collect" information and data from other people so
that to be efficient, and i also think that creativity is the mother of invention, so this is why Nikola Tesla is not smart by saying the above
saying, and here is more of my smart thoughts about it so that you
understand my kind of personality:

More of my philosophy about divergent and convergent thinking and more..

I invite you to look at the following video:

5 Life-changing books YOU MUST READ in 2022

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGZd2dn8IJ4

I think i am smart, and notice that he is talking about the book called
"The one thing", and he is saying that we have to be focused on doing
one thing at a time because it is good for productivity, and he is
saying that doing many things at the same time is not good for
productivity, but i think i am smart and i say he is not smart and he is
not correct to say so, because we can do many things at the same time
and be like divergent thinking before doing one thing at a time and be
like convergent thinking, and this kind of efficient "balance" like
between convergent and divergent thinking makes the efficient thinking,
and here is my new proverb about my methodology:

"Human vitality comes from intellectual openness and intellectual
openness also comes from divergent thinking and you have to well balance divergent thinking with convergent thinking so that to converge towards
the global optimum of efficiency and not get stuck on a local optimum of efficiency, and this kind of well balancing makes the good creativity."

And i will explain more my proverb so that you understand it:

I think that divergent thinking is thought process or method used to
generate creative ideas by exploring many possible solutions, but notice
that we even need openness in a form of economic actors that share ideas
across nations and industries (and this needs globalization) that make
us much more creative and that's good for economy, since you can easily
notice that globalization also brings a kind of optimality to divergent thinking, and also you have to know how to balance divergent thinking
with convergent thinking, since if divergent thinking is much greater
than convergent thinking it can become costly in terms of time, and if
the convergent thinking is much greater than divergent thinking you can
get stuck on local optimum of efficiency and not converge to a global
optimum of efficiency.

And here is my thoughts about artificial intelligence and evolutionary algorithms in artificial intelligence so that you understand more:

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.culture.morocco/c/joLVchvaCf0

More of my philosophy about an IQ test for the highly smart and more..

I think i am really smart and here is a smart IQ test for the highly smart:

So notice what is saying in the following video the known Garry Tan that
is an asian from USA about the how to become rich and notice that he
attended Stanford University from 1999 to 2003, and graduated with a
bachelor's degree in Computer Systems Engineering:

So I invite you to look at his following video that speaks
about how to become rich:

STOP Chasing Money -- Chase WEALTH. | How To get RICH | Garry Tan's Office

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Hdu4DlnLIk&t

The person that is speaking on the above video is called Garry Tan,
and here he is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garry_Tan

And I think i am smart and i invite you to look at the following
"defect" or "bug" of the above video, look here at what he is saying:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Hdu4DlnLIk&t=425s

So notice that he is saying that so that to become rich you have to be
the following:

"So what is most useful, is actually acquiring skills that nobody else
has, especially in combination that are rare. If you can rebound the
ball and nobody does it quite the way you can, you can be a Hall of Fame basketball player. And that applies to all the things in your career and
in life."

But it is like an IQ test for the highly smart, since i am quickly
discovering a pattern with my fluid intelligence and it is that he is
trying to abstract the way of becoming rich by also saying:

"If you can rebound the ball and nobody does it quite the way you can,
you can be a Hall of Fame basketball player. And that applies to all the
things in your career and in life."

But the pattern that i am quickly discovering with my fluid intelligence
is that even if you can rebound the ball and nobody does it quite the
way you can, the becoming rich is also not only dependent on the supply
but also on the "demand", so if the demand doesn't want to give you
enough money so that to become rich , you will still not become rich,
so if you are smart you will also notice that it is also about
usefulness, since the demand can find the giving enough money to make
you rich not useful for his pocket, so Garry Tan in the above saying of
the video is not so smart, since he is not taking into account the
factor that we call usefulness to consumers. So the person on the above
video has forgot the very basis of what is it of something has to be
useful for the consumers or customers, so read my following smart "redefinition" of Utilitarianism so that to understand:

More of my philosophy about why the definition of Utilitarianism is like
an IQ test..

Notice that i think i am smart, since when i just looked rapidly at the definition below of Utilitarianism, i have rapidly discovered a pattern
with my fluid intelligence and it is that even if the definition
of Utilitarianism is: That Utilitarianism prescribes actions that
maximise happiness and well-being for all affected individuals,
i can easily see a pattern with my fluid intelligence since i am
smart, since the pattern is that Utilitarianism maximises happiness and well-being by well balancing taking into account not
only the present but also the future, i mean that responability
is inherent to the definition since the well balancing forces us
to be responsability in the present or today so that to maximize
correctly happiness and well being tomorrow or in the future.

I think i am really smart, and what i am trying to explain is that
you have first to know that a language is also an abstraction of the
reality, since even a concept is an abstraction of the reality and also
a language is full of concepts, and not only that but a very important
thing in the process of thinking is that you have to know how to
make a difference between what we call in french: "La pensée duale" et
"La pensée multimodale", and it means in english: that there is a
thinking that is like a boolean logical of thinking and there is a more efficient thinking that comes with precision in form of nuances etc.
and it is the weakness of the above abstraction of the known Garry Tan,
since his abstraction of how to become rich doesn't come with the right precision and the right nuances, since notice that the becoming rich
depends not only on the supply but also on the demand and the demand can
be influenced by other factors such as Covid-19 or the like that prevent
from making rich an individual or individuals in the supply, so
it is why i say that the known Garry Tan above is not so smart.

I can give you another IQ test that i have rapidly invented and
here it is:

So i will give my example of pattern recognition with my fluid
intelligence that permits to understand, here it is:

So if you want to go fast from my country Morocco to another country
called USA , how will you do it ? or what will you do ?

It is like my IQ test..

So if you answer that you need for example to use a fast airplane to go
fast from Morocco to USA, your answer is a stupid answer, so you need
the smart answer, so i will answer that the fast airplane too has to be "reliable" and your "health" has too to permit it and the "weather" has
too to permit it, so now you are clearly noticing that you need to take
into account many "factors" so that to go fast from Morocco to USA, so
you are clearly noticing that being smart needs also a good plan.

More precision of my philosophy about Utilitarianism..

I invite you to read the following definition of what is Utilitarianism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism

So as you are noticing, it says that Utilitarianism prescribes actions
that maximise happiness and well-being for all affected individuals,
but i think that Utilitarianism is not idiotic since it maximises
happiness and well-being by well balancing taking into account not
only the present but also the future.

More of my philosophy about the Gödel's First incompleteness theorem and
more of my thoughts..

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 what is smartness and more of my thoughts..

I think i am really smart, and you are noticing it more and more,
but i have to explain something really important:

So when i ask you to define smartly what is smartness, you will
say that smartness is the genetical side of smartness and it is
also the skill from the cultural side, but i think that it is
too much abstraction, since when you are smart you will notice
that the pattern that you have to find with your fluid intelligence
can be a pattern that you can not completely see or you can not see
since you have not been able to be at the right place and at the right
time, so it can become a constraint that prevent you from finding the
pattern with your fluid intelligence, so then even if you are really
smart, your smartness that is genetical and cultural is not sufficient,
so then smartness can come from other sides such as a hidden pattern
that you can obtain by being lucky such as by being at the
right place and at the right time. So for example take
a look at me, i am not only genetically smart, since i have
also passed some certified IQ tests on internet and i have
scored above 115 IQ in them, but i am also culturally smart and i am
also this lucky guy that has discovered other smart patterns
by being at the right place and at the right time.

More of my philosophy about money and about happiness and more of my
thoughts..

I think i am really smart and here is my just new proverb:

"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 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"


More of my philosophy of what is it that i am really smart and more of
my thoughts..

I think i am really smart, but what is it that i am really smart ?
is it that i am arrogant by saying it ? not at all ! since my saying of
"i am really smart" can "appear" to a stupid person that i mean that i
am very smart, but it is not ! since the being really smart in my saying
means also that it can be that i am of 115 IQ, so that means that
i am not arrogant by saying that i am really smart, so you have to
understand my following proverb about it that i have invented quickly so
that to understand, here it is:

"There is an important difference between the appearance of a reality
and the truth of a reality, this is why in science you have not to be
confident with the appearances, since in science you have to understand
the truth, so, to be able to understand the truth you have to know how
to be patience before understanding the truth and not to rush in like a
fool by lack of wisdom "

And here are my new proverbs that i have just invented quickly:

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.culture.morocco/c/LjeVQZFhK3E

And here are some other proverbs that i have just invented quickly:

Here is one of my interesting just new proverbs:

"Human vitality comes from intellectual openness and intellectual
openness also comes from divergent thinking and you have to well balance divergent thinking with convergent thinking so that to converge towards
the global optimum of efficiency and not get stuck on a local optimum of efficiency, and this kind of well balancing makes the good creativity."

And i will explain more my proverb so that you understand it:

I think that divergent thinking is thought process or method used to
generate creative ideas by exploring many possible solutions, but notice
that we even need openness in a form of economic actors that share ideas
across nations and industries (and this needs globalization) that make
us much more creative and that's good for economy, since you can easily
notice that globalization also brings a kind of optimality to divergent thinking, and also you have to know how to balance divergent thinking
with convergent thinking, since if divergent thinking is much greater
than convergent thinking it can become costly in terms of time, and if
the convergent thinking is much greater than divergent thinking you can
get stuck on local optimum of efficiency and not converge to a global
optimum of efficiency.

Here is the other one of my proverbs that i have just invented quickly:

"Resourcefulness is one of the most important things, and it is a skill,
and the good news is: this skill can be learned and mastered, and resourcefulness is attained only when we combine the resourceful mindset
and skills, so we have to filter out some of the most useful resources
that help us, and resourcefulness is also to know who/what to look for
and what to ask, and when ressourcefulness is attained this becomes an
engine that permits you to have hope and to be energetic and to be
positive in doing what you are doing, since resourcefulness also permits
to easy the jobs for you."

And here is the other one of my proverbs that i have just invented quickly:

"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"

More of my philosophy about how i am smart in computing and more of my thoughts..

I think i am really smart since i can also rapidly think like
an architect, since i think that i am smart by like finding the
the best path, like the best path of what is the big weaknesses of
reverse engineering that permit us to fight much more efficiently
reverse engineering, also i am finding the best path that finds
the big defect of the Go programming language(read about it in my below thoughts), so then you are also understanding this smart way of mine, so
for example i will now "rapidly" find the big weaknesses of the new
Intel toolkit called OneAPI and i will do it in a more smart way, so
i will start by making you notice that the big weakness of
message passing of MPI is that it is too low level, since the
very important thing that lacks MPI is also that it lacks higher level datastructures that permit us to use them in a transparent way
across processes and across computer machines, other than
that, the other big weakness of message passing of MPI is that it is not
a programming language that provides a unified shared memory with
sophisticated data types objects across processes and across computer
machines, and it is the big defect of the new Intel toolkit that we call OneAPI, since notice how it is so low level by providing with just the following memory objects in the unified shared memory across processes
and across computer machines, here it is and notice it carefully:

https://oneapi-src.github.io/DPCPP_Reference/model/memory-objects.html


So then the big weakness of the new Intel toolkit called OneAPI
is that it is still too low level as message passing of MPI is too low
level.

More of my philosophy about copyrights and about patents and about
reverse engineering and more..

I am really smart, and i will talk more about reverse engineering, so i
think that the creative ways to break disassemblers or debuggers or by
using source code Obfuscation are not so efficient against reverse
engineering, so i will give you my smart way of doing it, first as i
have just told you, that you have to protect your value-added of your
code that you want to sell by for example using more difficult or
difficult algorithms in a smart way that are more difficult or difficult
to understand with assembler code from machine code, and after that you
have to use copyright in a smart way, for example i will use like the
following service from a company in Canada that provides a copyright
filled and certified by a public notary that is valid for 172 countries,
you can read about it here:

http://en.scopyright.ca/

But you have to be smart, since the "patent" that protects an algorithm
is not valid in so many countries such as India etc., so the best way is
to use a copyright as i am doing it, so that this kind of copyright
allows you to fill a lawsuit against binary code that is stolen from you
by asking the one that has stolen from you to show his source code in
a legal lawsuit.

Read my previous thoughts:

I think i am really smart, and i think that the problem with reverse engineering of binary software programs or dynamic or shared libraries
is that even if you use artificial intelligence or sophisticated tools
of reverse engineering, the main hard problem for reverse engineering is
how to understand the "meaning" of the algorithm, since if the
algorithms is difficult , it can be so difficult to understand it with assembler code, this is the main big weakness of reverse engineering,
but of course with reverse engineering you can obtain the assembler from
the machine code, so you can then crack the binary code since it is
much less difficult than understanding a difficult algorithm , and after
that you can give the binary code that is cracked, but with this kind of
way of doing you have to be aware that the cracked binary code can
contain a virus, this is why a "trusthworthy" relationship between a
software developer or developers and the customers is so important. And
it is my way of doing that is creating a trusthworthy relationship
with my customers and with you here in those newsgroups forums and such.

And read my following previous thoughts:

More of my philosophy about reverse engineering..

Simply pulling a piece of software through a decompiler does not
directly yield easily readable code for several reasons.

First of all, names of variables and functions are not kept through the compilation process, so the decompiler will assign generic names. It is
much harder to read code that looks like "f8s6ex2(i37zc, sk1eo)" than it
is to read "CalculatePrice(articleId, amount)".

Secondly, a compiler has a variety of optimization tricks that it will
use during compilation to make the code more efficient. A decompiler
will return this "optimized" code, which will look a lot less readable
than the original.

Just compiling the Delphi mode of freepascal source code with
optimizations (-O2 and up) and stripping all debug and profile
information, and apply smartlinking, will make it almost
un-decompilable. Not only FPC, but also Delphi.

The level of software reverse complexity is different according to
different program languages. generally speaking, compiled language
reverse engineering is more difficult than interpreted language. in
compiled languages, I think that C++ or the Delphi mode of Freepascal
reverse engineering is the most difficult job. why? because it is very
hard to transform assembly language into high level language(C++) or to
Delphi mode of freepascal as i am also explaining above.

So in reverse engineering there is almost no way to re-create the Delphi
mode of freepascal or Delphi source code from the binary.

More of my philosophy about programming languages and about lock-based
systems and more of my thoughts..

I think we have to be optimistic about lock-based systems, since race conditions detection can be done in polynomial-time, and it is not
NP-hard, and you can notice it by reading the following paper:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1901.08857.pdf

Or by reading the following paper:

https://books.google.ca/books?id=f5BXl6nRgAkC&pg=PA421&lpg=PA421&dq=race+condition+detection+and+polynomial+complexity&source=bl&ots=IvxkORGkQ9&sig=ACfU3U2x0fDnNLHP1Cjk5bD_fdJkmjZQsQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjKoNvg0MP0AhWioXIEHRQsDJc4ChDoAXoECAwQAw#v=
onepage&q=race%20condition%20detection%20and%20polynomial%20complexity&f=false

So i think we can continu to program in lock-based systems, and about composability of lock-based systems, read my below previous thoughts
about it:

More of my philosophy about composability and more..

I have just read quickly the following article about composability,
so i invite you to read it carefully:

https://bartoszmilewski.com/2014/06/09/the-functional-revolution-in-c/

I am not in accordance with the above article, and i think that the
above scientist is programming in Haskell functional language and it is
for him the way to composability, since he says that the way of
functional programming like Haskell functional programming is the
the way that allows composability in presence of concurrency, but for
him lock-based systems don't allow it, but i don't agree with him, and
i will give you the logical proof of it, and here it is, read what is
saying an article from ACM that was written by both Bryan M. Cantrill
and Jeff Bonwick from Sun Microsystems:

You can read about Bryan M. Cantrill here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryan_Cantrill

And you can read about Jeff Bonwick here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Bonwick

And here is what says the article about composability in the presence of concurrency of lock-based systems:

"Design your systems to be composable. Among the more galling claims of
the detractors of lock-based systems is the notion that they are somehow uncomposable:

“Locks and condition variables do not support modular programming,”
reads one typically brazen claim, “building large programs by gluing
together smaller programs[:] locks make this impossible.”9 The claim, of course, is incorrect. For evidence one need only point at the
composition of lock-based systems such as databases and operating
systems into larger systems that remain entirely unaware of lower-level locking.

There are two ways to make lock-based systems completely composable, and
each has its own place. First (and most obviously), one can make locking entirely internal to the subsystem. For example, in concurrent operating systems, control never returns to user level with in-kernel locks held;
the locks used to implement the system itself are entirely behind the
system call interface that constitutes the interface to the system. More generally, this model can work whenever a crisp interface exists between software components: as long as control flow is never returned to the
caller with locks held, the subsystem will remain composable.

Second (and perhaps counterintuitively), one can achieve concurrency and composability by having no locks whatsoever. In this case, there must be
no global subsystem state—subsystem state must be captured in
per-instance state, and it must be up to consumers of the subsystem to
assure that they do not access their instance in parallel. By leaving
locking up to the client of the subsystem, the subsystem itself can be
used concurrently by different subsystems and in different contexts. A
concrete example of this is the AVL tree implementation used extensively
in the Solaris kernel. As with any balanced binary tree, the
implementation is sufficiently complex to merit componentization, but by
not having any global state, the implementation may be used concurrently
by disjoint subsystems—the only constraint is that manipulation of a
single AVL tree instance must be serialized."

Read more here:

https://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=1454462

More of my philosophy about ThreadSanitizer and about Go programming
language and more of my thoughts..


I think i am really smart, and here is the second weakness of Go
programming language, so Go programming language is using
ThreadSanitizer algorithm in its race detector so that to detect race conditions, but here is the weakness of ThreadSanitizer:


[continued in next message]

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)