Note -- this is a working draft that is changing as you read this. 

"First, LLMs do have robust internal representations. Second, there is an open question to answer about whether LLMs have robust action dispositions. Third, existing skeptical challenges to LLM representation do not survive philosophical scrutiny." -- Simon Goldstein & Benjamin Anders Levinstein, Does ChatGPT Have a Mind? - PhilPapers

"We should not be surprised, then, that a number of people sincerely believe, or at least act very much as if they believe, that some AI systems have sentience and understanding, and that number is likely to grow." -- Are You Anthropomorphizing AI? | Blog of the APA

The 4 Degrees of Anthropomorphism of Generative AI

"We explore the lives of people who are in love with their AI chatbots. Replika is a chatbot designed to adapt to the emotional needs of its users. It is a good enough surrogate for human interaction that many people have decided that it can fulfill their romantic needs." -- S6, Episode 3: Love in Time of Replika (April 25th, 2023) – Hi-Phi Nation

"... our concerns go beyond bias; we want to caution against the anthropomorphizing of AI. AI is not human, and we should not be using human-related terms to refer to these systems and tools because that can lead to misconceptions that cause harm not just to our students but to our communities as well." -- Anthropomorphism of AI in Learning Environments: Risks of Humanizing the Machine | EdSurge News

"Chatbots, and the large language models (LLMs) on which they are built, are showing us the dangers of dishonest anthropomorphism. Built with humanlike features that present themselves as having cognitive and emotional abilities that they do not actually possess, their design can dupe us into overtrusting them, overestimating their capabilities, and wrongly treating them with a degree of autonomy that can cause serious moral confusion. Chatbots programmed to express feelings or that provide responses as if typing in real-time raise significant questions about ethical anthropomorphism on the part of generative AI developers." -- The Danger of Dishonest Anthropomorphism in Chatbot Design | Psychology Today Canada

"By elevating machines to human capabilities, we diminish the specialness of people. I’m eager to preserve the distinction and clarify responsibility. So I do not think machines should use first-person pronouns, but should describe who is responsible for the system or simply respond in a machine-like way." --  On AI Anthropomorphism. by Ben Shneiderman (University of… | by Chenhao Tan | Human-Centered AI | Medium

"... worries are – at least as far as large language models are concerned – groundless. ChatGPT and similar technologies are sophisticated sentence completion applications – nothing more, nothing less. Their uncanny responses are a function of how predictable humans are if one has enough data about the ways in which we communicate." -- AI isn’t close to becoming sentient – the real danger lies in how easily we’re prone to anthropomorphize it

"When talking to an AI chatbot, users may feel comfortable sharing more information than they ordinarily would if the chatbot sounds human-like and uses first- or second-person language. It may feel like the information provided to the chatbot is being shared with a friendly person rather than an enterprise that may use those data for a variety of purposes. For example, people may talk to a chatbot for a while and eventually reveal sensitive information (e.g., health issues they are struggling with). Most chatbots will not warn users when they are providing sensitive information." --  The Privacy Pros and Cons of Anthropomorphized AI

"The tendency to humanize AI and the degree to which people trust it highlights serious ethical and legal concerns. AI-powered ‘humanizer’ tools claim to transform AI-generated content into “natural” and “human-like” narratives. Others have created “digital humans” for use in marketing and advertising. Chances are, the next ad you see featuring a person isn’t a person at all but a form of synthetic media. Actually, let’s stick to calling it exactly what it is — a deepfake."

"It’s not just an ethical problem; it’s also a security problem since anything designed to persuade can make us more susceptible to manipulation. In the context of cybersecurity, this presents a whole new level of threat from social engineering scammers."

"People form relationships with other people, not with machines. But when it becomes almost impossible to tell the difference, we’re more likely to trust AI when making sensitive decisions. We become more vulnerable; more willing to share our personal thoughts and, in the case of business, our trade secrets and intellectual property."

"This presents serious ramifications for information security and privacy. Most large language models (LLMs) keep a record of every interaction, potentially using it for training future models."

"Do we really want our virtual assistants to reveal our private information to future users? Do business leaders want their intellectual property to resurface in later responses? Do we want our secrets to become part of a massive corpus of text, audio and visual content to train the next iteration of AI?"

"If we start thinking of machines as substitutes for real human interaction, then all these things are much likelier to happen." -- The dangers of anthropomorphizing AI: An infosec perspective

"With more human-like interactions, people develop a sense of trust and adapt to using AI technology quicker given its more innate to our human nature. Furthermore with the advent of Generative AI, humans are embedding natural language interactions with machines (as an evolution to Conversational AI) in the form of prompt engineering." -- (10) The Pros and Cons of Anthropomorphizing Artificial Intelligence | LinkedIn

"Anthropomorphizing isn’t always detrimental. For instance, it may improve your well-being by creating a sense of comfort and connectedness." -- https://psychcentral.com/health/why-do-we-anthropomorphize#recap

“We now have machines that can mindlessly generate words, but we haven’t learned how to stop imagining a mind behind them.” -- –A.I. expert Professor Emily Bender in The Washington Post -- Chatbots Are Not People: Designed-In Dangers of Human-Like A.I. Systems - Public Citizen

"He Would Still Be Here’: Man Dies by Suicide After Talking with AI Chatbot, Widow Says" -- 'He Would Still Be Here': Man Dies by Suicide After Talking with AI Chatbot, Widow Says

"anthropomorphism is shown to exaggerate AI capabilities and performance by attributing human-like traits to systems that do not possess them. As a fallacy, anthropomorphism is shown to distort moral judgments about AI, such as those concerning its moral character and status, as well as judgments of responsibility and trust." -- Anthropomorphism in AI: hype and fallacy | AI and Ethics

NATO/Russia -- Enough Already

NATO on Notice

The fact that a request for "long-range missiles to hit targets inside Russia" (see September 2024 below) is on the table (though not yet agreed to) means that the use of nuclear weapons on targets in the West is also on the table—if they weren’t already. Perhaps it won’t be done, but Russia has made it clear that a red line was crossed when forces came to their doorstep. Crossing over into Russian territory challenges that, but is it just a bluff? -- Update: I am not alone in being concerned. https://www.icanw.org/will_putin_use_nuclear_weapons Nuclear weapons are horrific, but damage from low yield tactical weapons is contained enough that their use is plausible: https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/ It seems it is being seriously considered, but for whatever reason it is being downplayed. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tactical-nuclear-weapons-russia-putin/ 

A military attack on a territory defended by nuclear
weapons seems like a bad idea. Volodymyr Zelensky frames it as a strategy to force Russia to the bargaining table. It may force Russia's hand, but not in a way anybody wants to see. The West has played a game of chicken with Russia in the past and won, but I don't think that is a reliable precedent for the current situation.

Below is a timeline of quotes that reflect my understanding before writing this. Russia has been clear in the past that NATO moving into former Soviet territory is unacceptable.

2008

"Nato membership for Ukraine and Georgia could threaten European security and undermine attempts to improve transatlantic relations, the Russian president-elect warned today." -- https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/mar/25/russia.ukraine

"F. Stephen Larrabee, an expert on NATO and Eastern Europe, says Russia’s invasion of Georgia was an effort to limit "Western influence into the former Soviet space."" -- https://www.cfr.org/interview/russias-offensive-georgia-signal-nato-stay-away-its-space

2022

" ... in the words of Russian President Vladimir Putin, NATO's eastward march represents decades of broken promises from the West to Moscow. ... "You promised us in the 1990s that [NATO] would not move an inch to the East. You cheated us shamelessly," Putin said ..." -- https://www.npr.org/2022/01/29/1076193616/ukraine-russia-nato-explainer

2023

"Russian president Vladimir Putin launched his criminal war as a reaction to the possibility of NATO expanding into Ukraine, and the alliance’s refusal to swear it off — not once or twice, but three separate times." -- https://responsiblestatecraft.org/russia-ukraine-nato-expansion/

2024

(July) "NATO condemns in the strongest possible terms Russia's brutal and unprovoked war of aggression against Ukraine - which is an independent, peaceful and democratic country, and a close NATO partner. NATO and Allies continue to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence." -- https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_192648.htm

(June) "MOSCOW, June 3 (Reuters) - Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said on Monday the United States could face "fatal consequences" if it ignored Moscow's warnings not to let Ukraine use weapons provided by Washington to strike targets inside Russia."

(September) "President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has urged his Western allies to allow Ukraine to use long-range missiles to hit targets inside Russia and increase pressure on Moscow to end the war."

Goodbye NDP!

Jugmeet Singh has announced that he is tearing up a crucial deal that keeps the current government in power. That will put the Conservatives under Pierre Poilievre in power and that's a bad thing. It will injure the Liberal Party and put them out of power, but more importantly it will destroy the NDP. I used to work in elections for NDP candidates and family members still do. The NDP lost its way with its principles some time ago, so I don't work for them anymore, but I have always voted NDP. Given the current news that is set to change. 

It was quibbles about principles and struggles with a cynical party brass at the DNC that put Donald Trump in office. This current nonsense is reminiscent of that. In order to make some point of principle, arguably not even applicable in the current case involving Railways, Jugmeet Singh and whoever is supporting him in the NDP have decided to throw away the work of lifetimes by millions building the (formerly) socialist alternative to a capitalist hegemony. He/they do not have that right. They are custodians of  the NDP heritage, not the owner. 

My daughter called to ask if I had seen the news. I had not. While on the phone with her, I said the NDP site must have something to say about this, so I went to the site. Here is what I was confronted with, front and center: "Jagmeet Singh is running for Prime Minister. Rich CEOs have had their government. It's the people's time."

That is the worst of cynical, self-serving political hypocrisy. Destroying the party and implicitly putting a monster in power is hardly hopeful. Jagmeet has never realistically been in a position to be Prime Minister, so that is effectively either delusional or a flat-out lie. Calling an election right now does not end the "Rich CEOs time". I casts it in stone until the end of a decade. The "people's time" is about to be to strain under the yoke of the most heartless possible Canadian Federal Party for years. 

Polls are both fallible and/or rigged to be used for political gain, but they are generally in the ballpark. I'm not sure which axe they have to grind, but I just went looking for any poll to give a flavor of what I know to be the case. This is the first I found (https://338canada.com/federal.htm), current as of a few days ago: In an election called now, the PCs (the bad guys) would win a majority and rule the roost absolutely for years with someone truly reckless, mean-spirited, grossly misogynist, morally, and technically and financially illiterate. The liberals would take a huge hit getting knocked back by possibly half their seats or more. The NDP would, in my estimation, barely keep or even possibly lose their official party status. Jagmeet Singh is not only not going to be the next Prime Minister, if sanity prevails he will effectively not even remain the leader of his party. 

I will update later if it turns out not to be as bad as it looks, but I am not nearly optimistic. The very most optimistic look at this is that it was a terrible misstatement, they put together a new agreement, and they unwind the optics somehow. I dearly wish this is the case because a federal election now would be a disaster with no upside whatsoever. 

Note: Not that it affects my thinking in this matter, but in the interest of full disclosure I have family members who are still NDP members and still actively work in elections. Oddly enough, a family member that is a subject matter expert works for a Liberal MP. More importantly, I have been involved with politics a great deal over the past decade. By coincidence, the post before this was on the subject of a private members bill by an NDP MP (https://blog.bobtrower.com/2024/09/glbi-is-not-ubi-bill-c-223.html). Somewhat tangential to this, I am the designer of secure electronic voting and am authoring voting software. 

GLBI is not UBI Bill C-223

Bill C-223 Guaranteed Livable Basic Income

Vote

A vote is coming up for private member's Bill C-223 (Leah Gazan) for a Guaranteed Livable Basic Income (GLBI) in the Federal Parliament of Canada. GLBI is a poor substitute for the real thing: Universal Basic Income (UBI). However, the bill for GLBI may get the ball rolling so that we can achieve the real thing. AI and automation are advancing much more quickly than most people think, and many workers will be displaced. Our existing system (essentially a pretty terrible GLBI by another name) is absolutely not up to the task. The advantages of UBI over GLBI primarily stem from the 'U'. Because UBI is universal—everyone receives it by virtue of being a Canadian over the age of 17—there is no risk of people falling through the cracks or less savvy individuals being unable to navigate the convoluted entitlements systems we have put in place. With UBI, you can't be a citizen and 'cheat' to get it when you are not entitled because everyone is entitled, and everyone receives it. People with higher incomes simply have their payments clawed back by the tax system.

Easily Introduced

Aside from the need to overhaul our broken entitlements system (which needs fixing whether with UBI or not), the only requirements are to issue the money and adjust the tax rates. We should phase it in to monitor its impact and adjust other elements as necessary, but we can start that tomorrow. Yes, tomorrow. As automation begins to change work, we will seamlessly accommodate these changes.

Additive, Revenue Neutral

UBI is additive and can be net revenue neutral. People at the higher income level will take a hit, but it’s one they can easily withstand, and it will still leave them with much more than anyone else. Those individuals are most likely to benefit from the economic advantages of funds being spent by people at lower income levels because those at lower income levels must spend that money to make ends meet, while those at the top own, control, or benefit from everything.

Phasing to Prevent Inflation

Phasing it in means there will be no sudden inflationary shock. Adjusting the tax system to ensure it is revenue neutral means it will not impact other programs and will not create additional currency that drives overall inflation. After the UBI is accounted for, the government will still have as much revenue as it had before—that’s what 'revenue neutral' means.

Preliminary Sketch

The figures I used came from the federal government. They are not entirely current and do not account for the overall tax situation, but they provide a good picture of the concept, how it can be revenue neutral, how it affects everyone regarding taxes, and still noticeably benefits all of the bottom 60% of income quintiles while representing a clear step up for those in the bottom quintile.

Because it is revenue neutral, it allows for long-term adjustments to other entitlements to alleviate some tax burdens while still genuinely guaranteeing that everyone receives net additional benefits.

I need to gather better data for a complete picture, but I was surprised by how entirely doable this is, how it does not unduly punish the top quintile, and the incredible extent to which it benefits those who need it most. I highly recommend that people contact their MP to ensure it gets passed and to communicate that framing what should be UBI as GLBI unnecessarily invites failure, guarantees more expenses, and, based on past experience, ensures that it will not help all those who need it.

Contact Your MP

You can send a message to your own MP here:

https://www.leahgazan.ca/glbi_letter_2024?utm_campaign=roundtable_announcement&utm_medium=email&utm_source=mpleahgazan

A sample letter is in place there. I wrote my own text because I have a long-term interest in this issue and I have things to say. In particular, I am deeply concerned that the UBI idea will get lost and that an all-but-useless duplicative program for GLBI will end up consuming resources that could have gone to people as UBI but will instead be absorbed by a bureaucracy that forces our most vulnerable citizens to beg for assistance.

----------

To my MP:

I urge you to vote in favor of Bill C-223 to initiate meaningful discussions on basic income. If given the opportunity to speak, please emphasize that we already have a program resembling a Guaranteed Livable Basic Income (GLBI) under a different name, and it has proven to be fundamentally flawed.

The concept of GLBI, which attempts to mimic Universal Basic Income (UBI), is not a viable solution. UBI is essential because it allows for a straightforward distribution of funds to everyone as soon as they are needed. It guarantees that every individual receives at least a minimum income, unlike GLBI, which is susceptible to mismanagement and lacks clarity regarding who qualifies for assistance.

The 'U' in UBI signifies that it is unequivocal who receives support (everyone) and how much they receive. UBI can be implemented without the extensive bureaucracy associated with means testing, ultimately dismantling the waste and unfairness inherent in current entitlement programs that often disadvantage the most vulnerable among us.

A genuine UBI could be initiated almost immediately, with a phased approach to ensure proper implementation. For instance, a monthly payment starting at $122.20 in the fourth quarter of this year, increasing by 15% quarterly, could reach $2,000 per month by the fourth quarter of 2029. This initiative could be made revenue-neutral by adjusting tax rates, primarily affecting the highest income quintile, while over 60% of the population would see an increase in their after-tax income. Those in lower income brackets would have the opportunity to fully participate in the economy, which would, in turn, benefit all income levels.

By 2030, we could establish a robust social safety net and foster a happier, more prosperous society, but this is only achievable through a comprehensive Universal Basic Income that reaches everyone. The current GLBI proposal is inadequate and fails to address the needs of those who require support the most. 

Persistent Misunderstandings in Software Development

 Yikes. This was an answer to a Quora question about development myths and I just kept hammering them out because I have seen a lot of critical misunderstandings in my decades of programming experience. I could just keep going and going. There's a book to be had in explaining all the many misapprehensions of journeyman developers, why they are incorrect and what solutions (if any) apply in dealing with them and their results. 

Persistent Misunderstandings in Software Development:

1. Things Won’t Change: The mistaken belief that the initial project requirements, timeline, and scope will remain constant throughout the development process.

2. Nothing Will Go Wrong: The expectation that the development process will proceed smoothly without unforeseen challenges, bugs, or setbacks.

3. Timeline Predictions Are Reliable: The assumption that you can accurately predict timelines and outcomes for problems that are yet to be fully understood or defined.

4. Human Factors Don’t Matter: Ignoring the reality that developers are human beings with emotions, external responsibilities, and varying productivity levels.

5. Developers Are Interchangeable: The belief that any developer can be easily replaced with another without impacting the project's progress or quality.

6. Testing All Pathways Isn’t Necessary: The dangerous assumption that certain software pathways don’t need to be tested because they are unlikely to be encountered.

7. Rare Issues Won’t Happen: The flawed logic that if something is unlikely, it can be safely ignored.

8. Multiple Entrances/Exits Are Acceptable: The idea that code can have multiple points of entry and exit without introducing complexity and errors.

9. Uncontrolled Aborts Are Preferable: The misconception that sudden, uncontrolled aborts are better than controlled unwinding with appropriate logging or recovery mechanisms.

10. Logging Can Be Skipped: The belief that comprehensive logging isn’t necessary for non-trivial production software.

11. Premature Optimization Is Safe: The persistent misunderstanding that optimizing early in the development process is beneficial without considering the impact on future changes.

12. Failing to Optimize Isn’t Harmful: Conversely, the belief that neglecting necessary optimization won’t have significant negative consequences.

13. More Developers = Faster Delivery: The fallacy that adding more developers will proportionally speed up project completion, akin to thinking nine women can produce a baby in one month.

14. You Can Fully Understand Requirements Upfront: The expectation that all requirements can be perfectly understood and specified before development begins.

15. You Can Design Perfectly Before Coding: The belief that it’s possible to design a flawless system architecture before any coding starts.

16. Regression Testing Can Be Omitted: The mistaken belief that full regression testing isn’t necessary for ensuring software stability.

17. Delivery Systems Are Homogeneous: The assumption that all delivery systems will behave consistently, ignoring potential variability and edge cases.

18. Function and Budget Can Be Set Beforehand: The expectation that both the delivered functionality and budget can be fixed before significant development work begins.

19. Developers and Users Always Understand Each Other: The belief that developers and users are always on the same page without the need for tangible, usable software to bridge understanding.

20. Floating-Point Arithmetic Is Reliable: The misunderstanding that floating-point arithmetic will always yield consistent results without the need for careful handling and testing.

21. Rounding Is Consistent Everywhere: The erroneous assumption that rounding operations are consistent across all platforms and software environments.

22. Human Language Is Precise Enough for Code: The belief that human language is sufficient for specifying code without ambiguity or misinterpretation.

23. Precision Isn’t Necessary: The notion that you can develop software without rigorous precision, understanding, and thorough testing.

24. It’s Always Feasible: The overconfidence that every project is doable without significant risks or obstacles.

25. Security Isn’t a Priority: The dangerous belief that security concerns can be overlooked, or that some attack vectors aren’t worth addressing.

26. Nobody Will Let You Down: The unrealistic expectation that no team member will face personal issues, illness, or other setbacks during the project.

27. Your Project Will Survive: The assumption that your project is immune to cancellation or major changes before completion.

28. Future Tech Predictions Are Accurate: The belief that you can accurately predict the future state of technology and its impact on your project.

29. Newer Is Better: The naive belief that the latest technology is automatically superior and should be used without question.

30. Success Is Guaranteed If It Works Once: The damaging notion that finding one way the software behaves correctly is enough, rather than ensuring all potential failure points are addressed. This includes the irritating response, "It works on my machine," which shifts the blame to users instead of addressing the fragility of the software.

31. Unit Tests Are Enough: The mistaken belief that unit, integration, and system tests can fully substitute for real-world testing with actual users, in pilot phases, and during rollout.

32. Tool Output Equals Correctness: The belief that if development tools don’t flag issues, the software is automatically correct, ignoring the need for deeper verification.

33. Unpredicted Issues Won’t Arise: The dangerous oversight that entirely unpredicted and intrinsically unpredictable issues won’t emerge.

34. Projects Always Finish on Time: The optimistic belief that projects will meet deadlines, despite the well-known tendency for timelines to slip.

35. Overconfidence in Estimations: The frequent error of underestimating the time and effort required, leading to projects dragging on much longer than anticipated.

36. You Always Know What You’re Doing: The hubris of believing that you fully understand the problem and that confidence alone will lead to success, without acknowledging the complexities involved.

37. Resources Won’t Run Out: The assumption that time, budget, or energy won’t run out before the project is complete.

38. Documentation Will Match the System: The unrealistic belief that documentation will be perfectly in sync with the system at the time of delivery.

39. People Will Notice What’s Done Right: The expectation that users and stakeholders will recognize what has been done well, rather than focusing solely on deficiencies.

40. Premature Release Won’t Happen: The common situation where management forces an unfinished or hacked-together solution into production.

41. Management Will Understand: The assumption that management or stakeholders will fully understand the technical reasons why the software isn’t ready.

42. Murphy’s Law Is Just an Adage: Misunderstanding Murphy’s Law as a mere saying rather than acknowledging it as a genuine mathematical reality that affects software development.

43. Dependencies Will Just Work: Underestimating the challenges posed by software dependencies, assuming that everything will work together seamlessly without conflicts.

44. Libraries Will Solve Everything: The belief that third-party libraries or frameworks will solve all problems without introducing new ones or creating additional complexity.

45. Scalability Will Handle Itself: The assumption that software designed for small-scale use will automatically scale to handle larger loads without significant rework.

46. Documentation Can Wait: The belief that documentation can be written after the code is complete without compromising its accuracy or usefulness.

47. Single Points of Failure Are Fine: Ignoring the risks associated with having single points of failure in the system, assuming they won’t be an issue until they become one.

Why we need to love someone

You are a product of Evolution by Natural Selection. The one thing that got you here was generations before you promoting their design forward through time.

For your design to make it forward through time, you have to ensure the survivability of that design. It has to be reproduced somehow, either by doing something that favors the design in related individuals or by replicating your own design into the next generation.

Our design is primarily transmitted through genetic material and that genetic material makes it into the next generation through the production of offspring by sexual reproduction.

Failing to promote your design forward is fatal. A design that does not survive is a bad design that … does not survive. You are the product of many, many, *many* generations of good design.

How something like romantic love and yearning for it arises can get extremely complex, but it should be apparent that males and females desiring contact will get together. And that, at least in many cases, eventually results in offspring. The design moves forward once again in time.

Seeking a mate can indeed be very challenging, ‘an arduous process’. In fact, even for those with the most resources, it is still a challenge because you are looking for the optimal strategy and that can be extremely difficult to determine. Some of us will have no problem getting some kind of offspring into the next generation, but this is a competition and just getting to the next generation is necessary but not sufficient. You need to produce *viable* offspring that will survive, reproduce and keep their genes alive.

You are stuck with the longing, I am afraid. Make the best of it. Don’t drift about waiting for someone to come your way or waste tons of time in trial and error. Do your research. Learn how to be as attractive a mate as you can be. Learn how to find potential mates and identify which ones are reasonable choices.

Potential mates are looking for ‘fitness’. Mates are seeking ‘attractive’ individuals. What makes people attractive are signs of fitness for the purpose of conceiving and raising successful children. For males, ‘attractive’ means females who are healthy and have maximal childbearing potential. What makes people appear ‘beautiful’ is in fact just overt signs of viability and physical health. Signs of this are regular features, appropriate dimensions, vigor, good teeth, healthy hair, etc. For males, the optimal female is one on the low end of childbearing age. Last I heard in populations near me that means women around 20 to 23. For females, ‘attractive’ means males that are physically attractive as above (health, regular features, etc). However, they favor males that demonstrate the means and desire to stay with them to protect and support a family. Last I heard, men are at their most attractive to women when they are in the range of 29–39.

For both men and women things like high social status and wealth are attractive.

Empirically, animals tend to favor mates that are similar in appearance to themselves. This makes sense because deviation from norms is a warning sign more often than not. There is an effect where an individual that stands out is *more* attractive to some, but the smart money is on fitting in.

It is best if you *are* the picture of health, wonderfully good looking, come from a great family, are wealthy and well-connected. This is why princes and princesses figure prominently in romantic narratives. Given a choice, most people are going to opt for the beautiful, wealthy and powerful at the pinnacle of nobility.

Most of us are not nearly ideal. However, the appearance of the ideal is a really good substitute. Women can’t always *be* 21 years old, but by plumping and reddening their lips, applying makeup to smooth their skin, wearing cleverly arranged clothing, adopting certain mannerisms, etc, they can appear closer to that ideal. Men can’t always be 30 years old, but by careful grooming, staying in shape and similarly wearing clever clothing they can appear closer to the ideal.

For men, it helps to have that expensive car and fancy suit that demonstrate the means to provide for a family. Being able to escort women to important engagements, fancy restaurants, exclusive parties, etc indicate a desirable social status.

There are all sorts of tips and tricks to enhance your appearance to a potential mate. For women, something as simple as pinching their cheeks before heading out the door can give them a tiny edge.

Women should be mindful of the narrow window they have to be at their most attractive and should take pains to make sure they ‘play the field’ early enough to get an idea of what is out there before they hit their peak years.

Men are similarly affected by a window, but it is a larger window (though not all that much) and it appears later. If you are a man, you have more time, but a word to the wise: you will need it.

To maximize the process of searching for and acquiring a mate, you need to move quickly to establish what is out there and how you stack up to the competition. You have to correct any deficiencies you can, settle into a search for suitable candidates and then make their acquaintance. Once you are there, you are looking for someone that you can actually stay with. They may be gorgeous to look at, but still not right for you. You have to put your best foot forward, but you also have to be reasonably honest and authentic.

Chemistry is important. I can’t prove it, but I think the reason that being ‘a good kisser’ is a big deal is because it is a vetting process — literally a chemical analysis — to determine that there is a good genetic match there.

You want to create ‘limerence’ in the right candidate individual and you want to experience limerence yourself. If you have been careful you may well find that it springs up on you without any effort. Otherwise, you need to use everything you’ve got to create it. Mutual infatuation can be extremely annoying to the people around you, but for the couple in love, it is pretty awesome and well worth some effort.

You need, as I say, to put your best foot forward, but that does not mean outrageous cheating. The ‘PUA’ movement is the antithesis of romance. The whole premise of that movement is to prey on women by tricking them into sexual involvement under false pretenses. It is a sad strategy, for sad men that only spreads misery. Don’t be that guy.

Instagram Account Banned

This was resolved as simply a mistake on the part of Instagram, but the hint below might help someone.

Can't get a texted code number from Instagram? You might need to unblock one of their numbers on your phone. In my case, unblocking 326-65 allowed me to get the code I needed to continue with their horribly hostile broken system. 

I'm 'a computer guy'. I have been on social systems in cyberspace since before the worldwide web. Since, even, before the term 'cyberspace' came and went in popular geek parlance. When younger, long ago, I could be a bit sharp and sarcastic online, but I never intended to be mean. Before the WWW came along I was already kinder and gentler. I registered my first domain name in 1987, and for a while did websites for people starting in 1999. I have been a citizen in cyberspace longer than most of the people who have seized control of it have been alive. I have been a kind, mannerly, and 'community-guidelines' friendly citizen of the web since its very beginning. I don't transgress in online communities and any community managers that believe otherwise are mistaken. It's on them. If there is something objectionable associated with my account online it is their security breaking down, not my manners. 

I was invited to review an Instagram post on the account of an important public person. By co-incidence, my account, which I hardly ever access was banned by Instagram. I could not log on and was given the option to enter an appeal. However, the system demanded that I put in a code that it would send by SMS text to my phone for me to even register my protest. I tried a number of times unsuccessfully to get the code sent, but it never arrived. After a few attempts it said I had used up my chances for SMS and had to wait for 24 hours to try again. I waited. I tried again, still without luck. 

The system offered no other way to protest the ban or to even contact Instagram. I tried to get them on Twitter/X without luck. I logged in to Meta to try, tried to use Facebook to log in, all to no avail. 

My posting on X prompted replies by accounts clearly charging people money to fix this issue. Having my time wasted and paying for the privilege was 'a bridge too far' for me. 

Instagram's system is ridiculously hostile to just about anyone, it would seem. For ordinary people who have invested their time in their account it must be a nightmare. 

I went looking for a solution to the defective SMS situation and found something that seemed an improbable fix. Apparently it is impossible to get the SMS or any indication of what went wrong if their number is blocked. It is also possible that, for whatever reason, you have blocked the number. I have no idea what happened for me to block that number, but it was blocked on my phone. 

The number in question is 326-65. Unblocking that number allowed me to receive the code so that my appeal could continue. 

Because I have been something of an insider in many places, am a technical person myself, and have friends and associates that are technical, I have been able to deal with various frustrations over the years. However, I note with alarm that the stranglehold large incumbents have on the world's networks is beginning to make me, one of the people who designed and built parts of the infrastructure, just another supplicant at the mercy of a merciless oligarchic bureaucracy. 

I believe that there is, in the medium term of about five years, a way that the citizens of the world can free themselves from what is rapidly becoming control by an increasingly hostile and tyrannical minority. I am working on aspects of this. For now, though, I would say to people to get off the sidelines, get involved, and remember your neighbor is not the enemy.