Knowledge is LTI is Consequential

Knowledge is LTI is Consequential

Reminder movie and television series names, band names, organization names are not mine free to give.

This document is written by a man that is LTISO and LTICN – less than ideal sin out and less than ideal comprehension in.

I do not see the reports of the Pentagon.

I do not see the reports of the IDF.

I comment based upon knowledge I have, not on knowledge I do not have. Allies need to be protected and they say it is a big problem, problem worthy of going to war over is something I have to respect. I do not want the hostages stuck being raped and terrorized in underground tunnels, thus the combination reinforces my point of view.

I know for a fact A’ed may does not always amplify ideally. I do not always know, am unlikely to always know when it is not amplifying ideally. Fighting oppression and corruption in the system is hard does not equate to it is always easy to see. It is not easy to be a whistle-blower, thus there might not always be a whistle-blower when it is desirable.

Imagine there is a prison that damages prisoners brains. Now imagine those prisoners are tasked with whistle-blowing, calling out the wrong. Society continues to A may does not equate to all those that could speak out would speak out always have the capacity to. People should not be required to feel empathy (be required to experience same level of brain damage) to stop the problems, make the situation better. Empathy as a requirement is a less than ideal system. Now imagine someone is deciding whether or not to be a whistle-blower in that system – what we all turn up in society, belief people will have each other’s back in hard times matters, factors in future throughput that is more likely to protect society.

Empathy might be used as a word of finding a way to relate. I tend to think of it is combination with feeling each other’s pain on an awful level, eye for an eye. Words and how they are perceived and comprehended, how they are set to useful matters. There is a discrepancy on word choice at times that has real impacts and discussion around the topic is far from able to be ideally turned up. People disagree on weight of words, how words and word choices are reinforced is consequential.

I would rather feel sympathy, rather turn up sympathy as a valuable system based partially on my experience including movies and stories. I am reminded of a series Defying Gravy and the words “you must proceed” when contestants for a space shuttle mission were required to shock each other – kind of like hazing turning pledges against each other. Also reminded of a Marvel Shield episode “progress requires experimentation”. Changes my world view on word of empathy as a useful system.

If the definition doesn’t suit me I can change it is in by design with dictionaries that can be modified by cybersecurity problems is hard to fully appreciate. De-A mat (De sufficient value material) is both IBD (in by design) and consequential. This writing is meant as support and has potential to be turned into something awful dependent upon how people interpret – and words as delivered aren’t guaranteed to be the same. A’ed may. Understand less than ideal solid ground factors into this document, and the purpose of that might be to discredit, limit support, possibly in a way that leads to more executions worldwide.

Another word that might be likened is the word crazy. There is crazy hot and there is crazy like a psychopath. The word ifted has potential for less than an ideal gift for all parties. New ideas, ideas like doing right by people, fighting oppression have potential to be set to crazy. Revolutionaries have potential for being set to psychopaths. Psychopaths does not equate to always good causes. I like unique and different that doesn’t get me killed hot might be a harder way to convey meaning swiftly.

Problem with movies like 50 shades of gray, people don’t always fully appreciate the desire to turn things up. One year of prison creates results, imagine what 5 years of prison would do? NASA shades of gray as a sequel, one hand tied to launch pad one tied to shuttle with scientists watching saying “I want to see where this goes”? Empathy and pain to less valuable systems.

My comprehension of the word empathy might amplify less than ideally for all parties and that is not my desire. I am trying to swiftly convey the message that feeling my pain is a system that could be set to those with brain damage, all could wind up with brain damage equates to feeling my pain is unwise to turn up, worthy of turning down through reiterations.

Society should appreciate words more as a set rather than individual quotes yet that is not always what is turned up. Value to useful is not a system that always profits all parties or all parties equally, fairly.

Everyone, and I mean everyone reads to the end of the page. Less than ideal truth delivered equates to more protected?

If there is a discrepancy in meaning should one tailor their view on definition to dictionaries, and systems or the people in a particular area of the country? The LTI systems we reinforce get set to less consequential. People cannot easily divest from established meaning – factors into every sentence read and heard. Connotations, words reinforced as good or bad is likely different for most if not all parties. I learned a new word recently, praxis, like in practice. Value to useful, does not always delivery ideally in praxis. Sounds like it goes with “Cognito ergo sum” – Descarte, in praxis. Golden Rule applied to word choice?

If you brought words don’t share unless you can give to everyone equally? Be silent if your words can’t, won’t deliver ideal value for all parties? Words, Art, and Inventions that profit some parties over others are in by design, in by default yet in a world where some people get trophies, some people get mansions, and some people wind up on the streets we claim they amplify and deliver ideally for all parties, as fair and righteous justice, justice worthy of building laws around?

I would prefer words to deliver better, more ideally on Golden Rule level does not equate to I think they deliver on a Golden Rule level. Teachers need enough money to pay their bills and live – that equates to some people get training, people that invest in paying Teachers, and some do not. Don’t teach if you can’t train all 8 billion people plus in the world? Words must deliver ideally for all parties is too big of a burden for anyone does not equate to words that deliver closer to ideal on Golden Rule is less desirable. Any words, even words that piss me off are a reading comprehension amp. No requirement to appreciate for ideal less than ideal qualities, systems that deliver value in less than ideal ways?

Someone might say make them feel crazy empathetic. Meaning treat them incredibly nice unable to not feel how amazing life is – get them to experience more than stone cold, nothingness. Pursuit of less apathy, empathy as a more positive word has potential for both good and bad. It is easy to become numb “comfortably numb” – Pink Floyd one might think. Would I trust others to value the word empathy as a value added system when I say it, maybe not. Crazy is a bit more iffy does not equate to I think the word itself might not be problematic in its own right.

The people this document effects most might never read it. Explaining a point might take one sentence, shielding more parties, not all parties ideally might take many paragraphs. Do the writers readers always have time to invest? Less than ideal deliver factors into Golden Rule, 1000 words about grace or 2000 words about grace and forgiveness, that is not 4000 words about grace, forgiveness, hope, and encouragement?

Writers are rewarded for investments in reading comprehension, yet are readers always valued for the same? LTI value out needs to be appreciated? Audience appreciated more for value added factors into repeat business. It is worth acknowledging I am a technologist, not someone with a PhD in English – does not equate to someone with a PhD in English has tracked me down and corrected my comprehension before delivering this document. LTI value established factors into delivery. PhDs and Experts (including self to whatever level that applies) are not always ideal profit out – since LTI (less-than-ideal) is IBD (in by design), LTI value out is IBD. Bias, Profit allowed to sway Bias, that corrects my meaning and word choice might be more or less ideal. Someone that hasn’t finished high school might have more of my best interest at heart than someone in industries is consequential.

My skill, my skill in writing in communication is hard for me to assess, I could be more value added or less value added than I think. Hubris is easy to promote, promote in hard to fully appreciate ways, and thinking I might not be subject to it, the problems it delivers might be Hubris in itself. Add in the fact that the World is a constantly changing, dynamic system, and my comprehension and skill level is a constantly changing, dynamic system setting myself to not able to be refined, to no progress can be made seems unwise.

Trained in certain directions might be more ideal value added for some directions in greater ways than others. What is valuable to NASA might not be what is valuable to business might not be what is valuable to music might not be what is valuable to politics. It is it possible to refine without modifying path too significantly? Words that stop wars and make peace are valuable, factor into capacity to deliver words on things like Climate Change tomorrow, words that might prevent more wars in the future.

AC A is possible might lead to insufficient desire to improve.