Sneaky Bastards!

You are expected to briefly consider that the "Apps Explorer" has been updated and that you do not need to concern yourself with any of the details. Whatever organization is responsible for it is just trying to help, right? So... OK? ...and then click OK. I hope you see why I call them sneaky bastards.

When I first tried Copilot, I was greeted with a friendly interface—but immediately interrupted by a pop-up warning:

"Unsaved changes will be lost. Are you sure you want to continue?"

As a first-time user, I hadn't typed anything yet. So what changes were at risk? The system didn't say. That moment of confusion could've been avoided with a simple addition: a "What's changes?" button that lets Copilot explain what triggered the warning.

✨ The Proposal

Add a contextual help button to safety prompts that activates Copilot to describe the specific unsaved changes at risk. This turns a generic interruption into a personalized, transparent moment of clarity.

✅ Benefits

• Reduces confusion, especially for new users.
• Builds trust by showing the system understands user input.
• Leverages Copilot's real-time awareness to enhance UX without adding friction.

💡 Beyond UX: Rewarding Ingenuity

As someone who thinks deeply about AI design, I believe the top users—those who stress-test systems and offer high-value feedback—should be recognized and rewarded. Microsoft could create an Elite Feedback Program to invite users identified by Copilot to shape future features and receive compensation or recognition for their contributions.

🧭 Final Thought

AI is evolving fast. But if it wants to make a great first impression, it needs to listen to the people who push it hardest—and smartest.

John F. Kennedy Death Ruled Suicide

Many people know of the term "suicide by cop" wherein a criminal at the end of his rope sticks one last sickening thorn into the souls of the police officers apprehending him by threatening them all so much that they feel their only choice is to murder him.  Knowledge of this possibility causes the best police to quit before they are forced to murder someone who hasn't done anyone harm, but who violated too many stupid laws to have any chance of an enjoyable life once he (or she) is caught.

But John F. Kennedy's death has been verified as a "suicide by psychopathic elites."  Multiple wounds in his dead body with different angles of entry prompted recent researchers to examine the hypothesis that he knew what he was doing, and was no longer interested in trying to do (what he thought was) good in a world where psychopathic elites held sway over the minds of so many individuals.

This was before the Internet, you see, at the height of the thrall into which the masses could be put with radio signals.  Mr. Kennedy had turned 21 six months before H.G. Wells successfully demonstrated that people were idiots by broadcasting a radio show in which a news story about invading Martians was played.  Kennedy spent the next 21 years climbing through the jungle gym of political force, first through the navy, then some propaganda training with Hearst Newspapers, and then into the cesspool-surrounded-jacuzzi called Washington DC as a representative and then a senator, finally becoming president, where his southern gentility prompted him to free his people from the stranglehold of fiat currency by issuing silver notes.

But it all proved too hard when he figured out that they murdered his brother Joe for the same kind of care he felt toward his countrymen.  So he thwarted the disaster they'd planned for the Bay of Pigs, pushed forward his silver certificate agenda, and permitted a course change at the last minute through the heart of his nemesis' hometown, Dallas, Texas, knowing full well that the whole world would see the depravity of the psychos on full display while his head exploded.

Too bad that took another few decades because of the success of the Prussian model of "education" making people into stupid sheep.  This effort had been underway since the 1800s after Horace Mann discovered how the Prussians were destroying the imaginations of their children in order to make good soldiers and imported the model to our country.

Yes, this is very dark. I started writing it in 2016 and it's now 2025. I intend it to motivate you (and myself) to be more conscientious regarding our response to "people with power." Consider what that power is: the ability to motivate others to use coercion on behalf of some kind of ideal expressed in legislation. Can they motivate you that way? Probably. Does it make you feel honorable to do what some legislation demands that you do? I have recognized that for most people, the answers are yes, and that is something that needs to change if "people with power" tell us to do things we believe are wrong.  That's not a problem in you or me, or even in them.  The problem lies in the relationship. Did JFK acquiesce to this seemingly overpowering force when he accepted the route change, or did it slip by him? When enough of us stand courageously before wickedness despite its overpowering appearance, the kingdom of God is at hand.

There are Two Kinds of People Who Do Evil.

Neither kind is inherently evil.  Both suffer from the same sort of lack or introspection.  So do I, and so do you. Please be careful!  I don't want either of us to end up doing evil out of our failure to introspect.

First we have people who do evil despite being afraid of the damage that might come back to them because of it.  They are usually quite aware of that potential damage and put some effort into avoiding it. On its own, that extra effort they put out is clearly not discouraging enough to stop them. They are also missing something else, and I attribute that failure on their part to the lack of introspection. Our behavior affects other people, and anyone who introspects enough can see that quite easily.  Introspection makes us better people.

The lack of introspection here causes this first kind of evildoer to underappreciate the intensity of the feelings they will create in others and the many and long lasting effects of their evildoing on their own life. How often do you point out to someone who has hurt you that they hurt you?  How often do you simply avoid them in the future? How much possible value are you removing from their life by avoiding them? Your own value to them was not appreciated enough for them to see that their evildoing would take that away from them.

The worst of this first class of people includes the hardest of criminals. Criminality, however, has been tainted by foolish government policy that criminalizes behavior which hurts no one but the person doing it. Much of the "crime" committed these days doesn't even count as the kind of criminality I put in this class because it isn't really evil.  It's simply inconvenient for the authorities and they end up criminalizing it to protect themselves from that inconvenience.

I'm a great example of this.  An undercover officer was tasked with trading cryptocurrency with me and then calling me and conversationally mentioning that "one of my runners is swallowing more oxy than he's selling," which should have alerted me to the likelihood that she was a drug dealer. I didn't catch it. Her made up name was Gina. I took a plea to get out of it. The plea removed the "money laundering" charge she helped to manufacture, but left the "operating an unlicensed money transmitter business" charge. It has become a crime to buy and sell cryptocurrency, according to the prosecutor in my case. If you're curious how this protects some kind of convenience enjoyed by authorities, read Satoshi Nakamoto's whitepaper.

This brings me to the second kind of evildoer. They have no fear of the damage that might come back to them because of their evildoing. No one (not even I) has the courage to stand up to them and resist their evildoing because that would be illegal. I'm talking about people who work for an institution which you (probably - and I used to) support and honor and respect. It demands that you pay for things even if you don't want them, because not paying them would be illegal even though you don't want their product. What you pay them is called "taxes." They are not inherently evil either, but rather trapped by something much bigger and more insidious than the evil of a single person. That trap is dependence.

Too many people depend on someone else to keep them and their children safe, but it isn't a very dependable provider of such safety. These people depend on us and our tax payments for their paychecks. They depend on our obedience not to our own consciences, but to laws made up by the people who hire them. They depend on our acquiescence to the decisions they make about how we should live and what we can do. We, at least many of us, depend on them to threaten people into "good behavior", but they redefine what "good behavior" means.

Remember when I contrasted "obedience" to "our own consciences" and you got that little feeling that "it is good to obey the law"? Perhaps you started writing me off, and if so, thanks for reading this far.  I hope to bring you back.  I happen to have far more faith in your conscience than I do in the laws that authorities invent.  I see the foundation of this faith in my own experiences regarding obligations and expectations and school. Perhaps you remember a friend (maybe an ex-friend now) who did something mean and under your protest, defended their behavior with "It's not illegal!" I became fond of saying "I don't care if it's illegal, it's mean." Would you prefer your friends to always obey the law or to always be kind?

Those tasked with carrying out the enforcement of law have an especially difficult time distinguishing their evildoing from good behavior.  They get paid to enforce law regardless of how stupid they feel the law is. They get paid to ignore their own conscience in many cases, unfortunately. We are taught and expected to help them do those jobs, despite the job itself doing more harm than good.  Again, I'm a good example because I was supposed to be policing Gina by recognizing that saying "one of my runners is swallowing more oxy than he's selling" indicates that she is a bad person and so I shouldn't have bought her cryptocurrency.

Let me recap the roadblocks preventing government agents from staying out of the trap that makes them do evil. They are paid to enforce law, whether the law is good or bad. Schoolchildren are taught that their profession is more valuable and useful than other professions. We pay them to do what they do! We expect them to carry guns.  Let's be honest too, we like the idea that "criminals" (even if they are only selling cryptocurrency) suffer at the hands of these government agents. We harbor a spirit of vengeance, don't we?

I'm sorry for taking you down like that. Perhaps you are like me and you derive no pleasure from the suffering of others. I still pay my taxes because I can't figure out how to avoid it without incurring more suffering for myself and the people I love. This brings me to another point about how government agents are trapped. I already said it, that we harbor a spirit of vengeance, but how is that a trap? Let me explain a bit more.

You and I, I shall assume, are old enough to recognize vengeance as the cheap and dangerous tactic that a dog or other animal might use immediately upon perceiving an attacker. Another human being who is willing to attack, steal, kill, or otherwise disrespect you is probably suffering and would benefit from some help.  The lowest common denominator among those who become aware of the attacker or thief or murderer is that same desire for vengeance that the dog feels. Having a big thug around to execute it makes a lot of people feel safe, and that tends to justify the whole "government" industry. Again, I prefer to help my attackers heal rather than making them suffer as a warning not to do it again. I fear they will just go find another victim, and the cycle of violence persists.

The largest number of people willing to tolerate the demand for money ("taxes") made by "the biggest baddest gang" would be the ones who fall for that "lowest common denominator" tactic of dealing with "bad people" using vengeance. How can you choose not to serve the largest group, especially when you are the government?  Do you see how that... let me call it "immaturity" - lust for vengeance becomes a trap for the government?

There are groups that work to help "criminals" (whether they actually do harm or simply do things authorities don't like, though this second group doesn't need it nearly as much). They try to help heal such criminals from whatever it is that pushed them to be criminals. I would like to know of and promote such groups. Please let me know if you are aware of any.

Did You Ever Pray for Faith?

I did. I thought my prayer was not answered, but I have come to believe it was answered, but the faith I got was in myself. This thought made me giggle this morning while I was running. It was several decades ago (about three, I think) that I asked for a sign. A few days or weeks ago, I came across an admonition from the Bible not to expect signs. I justified the request for a sign that I made this morning. I run about 10 miles a week, 5 miles on Wednesday and five more on Saturday, but two weeks ago, I kicked a section of sidewalk lifted about an inch by a tree's growing roots, and went "splat" on the sidewalk. I ran four more miles after that, and am nearly completely healed today.

Last Wednesday, a week and a half after my spill, I noticed a pain at the front of my right hip, as if the top of my quadriceps or the bottom of my psoas on the right was inflamed. I walked the last half mile because the pain got too strong. That was three days ago. I can still feel the pain, but I walk just about every morning that I don't run, and this helped whatever that was to heal. However, when I run the five miles, I can climb hills or go around them, and that was the decision that prompted me to request a sign today.

Exercise helps us heal, but too much can retard or reverse the healing, and a high tolerance for pain can hide the signs of this danger. I could choose randomly, or take the easy way or the hard way, whatever I wanted, but I thought maybe the universe could help me decide, since it might know better (or be luckier in choosing), so I asked for a sign. The Bible verse came to mind, and I considered the warning. Out loud, I think, I said "But I don't want to put myself above you," addressing the universe, or God, if you like. When I'm not sure of the best choice, even if I am pulled inexplicably one way or the other, I seek confirmation in randomness, or from God, or the universe, if you like :-).

I tend to fly by the seat of my pants when prior analysis doesn't clearly indicate the best way. It's a form of experimentation and I learn from it. I like to anthropomorphize the hills and mountains on which I run and imagine that they like when creatures climb them. Often, at the beginning of my run, I address them with love, telling them either "Sorry, I'm too tired/injured/lazy today," or "Yes, I will mount you today!" (more often the latter, thankfully!)

On Wednesday, I may have climbed some and perhaps didn't pay enough attention to how I was running to protect the front of my right hip from whatever made it hurt. My love lent me a book called "Chi Running" by Danny Dreyer in which Danny suggests trying to keep your hips level while you run "so you don't spill your chi." He also suggests lifting your feet up behind you as you run rather than in front of you. These things seemed to help with the pain today as I ran, and also near the end of my run on Wednesday.

I have run in those hills many times, but it had been a while since I went the way I went this morning, and I saw a hill to the left and flatter path to the right at one point. My memory of "the way around the hills" was "going left", and this fork in the road was the opposite.  That's how I interpreted the sign, that if I use the "go around the hills" strategy, I'm going to end up going up a hill.

A few steps later, I realized I had been down that path before, and so buried deep in my mind was an awareness that this was not a sign, but a subconscious choice to do the hard thing instead of the easy one. I traversed the hill and returned to a flat part of the path after running downhill for a couple hundred feet. I wasn't paying a lot of attention to where my feet were going and one of them kicked a rock out of the way. It reminded me of the raised sidewalk that tripped me two weeks ago, but the rock didn't trip me. Instead, it reminded me that I recover quickly, I bounce right back, and that my tolerance for pain is high. It made me realize that my faith in myself was very strong, and that I had once prayed for faith. It made me realize that my very old prayer had been answered by a life of my own choices to be honest, recognize my errors, learn from them, and give people grace whenever I could. This is what made me giggle. Giggling is a sign of joy. May you giggle often and with vigor!

Being Programmed, and Coding with AI

You may have heard me say that the brain is an AI. I'm watching a video of Dr. Bruce Lipton talking about the science of manifestation. In it, he provides an image of the brain in which the front tip is distinguished from the rest of the brain.  He explains that this front tip (maybe 10% of the mass) is where consciousness operates, and that the rest of it is "subconscious".  This is what I mean by "the brain is an AI". I'm excited to see the next parts in which he will talk about being a spirit. I recently read in the book Innercise by John Assaraf that the subconscious is like a gorilla, in other words, overpowering!

I started this post because of the basic sensitivity I feel when considering these things.  The fact is that it is relatively difficult to do anything differently from how the gorilla will do it. The programming is there and difficult to overcome. The spirit is willing, but the gorilla is overpowering... or so it seems. I believe the gorilla is overpowering, but it is dedicated to its code, and who writes the code? If you let them, everyone else will write your code, using your gorilla to program you in their own best interest, but you have to let them do it for that to happen.

If you write your own code, then you use your gorilla to figure out what code you need to write, and you write it every time you make a conscious decision. This is why I like doing hard things, like meditating for 15 minutes as soon as I get up in the morning.  Okay, that's not all that hard.  But I also like to invite people to criticize me so I can get better at whatever I'm doing, and I like running at least 5 miles three or four times a week, getting into really cold water, and avoiding junk food.  People say I am disciplined, and I suppose that's close.

I think of it more as "trained", but not trained by someone else.  I am trained by myself.  You, also, are trained by yourself. You wrote those programs running in your mind, or you let someone else write them.  Either way, they are your responsibility.  Congratulations, I hope! Or... pay more attention!

I have a question for you: Who are you, really? Who are you being, most of the time, yourself, that spirit that actually experiences everything to which you pay attention when you actually pay attention? Or are you, most of the time, being someone created by everyone else? Your individuality is important to me. If you're not being the person you design yourself to be, you're just another AI, something without much of a spirit, an NPC. I think you, also will like the you that you design better than the AI that you'll otherwise become.

Bee-ing

The prospect of panpsychism excites me. The first of the "Seven Natural Laws" is "All is mind." If experience is had by everything and obvious to humans only when it produces what we view as "coherent behavior", then there are a lot of "things" having experience which we don't perceive. You may be aware of your own subconscious, perhaps because it has done things for you which you soon recognized.  Perhaps you have never noticed it. I have noticed my own quite often, from dreams which helped me become a better person or understand things better, as well as giving up on trying to recall something and remembering it a few seconds or minutes or hours later.

If everything has experience, then why are we unable to be conscious of the things our subconscious minds do? As I think of it now, I don't think "the subconscious mind" does anything.  I think the brain does stuff that doesn't carry experiential value, and so we don't experience it. This theory of mine (and mind, my spellchecker pointed out) suggests that we can describe a difference between processes which have "experiential value" and those that don't.  So I thought of a bee.

Bees dance in order to share the location of food. They find the food and then return to the hive and tell their hivemates where it was. We don't know if they also share interesting details like "Watch out for animals" or "It smells kind of bad about halfway there." The prospect of being swatted or trampled or disliking what you smell is less important than finding something to eat, but it still has meaning. We attribute meaning to certain combinations of sensory input. The intersections and angles and line segments in A mean the letter A to you, and that causes some auditory neurons to play a sound in your head. It could be a meaningless sound, but it isn't, and that's because your brain learned how useful A is a long time ago. Your parents, teachers, siblings, friends, and others taught you about A (and B, C, etc.).

When you emerged from your mom's womb, you had a compulsion to suck if you felt something between your lips, and then swallow, and so you nourished yourself, but that was largely "subconscious", or, since I'm defending that there is no such thing, an automatic response created by thousands of years of trial and error by evolution to get mammals to nourish their young. But the recreation of the self (or something like the self) has experiential value.

My current level of rigor in defining the distinction between what has experiential value and what doesn't is quite low, but here it is: If a process is materially (macroscopically) affected by quantum effects, then it has experiential value. The thing that experiences has some say in how quantum wavefunctions collapse, and this is the essence of "free will". Can the bee choose whether or not to bother with the waggle dance? The further away the food, the longer the dance will take. Do bees ever make choices, or are they deterministic?

One of the practices which help me reduce my level of stress is mindfulness, and I enhance my ability to engage in mindfulness by meditating.  I'll do that soon, but I want to give this little essay a good ending first. You can join me! Mindfulness and meditation can both be part of your life by simply being present.  In the context of reading (or writing, for me) this essay, imagine you are a bee, tired of flying, knowing there's a little food a ways away, landing at the entrance to the hive.  It's warm in there, energizing even, and maybe, your little bee mind feels, energizing enough to help you waggle dance as you recall and imagine the trip you just flew so that your waggle dance lines up properly. Sit with it for a few minutes, pondering, wondering whether resting this way for too long might fade the memory too much to be effective.

Recognizing that memory fades might require more neurons than bees have. Certain things that AI (or blue whales, or groups of humans) can do might require more neurons than humans have. I need to go meditate.  Thanks for reading!