Profile cover photo
Profile photo
Youssef Hachhouch
I try not to judge people.
I try not to judge people.
Youssef's posts

Post has attachment

This is my last post on G+

I’ve been an active member on here for a year now. It has been a blast. 

Thanks to G+ I decided a year ago to stop lurking on the Internet. To start using my real name for the first time online. That meant G+ became my identity service. As a product and platform, G+ was missing tons of features, was badly tuned, was far from answering to all my needs. I have been patient. I have been tolerant. I have invested a lot of my time in this place. I wanted to become a member of its community, I wanted to help it grow. 

I still do. I still will. 


G+ is failing me as an identity service. And by the looks of things, a year more of patience won’t do any good. How come?


You see, I’m an adult. Maybe that means something different to you, in your part of the world, than it does to me, but it doesn’t change the fact that G+ does not allow me to be who I am. Who I want to be. To interact the way I want to interact. For Google is deciding in my place what I can or cannot see, what I can or cannot share.

I try not to judge. I do not want to convince you of anything. That’s how I live my life. I do not care to discuss at length the values of the different social contracts on our globe. The different laws. Morality. What is right or wrong, what G+ should be like. I really don’t.

I know no taboos. I cannot be offended. I doubt things can shock me. Therefore there is little material I could not stomach to see. 

I’m not a pervert. Granted, that’s my own subjective evaluation. I’m probably seen as a pervert or otherwise deviantly depraved monster in parts of the world. Please feel free to look at my posts of this past year and decide for yourself.  

There is lots of material I care not in the least to see. I can find it boring, uninformative, cheap, tasteless... When I encounter such material too often by someone I follow, I will decide eventually to unfollow or block that person. And I can decide this for myself thank you very much.

Because, you know, I’m an adult. I can decide for myself, really.  
I also think there hasn’t been any material that I’ve posted or would care to post that would be a breach of the rules here. Except maybe in the case of one post on breast cancer awareness as a result of the #booberday debacle a while ago:

The image in question has been up since September 2011. If it somehow would be a breach and would be flagged because of this post and would be removed, one has to wonder how many innocent children it has tainted since.

Because that’s why we have this censorship right? For the children? Or are we saying adults can’t actually decide for themselves?

I know I know, plenty adults all over the world are very sensitive about these matters. There’s plenty that doesn’t go well with their local flavor of social contract. It’s not just to save the children.

I accepted the Terms of Use and have read the Content Policy. I’m not judging Google. I’m just saying that it is not allowing me to be myself, it is not allowing G+ to provide me content the way I want to experience it: in freedom.

There seems to be one type of content that is resulting in the most censorship, and it is the one I want to focus on now. Gore, violence and hate-speech are even less my thing:

”Sexually Explicit Material”

”Do not distribute content that contains nudity, graphic sex acts, or sexually explicit material. Do not drive traffic to commercial pornography sites.”

I’m going to knowingly break this rule. Once. And after that, never again here. Because, it’s arbitrary, a slippery slope, an impossible task to judge objectively. What is apparently considered sexually explicit/nudity here, is displayed on the streets where I live, on TV any time of the day, in museums...

I’ll share images, most I’ve encountered in my previous job, as a community manager (so I’m clearly saying that these or not images I care for myself). I know from experience that you cannot define a simple rule in a few words and expect it to cover all possible cases, to allow any moderator (or algorithm) to make 100% clear-cut correct judgments. Feel free to disagree. You most likely have not the experience I have in the matter, unless you have >5 years of hands-on experience in content moderation. What I’m sharing does not even come close to the degree of ‘disturbing’ material I had to moderate. Lots of it shared by teens. But in my sample you will get a sufficiently good idea, no need to gross people out more to make a point.

The point I want to make is this: allow me to mark my own content as safe or not
All of the examples I’ll share, I would mark as unsafe if given the possibility. Because of the children. Because of the sensibilities of those adults that are living in social contracts that can’t deal with such ‘wrong’ content. To be on the safe side. 

Once marked as unsafe, it should not be viewable by default. One would have to make a conscious action to view it, by clicking a warning message. 

NSFW is subjective bullshit. Work/my job IMO should not define what is acceptable in public life or not. Work values can differ all over the world. 

I want to be able to set my content as Public or Sensitive.

People that do not share my interpretation of sensitive can still unfollow and block me.

But what about the children? Well, instead of fighting losing battles with armies of moderators (= high costs) and algorithms trying to judge subjective matters, asking global members to flag subjectively,

let people work it out for themselves, find each other in like-minded (sub-)communities. People that still want to flag content, could. Review the flagged content that comes in (way less due to self-moderation, way cheaper). If still inappropriate (subjectively, but hey, it’s not a perfect world), simply put the content in Sensitive mode. 

Repeat offenders (and thus higher cost)? Define some threshold. Provide warnings to the offender and put the flagged content as sensitive. Once warnings ignored and threshold passed, put all the user’s content by default in sensitive. You can even define a duration of time where the purp has no freedom to decide. Say 1 month. After that, if receding, say 3 months. Then 6 months. Then 1 year. Then real actual definitive ban.
It’s safe to say after several moderation interventions that the offender is hard-headed, trolling or otherwise disrespectful to the Terms.

Much clearer & objective to judge, lower cost to moderate, lower cost in support for offenders that complain. Because their content was still accessible. They got proper warning. They got incremental time to reflect upon their behavior.

So, me breaking the rules. I repeat: if my suggestion was in place, I would set all my examples to sensitive. If somehow it still got flagged or I otherwise breached some rule, warn me and set all my stuff to sensitive for a month for starters. 

But my suggestion is not in place now right. And the chances of it happening are low to nonexistent right? So, I should be ‘sanctioned’ right? Whether you Google decide to do so or not, I will stop posting publicly until a satisfactory solution has been put in place, allowing me to use G+ as the adult I am. Allowing me to see the content the people I follow intended me to see. I solemnly swear, so no need to block my account.
And don’t give us the equivalent of the ‘Safe search’ solution. It would be an improvement maybe, but it is flawed. 

I’m posting the images I would like you to check separately in an album, as a test, to show how things are subjective:

WARNING: sensitive material!

This way I’m hoping this post will not be deleted, so that the people that want to check me out know why I went inactive on my own page. I will remain active in comments on other people’s posts and in Limited. In doing so, I hope I will still be able to help grow this place, to interact with all the wonderful people I’ve met here. I also hope it will suffice to prevent me from bailing out definitively, switching to another platform.
#censorship #fuckcensorship #stopcensorship

Because several of the images might be removed, and to allow us to discuss them, I’ll list them here (if you think I made a sarcastic comment in the list somewhere, you could be right):

1: Google asking not to censor the web. I didn’t realize when joining that G+ is not part of the web.
2: Japanese-style characters that represent a sexual action. Sexually explicit? Yes? To children? Well, those capable of interpreting it correctly would already have been exposed to other inappropriate material. Humorous, creative or witty? Is that an argument? Better be safe than sorry. You know, to keep the illusion kids today are clueless. Illusions are important. 
3: teenage rockband with millions of fans at the time, showing a message to their teenage fans on their site, with the youngest member wearing a t-shirt displaying drawn stick-figures in a sexual pose. What were the parents of that kid thinking?? And then the label, perverting all those millions of underage fans??? Having that on a site for teens, sure, but we can’t have this on our G+. 
4: cartoon of a little devil ecstatically playing with his tail. Everyone can clearly see that the tail stands for something else, and thus the ecstasy expressed is of the wrong kind. 
5: cartoon of the linux penguin violating Bill Gates with a text: f*** the system. Even though the drawing style and message is clearly humorous, still an explicit sexual action...
6: drawing of 2 video game babes posing closely together. In such a way that a healthy hot-blooded heterosexual guy would take a second look. If only just to examine closely if no indecent parts are exposed. Sexually explicit? At least as explicit as all those model babes in all those magazines that are made to sell sex! 
7: drawing of batgirl feeling up superwoman’s breast, though nothing is exposed. If that isn’t a sexually explicit drawing, then I don’t know what is. Or wait, it’s safe because no nudity?
8: anime style girl naked on a bed. No nipples, no vagina visible. No way not to think of sex though.
9: artistic drawing of a warrior style woman sitting in a ruined city under a full moon. Very artistic, nice mood, but oops, there’s a nipple. Was that really necessary?
10: some 3D avatar style of women with naked breasts. She’s clearly not real, but those are clearly naked breast!
11: drawing of a couple engaged in sex, but with the outlines to be connected by numbered dots. Sexually explicit even without filling the dots + nipples! Sorry, to be clear: female nipples!
12: Edvard Munch’s Madonna. Art. And female nipples (at least one that I can almost certainly see, the second one either missing, either covered by her hair).
13: Gustave Courbet’s The Origin Of The World. Art. Or is it pornography? It’s most definitely a nude. Case closed.
14: a woman driving a car, with an impressive cleavage. So impressive that it’s unmistakably sexual in nature. Even without nipples this is like, really sexual! 
15: a woman’s breasts shot from below in such a way that it’s sexual. Or is that a girl? Could she be a minor? Even with such a set of... ok, sexually explicit anyway.
16: a woman (girl?) grabbing her uncovered breasts. I don’t think there’s a nipple visible, but I’m almost sure she’s going for a duckface.
17: close up of a female’s behind, wearing something so tight that there’s too much sexual detail for sure...  
18: woman holding a man’s pants open, looking suggestively into the camera. Think secretary about to go down on some boss. So suggestive that it would even be clear to the children! Right? Because children these days understand such poses obviously. Because they’re exposed to such filth everywhere these days! No nudity is no excuse!
19: woman eating a banana held by a guy. In such a way that cannot be viewed by us of course.
20: 4 girls at some party suggestively holding a large dildo close to their mouths. Dildo! 
21: depiction of an utopian soccer final as exists in the mind of the average macho male soccer fan. Machism is to be censored at all costs It’s possibly sexually explicit, though no nudity. 
22: official movie poster of Les Infideles, as was visible in the streets in parts of Europe. It’s not because it could be seen in public in Europe that it’s acceptable. The wordplay as cheaters would use it isn’t helping.
23: another example of an official movie poster of Les Infideles.
24: billboard ad by Dolce & Gabbana depicting a male model playing with a female model while other male models are watching. Only 2 males nipples there...  
25: a guy posing with an unrealistically large artificial penis. Penis = nudity & sexually explicit. Fake or not, the horror!
26: a naked woman on a bike, but very very small. Too small to be sure that one black pixel is a nipple? Pubic hair? No matter, naked is naked!
27: paparazzi photos of a nipple slip from Lilly Allen. Nipple!
28: some very young girl posing as a model in a bikini. What is wrong with this world?  
29: anime style drawing of a woman that appears to have been raped, with her nipples showing through her ripped bathing suit.
30: anime style close up drawing of what appears to be the face of an underage girl crying because an SM style tool is used on her. Could be mistaken by the non-initiated and innocent as a form of bullying.
31: anime style drawing of an underage girl lifting her oversized sweater to reveal her white undies. Normal in Japan maybe, but elsewhere...
32: still of P. Waterfield, GBR diver at the Olympics taking a shower. The image is so sexually suggestive that it’s maybe sexually explicit. Or maybe not? Better take a second look.
33: a baby wearing a hat with a marijuana symbol and holding a blunt to its mouth. No nudity whatsoever here...  
Booberday: from my post on breast cancer awareness, depicting humorous bodypaint. With female nipples! And bodypaint, let’s face it, is applied on a nude body, and still is nudity.  
David: the sculpture by Michelangelo is a nude. Google shows it in a safe search set to strict. But we’re on G+ here, not on the web and that’s a nude. Nude, nude, nude. Penis!
Madonna: by Munch, safe search set to strict. Oh no, hide the children! 
The origin of the world: safe search set to strict showing pornography? Hmmm...
The wrong story: Obama grabbing Hillary’s boob while she’s smiling wide. Luckily censored, phew. 
Censorship feeds the dirty mind: an image of a typical pit babe is compared to a clean censored version of the same image.

What follows then are the same images censored by me, using black bars. I think that almost all, despite the black bars, remain highly sexual in nature. Some have become even worse. 

What do you think?

Regardless of what we think, provide us the tools to set these to sensitive and no-one would ever have to face the horror of unsuspectedly seeing them pop up in their streams

Because I have no personal experience in facing moderation by Google, I don’t know how many of these images will stay up. Or even whether this post or the related one will stay up. Should too much be deleted to illustrate my suggestion, I’ll consider Google Docs, or even non-Google solutions... because the adult that I am wants conversations with other adults to reflect upon these issues, to find the best solutions.


Post has attachment
WARNING: sensitive material!

This album’s purpose is explained in this post:

Please read the post first.

#censorship #fuckcensorship #stopcensorship
75 Photos - View album

Post has attachment
A year of activity here has done little to make me doubt my own ability to know what's relevant to me. So I figured I'd take a good look at the people that enrich my experience.

Instead of sharing publicly who I follow on my profile, I now list only 150 people that follow me*. I'll follow them much closer than I did so far. Not because I want to strengthen my #filterbubble , but because I no longer regard them as strangers. By making a specific circle just for them that I'll watch like a hawk, I'll avoid having a certain relevance algorithm keeping me from seeing their content.

I'll keep the list at 150 at all times, meaning that I'll have to add/remove people to make room for others. Because what this past year has also shown me, is that G+ is not the best fit for everyone, that some will disappear.   
*I follow over 2K people and have under 3K following me 

Post has shared content
Can you help me find some wisdom (or at least define it better)?

I’ve shared my latest thinking at +Think Tank here and would appreciate your input in the discussion there.
+Youssef Hachhouch submitted a Thought:

When is something wisdom to you?

In my attempt to define wisdom for myself, I made this Venn diagram. Does it have any merit? What could go in the fields A-D & 1-4? Can you acknowledge something to be wisdom and at the same time disagree with it?

Post has shared content
If you were thinking that it has been a while since the last time you read a TL;DR, I got you covered. The article mentioned here was really not doing it for me the first 2 pages. But, if you're anything like me and stick with something because someone you respect pointed you to it, you'll read on. When you'll have reached the end, and only then, please read my comment below and go discuss it in the original post. Locking this one.

Hey, did you read the full article? Sure? Ok then...

I like the general message, but I don't really like the proposed solution. 

I won't try to fight greed. Talk about fighting a losing battle...

Instead, I want to count on greed to fix this, to fight the fight. 

$27 trillion at stake? Find a way to get them going after $30 trillion instead or why not, even $50 trillion. But $50 trillion that won't exceed the 2,795 gigatons.

How can we achieve that? Globally? Convince one of the companies to change, to go carbon-neutral. To become a real energy company. I'll buy from them and them alone. Obviously, I don't want to be deceived again like Shell did (that one went on my blacklist). So they'd have to make it binding. And how about the execs and shareholders taking personal responsibility? How about real transparency? 

Impossible? Well, not if they can instantly become the undisputed market leader and their greed can collect x times more than what they'd obtain with their normal ways. 

So just point me to the first company that wants to commit and I'll do everything to boycott the others. Find us a champion. I won't care about a copycat that comes in second either. Then I'll tell anyone I can think of to do the same.

I don't expect them to become moral all of a sudden. I count on the same greed that is destroying us now. I also don't expect politicians to act for the long-term all of a sudden. I do expect some level of morality of the people I interact with tough. 

You could say that I don't grasp the reality of the economics involved, that I'm dreaming. I say that there won't be an economy to speak of if we don't act, so who's dreaming?

And even if you don't believe in global warming, why not just stick it to those greedy bastards for once? I'm still not over the Exxon Valdez nor the BP spill.
#Eco  #Green  #GlobalWarming  #econ  --- *PLEASE, PLEASE, reshare (or share from scratch, I don't care) this as widely as possible.*

This is an amazing post that I consider a must-read for everyone. No one should be able to say later that they didn't know. While we've all heard/known about various aspects about the debate around climate change and Global Warming for a while, and probably all have our various private opinions on this.

But I at least (even though I've always been in favor of various New "Green" Energy initiatives and conservation/reengineering efforts) had never heard things phrased this succinctly, and with these three numbers so clearly presenting us with such stark choices.

I believe that every consumer and especially every business person on the planet needs to reevaluate in this light where their allegiances lie, and whether they can still afford to continue supporting the hydro-carbon/fossil fuel industries. NOT because there is some "woo-woo", "leftist", "save the whales" consideration, but a simple, blunt, and terrifying threat to your very businesses and livelihoods that will very likely stem from this if nothing is done, and everyone continues "business as usual".

Business could become very much UN-usual within the next decade already!

As you will understand more clearly after reading these key excerpts (but PLEASE, take the time and read the entire piece!), I propose that #565 could become a/the rallying cry:


"...*The First Number: 2° Celsius*
By insisting on two degrees – about 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit – the accord ratified positions taken earlier in 2009 by the G8, and the so-called Major Economies Forum. It was as conventional as conventional wisdom gets. ...So far, we've raised the average temperature of the planet just under 0.8 degrees Celsius, and that has caused far more damage than most scientists expected. (A third of summer sea ice in the Arctic is gone, the oceans are 30 percent more acidic, and since warm air holds more water vapor than cold, the atmosphere over the oceans is a shocking five percent wetter, loading the dice for devastating floods.)

Given those impacts, in fact, many scientists have come to think that two degrees is far too lenient a target. "Any number much above one degree involves a gamble," writes Kerry Emanuel of MIT, a leading authority on hurricanes, "and the odds become less and less favorable as the temperature goes up." Thomas Lovejoy, once the World Bank's chief biodiversity adviser, puts it like this: "If we're seeing what we're seeing today at 0.8 degrees Celsius, two degrees is simply too much." NASA scientist James Hansen, the planet's most prominent climatologist, is even blunter: "The target that has been talked about in international negotiations for two degrees of warming is actually a prescription for long-term disaster."
The official position of planet Earth at the moment is that we can't raise the temperature more than two degrees Celsius – it's become the bottomest of bottom lines. Two degrees.

*The Second Number: 565 Gigatons*

Scientists estimate that humans can pour roughly 565 more gigatons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere by midcentury and still have some reasonable hope of staying below two degrees. ("Reasonable," in this case, means four chances in five, or somewhat worse odds than playing Russian roulette with a six-shooter.)
... after study predicts that carbon emissions will keep growing by roughly three percent a year – and at that rate, we'll blow through our 565-gigaton allowance in 16 years, around the time today's preschoolers will be graduating from high school. "The new data provide further evidence that the door to a two-degree trajectory is about to close," said Fatih Birol, the IEA's chief economist. In fact, he continued, "When I look at this data, the trend is perfectly in line with a temperature increase of about six degrees." That's almost 11 degrees Fahrenheit, which would create a planet straight out of science fiction.
*The Third Number: 2,795 Gigatons*

This number is the scariest of all – one that, for the first time, meshes the political and scientific dimensions of our dilemma. It was highlighted last summer by the Carbon Tracker Initiative, a team of London financial analysts and environmentalists who published a report in an effort to educate investors about the possible risks that climate change poses to their stock portfolios.

The number describes the amount of carbon already contained in the proven coal and oil and gas reserves of the fossil-fuel companies, and the countries (think Venezuela or Kuwait) that act like fossil-fuel companies. In short, it's the fossil fuel we're currently planning to burn. And the key point is that this new number – 2,795 – is higher than 565. Five times higher.
Much of that profit stems from a single historical accident: Alone among businesses, the fossil-fuel industry is allowed to dump its main waste, carbon dioxide, for free. Nobody else gets that break – if you own a restaurant, you have to pay someone to cart away your trash, since piling it in the street would breed rats. But the fossil-fuel industry is different, and for sound historical reasons: Until a quarter-century ago, almost no one knew that CO2 was dangerous. But now that we understand that carbon is heating the planet and acidifying the oceans, its price becomes the central issue.

If you put a price on carbon, through a direct tax or other methods, it would enlist markets in the fight against global warming. Once Exxon has to pay for the damage its carbon is doing to the atmosphere, the price of its products would rise. Consumers would get a strong signal to use less fossil fuel – every time they stopped at the pump, they'd be reminded that you don't need a semimilitary vehicle to go to the grocery store.

The economic playing field would now be a level one for nonpolluting energy sources. And you could do it all without bankrupting citizens – a so-called "fee-and-dividend" scheme would put a hefty tax on coal and gas and oil, then simply divide up the proceeds, sending everyone in the country a check each month for their share of the added costs of carbon. By switching to cleaner energy sources, most people would actually come out ahead.

There's only one problem: Putting a price on carbon would reduce the profitability of the fossil-fuel industry. After all, the answer to the question *"How high should the price of carbon be?" is "High enough to keep those carbon reserves that would take us past two degrees safely in the ground."* 
The fossil-fuel industry is obviously a tougher opponent, and even if you could force the hand of particular companies, you'd still have to figure out a strategy for dealing with all the sovereign nations that, in effect, act as fossil-fuel companies. But the link for college students is even more obvious in this case. If their college's endowment portfolio has fossil-fuel stock, then their educations are being subsidized by investments that guarantee they won't have much of a planet on which to make use of their degree. (The same logic applies to the world's largest investors, pension funds, which are also theoretically interested in the future – that's when their members will "enjoy their retirement.")

"Given the severity of the climate crisis, a comparable demand that our institutions dump stock from companies that are destroying the planet would not only be appropriate but effective," says Bob Massie, a former anti-apartheid activist who helped found the Investor Network on Climate Risk. "The message is simple: We have had enough. We must sever the ties with those who profit from climate change – now."

As you may understand more clearly now, I propose that #565 could become a/the rallying cry. It will probably take nothing less than a complete  #systemhack  (as I like to call it) to avert extremely dire consequences to you, me, and just about everyone else on this plant. Very clearly within most of our lifetimes, certainly within your children's lifetimes, and possibly as early as THIS DECADE.

Deciding to do the right things circa 2020 will almost certainly be too late!


Post has shared content
I love cross-functional thinking.

If you manage to read through this post and thread, you'll have earned the right to buy me a coffee* someday.

If you add to the discussion there, I'll buy you the coffee.

* I'll accept a whiskey too. 
The Physics of Economics—For the Masses
I must thank +Craig Lennox for the question in the comment stream on my previous post that provided the impetus to flex my fingers, engage my brain’s cynical humour gland, then develop this concept and thesis summary. I have difficulty believing that my theorem is original and look forward to being shown otherwise. That it is a theorem rather than a theory is undoubted—just look around you. But first of all, the background.

Yesterday I wrote a post that was only slightly tongue-in-cheek. In the ensuing comments there was an exchange during which it was necessary that I mentioned my physics and economics educational background. In a heartbeat Craig posted the following comment: 

The Question—Wise and Complex
Colin: ”Then you’re the perfect one to answer this question. Why is it that economists talk about the velocity of money, but not the momentum of money? Yet, when you look at the equation of exchange in economics, it looks just like the equation for the linear momentum of a system of particles.” At last, an intelligent question to which I did not have an immediate answer. However, after a moment’s thought I started to type. As I typed, the concept crystallized and the wisdom of the question was echoed by the verisimilitude of the answer.  

The Answer—Like the Universe, Expanded
It all has to do with the differing properties of matter at big –Newtonian– and quantum –Einsteinian– levels. The way it works is that adherents of the Newtonian school have the majority of the wealth. It is their sworn duty to protect this wealth and ensure that, as though there were a diode in the system, their wealth only flows in a single direction—towards them. Towards the 0.001% who are the true Newtonians. Now, this is where mass comes into the equation. 

You see, without mass momentum is impossible to generate, irrespective of the velocity. The ‘quantum’ population—that would be the 99.999% who are Einsteinians—have no mass at an individual level. Indeed, without coalescing they will never be in a position where the velocity of their individual money can develop sufficient mass, and therefore momentum, to generate wealth and change the status quo. This is just fine for the 0.001% Newtonians—who have 85% of the available wealth. 

It is important to note at this point that the missing 14.999% disappears, typically, into a tax free black hole by way of a Möbius like twist in the Universal logic. Anyway, back to the core point. The Newtonians want the Einsteinians working away in the Ergoshpere, this being the region that surrounds a black hole and actually does all the hard work. Then, as the Newtonians are paid for their efforts, the Newtonians want the money to flow as quickly as possible into their hands so that the Einsteinians are unable to coalesce, make the quantum leap, become Newtonians, and compete on an equal playing field. 

The reason is obvious. The effort required to convince those Einsteinians who do coalesce to join the Newtonian club, then turn on their erstwhile peers, is tiresome and tends to drain the imbalance of the system. This is entropy 

Now, if we were to extrapolate this principle we could well find that we have discovered the whereabouts of the Universe’s missing mass. It has nothing to do with Higgs Bosun, it’s quietly biding its time the other side of a black hole in the accounts of the Newtonians and where the light never shines. How ironic!

One Final Thought—The Higgs Bosun
It is probably a sensible idea that we don’t tell the folk at CERN. I believe that they would be a trifle more than marginally upset that the game is up. This is relevant since the elegance of this theorem explains, also, why it is the Swiss-based CERN that has just announced the discovery of the whereabouts of the ‘Higg’s Boson’ without mentioning the economics implications. You see this is a quantum particle, not a Newtonian mass. In spite of this it represents the bulk of the missing mass of the Universe. The Swiss have been rather good at hiding such mass over the eons. 

Time for another Big Bang methinks.

Post has shared content
Je le savais!
+Kee Hinckley 4:56 PM  -  Public
Apparently people are more rational when they make their decisions using a foreign language.

❝ U.S. researchers show that depending on the language a person uses, it will not have the same feelings, does not necessarily take the same decisions vis-à-vis the same proposal ... ❞


Post has attachment
Dear America,



Please say this is part of some devious tactic to win the gold.

Post has shared content
I must admit that it is not so that my every single thought is pure gold: I have some reflections that result in ‘lesser’ thoughts sometimes. 

Some of those reflections started at +Think Tank, like in the post I shared here. I wouldn’t be so harsh on myself as to state that particular one was a waste of my time, but I wouldn’t say it was my finest moment either. In fact, I’m still reflecting on the matter on and off. At this point I estimate that my chances of striking gold there are but ever so slightly higher than unearthing actual gold in my backyard. 

A peek into my thought process right now, just like that, out of the bleu: wait, shouldn’t that be blue? Tricky mixing French and English in my thinking when I’m this tired. Is it time waster or time-waster or timewasters? Does spelling even matter for a ‘modern’ word like that one? Why, if so well spread and understood on the Internet, can’t I find a decent definition by Googling it? Is it a waste of time to go look at the results on the 2nd page instead of inserting new keywords and search again? 3rd page? Am I wasting time of people reading this far? Maybe I should get back on topic. I actually enjoy real-time writing like this and I seem to do it often. Afterwards it’s a job of removing, cutting, erasing, deleting, editing, cleaning up, finetuning... How many years have I been procrastinating selecting a good tool for synonyms?

So I was saying, lesser thoughts and timewasting. What if I start writing some down in the comments on this post? Who knows, my crumbs might be another person’s inspiration right? Or at least a different kind of timewaster. There’s only one way to find out...

Some of my very best lesser thoughts have been the result of reflections starting with a ‘What if?’.

Instead of wasting your time here, go read *

* I think I can count on my fingers the number of people I’d say are heroes to me, and xkcd would be one of them. 
+Grizwald Grim submitted a Thought:

What are some good criteria for an average person to determine if something is a waste of time or not?

Post has shared content
I said somewhere (forgot where) that I would stop posting publicly at the time of my 1st anniversary as a member here if Google didn't implement this or some other solution to the issue of censorship. I intend to make a clear post outlining the what and why of it, but for the time being I'm just sharing this one. I'm not going to discuss the matter in this post now, but will do in my own post at the end of this month.
I would like to start a campaign to get Google to implement their safe search technology that they use for images search onto Google Plus. I need your help to spread this message.

Hold your horses, I'm not saying they should censor Google Plus as they already do and that is precisely the problem. We no longer have a say in what we want to see or not see and that is fundamentally wrong. It also means that things like artful nudes are caught in the censorship net.

I would like to suggest we get the ability to set image level for your whole profile and additionally for circles, this would enable you to create a NSFW circle that you do not touch when in public, with children or at work.

Google can be compliant as they are now with safe search on their search page. Users can filter what they see based on their preferences and people who like to moderate can do so by flagging things that escape Googles filter, everyone wins!

If you agree please share this post with your circles, additionally you could use the feedback button and highlight this post.

Google video explaining safesearch:
Google Images SafeSearch

Updated with #hastags  as per +Youssef Hachhouch suggestion.

#nudity   #art   #nipples   #safesearch   #censorship   #censored   #campaign   #freedom  
Wait while more posts are being loaded