Projecting probability of lithic artifact distribution across time in the Americas.

I would suggest that, by using proved statistical theory regarding atypical distribution of data it may be possible to determine a rough understanding of the minimum time frame of human occupation of the Americas.

Lithic artifact distribution in the Americas is probably related to population density.

To do this, we must ignore the arbitrary classifications of historic and prehistoric so that we can understand the distribution of population, and therefore artifact, density.

The density of artifact distribution is probably going to be a left skewed distribution where the distribution falls off suddenly when lithic technology is replaced with newer iron age technologies brought over from Europe, or when population density is decimated by European diseases.

We can assume that the modality of the distribution of lithic artifacts will be around the period of highest population density. When did Native Americans first encounter Europeans and European diseases? Vikings? Columbus? When did the population of the Americas begin to drop?

We can further assume that the farther left of the modality the less probable the discovery of artifacts is.

The farther we move from the mean, or the modality, the less probable it will be that we will find an artifact.

This implies that, if we find an artifact, the artifact is within the higher probabilities of the distribution of artifacts. In the case of a skewed distribution a discovered prehistoric artifact is probably between the mean, which will be on the left of the data point which the artifact represents, and the modality, which will be to the right of the data point the artifact represents.

This has some interesting implications. Some data points have been discovered as far back as 30-35 thousand years before present. Do we assume that these data points are to the right or the left of the mean? Chebychev’s Theorum describes the minimum probabilities of finding a data point in non-Gaussian distributions, however, it is not as easy to determine the probability of discovering a specific data point within the distribution without understanding the shape of the distribution.

Chebychev’s Theorum allows us to say, for example, that the highest possible probability of finding a data point between 2 and 3 standard deviations on either side of the mean is about 14%. However, with a left skewed distribution the probability of finding a data point to the right of the mean is higher than the probability of finding an artifact to the left of the mean.

Tom Clancy's The Divison by Ubisucks Massive

I love gaming.  Uncharted and Assassin's Creed are my two favorite game series.  I like 3rd person shooters.  1st person shooters tend to give me PTSD nightmares, but, I like Battlefield Bad Company 1 and 2.

Lately I've been playing Tom Clancy's The Division by Ubisoft, the publishers of Assassin's Creed.  Awesome potential and incredibly bad implementation.

The game is a semi-massive multi-player.  Players start out playing a campaign game while interacting with other players at various social sites called "safe areas".  There is no pause because various missions can be played by teams.  Playing campaign solo there is no reason for the game to stay connected to the Ubisucks servers, but, the game can't be played solo campaign unless it is connected to the Internet.

The first thing that is most obvious to me is a lack of overall management direction.  Every game is going to have multiple development teams working in different areas.  Division is so complex there are a crap load of different development areas with inconsistent goals.

The biggest problem is the elitist, "survival of the fittest", concept which is designed to eliminate less "fit" players from the game.

As expected, this works and reduces the number of people playing the "massive multi-layer".  We could call this a "minuscule multi-player" instead.

Of course, since their "survival of the fittest" concept worked players have been leaving the game in droves.  The other early morning I was running around the dark zone and didn't see any other players for about a half hour.  Of course, the first time I did it was a higher level rogue and it killed me.

The game actually rewards players who kill lower level players in the Dark Zone, which is all multi-player.  In the campaign game Non Player Characters, NPC, are generally the same level as the player.

If the game wanted to encourage player to player competition, players would be penalized for attacking lower level players and rewarded for attacking players of the same level or higher.  Instead, consistent with the "survival of the fittest" ideology killing off "weaker" players is encouraged.  How dumb is that?

There are tons of really bad and very inconsistent development ideology decisions being made are driving players away in droves.

Naturally, some of the players are really angry because they have essentially wasted money on a game that is self destructive.  Someone gave me the game so, I'm not out any cash money.  Think about that, trying to have a game that depends on lots of players where players are deliberately eliminated because they aren't as "strong" as other players.

Anyone interested has read about all the player complaints surrounding Division so I won't beat that horse.

Today, I'm just pointing out the stupidity of developing a "survival of the fittest" game" and expecting to attract and keep players.  The entire concept of "survival of the fittest" is to eliminate players until the last player, or few players, are left.  Everyone else "dies".  The game becomes a minuscule multi-player and Ubisucks loses their investment.

Anyone who invested in a game designed to eliminate the majority of players from playing is an idiot. 

Of course, I doubt if even Ubisoft actually realized what "survival of the fittest" really meant.  Ubisoft management probably threw the term around like a football never even thinking that eliminating players meant eliminating profits.

That is the kind of ignorance that really amazes me.

The Give Wall Street a Payday Act, also called "affordable care act"

Back on January 2nd, 2009 I decided to create a portfolio on Google Finance using publicly traded "health insurance" stocks.

For those of you who don't know, there are essentially four kinds of health insurance companies and none of them insure health.  They all insure that health care workers are paid, not necessarily that people who by "health care" insurance will be healthy or even have access to affordable health care.  I'm on Social Security Disability for a heart condition and I can't afford health care.  My prescription prices have gone up to where I can't afford them, even with the insurance I am forced to pay for.  That's not really off subject.

The affordable care act did not make health care more affordable, it made health care less affordable and I am a practical example of that.  Digoxin, a really old medicine made from the Foxglove plant (when I say really old, I mean people were using this a thousand years ago) went from $10 for a 90 day supply to $90 for a 90 day supply.  Once I pay a $250 deductible I have to pay a co-pay that is more than $10, so, pretty fucked.  Where I once paid $40 for Digoxin I now pay about $130 a year.

So what happened on Wall Street?

In case you are wondering, this represents a %17 annualized return.

Yeah, that beats the street.

I wish I had had the $32K to invest back in 2009.  If you are wondering if I am cheating, feel free to check the January 2nd 2009 stock prices and create your own fake portfolio.  Here is a screen grab to show the historical price for Aetna, AET

I used this website for the annualized return formula.
http://www.asecurelife.com/annualized-return-formula/

I used this website to calculate the days between today and January 2nd
http://www.timeanddate.com/date/durationresult.html?m1=01&d1=02&y1=2009&m2=7&d2=20&y2=2016

I used this website to calculate the return on the DJIA, %13.5
https://dqydj.com/dow-jones-return-calculator/

The "Affordable Care Act" was just a way for Obama and other politicians to screw the American Public and pay off Wall Street.

Health Care insurance doesn't insure health care.  It insures that health care providers are paid for services, regardless whether they perform them or not and regardless of whether those services improve the health of those the services are provided to.

Obama care should be called the "make sure Wall Street and corporate Health Care providers are paid off act".

Back to the four types of Health Care providers.

The first is non-profit.

The second is private for profit.

The third is privately owned by a private or public for profit conglomerate.(public means stock shares are publicly traded, not that the government owns the conglomerate)

The fourth is a for profit publicly owned, meaning stock shares are publicly traded.

As far as I'm concerned all Health Care services should be non-profit and this includes insurance.

Society has become dependent on water, communication, electricity, heating energy, groceries and health care.  All of these should be exclusively non-profit organizations.

Corporations should not be able to profit from those things which people depend on to survive.

Aside from my personal views, which some people would say are "left wing" because their intellects are so small they only see in binary dichotomies, I suggest investing in health care.

I should have predicted the pharmaceutical issues, but, I missed that.  I focused on insurance providers.

Black Lives Matter

I don't get why people think saying "Black Lives Matter" is racist. Truthfully, I don't believe there is any such thing as "Black" as far as people are concerned. Yeah, I know I live in a world that makes a distinction between skin colors, but, really?

What is "Black"? I read a definition the other day, "Black: A person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa." In logic this is called a circular definition, a logic fallacy. That's what racial division is, a logical fallacy. In fact, scientifically, race does not and has never existed. 

"Pure races, in the sense of genetically homogenous populations, do not exist in the human species today, nor is there any evidence that they have ever existed in the past."

So what makes "Black Lives matter" racist? No one is saying "Black Lives Matter More Than Other Lives", which would be racist.

If I said, "Oranges taste great", would that mean "Apples taste like crap"? Would anyone infer that apples taste like crap if I say "Oranges taste great"?

In the same context, the people saying "All Lives Matter" aren't saying anything exactly wrong, but, there is the issue of invisible privilege.

What is privilege? Privilege is when a Black friend tells me that a company isn't hiring and I put in an application and I'm hired when my Black friend isn't. White privilege exists and I was fortunate enough to have benefited from it, and know that I benefited from it.

Saying "All Lives Matter" is a lot like saying "Let them eat cake", it is a comment that identifies a lack of understanding of privilege.  The legend is that Marie Antoinette believed that everyone had access to bread or cake and if there wasn't any bread they could eat cake.  Similarly, the statement "all lives matter" echos the belief that all people are treated equally.  In reality people are not treated equally.

Peter Dinklage said something while playing Tyrion Lanister on Game of Thrones, "When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar.  You're only telling the world that you fear what he might say".

I've had a lot of internet bullies stylizing themselves as "hackers" censor my words over the years because they hate what I have to say, they hate free speech and they hate everyone who doesn't think exactly like them.  Fascists who are incapable of accepting the concept of freedom.  They censor people because they can, like the hall way bully locking kids in lockers or knocking books out of a kids hands, they do whatever they can get away with because the rules don't apply to them.

When we stylize terms like "Black Lives Matter" as racist because they don't include "White people", when the truth is the term does not exclude white people, we are demanding a privilege that is not ours to own.  We are claiming that our lives are more important than theirs.  We are bullies knocking the books out of people's hands.

Most of the people I know honestly believe that All Lives Matter, but, they don't understand how the invisible privilege of their skin color, their socioeconomic status, their education, have influenced their thinking.  They actually believe that Black people have the same opportunities that White people have.

"All Lives Matter" comes across a lot like "Let them eat cake" to those of us who understand the damage invisible "White" privilege has done to the "Black" community over the last 400 years.

I think race is a psychotic delusion that results in destructive behavior.  Like anyone dealing with a bunch of psychotics I have to deal with them, I need to challenge their psychosis, I need to listen to them, sure, but, I don't need to sympathize with them or humor their delusion that people are different because of their skin color.

We do tend to segregate people into different groups based on ethnicity and appearance.  In fact, people adopt specific appearances when they want to be accepted as a member of a particular social group.

We don't need to do that though.  We don't need to force people into particular social roles based on their appearance, it is just something we do.

And we need to stop doing that.

Delusion and Race and psychosis

I looked up the definition of delusion on Google today and this is what came up:

de·lu·sion
dəˈlo͞oZHən/
noun
noun: delusion; plural noun: delusions

    an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder.

Then I went and looked up the Biological Aspects of Race.  This is what I found at: http://faculty.wwu.edu/rcm/Power/Power%20first/Race%20Science_files/Biological%20Aspects%20of%20Race.html

There is great genetic diversity within all human populations. Pure races, in the sense of genetically homogenous populations, do not exist in the human species today, nor is there any evidence that they have ever existed in the past.

 Okay, so a delusion is believing in something that isn't real and race isn't real.

Interesting.

So I decided to look at what psychosis is.  I looked at http://www.nami.org/Learn-More/Mental-Health-Conditions/Early-Psychosis-and-Psychosis

Psychosis is characterized as disruptions to a person’s thoughts and perceptions that make it difficult for them to recognize what is real and what isn’t. These disruptions are often experienced as seeing, hearing and believing things that aren’t real or having strange, persistent thoughts, behaviors and emotions.

Psychosis is characterized as difficulty in determining what is real and what is not real.  Race isn't real.  Race is a delusion.  Someone who believes race is real is psychotic.

This is really straightforward and satisfies Occam's Razor.

However, people like to complicate things and since they want to believe in Race and don't want to think of themselves as delusional psychotics at the same time we make shit up.

Race is a social construction. Race is a reality of society.  Race is real because we make it real by thinking and talking about it.

That's the biggest bunch of bullshit.

Race isn't real.  Race is a psychotic delusion and the actions predicated on that delusion, Racist acts, Racism, are the actions of psychotics.

period.

Psychotics will self justify anything and everything. They will invent the most convoluted and ridiculous explanations why they are the sane ones and everyone else is psychotic.

Ain't buying it.  Race ain't real.  Believing race is real because we believe race is real is a circular fallacy.  It's bullshit.

Psychosis is characterized as disruptions to a person’s thoughts and perceptions that make it difficult for them to recognize what is real and what isn’t. These disruptions are often experienced as seeing, hearing and believing things that aren’t real or having strange, persistent thoughts, behaviors and emotions. - See more at: http://www.nami.org/Learn-More/Mental-Health-Conditions/Early-Psychosis-and-Psychosis#sthash.18Sj5QNv.dpuf

Psychosis is characterized as disruptions to a person’s thoughts and perceptions that make it difficult for them to recognize what is real and what isn’t. These disruptions are often experienced as seeing, hearing and believing things that aren’t real or having strange, persistent thoughts, behaviors and emotions. - See more at: http://www.nami.org/Learn-More/Mental-Health-Conditions/Early-Psychosis-and-Psychosis#sthash.18Sj5QNv.dpuf

Psychosis is characterized as disruptions to a person’s thoughts and perceptions that make it difficult for them to recognize what is real and what isn’t. These disruptions are often experienced as seeing, hearing and believing things that aren’t real or having strange, persistent thoughts, behaviors and emotions. - See more at: http://www.nami.org/Learn-More/Mental-Health-Conditions/Early-Psychosis-and-Psychosis#sthash.18Sj5QNv.dpuf