Here's a fundamental thing often overlooked..

If you are as fortunate as me; to have lived from a time when real computers began; that is, real for us; arriving in our homes and businesses; in other words, the Seventies; then you will always appreciate the amount of computing power it takes to do a thing. Anything. So when magical things happen you see the magic, rather than wonder whyzitt takn soo looong (3s to produce a 2K image of a cat in a spacesuit), or whatever.

Me, I'm going "Wow!". See the difference? Okay.

Time is also passing more quickly for us. No, it's true. By the time you reach your twenties, more than half of your life is over, perceptually speaking, so we're told. That's a mostly-negative way to view the way things are, I guess. I leave the positive to you.

Hmm.. That science sounds at least half-suspect to me. I barely remember my teens, let alone my singles. Important moments stick, the rest... pfff. Whereas I could write for a week about my various encounters with fuckwit carbrains over the last decade. Seems like longer to me; that ten years. Also a lot of devastating blows. Perhaps they provide punctuation.

So let's start again..

Not all science is good. Science that defies experience (where experience can be had, that is - try getting a roomful of quantum particles to queue up and you'll see what I mean) is basic bullshit. There's a lot of this about. Some of it even makes it into "respected" publications, every day. I mean ffs, it's hard enough sorting fake media and misinformation from their real counterparts without having to filter out "bona fide scientists".

This is actually someone's job. But in the same way that genuine doctors prescribe medication based on sales literature rather than actual science, science editors will publish based on, well, you would need to ask them. That's outside my ken. But the growing pile of retractions speaks for itself. And yup, AI will only add to this mess.

Science matters, and we should take it very seriously. But a lot of science isn't good science. Even after so-called peer review. So who-the-fuck to trust? The scientist with five stars on top-science.com? (*phew!* Fortunately, this turns out to be a Japanese lighting company) But maybe something like this is required. Some way to rate scientific breakthroughs and discoveries; or rather, those who claim to make them. So Joe Bloggs and me can choose to add this information to the relevant pile, or not. If we even get the information.

Guaranteed if this "system" was up and running, 10-star breakthroughs would get front page treatment, at least. Unlike the way things are now, where gargantuan discoveries and breakthroughs are non-existent in the mainstream press, whereas what's-her-face-with-the-big-tits-and-sister's latest fling will get three whole fucking pages.

I could say, "Do you know how much pollution your idling engine is producing?", but I would be wasting my fucking time. Of course they don't; they are a carbrain fuckwit sitting idling their spotless SUV with their nose in facebook. What exactly do I expect here except fuckwittery of the highest order? I don't even waste my breath any more. In a decade their shit will, at last, be outlawed and they will need to find some other way to kill the local children and destroy their home planet, which I'm sure they already have. Found I mean, maybe foreign holidays.

It's a losing battle I've decided I can no longer have a shouty part in. Basic human inertia is best dealt with below the belt. By the time they have gotten out of their car and removed the note from their their wiper, which reads "CHILD KILLER", I am long gone. Please note, I fear no man.

Note also: I don't say women, many of which I feared over the years. Some innate filter which prevent me from punching them in the face if things go South, could be a factor. Anyways, the other side is filled with all sorts of useful information and links to help transmute the brute into a human being. There's only so much you can do.

Still following, watch this..

Time spent offers a perspective. The machine designed to replicate years of wear; while amazing; is a facsimile; in the real world other stuff happens in-between. Micronic layers leave a lattice trace; you touch a thing, it is remembered at the chemical level, the physical level, perhaps even the biological level and beyond. And everything affects everything else. Things like chemical interactions are relatively easy to trace.

As we break through yet another computing once-thought-ceiling, it's a fine time to consider the magic itself; what it takes to make a thing "happen". Where it begins and ends is definitely outside our ken but where it begins and ends in our reality provides endless source of interest and no doubt story lines.

Things which billions now consider basic rights were once only dreams in the minds of a few. Then many. Then an overwhelming many. Some beginning bursts into our reality and in the Venn diagram of transceivers that are human minds finds purchase. Some ideas are "out there", where few circles are. I think maybe it takes a few bursts from wherever* to make these sorts of ideas stick.

I mean stuff humankind takes a while and a lot of effort to get its head around. Stuff that goes against basic genetic coding; which sadly (and the opposite) is influenced by parents. There are ALWAYS parents, you see. You can't break that. If you kill off some line, then you lose the science. You can't have both!

So we still have pockets of racism and homophobia, ageism and sexism and a fair few other isms. We are a work in progress, of course, but I very often wonder; if the inertia could be removed, would humans start to do more "right" action and specifically, less "wrong" action.

By "right" I mean, "good for everyone". "wrong" being the opposite. While I'm here defining, I should mention that I define "good" as "good for you" and "bad" as the opposite. I see this as the fundamental way-things-are. So this makes it difficult for me to always see the way to actions which are at the same time "right" and "good". Often they are at odds.

It's an information problem. This is what we designed the internet to solve. Instead we have cats. And facebook. Inequality hurts you. Simple as that. But this solid information in no way affects your decision-making, even when you know it to be true. Why is this?

Or maybe you didn't know it. See above. How can anyone know what-is-what(these-days) in the latest science? Hey, what about some sort of rating system even journalists would respect? Oh wait, that's a loop I didn't intend. Scrub that.

;o)