# hi. some coffee?

### i got some “theories” for u, below

#### about lots of diverse stuff...

Note 1. Each main section (with green box in the section title) is an independent topic.

Testimonials:

## 1. arabic text test

This tests:

• How Arabic looks like in cavemancms.
• My attempt at rewriting a famous poem by the famous poet Safi al-Din al-Hilli1. Basically I think he was a bit delusional, arrogant and sort of out of touch with reality. So I think this rewrite is better.

Anyway, here we go:

Extra test(s) unrelated to the above:

• 1. IMO he is a lame dude, all he did was just to sit on a** to write some text called poems. What is a poem anyway? Can we compile it into an app? Nope. Anyway his poem was wrong.

## 2. corona economy

The coronavirus economy demonstrates that my theory on perfect money is right. Here is how:

• Economies reliant on luxury (e.g. tourism, fancy cars, etc) are net-negative as per my perfect money theory, and logic dictates that asymptotically as such is doomed to be net-negative in the long run (sooner or later). These economies are also attacked most by coronavirus!
• Economies reliant on practically useful things (practical food, practical delivery, etc) are net-positive by my perfect money theory. Guess what? These are affected least by coronavirus. In some cases their profits increased. In cases where their profits lowered as necessarily because of them operating in a bigger luxurious economy (e.g. some practical food makers existing in a city that gets its revenue largely by luxurious economics such as tourism

Lesson learned:

• Never invest in luxurious economies as they are asymptotically net-negative and a timed bomb.
• If you think to invest in a luxurious economy, with the plan to sell it to some victim right before it collapses, then this is unethical and goes under various bad things, such as:
• Drug dealing.
• Crab mentality.

Societies that contain such selfish people are doomed to progress at a slower pace. So I can't stress enough how horrible this is as an investment opportunity. Only a blind would oversee such dangers.

## 3. perfect money

### 3.1. mistakes with today's money

You sold a sandwich to person $p_1$, and another identical sandwich to person $p_2$. With the current monetary system, you'd usually charge $p_1$ and $p_2$ by the goods that you gave them, not by who they are or what they did with it. So you'd charge them, say, $10$ bucks each.

But, a question is: what if person $p_1$ used that sandwich to energize himself to discover (or invent) good science that would save the lives of millions, while $p_2$ simply used that sandwich to sit on ass and watch TV — is the worth of both your efforts at giving them sandwiches equivalent?

The current monetary system assumes that yes, both of your sandwiches, are equivalent regardless of the fact that they have lead into different outcomes: sandwich eaten by $p_1$ resulted in science that saved lives, while sandwich eaten by $p_2$ resulted in only increasing the net carbon emission.

Assumption 1. Today's monetary system ignores the results lead to by an effort or work.

There is no proof that shows that Assumption 1 is optimal. In fact, we can easily see that it is wrong as soon as we start choosing a goal. E.g.:

• If we choose our goal to be to maximize our GDP, then Assumption 1 is obviously wrong, since sandwich given to $p_2$ did not result in anything useful to the economy ($p_2$ just used it to sit on ass watch TV), while sandwich given to $p_1$ resulted in a major progress that would most likely boost the GDP.
• If we choose our goal to be to advance our civilization so that it gets closer immortality, then Assumption 1 is still wrong for the same obvious reasons.

So, as you see, there are many reasons why Assumption 1 is totally wrong.

Assumption 1 also implies that the current monetary system assumes that the worth of works in the past is frozen. E.g. what if it turned out after, say, $5$ years that person $p_1$'s discovered science was actually harmful to the progress of our civilization? The current monetary system will assume that sandwich given to $p_1$ it is still worth $10$ bucks, which is not true (since it turned out $p_1$ put the sandwich to harmful use).

### 3.2. perfect money

Theorem 1. Amount of money $m$, given to work $w$ (e.g. selling sandwich) which resulted in outcome $o$, is said to be perfect, if $m$ equals the total number of seconds reduced in our journey towards becoming an immortal civilization according to hypothesis $h'$, thanks $w$'s fair share contribution of allowing $o$ to happen.

In other words, money $m$ is rather a value mapped to a function: $$m = \text{t}(w, o, h')$$ where $t$ is a function that maps work $w$ that lead to outcome $o$ to the total number of seconds reduced in our journey towards the nearest immortal civilization, by using the hypothesis $h'$. $h'$ is our best estimation to model reality and gets updated over time.

So, in other words, the unit of the perfect money is measured in metric seconds. That is, International System of Unit (SI) unit of money must be seconds. Isn't this fascinating?

#### 3.2.1. proof

We only need to prove that the best goal to have is the goal of reaching an immortal civilization. For this, we need a few axioms:

Axiom 1. Evolution is true.

Axiom 2. The superset of freedoms is better than its strict subset.

Axiom 3. The set of freedom's available while being alive is the superset of the set of freedoms available when dead.

Axiom 4. When causality is unknown, assume the most accurate available statistical correlation.

Then those axioms will lead to that our goal in life (in general) is to maximize survival of life forms in general (not only humans). And the only known way to maximize that is by achieving an immortal civilization. Everything (including feelings) is therefore only a randomized approximation of a solution to maximize the survival of life forms. Asymptotically our happiness is defined after this. This also solves morality paradoxes.

The proof is easy, but a bit lengthy. So I'll omit it for now. Maybe I'll be more explicit in another time (even tho I think it's easy for your to prove it yourself).

## 4. general charity license v0 (GCLv0)

### 4.1. terms

• Charitable resource — any useful resource such as money, gold, land, car, etc.
• Recipient — a person that is getting the charity that is obtaining a charitable good.
• Life form — anything that we generally consider living, such as animals, plants, insects, bacteria, etc.
• Wasted resource — any resource that is spent to obtain a good that does not help maximize the survival of life forms in general.

### 4.2. rules

Rule 1. Recipient must not waste any resources. I.e. recipient will only spend it in things that help maximize life forms' survival.

Rule 2. A recipient that violates Rule 1 will be punished according to the expected harm that he has caused against the survival of life forms, such that —once punished— the expected harm would balance out to $0$.

### 4.3. examples of wasteful things

• Buying a first-hand car, when a second-hand car, or public transportation, could do the job.
• Buying needlessly complex clothing, or expensive clothing, simply because it looks good, beyond achieving a practical utility that helps in maximizing one's survival. E.g. why would you buy a crocodile leather jacket when a cheaper material would offer you same, or better, warmth or protection against rain?
• Storing money for too long, without using it for a survival maximizing thing. This is bad as it effectively bars people from utilizing the money for a good cause. Remember, such frozen money is fundamentally frozen past energy that is made unusable by society to advance.
• Buying food that is not the cheapest source of required nutrition. E.g. cup cakes, pizza, ice cream — all these foods are wasteful, because part of their price tag is because of making the bread fluffy, or making the cream cold, which is not helpful in a nutritional manner, hence necessarily wasteful.
• Alcohol — these are too expensive for their nutritions, while at the same time increase the risk of addiction and alcoholism, which harms society a lot.

### 4.4. examples of survival maximizing things

• Using public transportation, or a cheap second hand car, to get from point $A$ to point $B$ in a journey to do a survival maximizing thing.
• Eating healthy nutritious food, drinks.
• Getting good education.
• Starting new investments that offer non-wasteful services, such as cheap healthy food, or funding research laboratories or projects to further advance science.

### 4.5. examples of punishments and harm rectification

• If a recipient decides to waste his money by, say, selling alcohol to people, then the expected harm can be calculated statistically based on the expected number of alcoholics that he would probably end up creating, which is estimated by using statistics from previous years. The recipient will also be asked to undo his wrong by promote an anti-alcohol culture to potentially save as many people from alcoholism as the expected number of alcoholics that he has created.
• If a person is known to have died because of recipient's wasteful acts, then the recipient will be charged fees associated with losses of his murder based on statistics measured at the time. E.g. each person costs over a million USD.

## 5. i invented new food

Note 2. Someone else did something better.

Recipe:

2. Spread 1 spoon salted butter on it.
3. Put several layers of smoked turkey2, or smoked beef, on it.
4. Put hand-full of uncut mushroom there.
5. Put hand-full of some veggies.
6. Mildly wrap similar to tacos.
7. Eat.

Note 3. Do not do anything extra. E.g. no heating. Maybe don't even wash.

Pros:

1. Close proximity—All stuff taken from fridge.
2. Convenient storage—Ingredients can be kept in fridge for some time.
3. Simple process—No complex processing. E.g. no heating, cutting, etc.
4. High-protein low-carb potential—Add more beef/chicken to increase protein content.

Cons:

1. Probably not a general-purpose perfect food yet. But plz stay tuned for even better stuff.

• 2. Turkey the chicken-like animal, not the country.

## 6. perfect food

Synopsis—Basically, a food is perfect, if and only if, it is the cheapest thing that offers you the nutritions that you require. Else, you are wasting your money.

As a result, pizza, for example, is clearly not perfect, but rather a waste, because think: do you really think the process of making a pizza slice is the cheapest way to get 285 calories, 12g protein, 10g fat, and 36g carbs?

Think of the operation cost of pizza making, which requires running an oven and baking. Imagine the energy bill, and time needed. Clearly pizza is a wasteful way of creating nutritional values, as there are many ways we can optimize the process.

On the other hand, you could get what a pizza slice would give you, by simply frying some egg, with cheese, and potatoes, for example, at a cheaper price point. I'm not saying that this is perfect either, but it suffices to show you that pizza is clearly a waste as it is very easy to think of the same (nutritional value-wise) at a cheaper price point.

But people buy pizza coz they think it's sounds crunchy when you eat it. F*ck that nonsense. There is no nutrition in crunch. This makes pizza a form of drug that creates artificial need (by the allure of its crunch and smell) to cause people to make the irrational decision of buying it.

### 6.1. i'm smart

Say that $\mathcal{F} = \{f_1, f_2, \ldots, f_n\}$ is the set of all foods. For example, $f_1$ could be fried chicken breast, $f_2$ could be orange, etc.

Also say that for any food $f_i \in \mathcal{F}$, $c_i$ is the cost of $f_i$ (i.e. money and time needed to be spent in order to get $f_i$ into ur belly), and $n_i$ is the nutritional values that your body obtains after eating $f_i$.

Then, if your body needs nutritional values in interval $[n_a, n_b]$ (for whatever health goal you have), then:

Definition 1. Food $f_i \in \mathcal{F}$ is said to be perfect, if and only if: $$n_a \le n_i \le n_b$$ and, for all $f_j \in \{f_l \in \mathcal{F} : n_a \le n_l \le n_b\}$: $$c_i \le c_j$$

### 6.2. wat if food fails to meet Definition 1?

Well, then it's a waste of money. Period. Could be a little waste to you, depending on how spoiled you are, but it remains a waste nonetheless, and you will be at a loss.

Today's food is mostly heavily a waste of money as they fail to meet Definition 1. Sadly, the concept of food —today— is looked from the view of taste and joy, very similar to how drugs are looked at.

Therefore, it's fair to say that today's food industry has morphed into a fork of the drug industry, where unnecessary additives are added to lure people in in order to take maximum money. It is no longer only nutritional. It is now partly nutritional, and partly wasteful to fool idiots to get a slice of their money (almost everyone on this planet).

### 6.3. now wat?

We need to find a principled methodology to objectively guide us on the process of creating perfect food. I will keep you updated when I nail this. Plz stay tuned.