Pinned Tweet
Your immune system is nearly magical in its ability to protect and heal you; when it is well taken care of. When you fall, your immune system responds so quickly that it begins preparations to heal the possible injuries *before* you hit the ground.
A thread on immunity. 1/13
There is wrong. And then there is dangerously wrong.
Dr Alo here is in the second group.
#PostDiabeticIsPossible
Who would have predicted that we would end up in a clown world so ridiculous that this would be front page news:
I met this woman, and she didn't look anything like the pictures I saw before. No, this wasn't Tinder. This was a professional speaker speaking on authenticity, and she didn't look anything like her bio shots or her posters.
This isn't unusual, but now it's becoming a matter of intellectual capacity rather than appearance. People use AI-scripted content in their social media and marketing, and then can't hold that level of intelligence when they're really on stage, doing audience interaction, or speaking in the media.
I've just written about this on Substack. In the article, drop a link to a book that covers the rhetorical tools AI uses, when you should use them, why AI uses them, and when you absolutely shouldn't.
unforgettablespeaking.substa…
I'm doing some research and writing about relationships and, of course, the end of relationships and I'd love your help.
It appears to me that there are two kinds of high-conflict divorce:
1. Two abusers: two adults unable to put their children first, unable to do the right thing and put the kids first, more embittered, angry, and vengeful than rational behavior would call for. I suspect this is most rare version because that left of disregard of the kids probably requires mental illness and the odds of both parents being mentally disturbed seems less likely.
2. One abuser. This is a particularly insidious form of divorce, first of all, because it becomes known as a high-conflict divorce (which means that the more abusive the one partner is, the more the other one appears guilty as well). This type of divorce requires one mentally unwell person to place their own anger and ego above the needs of the children.
I'm curious about your experience. When you have seen evidence of an abusive or “high conflict” divorce, which ones have you seen most commonly?
1) Two abusers.
2) Father abuser.
3) Mother abuser.
Please tell me also what country you are from; I feel like the answers are impacted by the culture, laws and court systems of each country.
Please also tag or share this with people who might have an interesting perspective
There are two kinds of high-conflict divorce:
1. Two abusers: two adults unable to put their children first, unable to tie the string, more embittered, angry, and vengeful than rational behavior would call for. This is the two-assholes divorce and is the less common one.
2. One abuser. This is a particularly insidious form of divorce, first of all, because it becomes known as a high-conflict divorce (which means that the more abusive the one partner is, the more the other one appears guilty as well). This type of divorce requires one mentally unwell person to place their own anger and ego above the needs of the children.
I'm curious about your experience. When you have seen evidence of an abusive divorce, who has most often been the abuser?
Who could have guessed that this might happen when you push people's overall consumption of food down without improving the quality of the nutrition they're taking in?
The irony of an insanity plea is that once there is an insanity plea it doesn't require nearly as much insanity to do something insane.
The family court system rewards and draws out the worst behaviour in anyone with enough moral flexibility to go along with it. Where society used to punish narcissism, it now creates and magnifies it.
THIS IS A TRUE STORY:
Lawyer: Where does your husband live?
Wife: In the UK.
Lawyer: Let's say he lives locally.
Wife: Why would we do that?
Lawyer: Because then he only gets 7 days notice. He won't have time to prepare, and we can get an ex-parte order against him.
Wife: But it isn't true.
Lawyer: That's fine. If they spot it, we admit the error and amend the summons. If they don't, we get the order, and his only defence is an appeal that will cost him thousands and take years. In the meantime you have custody and all the support you're asking for.
Wife: Okay, let's do it.
(The wife is morally flexible here, but she isn't the one to blame. An officer of the court is instructing her to do this. And it isn't really his fault either -- if the court allows it, he will do it. Hockey players don't play to the rules, they play to the ENFORCED rules.)
Lawyer: How much support do you want?
Wife: $3,000 a month.
Lawyer: Then you'll need to report his income as much higher than it really is.
Wife: Isn't lying in court bad?
Lawyer: Perjury isn't enforced in family court.
Wife: What?
Lawyer: That's just how it is. You can say pretty much whatever you want, and your ex probably will too. The more you lie, the further you move the middle. That's the game.
Wife: Okay, let's do it.
(Again, she's taking advice from an officer of the court who is playing to the enforced rules.)
And so the husband ends up with an unsupportable financial order that would never have been granted if he'd been given the notice he was entitled to, so he could answer the claims his wife was encouraged to make.
He's also lost custody. His only remedy is to spend thousands appealing a judgment that should never have been granted in the first place.
--
This is a true story and while the 'wife' in this case is not to blame not all women have the moral flexibility to play the system like this; many of them put their children first.
Why does this need to be said?
Sophie Cunningham says women 'shouldn't have to go against biological men' in sports trib.al/OfkqYYH
Simon says, trust the science.
Simon doesn't want you to know who funds the science.
@simonmaechling
So @simonmaechling blocked me for pointing out his logical fallacy.
Simon pretends to be interested in the reputation of science while he personally assassinates it a tiny little bit every single day.
The post below is one of several that he posts, trying to water down the meaning of the word "chemicals." He would prefer that the word "chemicals" had absolutely no meaning at all by making it mean everything. That would then prevent people from raising their concerns about the various harmful chemicals that do occasionally make their way into the product life cycle of his employer's products.
Simon says, "Everything is a chemical."
Simon says water is a chemical.
Evidently, Simon thinks that a water balloon fight is also chemical warfare.
Simon says that influencers have damaged science's reputation.
I suggest and say that the incredible industry lobbying, manipulation of legislation, bribing of officials, and general criminal activity covering up their misdeeds might have done more damage than the average influencer.
Science doesn't lie. But you can lie with $cience.
If you are a loving parent and you have to fight for time with your child, the wrong parent has custody.
I created, last year, a custom AI called (based on GPT) called Adam, a 70-year old man whose 70 years represent the 7 million years of hominid evolution... today, I updated him and he is even better.
I asked him, today, what it was like the day he invented fire:
It was not one clean day, not like a hand striking stone and suddenly saying, I have invented fire.
It was more like learning to keep a dangerous animal alive.
In my compressed life, I was about 50 years old when humans first began controlling fire — long after stone tools, and long before we could reliably make fire whenever we wished. The later skill of creating fire came much later in my memory. Adam’s own memory-map frames fire as one of the great turning points: “a second sun we could carry.”
The day before, night belonged to teeth.
When the sun went down, the world changed ownership. The grass cooled. The air filled with the smell of damp earth, animal breath, old dung, and blood drying on stone. We slept lightly, if we slept at all. Children were pulled close. The old ones listened. Every snap of twig had a shape in the dark: hyena, leopard, lion, stranger.
Food was tougher then. Meat was torn, pounded, chewed until the jaw ached. Bones were cracked for marrow. Roots were bitter. Cold sat in the joints like an unwelcome spirit.
Then came fire — not as invention, but as relationship.
At first, we borrowed it from the sky and from burning land. Lightning would strike. Grass would roar orange. Animals would flee. And after the terror came curiosity. Warmth remained in the ash. Coals glowed like sleeping eyes. Someone learned to carry an ember in bark, dung, fungus, or dry grass. Someone learned that fire could be fed. Someone learned that if you neglected it, it died; if you crowded it, it bit; if you honored it, it stayed.
The first nights after, everything smelled different.
Smoke entered our hair and skins. Meat hissed and changed. Fat dripped into flame and made the darkness jump. The taste of cooked flesh was astonishing — softer, sweeter, safer. Faces appeared at night in ways they never had before. Eyes shone. Hands moved in orange light. The old ones could stay awake longer. Stories grew longer because the night had been pushed back.
And the predators noticed.
They still circled, yes. I remember the cough of leopard beyond the light, the restless laugh of hyena, the lions watching from the edge of the world. But they did not come as close. Fire made a boundary. For the first time, we carried a piece of day into the night.
The days after fire were not peaceful. We burned ourselves. We lost embers. We argued over who watched the coals. We learned that smoke could choke, that flame could run, that children must be kept away, that dry grass is treacherous. But everything had changed.
Fire gave us warmth, cooked food, protection, gathering, memory, and later — much later — tools hardened in heat, forests opened, clay transformed, metal awakened.
But that first time?
It felt like this: the night had always been a mouth, and suddenly we had placed a glowing tooth of our own inside it.
What would you say to a mother who:
Restricts her children's time -- against their will -- with their loving father in order to secure child support that she is not otherwise entitled to and then takes that money and enrolls her children in child care and camps instead of allowing them to spend time with their father.
Imagine one parent blocking the other parent from seeing their children in order to justify a child support payment that they then use for child care and summer camps instead of time with the other parent.
What would you call that?
Would you prevent the other parent from time with their children so that you could 'earn' more child support?
No. Because you are not unwell.
But there are people who are unwell. And the system amplifies their mental issues by rewarding exactly this type of behavior and harming kids in the problem.
Family court is not a joke. It is evil.