There is a voice I consciously control, and there is one that I don’t. They kind of intermingle into a single monologue, but I can still hear the one I don’t control when I consciously turn off my monologue. It’s still a quiet presence almost in the back of my mind.

One way I’ve rationalized it, it’s like when you meditate and your thoughts still flow over you. You don’t actively control those thoughts, that’s kind of the point. I’m finding that those thoughts have a coherent voice for me. They speak through my monologue, but they are still there when I shut my monologue off. Under the surface, quieter, with the rest of the thoughts I don’t control.

One of the “constantly” group here. It’s a bit more like having someone to talk to all the time who is also me. I can turn it off, but it has to be a concentrated effort and as soon as I’m not concentrated on keeping it silent it comes back.

I’ve spent many years wondering at the nature of the little voice, especially after I learned that not everyone has it. It’s not controlling or contradictory, it’s a bit more like a narrator for my feelings and a driving point for logic.

I’ve come to the conclusion that what it actually is is my subconscious manifesting as a conversational partner. Kind of like an avatar that represents the part of me that isn’t the literal point of consciousness inside my head. Make of that what you will.

Don’t get me wrong, I still think in pictures and non-verbal inclinations. That doesn’t really go away either. But it’s like having a narrator alongside it that also speaks in the first person.

(This list is not recognized in china)

The first step is to make it illegal to sideload “illegal” apps. It’s the step that sounds reasonable that less informed people might agree with or at least not protest. The next step is to arbitrarily decide what makes an app illegal. By that point, it’s too late to protest the actual law.

It’s like the law in Florida making the punishment death for sexual assault on a child. That sounds fine until you realize that their legislature has announced their intent to make wearing clothes opposite your gender in public into sexual assault on a child.

Unilateral restrictive laws, without specific stipulations or conditions, even innocent sounding ones like this, are one bad actor away from being changed to a political weapon.

Do you know that donation to Mozilla don’t (and can’t legally) fund Firefox development, right?

Two lines on a graph don’t prove that statement. What you’ve proven is that the chair of Mozilla is making more as the market share is going down. Now connect the dots with a source that shows why those numbers matter and you’re golden.

“We won’t use it for that even though we could”

Is just the first step in a series of corporate decisions that inevitably leads to

“We know we said we wouldn’t, but we didn’t realize how much money we could make”

Google took “do no evil” out of their mission statement. Why would you trust them to stick to their word and not develop this tech in a way that helps their own ad platform make money?

What if you knew it was shit, like you watched something defacate it. It still tastes like chocolate. Would you still eat that over a candy bar that you know is definitely factory produced and sanitary, but still tastes like shit?

Politicians in America have people on both sides hypnotized to equate socialism with bolshevik communism. That’s a major reason why we can’t move any meaningful distance left as a country, but we can move right at the blink of an eye. Socialism is a dirty word here, for no other reason than the fact that big corporations pay politicians to demonize it.

I see your 75 years and raise you to 100 years. That’s now the truth.