• úvod
  • témata
  • události
  • tržiště
  • diskuze
  • nástěnka
  • přihlásit
    registrace
    ztracené heslo?
    GORGworld conspiracy // 911 // free world order! ... part 5 ::
    GORG
    GORG --- ---
    KAJJAK: clanek je za paywallem, posilej konkretni citace.

    no ja teda ani nechapu, proc by nakonec meli minoritni akcionari tratit.. kazdopadne prodavat levne a nakupovat draze mi prijde jako nesmysl. (jak s tim souvisi minoritni akcionari a proc jsou jedinym dulezitym faktorem ve vsem, nikdo nevysvetluje. a resi se to uz nekolik let.. )

    a pokud ti klesne cena akcii, tak to se holt stava denne.nekdy dokonce muzes nakupem akcii prodelat.

    co ale slysim prvne, ze se akcie kupujou, aby se lidi chranili proti rustu cen nejakeho produktu te firmy.


    mlati dverma ale ta chystana dan z neocekavaneho zisku

    pokud mas zisk, ktery si neocekaval, a je zpusobeny nejakym eventem, tak to chtej danit. a jak jako chteji prokazovat, ze je zisk neocekavany?

    to uz trochu pripomina Zaklinace. Zakon prekvapeni :-)

    Prastaré právo zaklínačů požádat člověka v nouzi (obvykle otec rodiny mimo domov), který potřeboval pomoci, o "věc, která mu (t.j. otci) patří a o které dosud neví, že mu patří".
    KAJJAK
    KAJJAK --- ---
    GORG:

    tak podle tohodle clanku se na minoritni akcionare a pad ceny akcii ve francii vykaslali a zafungovalo to to dobre pro ceny elektriny domacnosti a naopak spatne pro vsechny co se chteli ochranit proti rustu cen nakupem dane polostatni energeticke spolecnosti...

    Smršť drahoty na podzim bude šílená. Brutálně zdraží všechno, říká ekonom - iDNES.cz
    https://www.idnes.cz/ekonomika/domaci/ekonomika-lukas-kovanda-energie-ropa-inflace.A220714_102532_ekonomika_javu&h=BEDEFD8D56A368B97767896105A73A26
    GORG
    GORG --- ---
    Covid Face Masks Are Damaging to Young Children | by Richard Bruschi | ILLUMINATION | Medium
    https://medium.com/illumination/covid-face-masks-are-damaging-to-young-children-8f72dac003d3

    Science says impairments in development and learning will happen


    Photo by Nenad Stojkovic.
    I was travelling on a train from Brighton to London last spring. A young mother had her baby on her lap, playing with her. The mother had a face mask on, as per Covid-19 government regulations.

    “It’s strange for the kid to see half the faces, isn’t it?” I asked, pensive.

    “She’s very young, she doesn’t know any different.” the woman replied.

    My heart sank. The realization that for a generation of kids it was normal to see only half the face of people, even parents, for many hours a day, struck me. I wondered what were the consequences on kids’ development.

    It is intuitive to think that if an infant can only see half a parent, teacher, or person’s face, then the assimilation of the information is impaired, causing negative consequences on learning and development of emotions, speech, and probably something else. Nevertheless, I wanted to read the scientific literature about these topics.

    What I found from scientific research and studies, as well as from articles interviewing scientists researching the topics, is worrisome and disconcerting.

    Newborns, babies, and toddlers should be in a facemask-free environment, to ensure their natural developmental process. Their healthy formation and development should have the right of way, as adults can protect themselves in many other ways, and don’t have this high-stakes situation.

    Here is why.

    APPROACH
    Follow the science.

    I started by checking something I was told: a clear view of the parents’ faces is essential for infants’ development. It is fundamental that they see the nuances of face movements and color change, of all the parts of the face, from different emotions, and different changes for the same emotion.

    From this topic, ‘facial expressions for infants’ development’, I gradually expanded to anything directly related but detached from Covid, such as ‘faces and infants learning’, ‘facial expressions for children speech development’, and more.

    Then I researched those topics but related to the current Covid-19 situation, so for example ‘parents’ facemasks impact on infants development’, ‘natal care during Covid-19’, and more.

    Basically, I was looking for research regarding the importance of the full visual of the face for an infant, toddler, and kid in their development and learning, and then what happened if that visual was impaired, especially in this case by a facemask.

    Scientific results show problems ahead.


    Photo by educatormarcossv.
    FACTS & STUDIES
    The basic, intuitive principle (confirmed by science) is that from birth, children need to see full faces for proper development in learning, speech, social aspects, and more.

    First of all, there is the precedent of the SARS pandemic of 2003. A study of thousands of children across China who had been exposed to the SARS pandemic of 2003 states that “results showed that the SARS pandemic was associated with delayed child development.” [1] Not a great start, then.

    The WHO and UNICEF themselves discouraged the “exposure to the use of facemasks when dealing with children aged up to five years old” [2], and even for older children they warned about any possible benefits against the huge “potential damage that could include social and psychological problems, and difficulties in communication and learning.” [2]

    Since the moment they are born, children focus on the face, especially of parents and especially of the mother, to gather information and learn: “During the first year after birth, infants begin to extract a large amount of information from faces” [3], and that they “observed a dramatic increase in looking toward faces across development.” [3]

    This is because they learn so many things from it, such as emotions. If even for adults it is significantly harder to recognize emotions with a “standard” surgical face mask (the ubiquitous medical blue ones which cover everything from the nose to the chin and from cheek to cheek) [4], for a young child it is not going to be any better.

    True enough, it is important to know that “young children take years to master this skill [of recognizing faces].” [5] and for example something as little as a “fake noses, false beards, wigs and elaborate makeup present special challenges” [5], said Kang Lee, a University of Toronto professor of applied psychology and human development.

    Regarding speech, kids learn by focusing on the speaker’s mouth. Starting from about eight months old [6], a baby specifically focuses on the mouth when learning speech: it is “essential for the continuing acquisition of multisensory perceptual skills and speech production abilities in infancy” [7] also because “visible articulations that babies normally see when others are talking play a key role in their acquisition of communication skills.” [7]

    Social skills would be impacted too, as of course they heavily rely on recognizing faces and interpreting emotional reactions.

    FINDINGS
    Unfortunately, there is no way around it: “a mask obstructing a face limits the ability of people of all ages to infer emotions expressed by facial features, but the difficulties associated with the mask’s use are significantly pronounced in children aged between 3 and 5 years old.” [8]

    Something else that might happen concerns mothers with newborns, infants, and babies: “insensitive behaviours may constitute a source of stress for the infant and activate stress responses. The subsequent elevation of cortisol may negatively influence brain connectivity and growth. Mask-wearing during this sensitive period then raises questions regarding mother-infant interactions and whether this could negatively impact on brain connectivity and growth.” simply because “Specific facial features are obliterated causing the global structure of a whole face to be incomplete.” [9]

    CONCLUSIONS
    The studies and research are there. They clearly point at big problems ahead.

    Is this damage irreversible? Hopefully not. The infants, babies, and toddlers of the highly-masked societies of 2020 and 2021 would have to, and perhaps should, be assessed again in the next few years to check the initial findings.

    There is a chance there won’t be any major or lingering problem. But are you ready to bet your infant, baby, or toddler development on it? The development of millions of children? Their ability to speak properly? Their learning abilities? Their social skills? Any other life-long negative impact? It is not worth taking that chance.

    They are innocent. These are the next generations. They are our future. Adults need to plan around the young children. A society that has its priorities right puts the wellbeing of children first and foremost. It does not put them at risk.

    Children should be in a facemask-free environment at all times. As that might be unrealistic for some parents, they should still be aware of the issues and do as much as they can, no matter how uncomfortable (just as any other parenting responsibility), to ensure the wellbeing of their children.

    After more than a year and a half, is it not about time we started paying attention to long term effects with as much focus as we do on precautionary measures? Is it not about time we start looking for better solutions for our children?


    Photo by Tamer_Soliman.
    CONSIDERATIONS
    I imagine some of you might be thinking “But what about their own health” or “They can infect others.”

    I am not advocating to not take precautions. Last year I personally was buying groceries wearing gloves, besides the mask, and cleaning what I had bought before putting it away. I still clean my hands with a hospital-grade hand-spray, which has been specifically tested for anti-Covid-19 efficacy.

    Masking young children is of course wrong and harmful too, for many reasons (ethical, developmental, psychological, etc.). Even the WHO and UNICEF adise not to. [10]

    The death of a child from Covid-19 is heartbreaking, and thankfully extremely rare. In the United Kingdom “Deaths in children and young people (CYP) following SARS-CoV-2 infection are rare.” [11] Between March 2020 to February 2021 “25 CYP died of SARS-CoV-2 infection” [11]. Survival rate is 99.995% (mortality rate is 0.0002%).

    In the USA, from January 2020 to October 2021 deaths of 0–4 years old were 195 [12]. In Italy, 15 as of today among 0–9 years [13].

    Most of these children also, and unfortunately, had preconditions, such as in England where 16 of them, or 64%, had at least one comorbidity (i.e.: preconditions). [11]

    As all children must be protected, societies, governments, administrations, and people are then able to prepare in a targeted way and pinpoint preventive solutions, while ensuring that millions of other kids’ wellbeing is protected too.

    Second, and simply, it is us adults who must bear the burden of our own protection. This is what spurred me to write this report: the priorities are off. Administrations, adults, and parents need to come up with better solutions for the children’s wellbeing. We alone need to deal with this uneasy situation, to ensure that millions of children will not be (too) affected. Loading this struggle onto them is selfish and lacks long-term perspective.

    Lastly, it is important to go straight to the source of scientific data. In some articles I have read, journalists say that scientists state such things as ‘kids are adaptable’ and ‘we’ll find other ways’, yet neither quote numerous data or studies — and this is because there does not seem to be any. Meanwhile, they still point out how parents, teachers, and relatives need to compensate for the facemasks’ learning and developmental negative effects on kids, by using other gestures and behaviours that should help. It can not be both ways: “It’s not a problem” but also “you need to correct for losses’ ”. [14] It’s too risky and irresponsible on the society-level scale we are dealing with. Superficiality is absolutely not accepted. Either the problem is there or not. From current and latest studies and some of these scientists’ own previous statements [5][14], the problem is there. Supported by established scientific research both past and contemporary.

    Sources

    [1] SARS pandemic exposure impaired early childhood development: A lesson for COVID-19, Y. Fan, H. Wang, Q. Wu, X. Zhou, Y. Zhou, B. Wang, Y. Han, T. Xue, T. Zhu. 12th may 2020. MedRxiv.

    [2] Facemasks impair children’s ability to read people’s emotions, E. Henderson. 10th june 2021. News Medical Life Sciences.

    [3] Development of infants’ attention to faces during the first year, M. C. Frank, E. Vul, and S. P. Johnson. 27th december 2008. US National Library of Medicine (NCBI).

    [4] The impact of facemasks on emotion recognition, trust attribution and re-identification, M. Marini, A. Ansani, F. Paglieri, F. Caruana & M. Viola. 10th march 2021. Scientific Report (Nature Research).

    [5] How Children Learn to Recognize Faces, P. Klass. 29th october 2018. The New York Times.

    [6] Infants deploy selective attention to the mouth of a talking face when learning speech, D. J. Lewkowicz and A. M. Hansen-Tift. 31th january 2012. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

    [7] Masks Can Be Detrimental to Babies’ Speech and Language Development, D. J. Lewkowicz. 11th February 2021. Scientific American.

    [8] Masking Emotions: Face Masks Impair How We Read Emotions, M. Gori, L. Schiatti and M. B. Amadeo. 25th may 2021. Frontiers in Psychology.

    [9] The implications of face masks for babies and families during the COVID-19 pandemic: A discussion paper, J. Green, L. Staff, P. Bromley, L. Jones, and J. Petty. 29th october 2020. US National Library of Medicine (NCBI).

    [10] Coronavirus disease (COVID-19): Children and masks. 21th august 2020. Word Health Organization.

    [11] https://www.bbc.com/news/health-57766717, C. Smith, D. Odd, R. Harwood, J. Ward, M. Linney, M. Clark, D. Hargreaves, S. Ladhani, E. Draper, P. Davis, S. Kenny, E. Whittaker, K. Luyt, R. Viner, L. Fraser. 7th july 2021. Research Square.

    [12] Provisional COVID-19 Deaths: Focus on Ages 0–18 Years. 20th october 2021. National Center for Health Statistics, Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

    [13] Coronavirus (COVID-19) deaths in Italy as of October 13, 2021, by age group, C. Stewart. 22nd october 2021. Statista.

    [14] Do Masks Impede Children’s Development?, P. Klass. 14th september 2020. The New York Times.
    GORG
    GORG --- ---
    KAJJAK: kde se objevily hlasy? :-)
    ja nejak nechapu, jak to souvisi s tou debatou tady. Proc by ji mel zlevnovat? Jen aby ji proste neprodaval za levno do zahranici a nekupoval si ji zpet x-krat drazsi.

    Misto toho se vymysli veci jako

    https://www.seznamzpravy.cz/clanek/ekonomika-byznys-rozhovory-nejen-banky-nikdo-si-nemuze-byt-jist-vlada-vymysli-kde-zdani-necekany-zisk-207970
    Debata o zvyšování daní už pro vládu Petra Fialy není tabu. A zdaněním energetiky zdaleka nekončí. Mimořádná daň se může týkat i bank a řady dalších sektorů, připustil ministr financí Zbyněk Stanjura. Do konce srpna má být jasno.

    Článek
    „Nejsou žádné limity a žádný sektor z té debaty vyjmut není. Nikdo si nemůže být jist,“ řekl SZ Byznys ministr Zbyněk Stanjura (ODS). Pojítkem pro zvažované zvláštní zdanění by mohlo být měřítko neočekávaného zisku, který firmě či sektoru přihrály okolnosti.

    Tento koncept je známý jako tzv. windfall tax a řeší ho momentálně i ve Velké Británii. „Ten anglický název přesně popisuje stav, který v některých odvětvích nastává. Firmy dosahují mnohem vyšších zisků díky změně vnějších okolnosti, ne díky tomu, že mají lepší produkt, lepší službu, více zákazníků,“ vysvětluje Stanjura.
    KAJJAK
    KAJJAK --- ---
    GORG:

    objevily se hlasy ze kdyz je stat hlavni akcionar, nemel by na te elektrine takove miliardy vydelavat, ale mel by svuj produkt pro sve obcany zlevnit... To se snazim rict ze je nesmysl, nezavisle na tom kdo je majoritni akcionar...
    GORG
    GORG --- ---
    KAJJAK: jakou plnou palbu do zahranici? bohate postaci kdyz nam to proda za tu samou cenu, kterou to prodava do zahranici. o zadny sanaci tu prece rec neni. nebo CEZ nejak na tom vydelava, ze to kupuje CR draze z burzy? nejak selskym rozumem mi smysl nedava.
    KAJJAK
    KAJJAK --- ---
    GORG:

    to tam selskym rozumem nevidis? Firma ma takovou hodnotu jake maji investori ocekavani, proto je tesla valuovana tam kde valuovana je... Pokud budou investori ocekavat u CEZu ze jej stat pouzije aby sanoval neutesenou situaci svych volicu, jaka asi budou ocekavani investoru vuci situaci, ze bude CEZ svou elektrinu prodavat za plnou palbu do zahranici?
    GORG
    GORG --- ---
    KAJJAK: Tohle je lepsi ale idealne i konkretni pasaz vytipnout. Ja chapu, ze by primo zamerny zasah s cilem snizit hodnotu firmy, mohl byt nejakou formou podvodu.

    Jinak stale nevim, o cem se tu bavime, a proc s eo tom bavime tady. Resil se tu CEZ a ze jako stat by jako majoritni vlastnik mohl rozhodnout, at levnou energii neprodavame do zahranici ale nam. A prebytky ven...

    Takze kde se vzalo, ze by stat tim CEZu snizil jeho hodnotu?

    Naopak zrovna v tomhle pripade by CR i CEZ mohli na nasi dobre situaci s energiemi dokonce vydelat, a prodavat energii do zahranici draz. Tam je nedostatkova, u nas prebytkova... Ale minimalne ji neprodavat draze doma nakupovanim z drahe burzy zpet.

    Jako my doma treba platili doted 120 tisic Kc rocne za elektriku. A ted budeme platit 200 tisic Kc rocne. A zrejme se to bude jeste zvedat. Spousta domacnosti se takove zdrazovani proste nemuze dovolit a proste normalne zemrou. Nechapu ted tu obhajobu, ze se to dela takhle, protoze kapitalismu, takze nechame cely pochcipat zimou a hladem?

    Stat by mohl i vyhlasit nouzovy stav kolem energii a tohle primo prikazat stejne jako to udelal kolem uprchliku... tim prisli doslova cesti obcane o majetkova prava. A behem COVIDovych opatrani to same... spousta lidi prisla o celozivotni investice do vlastniho podniku.

    TL,DR; proste my jako CR mame spoustu elektriny navic... a tedy jsme v pozici ji mit levnou doma a prodavat ji draze venku. Nebo prodavat draze vsem. Nechapu, proc mluvis o tom, ze by na tom mela cena akcii CEZu tratit. Nebo mi neco unika?

    ---

    Jinak ad obecne co se tyce toho BlackRock a jestli je tam potencial na protlacovani svych veci.

    Ale jak by takove zamerne snizovani ceny akcii melo vypadat? Jak rikam.. delal jsem ve velke korporaci, kde nemeli problem, aby nase dcerina spolecnost mela dlouhodobe zaporny zisk. Ty rozhodnuti vychazely z toho, ze si taky chteji chranit brand... nebo rekneme jedou taky v zelene filozofii , a to jestli propagace LGBT a zachrany klimatu korporaci nejak ublizi nebo financne prospeje, to neni nejak jasne ani predikovatelny.

    To by se musel prokazat zamer, ze nekdo treba v ramci insider tradingu si proste haze klacky pod nohy.

    Nebo treba Netflix? Udelal neco ilegalniho, ze jejich rozhodnuti v minulosti kolem produkce propagovat LGBT+- zrejme vedlo k propadu zisku a padu jejich ceny na burze? Rada tech rozhodnuti je proste ideologickych.. a ma je vetsina korporaci na svete dost podobne... tam se neda mluvit o tom, ze by treba dosazeni konkretniho CEO melo nejaky zamer polozit cenu akcii. Treba muze, ale predstava, ze dosadit si CEO nemuze majoritni akcionar ovlivnit.... kdo teda jmenuje generalni reditele?


    KAJJAK: Jo pravda ja jsem v tom dokument Monopol, ani jinde zatim nevidel, ze by kolem toho primo neco zleho delali

    Jinak hazejte ty prispevky do jednoho ... proste v auditku se vejde 4000 prispevku, pak se automaticky promazavaji.
    KAJJAK
    KAJJAK --- ---
    AIM_FREEMAN:

    nejake nebezpeci tam samozrejme vidim, nicmene to video monopol je hrozne tendencne natoceno, prijde mi ze hraje na notu neznalosti svych sledujicich ovecek a malo na notu ze by ses dozvedel o nejakych tajemnych manipulacich v dozorcich radach nebo cokoliv jineho...
    KAJJAK
    KAJJAK --- ---
    AIM_FREEMAN:

    hele ja sice vystudoval ekonomickou vysku, ale v oboru jsem nikdy nedelal a zadne velke zkusenosti z praxe taky nemam. Mam jen nejaky mensi vseobecny prehled, ktery jsem si udelal v ramci investic svych uspor, protoze si myslim, ze pokud nechci ve stari paberkovat, musim si na duchod setrit sam, stat mi za 20 let da kulovy...
    KAJJAK
    KAJJAK --- ---
    GORG:

    ja se bavim o tom, ze majoritni akcionar nesmi svymi ciny a rozhodnutimi zamerne snizovat cenu akcii...

    Je to celkem pekne ale obsirne tema, hezkya polopaticky vysvetleno treba v teto bakalarce https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwju8uzQx6D5AhVSXfEDHZn0CUQ4ChAWegQIARAB&;url=https%3A%2F%2Fies.fsv.cuni.cz%2Fdefault%2Ffile%2Fdownload%2Fid%2F2281&usg=AOvVaw3pOwAl66FIeitPW8FcBIrS
    RAGAMUFF
    RAGAMUFF --- ---
    Brother Buzz Aldrin | Freemasons Community
    https://freemasonscommunity.life/brother-buzz-aldrin/
    RIVA
    RIVA --- ---
    MAKE 1984 FICTION AGAIN!
    https://youtu.be/Sqnm9wDGOCc
    AIM_FREEMAN
    AIM_FREEMAN --- ---
    KAJJAK: no :) takze jsme zpet u toho - s tak velkymi objemy muzou ovlivnit trhy a argument ohledne obsazeni dozorcich rad tech korporaci stale stoji. nemusime na sebe prece machrovat..ja mam taky par let ekonomickyho vzdelani a neco si pamatuju a necemu trochu rozumim a necemu ne. rad se dozvim.
    dulezitej je celkovej obrazek. pokud rikas a) - toto neni zcela tak, nakup ETF funguje tak a tak, bylo by podle me konstruktivni se zamyslet a rict i b) - tohle tak muze byt, tohle hrozi, tohle je potenciální čuňárna etc.

    tzn. se te zeptam primo na tvuj pohled s tvymi znalostmi - uprimne. vidis nejake nebezpeci v pusobeni takovych kolosu jako je blackrock a vanguard? klidne to vem uplne odjinud ze svyho pohledu, s tvymi znalostmi ekonomie a pochopeni ekonomiky a trhu. diky
    GORG
    GORG --- ---
    heh u yt commentu Have long grass.. this is what the Police State you live under's response is. Probably the Long Grass SWAT team unit

    What is a Code Case? | Austin Code Department
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6yWyMNY4f8


    jakoze oni to promotuji jakoze jo v duchu, ze by na nekoho mohl spadnout barak.
    takhle jdou imho vzdy na lidi... pres neco rozumnyho... no jasne... prece nechceme aby nekoho zabila omitka... nebo dvere.. kdyby treba dvere mely rozbitou kliku nebo okno neslo otevrit, people can die!

    takze inspektori kodu musi prosetrit , jestli je vsechno v cajku. a pokud chcete, muzete nekoho udat.

    podobnou vec protlacili v CR pred par lety pod rouskou , ze musi urad (bez soudniho povoleni ke vstupu) mit moznost proverit, ze tam nepalite v krbu neco nevhodneho. opet jakoby rozumna vec, ale a) tohle muze zjistit klidne dron se senzory z komina b) tohle je zasadni naruseni ustavnich prav na vlastni pozemku..... to, co maji v Austinu, je zjevne o tri prdele dal...

    --

    jinak ad tu lure pointy... velky reset je hodne promotovanej, jakoze lidem da nove koncetiny, hluchy budou moct slyset, implantovane cipy vam budou otvirat dvere, muzete platit.. nemusite cekat ve fronte
    ale tu druhou stranu v promotion clovek neuvidi.. co to bude znamenat do dusledku, kdyz se to pojme jako vzdy. nastroj k zotroceni.. k nejdokonalejsimu , ktere kdy lidstvo vynalezlo. pritom stacila jen troska fanatismu.

    Rict si predpripravenou otazku "Nektere domy prece ale opravdu ohrozuji kolemjdouci!" nebo "Ty jsi proti tomu, aby invalidi mohli chodit!"

    U COVID vakciny je to i ten spor s neskonalou snahou lidstva vyresit vsechny nemoci... mRNA technologie, co muze lecit i rakovinu. a celou radu dalsich nemoci... "ON je proti mRNA!" zneuctil tim samotneho Boha vedy a ten nas mozna ztresta nejaky tornadem nebo hurikanem. Na tehle urovni je soucasna veda :)
    Celej ten koncept Gaia je od zacatku propagovanej soubezne

    Beyond Anthropocentrism: UN General Assembly acknowledges Earth Jurisprudence - Gaia Foundation
    https://www.gaiafoundation.org/beyond-anthropocentrism-un-general-assembly-acknowledges-earth-jurisprudence/
    Called for by the UN General Assembly itself, the dialogue is an important recognition from the UN that the anthropocentric worldview that underpins our exploitative, injust economic, legal and governance systems, is the ultimate source of the multiple ecological, social and economic crises we now face.

    James Lovelock talks about his Gaia hypothesis and climate change in 2014 interview – video | Environment | The Guardian
    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/video/2022/jul/27/james-lovelock-talks-about-his-gaia-hypothesis-and-climate-change-in-2014-interview-video

    James Lovelock: Gaia theory creator on coronavirus and turning 101 - BBC News
    https://www.bbc.com/news/av/science-environment-53644147
    British scientist James Lovelock says population growth means something like the virus is "almost inevitable".

    https://courses.seas.harvard.edu/climate/eli/Courses/EPS281r/Sources/Gaia/Gaia-hypothesis-wikipedia.pdf
    Gaia evolves through a cybernetic feedback system operated unconsciously by the biota, leading to broad
    stabilization of the conditions of habitability in a full homeostasis. Many processes in the Earth's surface essential for
    the conditions of life depend on the interaction of living forms, especially microorganisms, with inorganic elements.
    These processes establish a global control system that regulates Earth's surface temperature, atmosphere composition
    and ocean salinity, powered by the global thermodynamic desequilibrium state of the Earth system

    Gaia hypothesis - Wikipedia
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis
    Criticism
    After initially receiving little attention from scientists (from 1969 until 1977), thereafter for a period the initial Gaia hypothesis was criticized by a number of scientists, including Ford Doolittle,[54] Richard Dawkins[55] and Stephen Jay Gould.[48] Lovelock has said that because his hypothesis is named after a Greek goddess, and championed by many non-scientists,[42] the Gaia hypothesis was interpreted as a neo-Pagan religion. Many scientists in particular also criticized the approach taken in his popular book Gaia, a New Look at Life on Earth for being teleological—a belief that things are purposeful and aimed towards a goal. Responding to this critique in 1990, Lovelock stated, "Nowhere in our writings do we express the idea that planetary self-regulation is purposeful, or involves foresight or planning by the biota".

    Stephen Jay Gould criticized Gaia as being "a metaphor, not a mechanism."[56] He wanted to know the actual mechanisms by which self-regulating homeostasis was achieved. In his defense of Gaia, David Abram argues that Gould overlooked the fact that "mechanism", itself, is a metaphor — albeit an exceedingly common and often unrecognized metaphor — one which leads us to consider natural and living systems as though they were machines organized and built from outside (rather than as autopoietic or self-organizing phenomena). Mechanical metaphors, according to Abram, lead us to overlook the active or agent quality of living entities, while the organismic metaphors of the Gaia hypothesis accentuate the active agency of both the biota and the biosphere as a whole.[57][58] With regard to causality in Gaia, Lovelock argues that no single mechanism is responsible, that the connections between the various known mechanisms may never be known, that this is accepted in other fields of biology and ecology as a matter of course, and that specific hostility is reserved for his own hypothesis for other reasons.[59]

    Aside from clarifying his language and understanding of what is meant by a life form, Lovelock himself ascribes most of the criticism to a lack of understanding of non-linear mathematics by his critics, and a linearizing form of greedy reductionism in which all events have to be immediately ascribed to specific causes before the fact. He also states that most of his critics are biologists but that his hypothesis includes experiments in fields outside biology, and that some self-regulating phenomena may not be mathematically explainable.[59]

    Natural selection and evolution
    Lovelock has suggested that global biological feedback mechanisms could evolve by natural selection, stating that organisms that improve their environment for their survival do better than those that damage their environment. However, in the early 1980s, W. Ford Doolittle and Richard Dawkins separately argued against this aspect of Gaia. Doolittle argued that nothing in the genome of individual organisms could provide the feedback mechanisms proposed by Lovelock, and therefore the Gaia hypothesis proposed no plausible mechanism and was unscientific.[54] Dawkins meanwhile stated that for organisms to act in concert would require foresight and planning, which is contrary to the current scientific understanding of evolution.[55] Like Doolittle, he also rejected the possibility that feedback loops could stabilize the system.

    Lynn Margulis, a microbiologist who collaborated with Lovelock in supporting the Gaia hypothesis, argued in 1999 that "Darwin's grand vision was not wrong, only incomplete. In accentuating the direct competition between individuals for resources as the primary selection mechanism, Darwin (and especially his followers) created the impression that the environment was simply a static arena". She wrote that the composition of the Earth's atmosphere, hydrosphere, and lithosphere are regulated around "set points" as in homeostasis, but those set points change with time.[60]

    Evolutionary biologist W. D. Hamilton called the concept of Gaia Copernican, adding that it would take another Newton to explain how Gaian self-regulation takes place through Darwinian natural selection.[33][better source needed] More recently Ford Doolittle building on his and Inkpen's ITSNTS (It's The Song Not The Singer) proposal[61] proposed that differential persistence can play a similar role to differential reproduction in evolution by natural selections, thereby providing a possible reconciliation between the theory of natural selection and the Gaia hypothesis.[62]

    Criticism in the 21st century
    The Gaia hypothesis continues to be broadly skeptically received by the scientific community. For instance, arguments both for and against it were laid out in the journal Climatic Change in 2002 and 2003. A significant argument raised against it are the many examples where life has had a detrimental or destabilising effect on the environment rather than acting to regulate it.[7][8] Several recent books have criticised the Gaia hypothesis, expressing views ranging from "... the Gaia hypothesis lacks unambiguous observational support and has significant theoretical difficulties"[63] to "Suspended uncomfortably between tainted metaphor, fact, and false science, I prefer to leave Gaia firmly in the background"[9] to "The Gaia hypothesis is supported neither by evolutionary theory nor by the empirical evidence of the geological record".[64] The CLAW hypothesis,[18] initially suggested as a potential example of direct Gaian feedback, has subsequently been found to be less credible as understanding of cloud condensation nuclei has improved.[65] In 2009 the Medea hypothesis was proposed: that life has highly detrimental (biocidal) impacts on planetary conditions, in direct opposition to the Gaia hypothesis.[66]

    In a 2013 book-length evaluation of the Gaia hypothesis considering modern evidence from across the various relevant disciplines, Toby Tyrrell concluded that: "I believe Gaia is a dead end*. Its study has, however, generated many new and thought provoking questions. While rejecting Gaia, we can at the same time appreciate Lovelock's originality and breadth of vision, and recognize that his audacious concept has helped to stimulate many new ideas about the Earth, and to champion a holistic approach to studying it".[67] Elsewhere he presents his conclusion "The Gaia hypothesis is not an accurate picture of how our world works".[68] This statement needs to be understood as referring to the "strong" and "moderate" forms of Gaia—that the biota obeys a principle that works to make Earth optimal (strength 5) or favourable for life (strength 4) or that it works as a homeostatic mechanism (strength 3). The latter is the "weakest" form of Gaia that Lovelock has advocated. Tyrrell rejects it. However, he finds that the two weaker forms of Gaia—Coeveolutionary Gaia and Influential Gaia, which assert that there are close links between the evolution of life and the environment and that biology affects the physical and chemical environment—are both credible, but that it is not useful to use the term "Gaia" in this sense and that those two forms were already accepted and explained by the processes of natural selection and adaptation.[69]

    // jake to bude prekvapeni, az zjistime, ze pohanska stara okultni vira je v samotnem ustredi vedeckeho konsensu?
    GORG
    GORG --- ---
    Common Austin Code Violations | AustinTexas.gov
    https://www.austintexas.gov/department/common-austin-code-violations

    Here are tips to help inspect your property:
    Inside
    Doors – are all doors working properly and in good repair? Make sure there’s no damage to the door jambs, hardware, weather stripping, or protective treatment.

    Windows – are all window panes in place and unbroken? Are the window locks working? Windows should be weather tight with no breezes or moisture coming through. If used as an emergency exit, make sure it can open and is unobstructed.

    Walls, floors, & ceilings – are they in good condition? Make sure there are no cracks, holes, gaps, trip hazards, or damage to these surfaces.

    Electrical – Check your light switches and outlets to see if they are working and in good repair. Make sure there is no exposed or damaged wiring.

    Sink, toilet, tub, & shower – are the faucets and fixtures working correctly? Is there sufficient water pressure? Check that the water gets hot enough – it should be able to reach 110 degrees Fahrenheit after three minutes of running.

    Appliances & cabinets – are they damaged, inoperable, or missing parts?

    HVAC system – can it heat the room to at least 68 degrees Fahrenheit? Make sure the exhaust pipe is properly connected and the area is kept clear.

    Fire protection – Are the smoke and carbon monoxide alarms working? Make sure there is a working alarm in your bedroom and at least one alarm in the common area.

    Water heater – Is there sufficient water pressure? Make sure that water can get up to 110 degrees Fahrenheit (after three minutes of running) and keep the area clear.

    Infestation – Look for signs of rodents, bed bugs, roaches, fleas, bees, or other pests.



    Outside
    Stairway – are the treads in good repair and secure? Check for trip hazards and an appropriate stair riser (or step height) on the stairs.

    Balcony, deck, porch, patio, & landing – are the walking surfaces in good repair, smooth, and undamaged? Make sure support systems are anchored and functional.

    Handrails & guardrails – are they in good repair and secure? Check that the rails are not cracked, loose, missing, incorrectly spaced, or lacking protective treatment.

    Walls – are they in good condition? Make sure there is no damage and they have the proper trim, protective treatment, and remain weather tight to protect the inside.

    Electrical fixtures – are they in good repair? Make sure any wiring is covered up.

    Plumbing – is there a backflow preventer installed on the hose bib? Is there leaking? Check the clean-out covers and piping.

    Roof – is the roof covering, soffit, and fascia all intact and in good repair? Make sure there are no leaks in the rain gutters or downspouts.

    Fences, walls, sidewalks, parking surfaces & carports – Are they in good repair and undamaged? Check for potholes, trip hazards, and uneven walking surfaces.

    Trash – Is there trash and rubbish around the property, overflowing dumpsters? Check if there is old furniture, tires, or junk outside of the dumpster.

    Join Austin Code Explorers
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjNMhSSKQyY


    Man fired shots at Austin Code enforcement over lawn care, home on fire, APD says
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svs-vhbK874
    GORG
    GORG --- ---
    Covid: The Trojan Horse For The Climate Change Con
    https://www.bitchute.com/video/LZfqQDo0HO55/

    ROSS CLARK: How absurd you may be banned from selling your own home if you don't meet eco rules | Daily Mail Online
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-9438933/ROSS-CLARK-absurd-banned-selling-home-dont-meet-eco-rules.html
    Homeowners will have to cover the required re-modification costs of up to £18,000 themselves — after ministers scrapped grant schemes.

    But shockingly, if you find yourself unable to afford these green-energy improvements, you could be forbidden from selling your home — or even banned from re-mortgaging it, possibly leading to your home being repossessed.

    // dokazete si predstavit, ze by se neceho takoveho dotkla media treba aspon 20 m tyci? :)
    tohle pritom neni nic noveho.. podobne uz to slo v nekterych mistech ve svete... pred min. 10 lety treba v Austinu, Texas.

    myslenka, ze veskere nemovitosti budou zabaveny, je uz zjevne starsi... proste zatepleni domu, oken, ... desitky pozadavku.. a pribyvajici kazdym tydnem... a pokuta 1000$ za kazdy den ilegalniho uzivani domu bez splneni tehle pozadavku. ci tak nejak.. nepamatuju si presne detaily zakona, jaka je ta castka, ale byla nemala... a pocitala se za kazdy bod nesplneni "eko" pozadavku... takze nutno vynasobit poctem precinum vuci klima bohu.

    s takovym systemem by slo krasne zbavit celou populaci jejich nemovitosti, protoze kdo by chtel neco takove vubec drzet, kdyz vlastnictvi muze jit vlastne do ztraty? hipici se samopaly si jiste vyjuchnou.. ale je nam asi jasne, o co tu jde? :)
    GORG
    GORG --- ---
    KAJJAK: zdroje nebo ukaz kozy nebo fakt jdi nekam :)
    jak to chapu, mas jako vlastnik akcii hlasovaci pravo. dolozil jsem to tu 2 zdroji. nijak ses k tomu nevyjadril.

    prijde mi, ze resis nejakou pohadku socialistickou, soudruhu :) , co muze nebo nemuze vlastnik delat.

    korporace klidne muze chtit jit do ztrat nekolik milionu mesicne... ja primo v takove jedne delal.. takze nevim, o cem tocis... a taky nikoho nezajimaji tvoje nebo moje nazory...uvadej zdroje tvych tvrzeni.
    RIVA
    RIVA --- ---
    Trocha filosoficko-politického rozjímání od Morgoth Review:

    Towards The Post-Liberal West
    https://youtu.be/KGQNiqXBDhw


    Celý článek zde:

    Towards The Post-Liberal West - Morgoth’s Review
    https://morgoth.substack.com/p/towards-the-post-liberal-west

    "A couple of seemingly disparate issues caught my attention recently which, on the surface, seemed to have nothing in common whatsoever, but upon closer inspection have a great deal in common. Both have something to say about where we find ourselves and where we’re headed.

    The first subject is the Biden administration’s proclamations on the ‘‘Liberal World Order’’ which excited various stripes of populists and conspiracy theorists.

    The second subject is the truly execrable new Jurassic Park/World movie..."
    KAJJAK
    KAJJAK --- ---
    AIM_FREEMAN:

    tak oni samozrejme nejedou pouze ETFka, ale kdyz nakupuji index tak sou z principu vazani nakupovat pomerne casti vsech akcii... Kapital od lidi dostavaji jak na etf tak na jiny produkty, takze ty pomery sedet nebudou, co neni etf to samozrejme nakupuji bez nejakych vah, necoho vic a neceho min a neco vubec...
    Kliknutím sem můžete změnit nastavení reklam