Загрузка видео...
Не удалось загрузить видео
🚨 Acapulco Gold 36% THCA – A Legendary Sativa Return in Bulk! 🌟 Back by popular demand, don’t miss out on this iconic strain! Reintroducing the legendary **Acapulco Gold 36% THCA**, the latest sativa-dominant strain just restocked at Terp Supply Co. in bulk quantities! This iconic strain, known for... show more
29,807 просмотров • 10 месяцев назад •via X (Twitter)
Комментарии: 0
Нет доступных комментариев
Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста
!["The UFO phenomenon connects us beyond ourselves with all beings." ~Mack "Greg is a physician in his 50s, and he has had a lifelong battle with his Reptilian beings. They seem to struggle with him for his soul." ~Mack (Ralph Blumenthal said that John Mack died before he and Barbara Lamb could finish their paper on Reptilians. But we DO have this lecture that I believe is from 2003.) "I was just walking through the living room in my house, and suddenly...to my enormous surprise, was a Reptilian being." ~Lamb "One of my people I've worked with who studies shamanism...her encounters with the Reptilians was much more of a kind of spiritual connection." ~Mack 🦎 👽 John Mack and The Case of the Reptilians 👽 🦎 The Long Version (I didn't include this in the clip, but Mack seemed to be referring to the work of David Icke here: Mack: "The literal approach would also include the conspiratorial, paranoid approach to the Reptilians which you've probably heard about. That they're here to takeover...they're taking us over. And I don't wanna attribute that, but you know who the people are that are really into the Reptilian-takeover way of going about this." ~~~ (Note: Each Edit is Denoted by ~) Mack: "You're familiar with the Reptilian beings that experiencers encounter. They're described as tall, powerful, muscular lizard-like, often with scales. A brow here and sort of a carapace on the chest. And sometimes they're said to not smell good." (A carapace is a bony or chitinous case or shield covering the back or part of the back of an animal (such as a turtle or crab). ~Merriam-Webster) Mack: "Writer David Chase referred to them as an ancient warrior race, proud, willful, domineering, territorial, physically aggressive, deceptive, emotionally manipulative, sexually intrusive and, potentially, cruel. Their craft are spartan (extreme simplicity, lack of comfort, and rigid discipline), functional environments. In spite of their bad side, they also show a strong sense of duty and technical ability, and one Reptilian was described as compassionate." A Few of Mack's Reptilian Cases Mack: "Greg is a physician in his 50s, and he has had a lifelong battle with his Reptilian beings. They seem to struggle with him for his soul. He felt that certain Reptilian beings were out to destroy him, seemingly out of a motive of revenge. They would do this by invading his soul and sucking the life energy out of me, out of my soul. It was unbelievably terrifying. "He resisted these beings, intensely, for he felt certain that his life had a purpose and that he must deal with this darkness and not suffer at the expense of it. But through this struggle, he discovered that the light is much stronger, and the battle was actually empowering and even enlightening. "He felt a compassion for their pain and didn't want to lose a total connection with them. I think I think I want in some way to participate in their getting in touch with their souls. He said of them, 'I don't love what they do to me. I do care for them.' "And Karin, who I wrote about in 'Passport [to the Cosmos],' came upon, in one of our sessions - we had many, many sessions - but she, for the first time, encountered what she described as encounters with ugly, scaly lizard-like beings that seemed in some way, to represent her struggle with some Reptilian energies of her own. "But then I spoke with a native woman, a Peruvian shaman, about her encounters. And she said, in contrast to our kind of Judeo-Christian relationship to the Reptilian beings, she said that the serpent energy was an energy that she could enter into fully because she felt one with it. "One of my people I've worked with who studies shamanism described an encounter with an anaconda-like snake, and it twirled and it twirled and it twirled. And then it became like she was inside of a spaceship. So it was like, her encounters with the reptilians was much more of a kind of spiritual connection." ~ Barbara Lamb - My Face-to-Face Encounter with a Reptilian Lamb: "And then there's another thing I'd like to share, too. And that is an experience that happened to me, personally, in this lifetime, just a very few years ago, I had already been doing a few years of regression work with experiencers of extraterrestrial contact, including experience with some Reptilian contacts. "And one day, having done some appointments or whatever, I was just walking through the living room in my house, and suddenly, pfft - POP - right in front of me, to my enormous surprise, was a Reptilian being. He was a little bit taller than I. "Now, normally in this life, if I'd seen a reptile of any kind, even a little one, you know, in my living room (laughs), I would have been really freaked out and not very comfortable with Reptilian beings. But anyway, with this experience - conscious-awake experience - I saw this Reptilian being standing in my living room. I went right over to him, extended my hand, held his hand, looked into these beautiful - I thought they were beautiful - golden-colored eyes with a little vertical eyeball, little pupil, kind of a lightning strike. And that's all that I remember, consciously. "But a few weeks later, I had a past-life-therapy colleague of mine do a regression on me to see if there was anything more to that experience. And to make a long story short, in the few minutes that that Reptilian being was there, he said to me, telepathically, as we continued to hold hands... And I can still remember the feeling, the physical feeling of that hand. Thick and strong, and not creepy. I was surprised it wasn't creepy. "And he reassured me that he is an ambassador from somewhere else. An ambassador representing many, many different extraterrestrial beings who come and interact with human beings. And he was here to tell me, as somebody who regresses people to these experiences... And sometimes, because of my growing up in my conditioned mind, I wonder, could this really, really, really be true? It certainly seems as if it is. But he wanted to reassure me, for the sake of all those different species who come here that, yes, indeed, they do really exist. They do come here." (I'm skeptical of what Lamb said in those last two paragraphs and the paragraph below, especially since it was information acquired through hypnotic regression. Plus, I don't trust what these beings say. However, the claim of a fully-conscious encounter with a Reptilian is something I take seriously.) Lamb: "They come here very quickly into our awareness, and they pop out, they disappear from our awareness very quickly. And that it is a very meaningful phenomenon, and that we have no idea how important we are, that's you and me, all of us, are, to them. So, for me, that was a very positive experience." (Are we important to them because they use us for something? Or is it something else?) Lamb: "And then, just suddenly, pffft, he was gone, and I went on with my rest of my day (audience laughs)." ~ Mack: "All right, how do we put all this together? Now this... Well, I really can't put it all together (audience laughs)." (That's funny. The whole topic is so damned complicated.) Mack: "But the experiences are real, they're also mythic. They reflect something deep in our own unconscious, our own instinctual natures. They have a powerful mythic dimension, which does not contradict the fact that they're real. "I think - this is a hypothesis - that this tremendous interest now that's happening in the Reptilians represents a return of the repressed dimension of ourselves, which does not mean that there aren't real Reptilian beings. You see that either/or-ness that we've gotten into. It can be both: The internal and external, present and past. Real, physical and mythic." (I really like that he said that. These encounters may be part of a repressed dimension of ourselves but that does NOT negate the possibility that there are also physical, Reptilian beings interacting with us. It can be BOTH. Or several things could be going on at once.) Mack: "And perhaps some meaning for our culture, in terms of what we've been hearing in this conference about the need to come to terms with everything about ourselves, including the darkest, most powerful, instinctual, sexual, aggressive forces. And that may have something to do with why this is such a contemporary subject." ~ Mack: "The UFO phenomenon connects us beyond ourselves with all beings, terrestrial and extraterrestrial. It opens us to a connection with nature, all of nature. It is the ultimate, along with many other anomalies, but it is the most powerful one I know, to transcend the dualism, the polarity of the way we generally have come to think. It's not exclusive to the West. Polarized thinking is part of the human way of thinking. "But to transcend that thinking, to experience our connectedness to all beings, to nature, I think this enables us to do that, if we use it that way. It's a possibility that is there. I'm not saying that's what it IS. I don't know what it IS, but I think it offers us that possibility." (It may transcend our thinking about what humans are and our place in the Universe. But that doesn't mea that's why it's taking place. It could be a unnetdned consequence of contact with a non-human intelligence. It does NOT explain why these, apparent, beings are interacting with us and it does NOT tell us what they want with/from us or their intent.)](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2036587195721756942/amplify_video_thumb/2036550227587682304/img/KMxF0O3gnzQyMctT.jpg)
![I’m seeing a lot of questions on the launch of China’s Chang’e 6 mission yesterday to get samples - for the first time - from the far side of the moon. We don’t know (afaik) why specifically they’re doing that, but we have a pretty good idea what grand vision China is working towards with their space program. How? From this 2022 video by Chas Freeman (former Assistant Secretary of Defense and Nixon's interpreter during his era-defining 1972 China visit), who imho is undoubtedly one of the most knowledgeable former US officials on China. He says that according to his own discussions with people running China’s space program, they’re following the vision described in the book "The high frontier" by Gerard K. O'Neill, which Freeman says has "become the bible of the Chinese space program". I read the book. So what vision does it describe? The book was written in 1976 by O'Neill who was a professor of physics at Princeton University. He also founded the Space Studies Institute, an organization devoted to funding research into space manufacturing and colonization. In other words, he knew his stuff. The book makes the very fair point that we have massive resource constraints on earth, especially given the growing population. He estimated in 1976 that we should be "about six and a half billion people in the year 2000", and we were 6.114 billion back then so he was pretty prescient. He estimates that these constraints will progressively give rise to more and more social tensions as the growing earth population competes for our limited resources as well as faces global problems like climate change. In his view, dealing with this will either require "an authoritarian regime capable of mounting the immense task of social reorganization needed to escape catastrophe" or, alternatively, “mankind would [need to adopt] a static society [that would be] forced in self-defense to suppress new ideas". The 3rd alternative is of course the colonization of space. The most interesting aspect of the book is that he claims everything he writes is feasible with knowledge and technology that already existed in the late 70s. In short he calls for the establishment of large human habitats in the Earth-Moon system, located at stable Lagrange points ("parking spots" in space where gravity from different spatial bodies cancel each other out). In particular he developed the concept of what's known today as the "O'Neill cylinder" which he says "could support quite easily a population of ten million people, growing its food in agricultural cylinders near but outside the main habitat". Energy-wise, it'd simply make use of solar energy via a system of mirrors. As he describes it: "the concentration of the unvarying, intense sunlight of space by very lightweight, inexpensive mirrors can provide all the energy that industry will ever need [...] at a fraction of a cent per kilowatt-hour". He envisages building these habitats with material from the moon, shot into space via "mass drivers", a form of electromagnetic catapult. Also "the habitats would have artificial gravity similar as that of earth by rotating about twenty-eight times an hour”, but he also envisages low-gravity areas, especially for recreational activities such as swimming pools or dancing representations. To trade with earth, he develops the idea of beaming solar power back to earth via "microwave from solar power stations in orbit". As he describes it "the microwave beam would arrive at Earth with a beam width of about seven kilometers. Its intensity would be modest, less than half that of sunlight. In contrast to sunlight, though, it would be there all the time, even at night or in clouds or rain, and it would be in a form ready for conversion to DC current with a loss of only 10 percent. The areas receiving these beams’ output on Earth would be fenced, and outside the fence the intensity of microwave radiation would be no higher than outside a microwave oven with the door closed. He estimates that if "Satellite Solar Power Stations (SSPS) were to become the sole source of electric energy in the United States in the year 2000, the land area necessary for the SSPS antennas would still be only 0.2 percent of that of the continental United States". In short, the establishment of space colonies could lead to the fulfillment of a good share of Earth's energy needs. Last but not least he describes life in space habitats as better than that of earth, largely thanks to the level of control we'd have over the environment (total climate control which would enable an abundance of food and no natural disaster) as well as unlimited cheap energy. To conclude, Chas Freeman typically really knows his stuff when it comes to China and he’s very intellectually honest (a rare trait among US officials) so I have no doubt he tells the truth when he says the Chinese told him that was the vision. And China famously thinks very big and very long term so it would be quite like them to go for something like this. There are also quite a few tangible signs that China is working towards that vision. See for instance this November 2022 news where “China’s space station will join a project to collect solar power from space and send it to Earth in a high-energy microwave beam”: That’s exactly O’Neill’s vision! Or check this October 2022 news that says China is developing new "electromagnetic sledges" that can propel a carriage weighing a few tonnes to a record speed, with a key application for this being “aerospace”: Remember: O’Neill’s vision is to build his habitats with material from the moon, shot into space via "mass drivers", a form of electromagnetic catapult. So there you go… Or also the fact that the Chinese will build, together with the Russians, a moon base - planned for 2028 - powered by a “space nuclear reactor” that’s already been developed (on Earth) and has passed review by China’s Ministry of Science: The space nuclear reactor can generate 1MW of electricity, enough to power 10 International Space Stations. Enough power, maybe, to undertake mining activity and power an electromagnetic catapult… After visions change, the world changes, so it’s also possible that China’s view on what they want to do has evolved. In any case, Chas Freeman is right that China’s motivation for all its initiatives in space can’t just be to “boldly explore where no-one has been before”, they have to be working towards something. And Freeman is also absolutely right to lament that the U.S. decided to ban any cooperation in space with the Chinese. Those endeavors are something that could have been jointly developed as a multilateral effort to unite us all as a species… Instead China is now forced to go at it alone with Russia and we face a future where our petty divisions on Earth will be carried with us to space…](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1786611294218702934/ext_tw_video_thumb/1786610517114851328/pu/img/OoYUvR3PovMC-WFS.jpg)
![Apple’s iPad “Crush” Ad Is Bleak, Ominous and Threatening I don’t know if you’ve seen Apple’s just-released commercial for the “New” iPad Pro, but it’s pretty awful. It is dark, humorless, and feels like a not-so-thinly veiled threat to writers, musicians, game makers, developers, and artists of all kinds. …and children, even. I’ve watched it at least five times today alone, and I’m left with one big question. “Who on earth approved this?” It’s absolutely baffling that the world’s largest technology company, with the world’s biggest marketing budget, thought this would be a good idea. What kind of idiot—or idiots, since dozens or hundreds of people had to be involved in the writing, staging, producing, recording, and editing—felt this kind of ad would somehow create a positive emotional connection with consumers? Seriously, it’s terrifying. In a dank, cold warehouse, devoid of all life and humanity, an industrial crusher comes to life, and slowly starts destroying a collection of musical, philosophical, and artistic devices and instruments. For no apparent reason, everything starts getting smashed: first, a trumpet, then an arcade video game, then cans of paint, a piano, a globe, a metronome, a guitar… on and on it goes, obliterating everything in sight into a colorful, gooey, explosive mess. Books, camera lenses, lamps, a guitar, a sculpture, and a typewriter—all tools of the liberal arts—get mangled into a garbage heap as Sonny & Cher cheerfully sing, “All I ever need is you.” In the penultimate moment, a goofy yellow smiley emoji becomes a bug-eyed scary-clown freak as it, too, is crushed to death. Worse, if you enable closed captions like I do by default, the video says: “[POPPING] [SPLAT]” right as its eyeballs pop out of its head when Cher sings, “Give me a reason to build my world around you.” It’s enough to make a child cry. It has all the comforting vibes of the burnt pink teddy bear floating in the swimming pool on Breaking Bad after two planes crash in mid-air. I have so many questions (aside from simply wondering the names of the soon-to-be ex-employees who greenlit this abomination). First of all, as a trumpet player myself, I am personally offended that they made me watch a perfectly good trumpet get smashed to smithereens like it’s no big deal. Why would they torture me like this? Second of all, what is the message here? No, not that “the most powerful iPad ever is also the thinnest,” as the voiceover artist states in the last few seconds of the clip. I mean: what is the message? Ostensibly, pulverizing children’s toys, arcade games, architectural models, and ceramic Angry Birds into a paste implies something like “We’re taking all the best of humanity; all the collective works of Western Civilization, smashing it into pieces and putting it inside this remarkably thin device so you can have all of it in the palm of your hand.” But my oh my, is there an elephant in this room… he’s hiding behind the monstrous destroying machine. Did anyone inside Apple realize that everyone outside Apple will recognize this imagery in a metaphorical sense, but not the one Apple intended? We don’t see a crushing machine gently consolidating the greatest output of all our artistic endeavors, simply reformatted for a digital age and consumed by everyone with instant, fingertip access. We see what is painstakingly obvious to us, and the timing couldn’t possibly be worse. We see a giant, soulless machine consuming our work in a very different way. Right now, AI models are training themselves on our intellectual property and even our very own personally-identifying data. We aren’t the ones doing the consuming. We’re the ones being consumed. The tech industry has become one massive gaping maw, opening wide and swallowing everything in sight, chewing it up into little bits and pieces of comminuted waste, like a paper shredder or a garbage disposal. It’s destruction in its most literal form. And for what? For a newer version of the iPad that is only slightly thinner than its predecessor? For an only marginally improved version of Apple’s tablet device that has been around for 14 years? For increased profits? This is a terrible look for Apple. They may as well be saying: “All your work are belong to us.” Personally, I am a fan of artificial intelligence. I am eagerly embracing our robot overlords and I welcome our new CSV god (as the actual developers of AI models like to say). I look forward to the freedom and innovation that will come as a result of humanity augmenting our intelligence with AI like a force multiplier on a battlefield. But if Apple has the same perspective I do, they’re selling it in the worst possible way. When I see this video, I see that Apple is definitely crushing something… but I’m not sure what. -Crushing small companies that develop apps for the extremely heavy-handed App Store, which imposes byzantine restrictions on what they can and can’t do with their own apps? -Crushing competitors by limiting what they can do on the iOS and MacOS platforms with arbitrary and capricious rules about enabling functionalities that Apple doesn’t like, even if users do? -Crushing publishers and content creators with a punitive 30% fee on all subscriptions and in-app purchases? -Crushing choice and competition by not allowing app makers to make apps and programs that do the same thing that native apps already do, even if they do it better? -Crushing all human creativity and innovation by automating and systematizing everything? In the early days of the “Google vs. Apple” fight over the web and app stores, I was really concerned that Google was becoming way, way too powerful. Specifically, in 2015, when Google came up with “app streaming,” they announced a desire to form a “web of apps.” This was concerning. Especially when coupled with Google’s efforts to steal content from other websites and provide it to users via the “knowledge graph” results, ending up with the creation of “zero-click” search results pages, which absolutely punished website owners and content creators. By taking the most valuable content off a website and showing it to Google users without them needing to click through to the website itself, Google had essentially stolen everybody’s intellectual property with only the most minimal attribution possible (to fend off lawsuits no doubt, but with no intention of users actually visiting the website in question anymore). “Google is eating the internet,” I thought, and said out loud, (although I probably wasn’t the first person to use that phrase) But what I meant was purely an analogy. It was vague and ambiguous, almost silly. Maybe I was wrong, though: maybe it’s Apple that’s doing the eating. Maybe Apple is not only gobbling up everyone else’s work, but also homogenizing it—and us—and forcing us to use their platform, pay their fees, abide by their rules, and constantly keep upgrading, upgrading, upgrading, to an ever-thinner iPad in order to use it. Watch the video again. This is the stuff of nightmares. To be perfectly fair, even if I were to take the commercial at face value and ignore it’s off-the-charts creepiness and just stick to its one stated claim—that the new iPad Pro is thinner—it still fails as a commercial. Why? Because nobody cares how thin an iPad is. Seriously. I’ve owned an iPad since 2010: that means I’ve carried around a version of Apple’s already-thin tablet every day for over a dozen years. Never once have I said to myself: “You know what improvement I’d really like to see in this thing? I wish it were thinner.” Never. That thought has never crossed my mind, even once. You know what has? -Better battery life. -I’d like my iPad to not get hot to the touch when I use the Apple Pencil to take notes. -I wish it wasn’t so fragile: I dropped my brand-new iPad 2 back in the day when it slipped out of the arm-hold I was carrying it in, it bounced on the pavement, and the screen shattered into a thousand pieces, making it unusable. -I wish it had more storage. -I wish Apple would stop changing the type of cable connector it uses: I’ve gone from the original 30-pin connector to the Lightning connector, and now to the current USB-C/Thunderbolt connector. -I wish I could view the screen in direct sunlight. -I wish it wouldn’t overheat and turn off automatically when I use it outdoors in the summertime. Those are announcements I would welcome in a new iPad Pro commercial. None of this “now even thinner” nonsense nobody needs or cares about. So, back to the commercial. In my opinion, whoever made this ad should be fired. I almost never say that about other companies, especially for good-faith marketing efforts gone wrong… those of us who work in marketing make mistakes sometimes, and we learn from them. But cases like this warrant a special exception. Marketing and advertising are designed to make people want to buy your products. This commercial doesn’t just not make me want to buy Apple’s products. It makes me not want to buy Apple’s products, which is something altogether different. It turns me from someone who likes iPads into someone who is almost rethinking iPads entirely. That’s not just a bad advertisement; it’s a harmful advertisement. Apple’s usually known for great commercials. The legendary 1984 Super Bowl commercial was, of course, their best. I thought “Hello, I’m a Mac” was absolutely brilliant. They have made some missteps along the way, but this one is really bad. Not even their nauseatingly preachy and woke “Mother Nature” ad from a few years ago was this bad. Steve Jobs once said, “Technology alone is not enough—it’s technology married with liberal arts, married with the humanities, that yields us the results that make our heart sing.” My goodness, that last line alone is poetry itself! This ad seems to be Apple signaling that they don’t believe in that anymore. And I don’t think all this handwringing is an overreaction to where you could say “Oh, c’mon, it’s just a commercial! What’s the big deal?” It is a big deal. It tells you about the values of the company, and what they intend to communicate. Really, how is this the same company that used to sell iPhones by showing grandmas using FaceTime to connect with their baby grandchildren from afar during the holidays? Everything about it is wrong: even the thumbnail they chose for it (the bulging-eyed smiley face) and the fact that they gave it the title “Crush!” It was fun to see the reactions to the video online today. I find it fascinating that Apple shared it on YouTube but turned off the comments. On X, Tim Cook shared it Tuesday, and the video, which so richly deserves to be mocked, is getting it in spades. Some people are calling it “anti-art.” One user called it “soul-crushing,” which was about as literal and logical a response as you’d expect. It turns out Apple actually made an announcement about the commercial. In response to the (apparently unexpected) poor welcome it got, Apple wrote: “We missed the mark with this video, and we’re sorry.” Lame response from a tone-deaf tech behemoth, but still, they hopefully got the message. C’mon, Apple. I have seen the future, and this ain’t it.](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1788740167194579387/media/GNLjSOOaEAAZ6VT.jpg)
