How did being poor effect your friendships?

Answered Feb 6, 2020

Being poor often means being in poor environments, surrounded by other poor people.

There is a huge division between the working poor, and the non-working poor.

These environments have some decent, hard-working, civilised, functioning adults with realistic views of life, who just happen to have low income and assets. They may be very guarded, with low time and availability.

However, these environments are largely filled with scummy, unemployable, out-of-control, overgrown toddlers who are trying to leach off of, and prey upon members of the previous group. They have very high amounts of time and energy for this. And are highly available for new “friendships” (or for implications of romantic “love”).

When you are in the first group, the mere fact of being employed puts a big concentric-circles target on you. No matter how low your paycheque, bank balance, or possessions. The parasites tend to fantasise that you “really” have a limitless amount of resources. And they will do anything to extract those resources.

When you are struggling to work for your basic shelter, food, etc necessities, they will expect you to cough up the cash for them to buy luxuries.

If you own a car (even if it barely runs), they will treat you like their personal, on-demand, free limousine. They will call you at work, expecting you to drop everything, and come give them a ride.

Some will expect 100% total financial support. Such as living in your home, rent-free, while they trash the place and bring their homeless “friends” over. Others expect you to pay their entire rent every month on a separate apartment, buy expensive food, etc, etc.

Some have drug habits that they expect you to enable, because they are entitled to a co-dependent enabler.

Some are on welfare benefits (including disability and old-age type), on which they can survive. But they feel entitled to a luxury lifestyle, funded by you. Others don’t even have their act together to fill out a welfare application and attend an appointment. And so you will be their personal welfare agency.

They will give any sob-story they can think of. They will tell you any lie they can think of. They will be ingratiating, telling you what a great “friend” you suddenly are, very soon after meeting (as soon as the first conversation). They will engage in sexual come-ons (resentfully, and without any intention of following through).

If you try to be their friend, while setting boundaries, they will never respect those boundaries. If you persist with boundaries (e.g. “No, I don’t have any money to give you”), they will become increasingly agitated. They may become openly hateful. Some may try to steal from you. Some will escalate to physical aggression.

Some of these people are engaged in constant crime, creating risks to anyone who associates with them.

Some of them have an extremely impaired concept of actions leading to consequences (even after the consequences have happened). And extremely impaired ability to plan, to think of appropriate behaviours and solutions, or to rationally predict which actions lead to which consequences.

They may take the attitude that, there are two options. First, for you to provide enough (i.e. infinite) resources to lift them out of the gutter. Or, failing that, their recourse is to forceably drag you into the gutter with them.

They will hold you personally responsible for every “need” that they claim to have. They will also hold you personally responsible for every dissatisfaction or problem they ever had. Including dissatisfactions and problems going on for years before you met them.

They believe that you have already promised them a free, easy, zero-stress, zero-responsibility fun life. Simply because you started out being open to possible “friendship”.

They are frustrated and angry that you are maliciously impairing their access to the infinite pile of money and other resources which they see as rightfully, already theirs.

When you are working poor, you may have high exposure to these people, due to the poor environment in which they are concentrated.

These people may kill off your empathy, and incite you to become just as self-centred and uncaring as them. Except that you will be motivated by legitimate self-protection/defense.

When you are decent, civilised working poor, openness to “friendship” (or to sexual relationships) is generally very dangerous. It is vital to learn to be very closed-off, and very quick to dismiss people when you see red-flags of parasitism. This mindset can still effect you years later, even if you work your way into less impoverished/desperate environments.

An interesting point is that, some of the scumbags actually come from very coddling backgrounds. Including with indulgent middle-class parents. That is where they learned their sense of entitlement, and failure to understand real-world adult consequences.

How will Google reduce the stigma of wearing a head-mounted display?

Answered Jan 19, 2020

It isn’t just about the person wearing the device.

First, there are safety issues.

Forget about using it while driving a car. In some jurisdictions, it might already be covered under “distracted driving” laws originally for mobile phones. If not, then such laws will be expanded to cover these devices. And with very good reason.

Some people may claim that they would just set it to alert about traffic hazards, or to give GPS directions. But, as with phones, plenty of people would be taking photos to post to social media, having ongoing chats (with the other party responding by text), etc. When you cause a crash, the other motorists/pedestrians aren’t going to be admiring your cool tech gear.

Other safety issues arise without a car.

Some pedestrians already jaywalk right into traffic, which they can’t hear or see, due to headphones blasting, and to eyes locked onto a little screen.

This also makes a person more vulnerable to street crime, since they can’t hear or see the menacing thug approaching them.

Second is the social factor that goes far beyond just looking odd.

We already have mass social rudeness, when people claim to be multitasking by having an in-person conversation, while playing with their phone. It alienates the other person, especially those of us who like to be truly present during a conversation.

A major issue is that, I don’t like random people pointing cameras at me. With these devices, you would be doing so, continuously, with everyone. And they won’t know for sure if you are recording video and audio of them, without their consent. And won’t know what you may do with the recording.

How is that camera going to be perceived by your boss? Or the security personnel in a hospital, or a government building, or an airport, etc? Or by someone upset about something personal?

Is it really ever going to be socially acceptable for some creepy dude to hang out at the beach, with a camera strapped to his face, looking in the direction of young girls?

Going further, some people want to use these devices to immediately do an internet search on someone they just met. Or worse, use facial recognition to look up information about a total stranger, without even having a conversation with the person. Do you really want some creepy dude on the train thinking you are cute, and finding out your name, employer, etc, just by surreptitiously taking a photo?

Is the character Bernard in Westworld really Arnold?

Answered Jan 17, 2020

Thanks for the A2A.

My guess is that, Ford attempted to create a host copy of Arnold, whose human consciousness algorithm was already stored in the System library. We see a virtual Dolores doing the fidelity interview with a long series of virtual Arnold copies (who keep failing).

As we saw with James, loading the human consciousness into a physical host body doesn’t work (yet). It feels trapped inside there, makes mistakes when trying to repeat the conversation for the fidelity interview, and has difficulty controlling the body’s movements.

So Ford figured out that, he needed to let this new host be his own separate person, rather than a copy. Of course, Bernard still isn’t completely independent or autonomous, since he can be commanded by Ford.

Despite looking physically like the original template, Bernard is a new person who sort of evolved from Arnold.

How can I overcome my fear of defecating in a public restroom?

Answered Jan 14, 2020

I suggest being homeless for awhile.

You will lose a lot of inhibitions.

Although I will admit that, I was generally able to have single-user individual toilets to do my business.

Also, try living in high-density, crowded slum housing, with communal, multi-stall toilets. In those places, all you have is basically a public toilet, with your neighbours. Who are also in the next stall, casually dropping a deuce.

Do beautiful girls defecate?

Answered Jan 14, 2020

No, absolutely not.

All women are beautiful, so this applies to all women.

Every human (male or female) has gut flora. Which is a population of bacteria in the intestines. They help you to digest your food.

However, female gut bacteria are extremely efficient. They break down food entirely into odourless carbon dioxide and water. They can even do this with nitrogen and sulfur containing foods.

By the time the ingested food has reached the colon, there are no solids left.

The odourless carbon dioxide and water vapor are exhaled, and nobody notices.

In this way, females simply don’t need to defecate. And also don’t need to fart.

It’s all about biological science.

How do parents unintentionally teach their children that the child’s consent doesn’t matter, so much so they carry it into adulthood?

Answered Jan 1, 2020

The problem with this question is the word, “unintentionally”.

In reality, it is deliberate. Including the deliberate effort to have this continue into adulthood.

Also, nearly the entirety of the female half of society also refuses to respect consent by offspring vis-a-vis their mother. Yes, this a very female-biased issue.

When a parent dictates to a child, it is backed up by either physical force/violence, or the threat thereof. Consent doesn’t matter when someone is twice your size, and can beat you into submission if you resist. While society thinks that is a perfectly acceptable way of establishing compliance.

No matter how you are being treated, you don’t get to just walk out. Because society views you as the property of your parents, and you are not equipped to financially support yourself.

Then, when you are a legal adult, and self-supporting, parents still think they can dictate to you. They have become addicted to this authority, and established their sense of entitlement.

Also as a legal adult, nearly the entirety of the female half of society will treat as still being beholden to your mother.

For example, you will be told that you “have to” physically live in close proximity to mommy’s house, and physically visit her on a frequent basis. This mentality and command is pervasive among (alleged) adult women. And will be spewed at you by random women whom you have just met, and who realise that you have, at some point, geographically relocated.

Another major point of consent is whether you have any children of your own. Every woman who has had unplanned/unwanted children feels entitled to dictate that everyone must have them. Thereby recycling the disrespect for consent.

What is your sexual orientation?

Answered Dec 31, 2019

I am pillow-sexual.

I have two platonic friends. A shoulder to lean on. They are regular, firm, flat pillows, to rest my head upon.

But, I also have my pillow-lover.

Big and soft, and I can hold it in my arms, and feel such love. I hold my pillow every night, and into the morning.

I rub my body against my pillow. And have even slept naked with my pillow. I gently stroke my pillow. I don’t kiss it, because it is covered in a cloth pillowcase. Although I do slobber and drool on it in my sleep sometimes.

This isn’t just some kind of superficial physical desire. There is a very sincere and deep romantic relationship between my pillow and myself.

Love is love.

I don’t care if anyone else knows. And will stand up for my civil rights.

Proudly pillow-sexual.

Are viruses living or non-living organisms?

Answered Dec 30, 2019

The hassle is in the question itself.

I don’t worry about calling them in some definition of “living or non-living”. I would just call them a biological unit.

A virus is a virus. That has a clear definition of being a parasite that needs another cell for machinery to replicate itself. They need to get inside a host cell, to use transcription and translation structures that the host possess.

A virus is a unit that contains genetic instructions to, with the needed resources, make copies of itself. This basic concept is what started “life”, and is the mission of all “life” forms, up to humans.

If you formally study microbiology, then you would put things into categories. Bacteria, archaea, yeast, and viruses.

The smallest, simplest thing is called “naked DNA”, which is just a chain of nucleotides. And even that can be used to make copies.

The most abundant biological unit on Earth is bacteriophages. Which is a class of viruses that infect bacteria, to make copies of themselves. A handful of ocean water can contain more phage units than the total number of humans that have ever existed.

“Life”, including obviously “living” species, is intertwined with viruses. There is a theory that, the three domains of “life” – Bacteria, Archaea, and Eukarya were branched off when LUCA (Last Universal Common Ancestor) had different cell lines infected by bacteriophage viruses.

There are viruses that splice themselves into the host genome. This ranges from Phage Lambda, up to retroviruses, with their information still in human chromosomes.

Viruses may seem like annoying, dead, trashy parasites. But, they live within us, and possibly helped create us.