My Tech Blog

Joy vs Suffering

Joy vs Suffering – Never Say Die! if you want less suffering maybe stop reading the document here

A de-ow with a pow – gets turned up too much in society, similar far from close systems get turned up. Police Officers that have a weapon pulled on them might have to use lethal or non-lethal force to disarm. Yet as Society do we always turn up less potential for problems like that in advance?

As an Artist I know I A know, I A show, I A tow, I A row, I A low. Similar trains of thoughts get turned up in less-than-ideal ways, a city free from crime is different than a top selling album. A song I want to listen to, gets set to A know, A produce, A use. Trying to set a city to a perfect work of art that never changes, trying to hold a dynamic system still might not always be ideal value established.

If we closed down all the roads, there would be no traffic accidents. There is a price for decreased throughput, a price society is not willing to pay, yet if society isn’t willing to drop everything to save lives is that all good, should, would? A set might not equal A get.

A know for an Artist, it will sell or it won’t sell – I am not sure should really be set to A value, A comprehend, A mins. There are more reasons that just profit art is created, passion, inspiration, trying to encourage others.

“Without sin cast the first stone” one of Christ’s teaching was a problem 2000 years ago, and is still a problem now. A de-ow with a pow is not always A de-ow.

A de-ow factors into Joy. Less pain factors into Joy. We have the potential to medicate, we have potential to avoid, we have potential to type based upon bias which is not all good, not all should, not all truth amped and champed. Less conversation sometimes equals less friction, yet with failing infrastructure, high government debt, and high voltage signs potentially falling off the hinges, is less conversation really the way to less pain, less woe, less problems? We might turn down suffering for the short term yet turn it up in the long term.

Joy is important. Discouragement has potential to be lethal in certain contexts. People not appreciated are not ideal throughput established. Writing a document about suffering is not all reminders of suffering out – it is jading. One of the reasons I said at the top of the document Never Say Die – it is definitely up for debate for me at times whether a page full of Never Say Die might be worth more than trying to think through wisdom and World problems.

On the other side, thinking through problems has potential for reminders for Hope and Encouragement, the potential in Hope, Encouragement, and possibilities unknown, that A value has yet to be truly established – outside of Christ, Christ set to can’t turn up what A value means for all our lives seems an unwise assessment. That said Christ didn’t stop Slavery, The Civil War, WW1, WW2, genocides between 1900-2024 – thus while there is potential for better, suffering seems to be a bit in by design at least via historic precedent.

A (like in a school grade, 100%) owe is something one might turn up for a painting or an album.

A owe is not something one really wants to turn up for a person, including self – yet that is not really probably always fully comprehended, especially in heats of the moments. We turn up reiterations of concepts and processes in Society based upon profit, feeling of high grounds and wrongs, we turn down listening and turn up tensions at times and that is not always ideal value established and delivered.

Non-deterministic documents with exit doors at the top – is there any other kind? Disclaimer – the previous sentence was meant as a joke, my humor might not resonate with all parties, an attempt to inspire joy to offset.

I provide the following for encouragement as well, Free Starter Image

As a Christian, a believer in God, a Higher Power, I acknowledge the potential that my words, my way of thinking through things might not be as great as someone else’s writing. This document likely fills, adds a certain place in the puzzle of all knowledge known, if nothing else it is helpful for me to think through things and is less than ideal reading comprehension out, value added for technology and systems it relies upon, potentially useful to help understand me, my writings, and my art better (cheddared – improving my communication skills and problem solving thought processes in a profit based system, words that might inspire more peace might be a couple documents away, improvement is valuable, less bombs dropping on people is profitable to me, also to desirable to me and they represent different systems).

You don’t have to like the art for the art to stop wars

Free Starter Image

Potential for negate let, negate let get

Eclipse Pictures

Fee vs Claim

The words fee and claim have potential to be used interchangeably yet with vastly different meanings perceived and comprehended.

One might say if they don’t know something, fee I get it wrong. Another way of saying it would be if they don’t know something, claim I get it ideal?

I potentially use the two interchangeably without fully comprehending implications. If someone says Fee them if they get it wrong (at least when I am saying it), I am not saying charge $1000 for every mistake. I am saying weight the value as less desirable, less than ideal grounds have been established.

Might be wiser for me to say claim I get it right more often than fee if I get it wrong. Turning up sue, hold bar too high, accountability too high, increasing burdens might be amplified by reiterations of fee. Know A, Fee A does not equate to will know A, will show doesn’t know A, will not lead to Fee A. Required to know does not equate to know, required to know does not equate to won’t fee too high.

There is potential for growth and improvement in communications that could lead to vast improvement potentially not always pondered. Improvement to communications might not always be seen and known by self. Fee might sound smarter than the word claim, but is it?

Weighted might be wrong, there is a cost, versus weighted buyer beware? Fee might exude confidence, confidence where confidence is not always meant. Set to less-than-ideal grounds might equate to thought cost is unknown, less likely to be a cost. Comprehension is always less than 100%, ideal equates to costs and fees thought to be known might not be acknowledged.

Fee society always gets reduced oppression right, versus claim society always ideals reduced oppression? Which one is more likely to lead to reduced oppression? One calls people to fight oppression or factor it in, one calls people to factor it in, acknowledge it, or not. Different levels of freedom, different levels of momentum.

With communications there is likely safe ground to walk on and less safe ground to walk on, and one might not hear from a writer or speaker for a while after they fall on less safe ground. Compounded with World Events and Health Problems, know results of communications far from a guarantee. I want others to have positive results based upon reading my documents, not negative ones. Language is a less than ideal system that I wish would amplify more ideally for all in the world. Language is a for profit system, and there are some on streets and some with Yachts. Juxtaposition has potential to increase comprehension. Own fee see range?

Might be potential for a class on weighting words including words like these.

Fee society needs to replace falling electrical poles, or claim society ideals electrical poles? Which one is more likely to inspire change? Claim rays may. Claim I get ideal iffy ground right? Beats getting fee-d for it, fend understand why? Reminder I am not a lawyer.

Imagine there are two possible outcomes, two different arguments

Imagine you could see a visual representation, and one looks more attractive than the other

Imagine you are a numbers person, and you are given two numbers

1000 or 0

High Numbers better

Low Numbers better

Situational weighting

Imagine there is a choice politicians could make, and supercomputers could show the representation of the projected results as the combined images and personalities all persons represented by the change. Two people – reminder the results could be biased, could be misrepresented, yet supercomputers are relied upon for best guesses. Both could be homeless – if the choice is one that equates to a projected future with either outcome as homeless, maybe there is other more important data to be considering? Relevance limiting and less than ideal data are both scary, have potential for being factored in, less than ideally factored out. Weighed see ideals mins? A trip to the park I just made factors into inspiration for this paragraph. Weighed hear ideals mins, weighed read ideals mins?

The perfect piece of art could lead to someone staring endlessly into it for hours, the right music on repeat could lead to never changing the radio station, the perfect book could be read and re-read at the cost of listening to updates. Thus I think it wise to say in a system where stage time cannot be ideally identified, idealing mins is close to impossible. Golden Rule in The Bible says min nobody, ideal mins, treat everyone how you wish to be treated, all 8 billion plus? If someone is hugging someone else on the other side of the planet, they are adding valuable service, valuable service that is both less valuable to me and of great importance. Others winded should not be set to all reduced gift.

Video I took while on that trip to the park

Our System Reinforces Bias

Criminal 1 Innocent

Criminal 2 Innocent

Criminal 3 Innocent

Criminal 1 Innocent

Criminal 2 Guilty

Criminal 3 Innocent

The change has potential to happen on a computer, does not require notification of Criminal 2. Imagine the same thing with groups of criminals, and potential for set based upon a particular profile. Of Type is not all ideal value added. Imagine a marketing company sets a customer from heterosexual to homosexual add preference. Now Imagine that is someone’s daughter that just turned 18.

Our system as of late has been far from sufficient oppression out, combined with that knowledge the potential combination could be dangerous on a not fully appreciated level.

I like computers, I invest in computers, I don’t want to invest in the misery of others, yet the 3 seem to be intertwined more than I would like.

Representation has potential to be changed, out from under people, without prior notice is a less than ideal system.

Let, met, set factors into get. A no min, A know min?

In fee-d min gets equated to acceptable, sufficient, desirable has potential for less-than-ideal comprehension. Without sin cast the first stone, that said everyone set to a homosexual distribution list could make a lot of people angry.

Kind of awful to think what is possible, and not always considered as possible until you are under the effects of oppression yourself. A few in society might be ramped to anger and less than ideal comprehension is scary.

People that think flipping others sexuality is possible, useful might factor into losses. Possible factors into useful, useful is not always ideal value established or delivered. Increasing potential to defend from attacks could equate to exponential divests, reduce comprehension, and potentially bigger problems. Add in A B Testing, and people don’t always get the same experience might create more than a little friction.

Imagine LGBT gets in charge of everything, and all news reporters are transgender. This could spark confusion and friction in society. This might appear weak to other powers on the world stage, that might challenge while in a position of friction.

Could be some very important points I am missing here, worthy of note Bible and Golden Rule Throughtput, Without Sin Cast first stone Lesson Throughput are both far less than ideal, factors into safety. A way owed thought does not equate to delivered, required to be delivered. Inned could be seen as owed does not require investment.

Society ifs people more than one would like by default, before oppression or actually someone, or some group trying to pursue flipping someone. Know society winds it, wind at tolerable levels might be different for different parties.

Tendency for A let, set to met, without A support set, met, get.

Know it, does not equate to owe it, show it – the combination might be LTI (less than ideal) for all parties. Potential for more adversely affecting those with less and health problems in society, including those in jails and prisons. Fee society and government is likely to min it, fend it. Reminder I am not a lawyer.

People think they know max wind, yet every year technology progresses, medicines available and factored into useful change. Forgivable, in by design weighed as not a problem.

Might be a bigger problem in some fields than others, might create uncomfortable work environments where people do not feel like they are able to speak up and address problems. Potential for society of see A wind as a known. Oppression changes things in far less than ideal ways.

All that said if I used all these words for encouragement instead of trying to increase wisdom on this subject, would it really be worse value? 10d may potentially not always ideal value established, 10 negate say potentially not ideal value either. Potential for up to debate, that said if-ed not all gift.

Political parties set homosexuality to NBD (no big deal), NMP (not my problem). The Bible says don’t judge. That said people have to assess what they consider acceptable for their family to be around or not around. NBD, NMP gets set to sufficient support, sufficient direction for the future. Can’t ideally min it combined with bigger problems on world stage like Iran investing in Nuclear weapons likely leads to NBD, NMP.

Doctors and Nurses set to no homosexuality allowed might lead to male doctors unable to treat men and women doctors unable to treat women. That said A-ing may might lead to dictators setting parts of society to can be re-educated to homosexuals. Less common factors into what society tolerates, mainstream might lead to problems. Less births equates to less practice for doctors, claim it all good, all should?

If a man sees a piece of metal and learns that it is High Voltage, yet there is no High Voltage sign attached to it, the man is making an assessment there is a problem, a problem that needs to be addressed, a problem that if not addressed could lead to death, or pain and suffering for others. Assess and fix has potential to be set to judge and sue.

Claim it does not may, may might not lead to failed expectations? Could be used as a weapon, could be used to de-pride, could be used to reduce credible. Reducing credible and pride might be seen as profitable, in a profit-based world, and profit does not always have the best interest of others at heart, add in potential for subconscious undercurrents determinism is less determined.

Our system turns it up, judgment is not fair, divests set to assessment and not judgment still have potential to lead to reduced support. Precision for some people’s brains might be different than others, hard to fully appreciate society and artists cut close to iffy line to help defend others, prove the points as valid, which has potential to be further turned up by supercomputers. Might be needed and desirable support for those this effects by default in both society and government, which mays, and may for a small subset might turn it up to a larger subset. Fought to greater extent might reduced safety for others does not equate to fought at greater extent is not desirable at times.

I see it has the potential to min does not equate to I know the full potential, when it is a problem, have capacity to address where it is a problem and when it is a problem – nondeterministic seems apt. I see the potential does not always equate to I know the problem, comprehend the problem sufficiently. I shouldn’t, don’t desire to judge does not equate to assessment and reduced potential for pain and problems isn’t desirable to turn up. LTISO divests from sin at times is a desirable outcome yet sin, what is sin is not always ideally agreed upon.

LTISO – less than ideal sin out

Own negate let is less than ideal responsibility at times. Owning negate let does not always equate to stopping from grounds of ideal sin out, yet more ideal sin out might have lessened problems in the first place. Society turns up clubs and beaches where women wear skimpy clothing then blame women for liking other women seems less than ideal. Hard to determine what sin is in this world, claim others, taught Not to Judge are given ideal grounds to make assessment?

Society has had gay for a long time, it has been less than all value added, and with innovation it is not fully deterministic how much, how many tests amplifications towards homosexuality will exist. People know supercomputers and medicine amplify gay, iffy at times yet we as society do not, choose not to divest. Preachers and Priests that don’t address root of problems might not always have ideal grounds to stand upon to set right and wrong around the subject.

Part of the problem – A know is A know, doesn’t have to listen because A know knows everything A know needs to know. This document is not written around A know, this document is written around some know, that might be de-valued by some that might desire power and profit, that might sell self as A know. The future gets set to zero potential is less than ideal.

Writing this document is jading, reading it is likely jading as well – yet jading is because thought of sufficient know, nice to be reminded that I am less than A know, the future has hope and potential. Man that likes bikinis wants to say tisk tisk don’t do that?