Unfairness

I have heard at the radio that the last year 1000 people died in psychiatric hospitals in Romania.
In same time till this year it was discussion to release some prisoners from jail because of bad conditions. They were overcrowded and the cells had mold.
But how many prisoners were tied up to the beds, how many were subject to medical experiments ? How many were abused by the personnel?
Some of these prisoners are drug traffickers who overcrowded psychiatric wards with their customers: drug users.
This happens when society is ruled by influence and power and by moral values.
The helpless innocent is kicked in the street and the criminal is compensated by the court for bad time in jail.

Pierderea lui Barna castigul USR

Werner von Braun se bucura cand exploda cate o racheta, spunea ca macar nu a explodat in aer cu oameni in ea si ca a aflat ce nu trebuie sa faca.
Asa trebuie sa faca si USR-u cu racheta Barna, daca se vrea un partid care sa schimbe ceva in politica.
USR-ul ca organizatie trebuie sa se reanalizeze.
Cum organizatia a permis ca un om cu problemele lui Barna sa candideze ?
Motivul pentru care Dragnea a ajuns presedintele PSD si l-a dus in sant, a fost  ca selectia din partid a favorizat oameni ca el, si a defavorizat altii mai corecti si nu aveau instincte dictatoriale.
Oricine poate juca baschet, chiar si oamenii de 1.5m , dar regulile jocului favorizeaza jucatori de 2m si de astia vezi in NBA.
USR trebuie sa-si selectioneze oamenii inainte de a ajunge la putere.
E frumos ca exclud din partid pe oricine condamnat penal, dar fiind un partid mic ei trebuie sa trimita in lupta electorala niste sfinti, pentru a nu fi atacati.
De ce nu a fost o verificare interna ?
De ce nu l-a intrebat nimeni pe Barna:
"Cum puteti fi atacat domnule Barna ?"
"Ati facut afaceri cu fonduri europene ?"
"Ati facut afaceri cu statul ?"
USRul trebuia sa aiba un "avocat al diavolului" care sa-l prinda cu ocaua mica pe candidat, sa-l incurce, sa stabileasca discuti in care sa fie fie acuzat, sa fie chiar jignit.
Soldatii romani se antrenau cu sabii de plumb ca in batalie sabiile normale sa li se para usor de folosit.
O alta greseala a USR-ului a fost ca nu si-a cautat alti alegatori in afara dreptei.
Alegatorii lui Johannis erau impartiti cu Barna, cu ce sa intre Barna in turul 2 ?
Trebuiau cautati alegatori in afara dreptei, de la nedecisi si de la PSD.
Faptul ca s-au bagat in disputa cu referendumul cu casatoria intre persoanele de acelasi gen, a fost o greseala care i-a costat.
Persoanele care nu votau cu PSD, si care considera normal ca doar o femeie si un barbat se pot casatori, au fost pierdute.
Oricum USR-ul atunci a aratat ca poate duce o campanie mizerabila, si mincinoasa daca ii cer interesele.
Singurul care s-a opus implicarii USR in problema casatoriilor homosexuale a fost Nicusor Dan care a fost dat deoparte.
USR-ul imi aminteste de Piata Universitatii, unde o miscare care putea sa schimbe regimul a fost deturnata de sursa "Ioan", alias Marian Munteanu (vezi "Marian Munteanu de la sursa Ioan la liderul  din Piata Universitatii" de Ramona Ursu ediutura Adevarul 2016).
Sau mai clar de exemplul lui Victor Ciorbea, fost prim ministru taranist, actual Avocat al Poporului din parte PSD.
Sper sa nu fie cazul si cu USR, desi organizatiile tinere sunt vulnerabile la infiltrari deoarece au nevoie de oameni.
In aceste context dezvaluirile lui Marius Oprea privind unele persoane din vechiile servicii  din jurul lui Ciolos nu ar trebui ignorate de membrii USR.

O alta greseala:Neintrand la guvernare USR-ul a pierdut sansa de a capata experienta si a arata ce poate.
Putea de exemplu cere ministerul mediului si incepe oprirea defrisarilor,care le-ar fi adus voturile ecologistilor.

Dar au jucat prudent si probabil s-au temut pe buna dreptate de eroziunea guvernarii si inghitirea de PNL.

Totusi Uniunea SALVATI Romania este gata sa faca orice pentru a salva romania, chiar sa piarda alegerile,nu ?
 Ei vor sa faca alta politica  in interesul oamenilor nu al politicienilor.
De ce au renuntat la crezul lor si au inceput calculul politic ?

S-a lansat acum si zvonul ca PNL a sabotat USR ca sa iasa Johanis cu Dancila in turul 2.
Am auzit unii membrii USR ca vor prefera sa voteze cu Dancila de a dracului.
E o prostie din urmatoarele puncte de vedere:

1. Trebuie sa votezi guvernul, daca tu  si tara ati dus-o mai bine, indiferent de jocurile politice. Votantii USR nu sunt multumiti de starea actuala altfel ar fi votat-o pe Dancila.

2. Nu stim daca e adevarat. Vorba lui Ilie Moromete "Pe ce te bazezi?"

3.Se disperseaza voturile anti-PSD intr-un moment crucial.La o prezenta de vot scazuta si cu voturile USR impartite ne trezim cu Viorica Dancila presedinte.
PSD-ul stie foarte bine sa-si dezbine adversarii si sa intarate oamenii. Ultima chestie pe care am auzit-o "Nu trebuie sa-l votam pe Johanis ca va acapara toata puterea".
Dreapta l-a avut bau bau pe Dragnea, stanga l-a avut ca bau bau pe Johannis.

Unii din USR dau vina pe sistem ca nu au castigat. Ultima oara cand am auzit asta a fost cand Vadim Tudor a pierdut prezidentialele.
Cu "mentalitatea toti sunt impotriva noastra" si cu un electorat din ce ince mai ingust si mai radical, USR-ul poate lua usor drumul Partidului Romania Mare.Va fi un partid extremist ciudat: foarte filo-european, cu oameni educati si liberali.
Sper ca USR sa isi regaseasca directia si sa forteze celalate partide sa joace corect, si sa nu devina o scara pentru parveniti.

Film review: 'Her'

I watched recently the movie Her. It is about a divorced writer who buys a new operating system with an artificial intelligence fitted with social abilities.
The writer (Joaquin Phoenix) decides that he needs a feminine touch and decides to give the operating system a female voice.
He starts to interact with the operating system (Her) and he becomes infatuated.
Based on our brain characteristics and our experience we all have an ideal partner. The AI discovered this ideal partner and simulated it. So he is in love with the illusion of his ideal partner.
Having the perfect partner for you at this time is bad because you don't evolve.
If you are a fat asocial gamer and you have a girlfriend exactly like you, you become more fatter, more isolated and you enter in decline.
Your partner should be good enough for live with her/him but different in order to explore different part of the reality and of you.
In the movie everything is fine till Her is blocked by an software update, and the writer is desperate to contact her.
Questioning her, he finds out that in the same moment, she speaks with over 8000 people and she is in love with over 600. He is devastated.
For millions of years people evolved with limited number of partners to look after it. Men had to fend of rivals who wanted to impregnate their wives. Women where dependent of the men who hunt and fought for the attention of the most able hunter.
Our survival depending on managing a small amount of people. We cannot remember more than 150 let alone manage them. An AI will outperform us even at this.
An AI is immortal, and doesn't need to reproduce, it doesn't have the biological restrictions. If it's main goal is to be social with many people as possible.

Finally Her dumps him because 'our meetings are like words, and the blank space between the words is becoming more interesting', or simply said he is boring. She has something better to do.
She said before that she is in love with over 600 people, so he is worse than 600 people.
Worst is that he is more uninteresting than 600 people.
If you are rejected because you are fat, old,short, you are missing a limb, you stutter, you have wrong kind of skin colour you accept it and you live with that.
But to be rejected by a computer because you are not interesting, a characteristic that you control, is worse.
Also to be placed 601 option is much harder to endure that to be placed the second option.
Advice: If you are placed 3-th option leave, the place is too crowded.

I am wondering about this AI failure:
The guy had a money back guarantee if the operating system dumped him ?
He could sue the producer because psychological harm caused by a faulty product ?
What is the difference between this AI and a wife that dumps you because you are bankrupt now ?
"Her" is a though provoking movie.
The movie is no longer a SF movie already we have Replika an AI bot
  

The bridge problem

Today are 30 years since Berlin Wall fell and I want to describe how over control can harm.
Let's imagine that we have a capital city connected to the agricultural area via a bridge.
Over the bridge passes all kind of lorries with wheat, vegetables, milk which feed the capital.
The bridge is strategic if it is blown up,the people from city will starve.
Government decides that the bridge should be guarded by soldiers.
One guy from military ask himself what if inside the lorry we have a device that can blow up the bridge ?
So it is decided that each lorry should be stopped and searched.
Of course this leads to delays in supplying the city, tomatoes are getting rotten, the milk is getting sour. The farmers are not willing to bother with bridge checks and they don't sell anymore to the city.
The city population is starving, is rioting and it is overthrowing the government.
This is the reason why communism fell: centralisation and police control.
The police has the ultimate word. Safety of the regime and not development was the main focus.

Richard Dawkins and soviet atheism

I watched a Joe Rogan podcast with Richard Dawkins, in which Richard said that he hopes that one day the world will be religion free.
This remind me about he effort of french revolutionaries and of the soviets to free people from religion.
They had more means than Richard Dawkins and they didn't succeed. Why he should succeed ?
I am disappointed by Mr. Dawkins because he is a scientist and he should be less dogmatic and more curious about the persistence of religion.
Despite scientific breakthrough there are smart people who believe in religion, and new religions appear even today. (In US there is scientology for and in Papua New Guinea  the cargo cults).
Why he is not curious about it ?
In same discussion he notices that in US despite of decrease in number of religious people, the extremist religion lobby is powerful.
Of course they have more influence,an united group in disunited society has more influence than its size.
It is Darwinism,a term which the biologist Dawkins uses often, but fails to comprehend when it is under his nose: a man in a group has more chances of succeeding.
The danger that I see in promoting atheism is not that it will destroy the moral fabric of society. The pious inquisitors who burned people at the stake were not moral.
The danger I see is that atomising society in individual atheist, fringe religious groups will have a stronger influence.
A cult within a society of atheists will be like a pack of wolves within a flock of sheep.
I don't agree with one big religion either.
All the religious states with one big religion have stagnated.
Portugal and Spain were overtaken by more liberal Holland.
Turkey by the Europeans.
Vatican was dismembered by Italy.
Iran and Saudi Arabia are resisting only because of oil.
I think that religion should be limited only to personal space and kept away from your job,politics and law.
Richard Dawkins also tried to promote his atheistic ideas to younger children, to deprogram them from religious influence of the parents. This is a risky business:
I have 2 friends who are at least non religious if not atheist, and one day their child asked them:
"I am going to die ?"
"Yes, his mother said"
Then the boy was scared and agitated all the time, whispering "I am going to die"
I think in this case is better to pretend that you believe in some religion, in some afterlife, in angels and heaven, to avoid to make your children life miserable.
Science can heal many illnesses but it cannot cure death. Death we have to face it one day, and we must prepare for it. A child doesn't have the mental strength to face it.
In 1961 when soviet cosmonaut Gagarin entered cosmos he said that he didn't see god.
In 1991 after the fall of Soviet Union, Russians collected money and rebuild the monastery "Jesus the Savior" demolished by Stalin in 1939.
70 years of hard line atheism didn't change anything in mind of people. Maybe Orthodox church has a lesser influence.
It good that Richard Dawkins combats religion, from opposition of ideas we can get better ones, but is bad that he tries to do what the soviets tried: to make a totalitarian state in which only 'rational' ideas exists.
Rationality of ideas depends of the current knowledge, Thomas Jefferson a smart man rejected the ideas of stones falling from the sky (meteorites) saying that most likely the scientists who proposed this are mad.

How thinking slow can save lives in US police shooting

I heard few days a go a news from US Texas:
A former police officer woman, mistook her apartment, busted in her afro-american neighbour condo, and shot him, believing that he was a thief.
What better example of police racism ?
Well, is more bad police training than racism. I will explain below:
I am reading Daniel Khaneman's book ''Thinking fast and slow'. He argues that there are 2 types of reasoning a fast one and a slow one.
The fast one reasons based on stereotypes and makes causal relations. It is happy when everything makes sense. It can make sense of everything even if it is not related.
The slow one is more analytical, more detailed oriented, makes better decisions based on facts not on stereotypes, but it is using more working memory.

The fast thinking system triggers when you are under pressure,tired or distracted.
 The policewomen was after a 12 hours shift, she was texting and she believed that it was an intruder in her apartment and she acted on her stereotypes.
How the racist stereotype is constructed ? If you are a white officer, even if the criminals you are dealing with are 50% white and 50% non white, you will met more white people that are not criminals. Your mother is white and not a criminal, your family,your colleagues are white and non criminals so a stereotype white and criminal cannot be formed easy.

 But stereotype non white and criminal can be formed. And if the officer is under stress he/she will act according to stereotype.

I was using white police example because it is easier, but stereotypes against white people also exists.

An US american moved in to Japan, and left his bicycle outside his dojo, together with other bikes. In one evening because it was dark, he could not found his bicycle and he was fumbling.
A japanese policeman saw this, asked him what was he doing, checked his papers and then left him alone saying: "You foreigners make all the crimes in Japan". Racist ? Maybe. Stereotype for sure.

Anti racist education helps to overcome stereotypes ?
Education targets the slow decision system, which in a gun shoot out doesn't work.
Maybe anti racist education will work and afro-americans won't be so easily shot by the police, but what you do with others ? Like, my friends who are europeans:
Four of  my friends travelled in Detroit area in a rented car.
They were pulled over, and kept at gun point and then released by a fearful policeman.
At the TV news they saw that in Detroit was a shoot out in which a policeman was killed.
If one my friends would put his hand in his pocket for showing the passport they will be all dead, because of this policeman who feared for his life.

In order to give time to the slow thinking process to intervene you must slow things down and remove the pressure.

Lets wrap up a conclusion:
Policemen are fearing to be shot this makes them act hastily and judge on stereotypes.
The learned to act aggressively to deter anyone to use force.
They learn to shoot at head not at the feet, which makes a police encounter more deadly. You can shoot in the legs a nut with a knife from 6 m with same effects.

Their aggressive attitude makes suspect act nervous which amplifies the policeman fear.
Because of fear the suspect can act stupid.

The key words are guns and fear.
US americans won't give up their guns not even if half population is killed, so we must get rid of fear.

Taking time reduces fear. If the Texas police woman would call back ups and wait for it, she would realise that it was not her apartment.

Trevor Noah describes  very funny how police should handles suspects. And South Africa is far more dangerous as US.
Instead of pointing a gun and shooting out, US policemen should point a gun and be polite: "Good day sir, please put your hand on the driving wheel, where I can see it. How do you feel ? Where you were speeding ? Why you were speeding ?"

Book review: "Permanent record" by Edward Snowden

I just finished the reading of "Permanent record" by Edward Snowden, its autobiographic book.
I find it interesting because it is revealing the atmosphere in US before and after 9/11, and the state of mind of Snowden and NSA in that period.
The book becomes interesting when Edward Snowden discovers the internet in the '90.
Being anonymous on internet allowed him a teenager to interact with older and wiser people from universities.

He summarise his experience in the following phrase that I quote from memory: "so what if you were older and stronger than me ? In internet we are all equals and it matters who is smarter"
It makes you wonder:

With instant access to information what value have the knowledge of old people ?
Old people have social skill and patience, their social network precedes the birth of current contestants, no wonder that most leaders have above 40 ears of age.

If the strength would not matter why people are fleeing Afganistan, Syria and Africa ?
In a society where is no violence and humans rights are respected physical strength doesn't matter.
A school girl like Greta Thunberg could protest  in XXI Sweden but not in viking era, where the size did matter in hand to hand combat.

Snowden deplores the fact that Internet transformed from a platform  where people exchanged ideas , in a place in which money are extracted and fake news are spread.
The Internet is based on cables,servers, electricity and this doesn't pay for it self. The entering of  business extended this network, and allowed thousand of new economical possibilities.
Without internet thousand of young Asians, east Europeans, Africans, south Americans would be unemployed because the outsource and software business would not exists.

Snowden then describes how he started to hack internet sites while his parents divorced.
He says something interesting: When something new is created, the one who creates cannot foresee its effects.
For example: a colony of termites constructs a mound but this has as side effect attracting apes who are eating termites. Termites create the mound to protect but they concentrate and  attract other predators.
Other examples unintended consequences: NSA needed cyber experts, it outsourced this to different companies who brought young idealists like Snowden in contact with its secrets.
The first contact  he had with goverment was when as teenager he entered on the Los Alamos Laboratory site and read a lot of private documents.After some effort we convinced the site admin to fix the issues.

It seems that US administration have a chronic problem with security.
Snowden as a teenager entered in Los Alamos Nuclear laboratory site and read a lot of private information.
Then at 18-19 years of age he as civilian we worked on premises of Fort Meade without clearance. Then at 27 years he runaway with documents from an NSA compound in Hawaii.

He seems that he has a privacy problem also:
In the book he details the infatuation that he had for his boss in 2001, a married woman, and how he lived 9/11 attacks.
Serious Mr. Snowden ? You preach privacy but you disclose details that could affect the life of a married woman ?

After 9/11 he joined the army despite his fathers advice. He was disappointed and he was released on medical grounds.

Then he joined CIA in order to be a kind of Q in IT, but in more dangerous places.

He enters in conflict with his superiors because he demands better living conditions. During training they were living in a shitty motel with a broken stair who finally collapsed.
After demanding to his superior to fix the accommodation, and not receiving an answer he escalated the issue to higher echelons.But instead of  receiving an answer for his demands we was reprimanded because he didn't used the hierarchical channels.
So Snowden a white middle class american man, raised in spirit of constitution, who believes that   the people rule and politicians are servants of public interests, and you can make a petition and the problem is analysed, was reprimanded because he used his rights.
As punishment he is dispatched to Geneva not where he wanted: Afghanistan.
In this way he was separated by envy from his former colleagues who all wanted an European post.

It seems that is a CIA tradition to be cheap with new recruits, former CIA chief of operation for Europe Tyler Drumheller recounts on his book: 'On brink' how in 1975 when he was recruited he received a 250$ check with which he could buy only one suit.

In same book Tyler Drumheller says that during Bush Jr. administration  (2001-2009) CIA was very politicised, being ruled effectively by Dick Chenney and it mattered more political obedience than the professionalism.. (Maybe Cheney's politics trickle down to Snowden superiors?)
Tyler Drumheller says that Bush administration tried to change privacy laws in Western Europe. In same time NSA widen its dragnet.

In Geneva Snowden recalls how difficult it was for CIA to hide its searches online. It has to spend money to make a front company in order to search on internet some scientist.
It seemed that CIA was lagging behind NSA in terms of technology and importance. In his own words Edward Snowden said that it was easier to infect the computer of a target and stole the informations unknowingly than to try to bribe him. So NSA tools we cheaper and safer than the ones of CIA. He describes how CIA agents hurried and failed to recruit a Saudi official.

The suspense part is when he works for NSA in Hawaii
He is overworked and starts to have epileptic seizures.
He finds out about the desire of NSA to put on permanent record every information about a person in pure Chinese style. He says that by mistake he have found a file that describes everything.

He explains the rationale behind the intercepting communication of american civilians: the terrorists hid within a population, US must prevent another 9/11 we must intercept all persons of interest and the persons who are related. Within this dragnet also US citizens personal information can be collected breaking the constitutional right. it seems that 9/11 was the excuse for invading Iraq and spy US citizens.

He decides to tell to the media, and searches for a safe heaven far from US but not controlled by China or Russia. The only place is Hong Kong.
The most thrilling part is we he gets away with the SD cards full of information and then he waits 10 days in his hotel chamber for journalists.

He tried to reach Ecuador but is trapped on Moscow. His passport his cancelled but can use a UN refugee passport given by Ecuador.
He waits 44 days in airport eating burgers and refusing offers from FSB.

What is the fuss with privacy ?
Personal information modifies the our social image and determines the social alliances that we can have. More friends we have more powerful we are.

The Catholic Church controlled its believers using the guilt for the original sin, and guilt of the priests who broke their celibacy sermon.
Only catholic church could redeem your should and forgive your sins and welcome you in middle of community.
The sins of the clergy were tolerated because a vulnerable priest could be punished easily.
A holy man as Jan Hus was more dangerous to the church hierarchy than a Borgia.

The actual masters of digital information control are doing the same, they can forget  Justin Trudeau sins and present him as an exemplary  who welcomes brown refugees from Syria, or they excommunicate him and show a picture in which Trudeau is dressed as Aladin and with face painted brown.
Justin next time respond to the phone.

In this world only children as Greta Thunberg can change something, because they don't have a past, they don't have children to fed, they don't have a job to attend to. They are generous and hopeful.
But even children as Greta can be denigrated: in purest soviet style her speeches and actions are dismissed as actions of a deranged girl with Asperger and depression.
What is worse to be mentally ill and fight for a good cause ? Or sane and work for evil politicians and CEO as a pen for hire?

The solution to avoid mobbing and shaming is to forgive as it is said in prayer "Our father":
"
And forgive us our trespasses, 
as we forgive those who trespass against us. 
And lead us not into temptation, 
but deliver us from evil. Amen."

If we don't forgive others online trespasses ours won't be forgiven.
If we forgive the mistakes of the people and we don't became tribal, the leaking of personal information won't have any effect.

Conclusion:
After Snowden affair, the future has 2 possibilities either will be a world like in novel "We" by Evgeni Zamiatin , where people lived in transparent houses and everything was monitored and controlled either it will be a world in which we will use encryption more often and we will forgive more.

Regarding encryption: US Navy Intelligence developed free Tor browser to cloak internet traffic, Snowden exposed flaws used by NSA to spy.
People don't foresee consequences when they are doing something: those who tried to spy supply you with tools for self defence.
It seems that entropy wins every time.

3 ideas how to fix US

I am not interested in US elections but I watch a discussion between Bernie Sanders and Steven Colbert.
I was surprised to hear from an US senator the "tax the rich" shout of the 'sans coulotes' from French Revolution or of the Bolsheviks.
If you tax heavily top 1% they leave the country, then the burden will fall on top 10%. These either will leave the country or not invest too much and the burden will fall under the shoulders of 25%, they will not leave the country but they will invest and buy less.'
Many Jacobins and Bolshevik were idealistic and wanted to make a better world, but didn't understood the reality and especially the historical and cultural traditions, and many Bernie supporters could make the same mistake.
The Jacobins ignored the french catholic culture, the Bolsheviks ignored  the Russian orthodox culture and Mr. Sanders ignores american culture of the personal initiative.
If he ignores this it will be difficult for him to make some reforms. Jacobins had guillotine and Bolshevik had gulags from Siberia to speed up the reforms, US president as less room for manoeuvre.

The US american will not transform themselves in socialist as the french monarchists didn't transform themselves in citizens.
The problem with personal initiative is that you must have an even playing field, that allows the best to succeed. Te american pioneer had no kings to obey, no tradition to follow.
He elected it own president and made his traditions on the go.
Now it seems the playing field is not even, it is tilted.
How  ''mom and pop'' company who pays taxes can compete with a corporation that stashes billions overseas ?
How can you compete if you are bankrupt because of an illness ?
How can you use your skills better if student loans force you to take the most financial safe career ?

Here I have 3 ideas that fix these issue that costs nothing:

1. Flat tax: Put a tax of 20% on the profit. The fiscal code is simple and corporations cannot hide the profit. It evens the playing field between small and big companies. Less bureaucracy.
Make fiscal amnesty, tax with 20% all the money that are returning from off-shore accounts.
Don't tax revenues that are made abroad. Only US is doing it.
A comparison between UK and US fiscal system.

2. Offer university scholarships for poor youth:
From what I understood US government offers some subsidies for student loans.
In a market economy the the greater demand for a steady supply increase the price.
The places in university are in steady supply, the loans increase the demand, this increases the price, making education more difficult for  intelligent but poor youth.
Why don't we use the same money to offer scholarships in affordable universities ?
Students will be saved from poverty.High school students will be motivated to work hard to get rid of bad neighbourhood and gangs.
The government money will help good universities , not some diploma factories. These money can help develop local economy, the influx of students will increase commerce and propriety value.
Without loans the prices will decrease the education will be affordable for many students. They will not need a loan anymore.
The workforce will more qualified.
All you have to do is to spend differently.

3. Health insurance and medicines: Either the government can offer a basic insurance to complement the private one either offer a scheme for current insurance to cover the poor and ill:
Make a tax deduction for the revenue obtained from poor and ill so to be profitable for insurance companies to serve this market segment
Fix the price of some medicines that are monopoly of some companies.
If you are the only holder of a patented medicine you are a monopoly and in case where it is a monopoly  state intervenes and negotiates a fair price. (A fair price can be a fix percentage added to manufacturing costs for example)
Also let medicines coming from other countries to enter in US market easily.
If a medicine is approved in EU why it is not safe to sell it in US ?
If a drug company uses money for promotion these costs must not be deductible, many bad medicines are sold because of good marketing.

But this is not communism/socialist intervention in the economy ?
No.
The communist state owned every thing, the socialist took from rich and gave to poor.
In this case the government negotiates for the citizens because it represents them. In theory.

On limits of the computers

Lines crawl in to letters.
Letters cluster into words.
Word in to stories.
Stories show a part of the real world.
We go from one dimension (lines) to two dimensions (text) to three dimensions (story).
The written story emerges from the lines and the text, but text can only be understood from a higher dimension which provide context.
We cannot understand the story analysing the lines.

The computer's processor unit is one dimensional because it makes operation sequentially.
Now artificial intelligence try to use this one dimensional device to understand, two dimensional universes, such as pictures, or three dimensional universes such as the environment around a robot.

Will they succeed?
For me predicting future outcomes of emergent systems is like predicting the future:
On short term, in general you can guess it right, the universe has it's own inertia.
But on the long term, on specific instances you fail.
Maybe for understanding our 3D or 4D if you include the time, universe we need a machine that works in 5D.

About culture

I saw a documentary about dolphins, it seems that they have some basics of the culture, every pack of dolphins has its own way of hunting and its own language.
The learn from one another and the learn from their elders.
They have tradition and spreading of ideas,the corner stones of a culture.
Without them the random good discoveries would not be selected.
For example:
One guy used fire cook some rotten meat, other copied this method, some survived to pass to the new generation.  The new generation took this knowledge tried to produce by themselves the fire, everybody copied the idea, they passed to the next generation.

What is interesting in human society is that we have a conflict between tradition and novelty.
It is like it is a limit for how much change we can accept.
Maybe we are attached emotionally to the old ways and it is hard to give up, maybe it is a fear, maybe is a peer pressure.
From evolutionary point of view the novelty complements tradition.
I think the real breakthrough in spreading the ideas, was the printing press.
For the first time novelty spread faster than the tradition could keep up.
The printing press, later, radio and TV have formed communities. The editors has to use only one dialect of the language and enforced creation of a cultural language over a vast teritory.
Now the internet is spreading novelty faster but is 'balcanizing' the society: like minded people, with their own language, cluster and isolate themselves.

Narcissistic Europa

I have seen a documentary on Arte TV called Oh!Europe. At the end they speak about revolutions in '89 Europe forgetting the most dramatic one in which 1500 people died: The Romanian Revolution,.
First flame of revolution was extinguished in Iasi in 11-12 December when conspirators against the regime we re arrested, then  it started all over again in 17 December in Timisoara when army open fire   on demonstrators and in civilian buildings. One friend of mine told me that he left with parents their block apartment from Giroc street only to return at night and see the facade and windows pierced by bullets and pools of blood on pavement.
The wounded people from hospitals were shot and their bodies burned together with other victims. Their ashes were poured into the sewers. No one was found responsible.
On 21 December  Nicolae Ceausescu called in  for a meeting, the meeting turned against him, and people were dispersed. They made barricades at Intercontinental, and the light faded out in the evening shots were fired. They were around 100 braves, fortunately for them the soldiers were sympathetic  and didn''t shoot them unless ordered and then they fired away.
On 22 December workers assembled from factories in front of Party Central Committee, Ceausescu fled. After this the killing contained and 1000 more, died.
The chant on the streets those day was: 'We will die and we will be free'. I cry that was not heard from French revolution 200 years earlier.
 I don't know why this dramatic story doesn't fit in European picture ?
Only the west Europeans have fought for liberty? Values are more relative now because the left from the West was sympathetic to regimes from Eastern Europe?
Another topic that it was glossed over: 'The flying bridge to the Berlin' it was not only throwing packages with food from the airplanes. The US was ready to start a nuclear world war for defending that patch of land called West Berlin. If West Berlin fell, the Europe fell then the world fell to Stalin. It was freedom or death.
Ghinghis Han said that the walls are strong as the people defending them.
The last defending wall against soviets was the nuclear weapon.
If  the people in the '50 didn't had values to die for , and they were not ready to face a quick nuclear war than to endure a communist regime, the western Europe have folded.
Without american citizens believing in freedom and democracy you wouldn't have GI landing in Normandy and the Germany would be 'freed' by Soviets, more German women would be raped, more factories dismantled and sent to Soviet Union together with thousand of slave workers.
Without american help and pressure, the french and Germans would have bickered till today.
US because its cities were not bombed by Nazi Germany was the cool head in the allied camp who constructed a seed for future union.
 If in '45 the US would have been ruled by Trump he would reach to a consensus with Stalin: 'We take the European colonies, you take the western Europe'. Unfortunately today the US politicians don't have to even pretend that they  care about the democracy and freedom. Freedom means options for common folk, and if the common folk has options it can't be squeezed of the last dollar.
Another remark:
The two women from video are saying something like: 'Americans throw food packages in West Berlin and napalm in Greece and Vietnam'
I never heard about napalm used in Grece civil war as I never heard of Americans fighting there.
Regarding the Vietnam civil war, US supported the non communist side and bombed the northern communist side. The communist and people from the north didn't represent  all Vietnamese otherwise you would not have the dramatic images of helicopters overcrowded with civilians leaving Saigon and the boat people.

Europe unification it seems inevitable, in 1945 Europe could be united either by Hitler (he had support of former enemies such as Vichy France), either by Stalin  or by US and UK.

What technologies will be used in World War 3?

In world war 1 it was used some mature technologies such as railways, artillery and machine guns, some new technologies such as the tank,the plane and radio and as weapon of mass destruction the poisonous gas.
In second wold war the previous novel technologies were matured change the way the war was conducted (think of plane,tank binome). New technologies appeared such as computer,jet engine and the flying bombs(V1 and V2) . The previous weapon of mass destruction gas was not used but it was invented a new one: the nuclear bomb.
So what is next for the thirtieth world war?
The novel technologies from WW2 are matured: V1 is the cruise missile, V2 is the ballistic missile, jet planes are developed, the computer is the backbone of planning,logistics and of the cyber army.
What are novel technologies for WW3?
Satellites? Drones? AI?
What it will be the WW3 weapon of mass destruction?

Fighting people is harder than overcoming nature: why large organisations fail

I saw the Russian movie Salyut 7 movie in which a team of 2 Russians cosmonauts try to fix orbital station with same name.
Problems in cosmos are man made, we went where we are not suppose to be, with our faulty technology.
In the movie fighting communist bureaucrats was harder than to sent 2 people in space.
Alexis de Toquevile said in 1812 work "About democracy in America" that USA will overcome Russia because in USA you fight mostly with nature, while in Russia you fight against people.
Overcoming nature is easy, nature is honest, measurable, it doesn't have a position to protect, it doesn't blame on you, it is punishing you fairly if you make stupid mistakes.If an organisation is hierarchical complex, more time and effort you dedicate to politics, and more you trade off safety and technical craftsmanship for political gains to forward the project.
Kennedy had to make some facilittes in Houston TX to "bribe" Texas senators to support his space program.
Another example where political compromise had affected safety is Challenger who was launched regardless of engineering warnings because of political pressure.
Another one is Boeing 737 Max, in which management didn't ensured the safety of the plane for desire to make profits.
We can discuss the morality of  these decisions where people caved in to the pressure, despite the fact that they didn't risk deportation in Siberia.
It seems that regardless of the political system (dictatorship in URSS,democracy in USA) the organisations too big to fail make serious blunders.
The reasons is two fold:
First: they are powerful organisations and their management wasn't challenged enough. Prussian army during Bismarck was a new army and had to fight stronger opponents. The German army during WW1 was respected army and failed.
Bankers till 2008 were not challenged seriously by a crisis.
Second: concentration of power. Economies of scale and military power concentrate power in hands of few people that are unchallenged. So a bad decision is transmitted to lower level and the company crashes with terrible force.
Solution? Make things smaller an multiples as in this article.
The democracies are more robust than absolute monarchies because the leadership is shared, and limited.
The death of the king plunged the country in a civil war, the death's of Lincoln,McKinley and Kennedy didn't affect very much the american democracy.

Natural cybersecurity

The scandal of cybersecurity with Huawei made me think more about it.
The power of IT business is that if you find a solution you scale it fast.
But the weakness is that you have an error you scale it fast.
Life is scaling fast without cyber security problems, because the existence of death.
Think at a organic virus as a cyber attack. Virus enters in a host use its resources to replicate then moves to the next host,but the most greedy viruses kill their host and don't replicate.
So the epidemic dies off. The death of the host select also more "benign" viruses.
It seems that today plague,leprosy or syphilis they are less dangerous as their medieval ancestors.
What if we could implement the cell death in our chips?
Let's say that we can implement a monitor (internal or external)  that shut down devices if they are behaving strangely and reroutes the flow of information toward other devices.
The acts will have local limited impact.
But the danger is an autoimmune reaction in which protection measures could block the network.
Maybe an random reaction will limit  the capacity of an attacker to use the protection against the network.
For sure you will need hardware redundancy and this will increase costs.
But you can have also a software redundancy by using 3 different kernels using different data sources and making an arbitrage between result of the kernels.
If all the actors will adhere to security standard protocol, the 5G development will be more secure.

About identity

I just a watched a Joe Rogan podcast with Eddie Izzard, a comedian that I like for his smart jokes.
For my surprise I found out that he oscillates between being a man and a woman.
I heard about people who felt that they were a woman in male body or vice versa, but never about a person that changes its gender monthly.
That made think about identity.
I think that till 18-25 years our identity is determined by our environment.
Your gender, to what climate you were born, in which continent, in which culture, in which family you live mark your development forever.
So if you want to know who you are you should look around you and understand.
Only after you take decisions and you modify your environment, which in turn affects you, you start to have an identity that is somewhat independent of your environment.
This might explain why people rationalise their motives. Their actions make part of their identity, and since people in general love themselves and consider that they are good, this means that their actions are good or at least had good intentions.
So no wonder criminals blame the victims for their acts.
The oldest example for this is the ransacking of Troy and killing of population who was explained by Homer by the kidnapping of Helen by Paris.
Also by removing the rights to act  of a person you can prevent it from developing an independent identity and the person can be the prisoner of the group.
This can be seen in how the women were treated in world wide till second world war and how the women are still treated in some Muslim countries.Also it is evident in communist countries were private initiative was stifled and decisions were took by some bureaucrats.
Maybe the lack of options to develop an independent identity explains the Stockholm syndrome, where hostages identify with their captors, or the Nazi doctors who could  kill children because during work hours they identify themselfs as SS.
But lets return to the case of Eddie Izzard. He tells that he was harassed because he was dressed as a woman.
This makes me wonder which is the threshold were you should accept  the opinion of others and change your identity.
If you believe that you are good singer despite evidence, then you will continue to ruin your life by pursuing a career that is dead end and you will alienate you friends who don't want to hear your screams.
On the other side if you are a good singer, and everyone is bullying you, you might ruin your life because you limited yourself.
I don't have a god answer, but the best way is to try and see if it is working.
By trying I know for sure that I am not a good musician. :)

Book review:"12 rules for life" by Jordan Peterson

I just finished "12 rules for life" by Jordan Peterson and I am delighted that someone encourages people to adopt general moral values, instead just adapt an play along with the rules, as many recent US books for self-help advocate.
It seems that US americans, the most individualistic,rebellious and libertarian nation just discover the Romanian proverb "Bowed head is not cut by the sword" and the Iranian one "Kiss the hand that you cannot bite". This is a sign of stagnation and a road towards the loss of liberties, because the changes in society were made by people who had strong values like Martin Luther King or the Founding Fathers.
This vaccine shot of "secular" religion provided by the Canadian Dr. Peterson, might boost the social immune system against lie and injustice.
I will explain this below.
The main controversy is about first chapter "Stand up straight and with your shoulders back" in which he demonstrates the existence of hierarchies in nature, well before humans used social hierarchies.
Unfortunately he uses a political language from the left such as "1%", and it seems to me that the "1%" will justify their hold to privileges using Dr. Peterson philosophy as nazi's were inspired from Nietzsche or communist used Karl Marx.

I agree that in nature exist an innate hierarchy system that is determined by a clear criterion. For example the biggest and strongest walrus is rewarded with  the biggest harem.
But in human hierarchies,other hidden criteria operate.
For example in medical hierarchy the best doctors are on the top? Or at least the must compassionate are on the top?
If we study medical hierarchy in 1847 Europe we can discover top doctors of the time refused to wash their hands,when Ignaz Semmelweis proved that many pregnant women died at birth due to diseases transmitted by doctors.
The arguments of  top doctors? Gentlemen don't transmit diseases. Proofs are unscientific according with the current theory.
We can excuse the medics from 19 for their ignorance of the germ theory but we cannot forgive them for the indifference towards pregnant women and babies. The washing of hands with chlorine or alcohol was a small effort that could save hundreds of lives.

So if the hierarchy is the best way to solve thing and distribute resources, why it didn't work?
Why the top of medical hierarchy in was not filled with the smartest and most compassionate doctors?
 Hierarchies work in nature because they are always challenged.
The walrus has to defend every day its harem, once he is not able to it falls down the latter.

In human hierarchies sometimes the position  is inherited or it is given from top down.
For example: the son of the king is inheriting the hierarchy of his father. His father conquered enemies and made alliances, and the member of these alliances want to maintain the status quo and accept the king son despite his flaws.(The cardinal of Richelieu said that a new king must not change anything if he wants to stay in power)
The criterion for staying in top of hierarchy changed from father, who rise up because he was the best warrior, to the son who must be a  keeper of status quo.
The human social hierarchy depends of alliances.
The one who challenges the hierarchy challenges an alliance of individuals not an individual.
A guy trying to overthrow the king will affect the livelihood of dukes and counts.
Ignaz Semmelweis with his discovery challenged the competence of his fellow doctors. Seeming less competent they could  lose social status and maybe have less patients.
Unchallenged hierarchies are fatal for themselves and for community.

The best example of unchallenged hierarchy who destroyed it self is the french aristocracy.
A nobleman mission in Middle Age was to defend the realm, and only the smartest and strongest military men resisted.
But the state grew and kings army took over the military matters.
Now the noblemen had to dedicate only to administration of the domains and to the pleasures.
Soon they delegated the administration of their estates and focused on pleasures.
The title inherited from the father assured a good life without dirtying hands with lower occupations such as commerce and they were not bothered with taxes.
The number of these parasites grew as Louis 15 started to sell titles for money.
Of course we know that what happen a famine triggered French Revolution and most of the noblemen lost their head to the guillotine or fled.

How to handle a hierarchy?
Against a hierarchy you can either submit and perpetuate the actual state, fight against and be crushed or act on horizontally and convince the other member of society that the hierarchy is putrid and unfair and must be changed.
Radio Free Europe did this in Eastern Europe and because of that the communist regimes fell swiftly.
The social media did the same thing in Arab spring.
In both cases hierarchies didn't work anymore: they didn't provided security and they were followed by inertia.Once the social inertia consumed itself they fell.

Universal moral values limit the power that a hierarchy has upon us by creating a unity that transcends group divisions, and making people strive for a common good.
For example in World War II they were people who ignored hierarchical orders and did good things. Viorica Agarici stood in front of a death train and force it to be open, and people within to receive water, catholics smuggled jewish children from Warsaw ghetto, German military commanders refused to blow up Paris, doctors in soviets camps helped the prisoners to survive.Even a Himmler henchmen declared that it was very hard for him to shot a SS member who refused to shot some civilians.
Nicolae Steinhardt during his imprisonment in a Romanian communist  prison, said that a guard has told him, that if they would do everything what was ordered to, within a week they would be dead.

Of course punishments can make you choose between defending values or die: in 1953 a riot broke out in East Berlin, and the soviet soldiers who maintained order there were shot because they didn't shoot the demonstrators.

As any big religion or nation can testify universal moral values strengthen make the society cooperate towards against abusive hierarchies.

The enemy of universal moral values is tribalism where small group of people tied by blood relations, by narrow ethnics or by small interest cooperate to wipe out others.
Unfortunately the politicians are good at making tribes.

From Homer to Emily Bronte: how the christinity,printing press and literacy, emancipated women

I was listening the Jordan Peterson interview with Joe Rogan, and few ideas sprung on my mind:
The first epic poems of western culture Iliad and Odyssey have as men the central characters, one is merciless killer (Achilles) one is shrewd one (Ulysses).
Those were violent times were war and raids were day to day reality, but in same time life in a village was boring and dull.
Men had to go to war and be brave as Achilles and smart as Ulysses, in order that you and your family to survive.
Hector was a good husband, Priam was a compassionate leader who accepted Helen, but these more soft and somehow feminine qualities didn't stop cruel Achilles and shrewd Ulysses to conquer Troy and kill them together with  their children.
And as the victors write the history the story of male, shrewd aggressors stole the headlines.
Christianity damped somehow the male aggressive values, and the medieval tales hero could not simply storm villages, killed men and enslave women and children. He had to fight for a right cause: the christian fate and save damsels in distress.
In Christianity the Mary mother of Jesus it has an equal or even higher status than  Him. Not explicit but the sufferance of a mother to see her son tortured and killed, was added to the story.
In 17 century England due to the rise in commerce, the need for literate workforce increased. Somebody had to be a bookkeeper,to write to far away colonies to trade with them  and to speak foreign languages. The easiest and cheapest way to have your sons know such things was to have a literate mother to learn them.
In 18 century 30% of women knew to read compared with 40% of men
A market for book for women was opening and a demand for women writers.
Now the women could voice their opinions, tell their stories, women writers be economically independent and alter society.
The women were not discriminated because they were women but because they were weak.
 For example despite been a woman Helen was not discriminated because she was powerful: convinces Paris to steal her, convinces Priam to accept her and not send her back, convinces Manelaus to take her back.
 Why ? Maybe because she was the queen, she inherited the land.
During Homer time it was a transition from matriarchy to patriarchy. In same period of time because of  matrilinear transfer of propriety and power, the pharaoh had to marry his sisters.
If the male pharaoh was a god and the Egypt was a patriarchy then they should marry who they like, and we would see more foreign women involved in court's life.
Till the industrialisation the labour was physical and woman who gave birth to eight children could not produce enough to be economically independent, so it was in weaker position.
With the need for intellectual workforce, women could compete equally with men, sometimes with better results due to their innate patience.
For example:
First Bell's telephone operators were boys who got bored and made pranks. Then Bell's hired women a cheap educated workforce, who had patience  and agreeableness.

Relationships between women and men in  19 century West were interesting, the technology offered more opportunity for women, but the laws were tilted in favour of men: only they could  make politics.
When women asked politely to have the same rights, men refused because within male society  nothing is given, everything is taken.
Any fraternity,military or other male team rises obstacles in front of newcomers. The reason is 2 fold: first you see if the guy is fit to the job. You don't want a weak comrade in arms to pull you back/
Second, you increase adherence to the group. If you work hard to get in a team like military platoon, you don't run away when they are sent in the mission.
When women first wanted to enter politics and economics, the reaction of male society was similar as facing a new recruit: you are a weak, unproven cadet, show that you are worthy of us, we will do anything possible to determine you to leave.
And as a new recruit in the army ambitious women has to withstand a lot of ridicule and malice and sometimes violence. Like the Boston Marathon in 1967, when Jock Semple tries to pull out Kathrine Switzer, or Malala Yousafzai who was shut in the head. Or the girls who were spayed with acid in Afganistan.

Along the history following things empowered women:

1.Peace
The bands of raiders from Homer time and today's talibans are bad news for women and intellectual endeavours.
Peace means strengthen the military and create a code for young men to defend with their life the vulnerable. Men must be educated to be generous selfless protectors. To vilify them as member of patriarchy is counterproductive.
Who fought for American independence, France revolutionary war? And all kind of  independence war and revolutions? Men. So they are not the all members of "patriarchy" they are also rebels and revolutionaries.
Men are bred for war let's use this aggressive for good, and justice.
George Orwell said that "we sleep easy because there are men who are ready to make awful things for us".
Men must be more like Hector than Achilles.

2.Technologies who helped women
Below is chronological list of technologies who helped women.
All they were found and produced in Western Europe and United States
Now they are not spread equally.
- professional medical assistance at birth (19 century)
-medical and hygiene education (19 century)
-literacy,books (18 century Western Europe)
- running water (19 century Britain)
 -phone (end of 19 century US)
- home appliances such as washing machines (mid 18 century), vacuum cleaners (mid 20 century), fridges (mid 20 century)
- contraception method (modern condoms appeared in 19 century,birth control pill in 1960)
-access to internet (1990)
-mobile phones

3. Changes in law
- equal treatment in law
-equal treatment in courts
-right to vote
-payed maternity leave

Conclusion:
The western society benefited from education of women (Edison and Tesla were home schooled by their mothers), benefited from equal rights for women (more women became financial independent and they could support their families).
What the feminist in the west should do is to help implementing the above things above in backward countries from Middle East and Africa.
Instead of harassing harmless University professors in the West they should harass royalty and president from Middle East where women are openly discriminated.

Comment regarding book 'Antifragile' by Nicholas Taleb

Nicholas Taleb says that life is antifragile (thrives against adversities) because it regenerates itself and it is composed by mortal individuals.
But he reason behind all this is the information.
Environment can destroy life but t is hard to destroy information.
We can exterminate 99% of a virus but it can remain 1% that can bounce back.
A virus is mainly information.
The same things we see in human societies. Egyptian empire disappeared because the information was controlled by the priests.
Greece and Athens spread their culture till hour days because they distributed freely the information.
China is good example, the writing and the chronicles have maintained this big civilisation.
European colonial empires they disappeared but their metropolis didn't disappeared as Phoenicians.

Luxury items was a tax for the 18 century french aristocracy?

I read the book "The black count" from tom Reiss and within it it is described the value of the sugar in 18 century. Rich people,mainly aristocrats they went crazy about this food  that seemed to have medicinal proprieties.
The Haiti (San Domingue) was so important for the France, they preferred to loose large swaths of land in North America than to give up this island.
But how the colonial economy worked?
The central government sent troops to conquest territories in America/Indies. Then these territories were cultivated with sugar cane,coffee,tea and these goods were sold mainly to rich aristocrats from metropolis.
So the wealth of aristocrats transferred via colonies into the pockets of central government state and planter's.
Why then transfer was not done directly from aristocrats to the states?
The aristocrats had a lot of privileges and of the most important was the fact that they didn't pay taxes.
The king needed money for army, for fending off enemies abroad and rebels within, but he could not simply tax the most wealthy subjects because of fear of rebellions.(Charles I of England loosed his head because of this) France and Great Britain had enough rebellions against the central monarchy to remember the king to be cautious.
So the way to tax the aristocrats was to sell them luxury goods. This is clear in France were state's manufactures were created just for this: silk manufactures,porcelain manufactures,chocolatiers etc.
The advantage of this subtle taxation system was that the tax could be extended to other countries by exporting the fashion and the goods.Till end of 19 century the Parisians tailors were famous worldwide, and first blue jeans were made by De Nimes textile
Ironically the work of the slaves taxed french aristocrats
So it is not surprising that even French revolutionary government didn't had the interest to abolish slavery.And another irony is that the cause of abolitionism had more support within the rank of hereditary aristocrats, a class based on birth inequality.
Once the state got a grip on the aristocracy and this class weakened economically, the slaves were not needed anymore and slavery was abolished.

Ordem e progreso

I saw some some videos with Bolsanaro the new Brazil president, and I was shocked to see that brazilians have elected a man who endorses torture.
Why?
Let's check the values written on the brasilian flag versus online reality. I never been in Brazi so I cannot say first hand what is happening there.
Ordem:
Let's look at what US departement says about Brazil:
https://www.osac.gov/Pages/ContentReportDetails.aspx?cid=23477
Barzil marks high at all crimes, less the terrorism.
So no Ordem
Progresso:
It seems that from 2000 the salary has increased and Gini index decreased (the wealth is better distributed).
Progresso is present and it seems hat they are more people with money that feel threatened.
The follower basis of Mussolini,Franco and Hitler was the middle class that felt threatened by violence of the communists.
Dilma Roussef failed to address the problem of public order and implicitly of corruption.
I saw a BBC documentary in which she complained that against her it was a political coup and all the charges were political motivated.
But to quote a Margaret Thatcher: "Opposition doesn't win elections, the government losses elections"
Dilma Roussef shares the responsibility for governance of Bolsanaro.

The myth of selling anything to any one

You can find some books or training that supposedly teach you how to sell anything to anyone. But this means that you could sell your product to any one.
But if you sell tampons half of the planet doesn't need it.
So it is better to sell people what they need.
And this requires observation of your client.
You can observe your client and dismantle his objections and try to shovel your product under his throat. This like perfecting your hit on the golf ball without looking at the hole that you are trying to score.
Or you can observe the hole that you are trying to score and improve your hit. This means understanding your client and helping him reaching his goals.
The same differences are in politics.
The are authoritarian governments who are very attentive to what their citizen are saying  in order to maintain to the power. They make small corrections, they arrest a dissident,they change the discourse but in reality nothing is changing.
And it should be democracies that listen the citizen and they offer him all they need for development and their government stay in power.
When you are focusing in how you hit a golf ball, you are focusing on action, on what you do.
When you are focusing in where your ball lands you are focusing on result, on what you want.
This is important on politics, because if you are focusing in what you do: extracting resources from the serfs, increasing economic growth. You are destabilising the system: the serf will need to provide the same amount of grain even if it is famine, the economic growth must continues even if the air is polluted and water is poisoned.
But if you are focusing on what you should obtain: a prosperous estate, and a rich country you will introduce new technologies that provide the same quantity of  grain  regardless of weather, and cleaner environment, and you make the system more stable.

Artificial Intelligence will be the society neocortex?

I am listening to Elon Musk's interview with Joe Rogan. Musk says that the neocortex serves the limbic system, and if we will be connected to AI our brain power will be enhanced.
But if instead the society will connect to AI, The AI will become the society neocortex? Serving it?
This already happens. Google searches are adapting to what we want. Amazon presents the products that we want. The stock exchange is dominated by trading algorithms.
Maybe one day the AI will try consciously to understand us, in same way as we try to understand our darker self.