My Cousin lives in LA and will only eat food that has been blessed by monks from at least three different Asian religions and then tested, by both mass spectrum analyzer and professional taster, that it is not just Organic but Kosher. He never eats sugar, except in tea and coffee and all other food and drinks.

Even though he is like, really, into healthy living (The last time I stayed with him we spent over eighteen hours in West Hollywood's biggest health food stores, subsisting just on wheatgrass and zen noodles. These are not a brand name, but a fad that only exists in this particular part of West Holywood and only for one summer in the late nineties. The idea was simple. Gluten was bad. Noodles tasted nice. Instead of being made with carbohydrate, they were made with Zen. They also had a bread made with sourdough) he had never ever ever once recommended me anything. Not once...

Until two months ago. On the phone he said that he had been taking this supplement and it had changed his life. I didn't need more of a recommendation, I was all over that stuff within moments of getting off the Skype. I didn't look into it like I normally do, I just went ahead and took a trip down the Amazon. A family pack for a month was a tenner.

Only then, once the order dispatched email was in, like a really bad scientist and skeptic, did I start to investigate it.

Now over the last decades online I have investigated many things using the power of the internet and books. In the crazy woowoo world of snake oil and superfoods, you have to really get skilled at operating the former from the latter. To think that all claims of benefit are snake oil is just ignorant and unreasonable. Equally to think that just because it had a webpage it has legitimacy is very poor think skills.

This is how I generally do it.

Firstly, the big question is cui bono, who benefits?

If its something that you cannot make at home or but freely then thats a redflag to me. This doesnt kean that that crazy hybrid aminoacit transmogifer isnt going to be amazing, it does mean that while it is proprietory, you should assume there is proffit in promotion, even without benefit.

Secondly, is it safe?

This is a real tricky one to get through and still today there are a bunch of thing I just am not sure what to think of when it comes to their objective safety. MSG, Vitmin E...

Thirdly, is it worth it?

To me this is the great question that only you can ask, but there are some guidelines.

Forthly, is it open?

There are chemicals in, say, apples. which just seem to do us good. Anyone can access these chamiec

There is also a very proven strategy which is to repeaedly and occasionally stop taking X to see if you iss it. If you do it long enough I think you will get attunes to what is good for you and what is not.

I have been taking it for two monthsish now and, so far, really rate it as a wellbeing optimiser, as something I can imagine I will continue to take; like D3 and Boocha.

MSM is very very low risk.
It is quite low cost.
It is very high anedote.
It has significant scientific evidence.
It has a plausible and demonstrable explanitory mechanism.

Have I found it works?

I do feel more energy. I have started running, at about the same time that I started taking it. So its a bit of a mishmash when it comes to isolating cause. Did I get into running because of MSM or JMR?

I have suddenly started writing poems again like I havent for many years, is that MSM? (The point here is the action not the quality).

Anything else?

Today, for the first time in my life I ran 5k. MSM? It felt like I was going to collapse in a cardio vascular blamache. MSM?

Tonight, it was a consensus that I played the best poker of my life. MSM? I still lost badly, MSM? I dunno!:)

I know with

I would be very keen to hear of anyone else who rates it highly.

Salted Barefoot

I have loved going barefoot. One of my earliest memories was this conversation:

Me:"Let's get the world record for going the longest without shoes."
M. Cornelius: "People in Africa do it all the time."(Paraphrased, details lost to time)

I suspect that stopped the record attempt.

We all know that feeling of warm sand or wet grass on our naked footsies.

When I go to the woods I spend most of my time barefoot, even when its wet and muddy. There is something about toes that enables them to get a better grip in a steep muddy slope than chunkyboots.

This summer I have been maxing out my barefootness and really enjoying it.

Yesterday, unrelated to my barefoot summer, we all went on a barefoot walk organised by a woman called Julie the Ranger. She was very keen, very knowledgeable about barefooting and a big part of the delightful three mile walk washer  educating we twenty about its benefits. She had handouts and FAQs and an answer to any question, so long as it was around the "barefoot" format and content.

I had quite a few chats with her as we ambled.

My first was about "Earthing".

"Have you heard of Earthing?" I asked.

"Yes. We shared a brief glance..."

"Do you think it is Woo?"

Earthing is very very woo woo as practices and theories go. The idea, in a nutshell is this:

We are electric beings. The earth is an electric system. We evolved connected to that system. In modern life, with shoes and carpets and asphalt, we are disconnected from that system. Therefore, by reconnecting with this system, we will gain some wellbeing benefit.

We didn't discuss earthing anymore after that but she did really put the positives on barefooting, promoting its virtues far beyond what I thought.

Do I belive in earthing?

Its hard to say. We know the earth has electromagnetic fields and resonances. We know the body does. We know that electromagnetic effects can have biological effects. We know biological effects can have psychological effects. We also know that the frequency of a phenomena can effect its interactions.

It doesn't seem to be to be pseudoscience to postulate that earthing confers a genuine benefit to humans. (Note how very different this fact-grid is to something like, say,  Homeopathy. One has has an explanatory and mechanistic explanation and is nomologically compatible with known physical processes/systems, the other has none of these accolades. And... Yet,  both are considered by the media, science establishment and internet skeptics to be of comparable woo, nonsense, pseudoscience, bs, etc)

But the fact Earthing is a consistent scientific theory doesn't mean that it is true. To see if it is true we need to look for evidence, and this is where it gets tricky. The very nature of Earthing as a practice makes it hard to isolate its possible effects because it needs to be practices in Nature, and nature, has significant and demonstrable benefits.

I without a doubt know, for certain, that when I go barefoot I get wellbeing benefit. This cannot be contested, you cannot say "No you don't really feel better when walking barefoot."

But that is as far as it goes.

The epistemic limit is that I do not how much of that wellbeing benefit is from being in the countryside (the place I mostly barefoot). Or from being in leisure time. Or from the sun.

So I don't know if Earthing is real.

I do not think that earthing is nonsensical, I am not sure if it is true.

I digress...

So on the walk I spoke to JTR a number of times. She was inspirational in her keenness and understanding. She had tips a plenty.

"What about when you go to a friends house?"

"I carry yoga socks and put them on."

"I bet you do Julie The Ranger, I bet you do." (This line didn't actually happen, it was just put in there for some drama.)

What JTR most convinced me of was not that i should go barefoot the whole summer, which I was already planning largely to do. But that I should take up barefoot running.

NoAM Fasting

Not eating in the morning.
I am a pretty big believer that there are fundamental differences between proper fasting and intermittent fasting, even when the proper fasting is but a mere day. I often go two proper days, I would like to go three soon (Who is in?). Some people go for many days but just a few times or once a year. I don’t know what is wellbeing optimal, but my opinion is currently with the smaller, regular, fasts.
Anyhoo’s… this does not mean that I am at all against intermittent fasting. Quite the contrary. One simple, and I think ancient, fasting routine is just to not eat in the morning. Break fast. Before the PM. I do it two or three times a week. It is very easy, and most of us will have done it without wanting or trying.
In these 16 hours, your body will change state. Perhaps not into the full on FAST state that is the aim of informed fasting, but still, goodness will be happening,even if it is just giving your metabolic organs a bit of a rest from their normal 247mustprocessthis mode.
Some people will find that NoAM fasting is good for calorie reduction, if just because you are going to be missing a meal and eating less. This makes sense. But this doesn’t work for me because, as happened today, after a NoAM Fasting, my car swerved into Tescos and I rinsed of five packets of Square crisps as I drove home.
The wrappers are in the glove compartment.


One thing I have been practicing with myself for a few weeks is the practice of  not being a naysayer. A naysayer is not someone who says “no”, it is someone who says “no” without good thought.

Dialogs normally go like this:

Offspring: “Dad can I please borrow your…”
Me:(Interrupting): “No.”

That, right there, is me being a naysayer. 

I am trying to change that by not saying “nay,” in accordance with the ancient practice of “Saynonay”. To practice Saynonay just keep in your mind not to say “nay” in any way unless it seems, after good thought, to be the right thing to say.

If you ask someone if they are playing Saynonay, and they say "no", they are probably not practicing Saynonay. 

In the weeks I have been doing it I do think it has a positive benefit on my life, and I would expect my kids - all four of whom now have metabolic syndrome and are in prison for gang related offences. I jest.

Interestingly, nobody knows the etymology of “Saynonay”. Some think it traces back to the Great First Language, others think it comes from the PreprotoPalli form “sa su ka” which means “talk outwardly sweetly”. I dont think it matters, what is important about practicing Saynonay is simply not to say "nay" unless it really is OK to say nay.

The Overreacting Donkey

The is a mode of action called “overreaction”,
And I do it all of the time.
Act without thought, 
Say without pause,
The clarion trumpets “Mine!”

Scoff that quiche,
Godspeed this release
Feed the monkey,
And the pony too.
Go for three,
When one would do.

I think I might overreact because I am ignorant of the fact,
That I is not really Me, 
And when I glimpse this, 
How can I miss,
The chance, 
The chance to stop and Be.

An alternative explanation,
To the overreactions that I choose,
Is although I try and Play The Game,
Being an Ass,
I often loose.



Balances are to be made.
Nutrient, Nourishment and Vitality.
Space not mass.
Life’s occupation in thee dimensions. 
The vital mass in ancient ratio.
There is a line between the dead and the living.
The aisles and the carts and the brains and the hearts:
This has death. This has life.
Our choices affect the past,
Not by travel in time,
But by acceptance of responsibility.
Balances are to be chosen,

There is no balance in choice.

Should I salute magpies?

One of the key advantages of practicing CHE is the ability to quickly sift through life's mundane choices, enjoying them and knowing that, by and large, you have made what for you were the right choices when it comes to Home Economical issues. How should one clean their clothes, house, self and mind. Is Amazon Prime is justified? Which vitamins should I supplement? How much is optimum salt?

Consider the CHE equation: Should I wear my seatbelt?

It is simple to see on a three-space Risk/Cost/Benefit vector graph that, yes, of course you should wear your seatbelt. It is irrational not to, if you value self preservation. What is interesting is that such indubitable Cartesian conclusions map into the same kind of epistemic grid as things that on the whole seem woo, irrational or nonsensical.

Consider the CHE equation:  Should I salute magpies?

This one, when you flesh it out, has a few more nexi than the seatbelt one, but the structure is almost the same; where the two equations differ is in the two driving assumptions.

  1. Wearing Seatbelts: It is possible that wearing a seatbelt could save the wearer's life.
  2. Saluting Magpies: It possible that saluting a magpie could increase the saluter's  Luck.

In the case of 2, once we accept the possibility of Luck then it is no difference of kind to move on and reason something like:

  1. There is something special called Luck. 
  2. It is possible this Luck can be increased by agency.
    1. Im assuming that if there is a supernatural ("nonprobabalistic"?) reality to luck then it can be something that can be in some sense accumulated or bestowed on.
      1. If this assumption is not accepted then you seem forced to accept that there is Luck but it is distributed stochastically/probabilistically.
        1. Luck would be real but its distribution chanced, which seems absurd.
  3. It is possible saluting magpies could entail 2 (Luck increase).
  4. Saluting magpies is an extremely low risk activity.
  5. Saluting magpies is an extremely low cost activity.
  6. It is rational to solute magpies.
But if we dont accept the reality of Luck, we cannot go with Assumption 1 in the CHE reasoning above. It all boils down to the reality of Luck.

With anything abstract and potentially magical in a CHE equation it needs to be weighted. Is there evidence? Is there mechanism? Is there equivalence? Even then, unless there is a refutation, all we can ultimately say is IDK.

  1. I cannot be certain that there is Luck.
  2. I cannot be certain that there is no Luck.

The Reality of Luck

I havent researched what others have said on Luck, I assume it has been spoken about lots. One thing that seems clear is that people who belive in Luck are believing in something that's up there with ghosts and deities. For example, for there to be a reality to  Luck there needs to be some kind of external agent, some Intelligence, that says "Bob is going to be more likely to win this coin toss."

That's a huge new guest to one's ontological buffet, and I think you cannot have Luck without that. So, if you think your rabbit foot brings you luck, you are tacitly assuming, and please CMV, that there is/might be a deciding and intelligent agent effecting your life.

Luck also has implications to do with temporal logic. The kind of arguments against the logical possibility of changing the past might apply in the case of Luck.

  1. At t1 x was not going to happen to P at t3.
  2. At t2 P has luck bestowed on them.
  3. At t1 x was going to happen to P at t3.
Is that right? I dont know, it seems so to me.

The point is that accepting Luck is not a small thing, it is a huge thing that brings with it the world being profoundly different to the world without it. But as sceptics, that is no reason to deny the possibility of it. 

What about evidence and mechanism? Is there any?

The Physical Argument For Real Luck

We cannot get evidence for Luck. Even if 1000 times out of 1000 I do better with my lucky charm than without it, that could always just be a coincidence. 

What about a mechanism for how luck could work? Suppose you were a creator being and you made a universe with individuals in and you wanted to be able to bestow Luck upon them. 

How would you do that? What mechanism, in this world, could you use. You would need to use a mechanism that was compatible with this world, or else there would be risk of contradiction. You would need a way to change the outcome of events while the changes being nomologically compatible with reality.

In fact, it  seems our universe does have such a mechanism, built in at the bolts,  which would allow consistent changes to be made to outcomes - this is quantum indeterminateness. True randomness exists and it could be used to facilitate the bestowing of luck.  It is not against the laws of the universe that a bullet could suddenly veer off course. It could happen. If you wanted to bestow Luck upon your creations, you could use the indeterminateness built in to your creation.

The reality of Luck has no possible  evidence, has a huge ontological payload and has a plausible mechanism in this universe. If I had to choose I would say I do not not belive in the reality of Luck - but I do not have to choose; uncertainty is certain in my world view.

Conclusion: Should I salute magpies?

Real Luck could be real or not. It is fundamentally unknowable which is the case. Luck, if it was real wold be something worth having - it would be irrational to think otherwise. Given this, and the minuscule cost and risk of saluting the magpies, in my opinion the CHE solution to the equation is that yes, I should salute magpies. Why would I not?

Four Pearls

Truth, Beauty, Love and Cheer,
There is no stable set for kneeling. 

Truth, Beauty, Love and Cheer,
These pearls cannot bear thread. 

They shatter at whim, and happenstance. 
Then unto The Source reseeded.

Structure: as the world bursts forth

Think of a point in nothingness,
A zero point.
Nothing can be said about it.
Not size nor shape nor other.
Then, what can I say about it?
That it is.
Can I say it once was not?
Can I say it once will never be?
The same.
This is all we can say.

Suppose another zero point.
The world is now two.
What truths are possible of this pair?
New meanings.
That it has difference.
Does Z1 have difference?
No, all is same.
Just the two?
And all past that.
Difference entails that there is this and that.
And that this is not that.
And all and only that is that.
And if there is this and that.
Then there is this.
And there is that.
And if there is neither.
then there is none.

Imagine Z3.
The world bursts forth.
Properties emerge from nothing.
Connectivity and interconnectivity
From these.
All structures flow.
Imagine Z1->Z3
From these:
Existence, Identity, Connection
All structures flow.


It is said there is a seed back there, That has no root greater than itself. It is said there is a root back there, That is a spore of the branches ahead.
Some said that one was all,
Some said that all was one. All knew that some were part of one, And none were part of all.
Some will say they came without fruit, And all they took was seeds. Some will say they will bring the all, And leave the fruit to be.

Dear Youngsters

Dear Youngsters,

I worry about tech,
The effect it has on you.
And everything you do.
These everywhere technologies.
Your growing brains. 
Evolving personalities.
The time sink.
Lifelong digital ink.
Addictive compulsions and empty consumptions
The absolute, and terrifying, reversals of importance.

Youngsters, know this,
The science is in:
Attention splitting is attention spoiling.
That new alert ping.
Some virtual ker-ching.
Duel screening.
These things spoil your focus and flow.
And we do not know, 
As it is all so new, 
The effect it will have on how you will do the things you will do,
Or not.

And what about your sense of self?
Inflated/deflated, over and over.
The ego smack-crack conditioning.
The social media me-asma.
It makes you feel important,
But it is not, and yet, you are so,
So, so so important…
And so is your time, and his and hers and theirs and mine.

You must chose the choices you must choose,
And nobody can really help you but you,
But you can help yourself and see,
To me, where is the toxicity of this everywhere technology?
In your life, it is your life, this is all about you,
We cannot stop now,
But we can control,
And cut down,
And own,
And be able to be as we walk down the street a being in the moment.
Who is here, who is present in this gift; 
Outside the brains of the servers.

There is a game out here,
That you can play more.
It has feel and fun and it is ripe and it is raw.
It has reality and value and consequence.
Game over
Life well lived.
Game well played.
Was that time well spent?
Did I just thrive then?
If this was my last, would I do that again?

Youngsters, I’m done now.
I stop,
I have only this to say:

This is the shortest game you will ever play.

I am a Borax Bore.

Over six months product free and really enjoy the self-experiment and the making of concoctions, potions, balms and toothpastes.
What has struck me (I've been into this stuff for literally yonks and yonks), as an amazing newcomer chemical to the CHE Household arsenal is Borax. The very same stuff your grandmother used, assuming she was into soldering. I jest, even if she wasn't into soldering she would have used it. And probably her Grandmother too.
This stuff rocks. I've been using for absolutly literally almost everything, including, ishityounot, vinaigrette (that's a word from the French language which rough translates to "dressing").
So, if you are looking to get something to go along side your other single item CHE arsenal then I heartily recommend Borax.
Borax, it's the new Bicarb.

Bloat, Faff and Pantomime

I think that there are three common distortions that affect non emerged/evolved systems, such as public institutions, businesses and information systems.

  • Bloat - This is where the system expands in multiple inefficient ways which, in combination, produce a holistic inefficiency that is often both hidden and immense.
  • Faff - This is where the time cost of processing information is greater than the comparative benefit of the actual information.
  • Pantomime - This is where the system adopts behaviours that bring no benefit to the system other than to make other systems perceive the system as being beneficial.

So, there you have it: avoid, prevent and extinguish.

Salted Eggs: An argument for vegan eggs.

After a over month of being a L1 fundamentalist vegan, I am now a level 2 Vegan Skeptic: I do not want to support suffering. I do not not want to assume what suffering is.  I do not want to assume which things can  suffer.

Applying Cartesian principles to the vegan question, I am forced by reason to conclude that some chickens' eggs are probably vegan.

I think there are many arguments supporting the conclusion that  some eggs can be vegan. Here is one:

Veganism is hard. Eggs make it easier (in terms of both experience and wellbeing). Therefore, by eating *eggs, vegans are more likely to remain vegan. Therefore, by eating *eggs, vegans are increasing the maximum potential suffering reduction of Veganism.

*eggs- for example: the tenth egg taken from a feral chicken's nest, would, in my opinion, be totally cool to eat. Vegan healthy yumminess.

The Carton for Eggs

I am convinced that dairy is cruel. I am convinced that dairy is unenvironmental. I am pretty convinced that it is probably significantly unhealthy, especially if you are not a baby cow.

In many ways, in terms of mean suffering, Dairy has a higher negative moral payload than eating face. I would love to be proven wrong on these points. I love cheese. I love butter. I love yoghurt and kefir. But, I believe that the reality is, that if meat is murder, then milk is murder and rape and tortureous exploitation.

It’s easy to deny-up and dial-up the cognitive dissonance on this, but it doesn't change the fact that it just is what it is: cruel.

I am not saying that you shouldn’t drink milk or eat meat.  I am saying that if you decide that your life direction is towards the lowering of suffering (In my country, we call this “trying to be a good person”) then it’s irrational to eat flesh or consume dairy. When we say a choice is “rational” what we really mean that it is “value preserving.” In this case, it’s irrational to say, “I want to do everything I can to reduce suffering, but, I eat baby mammals, for mouth pleasure”.

For me, on this, the case is closed. I love eating meat and am in a constant holding pattern of holding out for some surprise roadkill. Or maybe an ibex that slipped on some wet moss. If I found a lonly nanny who needed a milking, why, I’d probably get on my knees and get teat to teat, in the middle of the street. But other than these kinds of improbable situations, the case is closed; I’m vegan:

Veganism is a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose.” The Official Definition of Veganism.

But there is a mycoprotein-faux-fly in the ointment of my veganism: Eggs.

Eggs. You beauties! I’m not talking eggs produced, en mass, in a horrific henitentiary. But small scale, local, very free range, cruelty free eggs. The moral payload seems to me to be a radically different kind and degree to that of milk and meat. The kind of eggs that I grew up with. The kind produced on most of the farms and smallholdings in rural areas - at least those that pride themselves in producing cruelty free eggs.

Is eating eggs cruel?

The chickens and cockerels my mum and dad have in their garden could run away into the woods if they wanted. They are locked up at night to protect against foxes, and roam freely in the day.I don’t see suffering anywhere in their lives, at least any more than the wild animals, like the panthers and seagulls, that have made my parent’s garden their home. The eggs from these hens are cruelty free, and the ones from the cocks are not bad either, if not a bit gloopy-salty.

So why would a vegan say that eggs from super-happy hens like this should not be eaten?

Here are the three arguments that I am aware of:

Theft: One argument vegans use against eggs is that it is immoral to steal their eggs. The hens do not lay the eggs for humans, they do not consent to them being taken, and therefore it is theft to eat eggs. I get where this is coming from, but it doesn’t have the kind of knock-down nobraineryness that I, personally, need in any moral conclusion I am going to adhere to.

Is it not analogous to stealing apples from a tree? Do the hens miss their unfertilized eggs in any sense? It seems to be different to what is involved in the theft of milk from mother and calf.  I don't think the argument that eggs are theft is easy to refute, either, I just am not yet persuaded enough by it, yet.

Cockicide: Another argument is that the male birds are often killed as soon as they are hatched, and thus, consuming eggs is supporting this process. There are many videos online about this process, it’s certainly seems barbaric to me. However, assuming that the newborn male chickens are killed quickly, without consciousness or suffering, I am not sure how it can be thought to be cruel. Gross and barbaric, but not really cruel. I think it is certainly not cruel in the sense of what happens to male dairy calves is cruel.

Nonetheless, let’s assume that the cockicide cruelty is a clear and unquestionable case of cruelty. This doesn't mean that all eggs are tainted by this negativity. For example, there are egg producers who go to great lengths to see that the male chicks are not treated cruelly for their long and noisy lives. There are hens that are rescued from battery hens, the eggs of these seems profoundly unconnected to the apparent cruelty of the cockiside issues.

Enforced Laying: The final argument I am aware of is that taking the eggs from a laying hen means that she is just going to keep on laying, and this is somehow cruel or at least wrong in some other sense. To my mind, this is the least weighty of the arguments. Firstly, naturally kept  hens are not forced to lay, they lay seasonally and when unstressed. They have a finite but abundant amount of eggs and it is their evolved biology to just keep on laying, whether they have been taken out for dinner by a rooster or not.

So I just don’t really get why the actual effect of taking the eggs would make the hen suffer anymore than the contrary, and so I don’t see why some people think this is a reason to not eat eggs. I am open to having my view changed on this (or any) point, but currently it doesn’t have much persuasive power with me.

Is it rational to eat eggs?

I currently believe that eating eggs can be cruelty free and that, with the right choices, it can have a negligible moral and ethical payload. Because of this, I currently don’t see why vegans don't eat eggs when it seems rational to eat eggs because:

Eggs are so healthy. In the sometimes sparse landscape of what vegans can eat, eggs stand out, like hard boiled stupas of hypernutrition. Cruelty free eggs solve many of the nutritional problems faced by vegans, like protein, choline, vitamins and good cholesterol. So if you want to be rational about your nutrition it is irrational to not eat eggs, in doing so you are forcing yourself to eat junky, processed and pricey vegan alternatives, like vegan cheese. Yuck.
Cruelty free eggs reduce the mean suffering in the world. The final argument I would like to put forward is that if you are a vegan, or anyone who wants to reduce suffering in the world, then by eating cruelty free eggs you are sending out a message to the industrial egg producers that you will not tolerate their barbaric battery ways. In other words, by not eating cruelty free eggs, you are tacitly supporting the hellish industrial food system to continue enslaving hens in torture, the very thing that makes vegans go vegan! This point might be controversial, and I am not sure it is a water-tight argument, but, as the old saying goes:

“If you want to make an omelette, you need to heat the pan up to a sufficient temperature to coagulate the proteins.“

Very Sad Hen.jpg

A Sad Hen

An Amazing Hoaxer: John Hutchison

John Hutchison is an amazing hoaxer. 

For decades he has been using salvaged military hardware to hoax the creation of world-bending effects. Effects such as levitation, metals melting and matter mixing in ways we haven't seen before. The videos from the eighties are totes amazing. 

Some people think that it's not a hoax. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but if you believe Hutchison is not a hoaxer, then consider these points:

This hoax, can't be, like many possible hoaxes, the result of human error or technical error or the misinterpretation of data: it has to be deliberate.

In creating the hoax, Hutchinson makes sure there is no room for mundane explanation. It's a bivalent thing: either those effects, in hundreds of videos, are as filmed, or they are hoaxes. 

But then in true maestro hoaxer style Hutchison gives us the old Cincinnati double-ender: he acts really sincere, knowledgeable with a little crazy-seeming genius who enthralls scientists and journalists, all the while acting alongside himself that he might, in truth, be a hoaxer. Genius skills. 

Another amazing aspect of this hoax is that Hutchison has arranged for the oddly clandestine censorship of the Hutchinson effect on Wikipedia and he has secretly commisioned the vast number of videos that boldly claim to prove he a fraud, but don't really. Enhanced plausible deniability, heroic hoaxing. 

Big respect to John Hutchinson. 

Back on the V-wagon after a minor faceoff on the game.

Four months ago I blogged about my struggle with vegetarianism and, not long after that, I reasoned that I would become vegetarian.

It seemed an ethical, moral and karmic nobrainer once the cartesian calculations were done.

And I lasted.. month after month after month (ie three months) until today when I became a faceeater once more.

It wasn't a drunken kebab implosion. Or a Christmas Turkey break. It was the result of a reasoning process that went a little something like this:

I am going to the woods with a bunch of men to do manly things.
It's my responsibility to provide lunch.
I will get some hunted game as this has not suffered much, if at all, and would have a good and wild life, far from industrial meat.
Moreover, I will casserole it, thus dissolving any remnant negative karmic payload.

So here I am, a vegetarian for about 6 hours, and thats Ok with me.

As a man who has spent years more than most with my face in a handheld screen, I have to agree. Now feel a low, but real, a shandy strength shame, even checking a message as I walk through the day. I feel something close to smug, scented with contempt, when I eye the many, hands up, heads bent, faces glued, eyes skewed. It's a time sink, and a waste, it's rude and it's crass, it's enslaving and ensuring and sucking out... the ripe of life and spitting it, with tapping fingers into the pointless aether or... This technology I was at the start of, the featureless set of features I have dreamt of and been close to the heart of, is a shackle for a shekel for a "like", for a score that makes me want to shout across the street or the restaurant or the forecourt, "Tech down!" "Phone away!" "Disconnect!" This is not great. This is not good. This is not any network to liberate, and yet, I am proud, I just got 512 on 2048;)

Abstaining from Abstain The Grain for one experimental week.

So... I was wheat free for a longish time until last week when, as an experiment, I thought I would try going back on the wheat to see if there was any effect. Now of course, I must be aware of confirmation bias, potential cognitive dissonance and anti placebo type effects but on the whole I hope I can be at least impartial enough to get some grasp on wheat and gluten's effects on me.

Firstly, let me say I enjoyed it. There is something incomparable to nice bread. I also ate a lot of it and a little of it on different days, to se if i could notice any effect. 

Secondly, there were negative effects, in order of my perceived impact, 1 being highest:

  1. My appetite went up dramatically. This occurred in a general sense and in the sense of wanting to eat more wheat. 
  2. I had Sloth. Especially after eating a lot of wheat. It was very discernible, and unmistakably negitavising.
  3. I had what they call brain fog. This might be a low level but persistent version of Sloth, or it might be a distinct effect. I would describe it as having a head a bit like a hangover but without any headache.
  4. My mood was down. This is a hard one to discern but it does seem that way, especially on the Friday night when I ate it first. 
  5. I put on five pounds, which is the heaviest I have been for many months.
I am now going back to Abstain The Grain. I was pretty open to the possibility, if I found no neg effects, of eating it, but a week later I'm pretty convinced that wheat is not good for me. This is a judgement independent of the mounting scientific confirmation of the claim, and based just on my experience over the last week.

A Cartesian Analysis of My Sticky Below Window Area.

A question from myself and my father in law:

  1. My car, 7 years ago, had company decals on both front doors.
  2. Just over a month ago I tried taking them off. 
  3. The first one came off a breeze, in one go. I think I even have it in my shed. A decal intacticus.
  4. The second one, I tried to take off right afterwards.
    1. It was a disaster.
      1. It would not come off except in tiny bits.
        1. Even after trying:
          1. WD40
          2. Furniture polish
          3. Elbow grease
  5. The second, the passengers side decal, remains in a state that can only be described as a disappointing attachment.

  1. Questions about the above state of affairs:
    1. How is it possible that two identical decals can have two radically different dis-adhesions?

Our speculations and deductions:

  • The Cause Of Difference must must occur in time.
  • The COD can be:
    • Formative
      • When decal P was made, decal D was made differently with regard to its adhesion.
    • Applicative:
      • Decal P was applied differently to decal D:
        • Perhaps the technician had a cup of tea before the driver's side, and after the passenger side, and this delay changed the properties of the glue.
    • Instantiative:
      • The COD is caused by change in the instances after application.
      • These changes can be:
        • Environmental:
        • Perhaps one side gets more weathering from wind or sun.
        • Internal:
        • Perhaps one side gets more heat from the engine than the other.
    • The domain of the COD is most probably to do with heat.
      • As opposed to:
        • Electrical
        • Aerodynamic
        • Gosh, what else?

Answers on an e-postcard please....

The Death of Google Reader reminds me of the Death of Newsraider.

A long time ago in a development house, far, far away we were working hard on our cross-platform application called "NewsRaider". It was an advanced program that would go to news websites, find the unread articles, strip them of all the adverts, junk and irrelevancies and then output them to a bespoke application on a handheld, desktop, PDA and website. In its time NewsRaider (published by Proporta), was pretty advanced and, for a while, it gained that popularity of momentum that our TomeRaider app had for many years, at least in SW lifespan terms. We were proud of it.


I remember the day well. I was in the office in Columbo when Dilan, the director and lead coder, called me over and said, to paraphrase, "look at this, this kills NewsRaider, doesn't it?"

What We were looking at was Google's Brand new "Reader" website. Dilan was right, the web based approach meant that our bespoke install based approach, no matter how innovative, couldn't compete with great free gifts in the cloud..  Pretty much there and then, we realised the game was up, for "Newsraider." Another one bites the dust(this principle gives software development a vibrancy that most wouldn't expect).

I loved Google Reader as much as a grown man can love a web-based news aggregator, and with no bitterness, I was an avid user, right from the start. In many ways, I felt its greatest fan, for many years. 

Today(ish), Google Reader itself got disinterized by Google. That which creates, also destroys. The cause of the anhiliation of the loved newsaggreation remains largley unspecified. Google Reader has joined Newsraider and Diggfeeder in the place where dead software goes, and there is a mystery as to the motive, to my mind.

Like the Mccafees, I am not bitter. But I am a little surprised.

Tech On Down