My Tech Blog

Dual Representation

This writing is meant for adults, not children. Reader discretion is advised.

I want to be able to move the camera left when I am filming to remind the world to defend each other, not reinforce oppressive jails and the death penalty. Yet if I move the camera right, I don’t want that to be grounds for saying it is OK to prosecute via oppression.

Right is a word for direction, and Right is a word for correct vs not correct.

Society reinforces wants it both ways in non ideal ways.

Representation that is sometimes valuable to reinforce is not always ideal representation. Requiring representation like Right or Wrong, Right or Left, not always ideal.

Right is easily memorable, like if I am waking out anesthesia from an operation. I am right handed thus right is the easier path.

Representation that is not seen, is not always factored in, thus moving camera left becomes a plausible system to reinforce said but not always said.

I want people to know what I mean, regardless of position I hold, representation I am currently representing? Are they leaning left or right? Which way a camera guy is leaning can’t be modified by third parties?

Might not amplify ideally for left-handed people?

Grace and Forgiveness vs Value Added is Ideal Value Added?

Value Added is Ideal Value Added vs Grace and Forgiveness?

Well Grace and Forgiveness is on the right side.

This post is not meant for children, meant for over 18 does not equate to I can establish ground on that ideally.

Builder and number of stories in buildings, sexual thing or not a sexual thing? Might be able to profit from dual representation does not equate to desires for children to comprehend it?

A beautiful woman compliments the height of a building you made? Looks like doesn’t look like is less than an ideal system, not always versed.

If I took children to a national park, I would not want to be reminded about how the way the river parting through mountains reminds of other things. In a group of adults I might entertain a different level of discussion.

I originally had more capacity to keep things separate from a child and adult standpoint. Oppression iffed ground in less-than-ideal ways is not fully appreciated. Looks like a stable system with adult controls combined with cybersecurity problems, not a problem becomes a problem. Add in political problems, corruption, people potentially trying to paint a narrative – useful, potential for useful has potential to be less than ideal.

People that might not like adult content, artists painting nudes like Statue of David might if ground in a way that leads to less-than-ideal representation. Not meant for children sounds good, enforceable ideally in a world where there is oppression, wars?

Negate support with got to get it right doesn’t feel good, doesn’t feel should.

Add in health problems, you could have done it better might sound like being called a fool. Strong brand is a useful system subject to change? In pursuit of trying to fix problems people do not always think about how their fixing problems might leave others low, unsupported. Iffy ground of dual representation and calling things out, with a system not required to be ideal oppression out. I want the world to be a better place, not all people agree on what makes the world a better place, and I don’t want to call anyone a fool – yet just by calling things out I might sound like I am?

Got to get it right, right in a way that profits all parties has potential to be jading. Wins, or at least perceived as a win, not always free of fees. Make great art equates to capacity to protect great art?

I like art, I like encouraging cartoons for children, and I think nudes drawings and paintings are valuable for adults and medical, anatomy. I am biased to a certain level – I like great art, nudes have potential to be inspiring. Wrong content pushed on children is jading, makes me want to find a new planet, a planet not earth. I don’t want my nudes shown to children, yet in this world climate might amplify that way – God always delivers as intended?

Someone trying to reduce strong brand might not consider how limiting an artist’s potential to protect their content might amplify less than ideal value for other parties in the world. Add in oppression and wars, changing political climates really annoying, and far less than ideal representation is an understatement.

Whether God will protect or not factors into decision making. God has allowed genocide on more than one occasion. Think He should be trusted to not let nude content and art get to children? Fee delivers ideal lows, ideal knows? Won’t be a problem later claimed, not a defame?

I saw porn pictures when young – not by choice of others, does not equate to it is impossible. Possible or not possible factors into valuation and decision making, thinking we have progressed past that point potentially in non-ideal ways factors into decision making.

Price on young for adults to have their fun? Claim there is none of it? Useful has potential to be turned up, not sure I like knowing that. Not a problem for artists in good times does not equate to ideal protection in hard times, times of wars, or wars against particular problems in society. Artists better able to defend self from future problems factors into more art, and as I like encouragement, I don’t want to cancel all art.

Being forgiving of art does not equate to forgiveness in others is always ideally turned up. Doctors might not always turn up ideal legal protection for other doctors (thought from someone that is not a doctor). Pursuit in one direction does not equate to all bases covered.

Artists make encouraging content, content that I do not always agree with, claim I (who is not a lawyer or doctor) know they will be defended adequately? Competitive Studios have to protect each other is a nice thought, not sure it amplifies that way in practice. Fee Artists A protection for each other seems apt.

Competing Studios – inned A me know, you no A? Kind of what political parties represent at times, I get it right, you don’t got it right potentially not the greatest representation of Golden Rule. Reinforced reiterations of matters and doesn’t matter, matters. Contested territory and dual representation leads to ideals?

Oppression perceived and comprehended matters – has potential to be turned up for adequate representation. People protected better and punished less might lead to less desire to turn up perception of oppression, and that could lead to less oppression. Oppression has to be at certain level, bar I set, to be fully considered as oppression worthy of valuing, worthy of factoring into forgiveness is less than ideal. There are reasons outside of what is directly seen, ideally comprehendible to forgive people, give people grace swiftly.

Life gets complicated, world events change things, values that get set don’t always get unset. A’ed I don’t have to change that, might not be what is meant, does not equate to it always amplifies that way in practice. Value not always set right in the first place, including from self, and I don’t always know when that is.

Changing previous values set might profit some parties over others equates to change is not always valued, not always delivered. A few words set, that I don’t remember, that I don’t know where are, might be a reason for someone to give me the silent treatment – while I would prefer to make peace, silence does not always tell me where those words are. Figure it out with reduced support not always a pretty system.