Life on the hamster wheel. It's not inflation, it's devaluation.

We have to get off the hamster wheel that is current society. Petrol $2/litre, I bought potatoes at roughly $1 each... potatoes for goodness sake, the reserve rate has almost doubled, hurting anyone with a mortgage, my house insurance went up 27% from last year, the list is endless.

We are allowing this thing called money, which we invented and make out of a little bit of paper completely out of thin air, which it has no value itself other than the value we assign to it, to dominate our lives and create hardships for us. Money is now a weapon used against us. 

We are being eaten alive by inflation, actually that's wrong, it's not inflation, the more correct term is devaluation. This is because the central banks create new money in the system as debt bearing interest. This indebts the whole world, every person, every government, in totally non-payable debts, enslaving us all to bankers through personal debt or ever increasing oppressive and unjust taxation, permits, licences, registrations, regulations, rates, duties (like the ludicrous stamp duty here in AU), fees, fines, levies, surcharges, ad infinitum, of which an increasing volume goes straight to the debt creators, who created it for free.

So why it is devaluation? Because new money as debt creates massive bubbles (housing, stocks, etc) which devalues everyone's savings, work, pension by raising all prices. If the debt associated with increasing the money supply is a larger percentage than the percentage increase in population, how can it not devalue our assets?

We are being herded like cattle. And we are cattle; mindless automatons spending our lives toiling for others, too poor and tired at the end of the day working in the coal mines to understand the true reality enough to mount an opposition. So our world slowly devalues a little more every single day, and we go to (say) get our passport renewed and it's fee was $45 and now its $63, and go to the shops and pay a $1 per potato.

Went on my 2nd weekend meditation retreat. I'm hooked.

I went on my 2nd weekend meditation retreat last week, and I am hooked. I'd go every weekend if I could. This time it had 30 people: beautiful people from every walk of life coming together to find happiness and inner peace in the only manner that works. We meditated quite a bit this time (4 times on Saturday), everyone helped prepare the vegie meals, great mealtime conversations, all cleaned up, took walks on the bush property, listened and participated in talks from the dharma leaders, slept in shared rooms, listened to the struggles of others like this woman who was recently promoted at work but has imposter syndrome, others with anxiety, all there to break the cycles of the suffering caused by an untrained mind.

I even had the most powerful meditation session ever. Sunday I woke up very focused and clear, and had some strong! coffee which added to that. Went into a very strong state in the session, and a word just popped up which startled me in terms of it's relevance to my life and the startup I am involved in. The word was DUTY. I normally have wet eyes with a strong session, but this time some tears were running down my cheeks. I am still processing the implications of that word. And I think that this is a state that I can get into by myself; I am capable of this power by just doing nothing but being alone with myself, aware, and in the present. Magical. The key to happiness is to be friends with the 'person' you spend 24/7 with, and the mind needs to understand this. It takes a certain courage to understand and accept that you are enough, and then, you are free.

The future of energy

This is the future of energy. Not the fusion reactors, or wind turbines, or solar panels, or geothermal. Right now we look to the Kardashev Scale to understand the future of energy, and the Type II civilisation can harness all the available energy of their neighbour star by enveloping it within some megastructure (Dyson sphere) to capture all it's energy and I think, ironically, that that's all so primitive now that I have read this article. But the Kardashev Scale is from 1964 so we need to give the guy some slack.

It is scientifically infantile to think that such a civilisation would need this massive structure for energy as though this civilisation would not understand the harnessing of quantum vibrations within the universe. We humans are still at the stage where we equate "more" with "bigger" when the future is "smaller".

And this article brings me back to the quote from Nikola Telsa who said: "If you wish to understand the universe, think of energy, frequency and vibration".

So this technology generates a clean, limitless (albeit currently small) amount of energy which, given enough graphene, could power small devices like watches/etc forever. But, to me, this is just the start. The universe has a vibration, and as we probe deeper into the quantum world we will begin to understand how to extract unlimited energy from the very small. Then we can turn off the power plants, and tear down the windmill and solar panel farms.

https://news.uark.edu/articles/54830/physicists-build-circuit-that-generates-clean-limitless-power-from-graphene

The war on drugs is a punitive tragedy on society.

 Good article on the tragedy and corruption of the war on drugs. We have to remember that the war on drugs was started for 2 reasons: a) to control minority populations specifically the blacks/asians in the US, and b) to enable the empire-building ambitions of law enforcement. It had nothing, zero, nada, zilch to do with public safety. And as this article is outlining, it has had a punitive effect on society by incentivising the manufacture of stronger, more deadly drugs.

I mean, it's almost downright laughable that they demonise cannabis by spewing the tired old mantra of "well, cannabis is much stronger than back in the 60s" completely ignoring the emergence of these deadly and awful chemicals like ice and fentanyl, which have emerged as a direct result of this corrupt war on drugs. And these drugs will only get deadlier.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/commentisfree/2022/aug/31/the-rising-appetite-for-powerful-drugs-like-fentanyl-is-a-direct-result-of-australias-failing-prohibition-policies

Advise for this journalist of women's rights... Stop shaming women.

If this isn't the most confusing article I've ever had the misfortune to read then I don't know. I don't get it. She complains about the history of strong women getting unjustly shamed and then proceeds to shame Kidman for getting strong.

And she uses ageism to do that shaming, somehow thinking that the fact that a 55yo woman has rightly decided that a) getting strong is the most important physical attribute that a older person can possess for quality of life, and b) getting strong to compete in her very competitive industry: movie-making, just the same as the women like Biles, Williams did in their industry for which the author selectively calls those women 'victims', is somehow demeaning. 

Demeaning to who? Well, after unfortunately having to read it twice, it seems her point is that it is demeaning to the hard-working women that don't have time to workout 5 times a week, calling it showing-off wealth/class. To hell with the fact that Kidman could use her public visibility to serve as a role-model that older women can be strong.

It's the same backlash of criticism from women that Billie Eilish got for making the grievous mistake of wearing baggy clothes when performing and thus angering the body-positive advocates. Cannibalism at it's worst.

And laughingly, she writes "an obsession with what has been lost", as though Kidman should be happy, at her age, sitting in a chair knitting. And her evidence to support this is to reference another actress Judi Dench, aged 87, who isn't 'obsessive' about strength and looks great for her age. Ok. So what?

And this is an author who has made a career writing about the rights of women. It is clear she has no interest in the rights of women to be who they are, if they mistakenly do not conform/abide to her own image. I thought this attitude is what these journalists supporting women's rights are fighting against. How hypocritical. I imagine the author seething over photos of 50+ actresses who have maintained their beauty.

I have some advise for this author of women's rights. Stop shaming women.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/aug/28/fab-abs-nicole-kidman-frantic-effort-to-look-half-your-age-demeaning

An invitation from the universe.

Don't know if this is fake, but it doesn't matter because this is the evidence of how small little actions like this can radically change your life or create a lifepath that can branch-out in so many different ways. This is how to do it in life. This is an action where there is no risk, only possible positives. If no one had responded then she would have just experienced a beautiful day in nature. Hardly a risk.

Each of us should be always looking out for opportunities like this to create little new paths. Because, and this is key, you never know. And that uncertainty is the beauty of life. Consider doing these small actions as putting little feelers out there which test as to how the universe will respond. And if the universe responds with it's little invitation to explore this newly created path more fully, you should take it. 

Corporations sell discontentment

 

Well, isn't this ad so depressingly awful. This is what corporations are peddling. They aren't selling lipstick. They are selling discontentment. And it's not even subliminal any more, it's in your face. You are leading a boring life without this lipstick, or car, or whatever.

And what makes me almost laugh is that they are selling something you already have. We already have happiness; it just needs to be recognised and nurtured. But they are telling us that you alone is not enough; that you must place your faith of finding happiness externally in the type of lipstick you use.

They are sowing discontentment and that cannot be excused. When, in reality, the only thing missing is the realisation that we have everything we need already. You are already enough.

People have the wrong idea about motivation

I think people have the wrong attitude and perception about motivation. Motivation shouldn't be thought of as an aid to act because that's not where it applies and can even derail your efforts. Motivation applies when you are thinking and strategising about a particular issue, and it's required actions. The motivation is needed when you really want to view an issue from all angles, fully research it, remove any emotion from your thoughts, and think of solutions with a clear and expanded view. Because only then, can the 'right' solution result.

And once you have the 'right' path, the actions don't require motivation. Your actions should just become a habit because your path is clear and these are the actions necessary for that path. People have it backwards. You can't get fired-up in order to perform the actions, you can only perform the actions and get fired-up.

An analogy of this is deciding to hit the gym. Motivation must be used to sit down with yourself, logically think, come to the realisation that you need to work on yourself physically, and research/plan it. If you require motivation each day to get in the car and head to the gym then this life-direction will probably not work in the long run. What happens if you don't have the motivation that day? No, you have to develop this into a habit where you just unthinkingly pack your gear, get in the car, walk into the gym, and start because these are simply your necessary actions.

The respect we show Christians who disrespect

 

So 7 Manly players have stood themselves down and will not play this weekend's critical game because Manly has decided to replace their usual white stripes on the jerseys with the rainbow pride colours to support inclusion.

It's just beyond my mental capabilities how Christians can continue their history of bigotry, and even worse that it is somehow accepted within society by showing respect to their thoughts in their heads which disrespect and cause real harm for 5% of the population. Society must feel that the disrespect and harm to the gay/trans community is less of an evil than the disrespect of the bigoted Christians. It has to be this way. There can be no other conclusion that my little brain can come up with.

And imagine if I am a Manly player and I come to the coach and say I can't play because the rainbow pride colours are the war colours of my god Urassty on the planet Delobus and I can't anger him. What do you think would happen?

No, society is inching slowly forward towards an inclusive future and constantly bumping into the bigotry of people using 2,000yo words in a book to attempt to retain the power and privilege the white Christian had solely because of, well, being white christians.

But let me repeat my message which must be sickeningly correct for society to operate like this. Society must feel that the disrespect and harm to the gay/trans community is less of an evil than the disrespect of the bigoted Christians.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/jul/26/nrls-pride-jersey-debacle-compounded-by-sports-power-imbalance

Abortion bans have nothing to do with the unborn child.

 Well, the US has now banned abortions at the federal level, returning their society to dirty back-alleys, mutilated and dead women, and secret visits to their 'Aunt' in another more progressive State.

This is a very worrying sign, not only because of the impact on women, but because it is the judicial system taking rights away. And yet 61% of Americans want abortion legal (Joe Biden became President with less support), so the motives of this decision are certainly not based on the will of the people.

We also have to remember that Row vs Wade was not about abortion per se. It was about the right of privacy; that a citizen has the right for privacy in matters which pertain solely to their own lives, and therefore the State could not intrude in those decisions. So it is indeed worrying that the US Supreme Court somehow justified this decision which erodes this basic human right which is the foundation of being free.

Therefore their motives must be darker. And they are. 

1) For American Christians, abortion was never an issue before the 1950s. It was deemed a 'Catholic problem' by even the most evangelical Christian churches. However, that all changed when the civil rights movement gained power in the 50s, and it culminated when the Supreme Court ruled against segregation of schools in Brown vs Board of Education. This decision incensed the whites of the Southern States of course and they needed a platform to rally the troops to fight against these progressive measures. Now they couldn't fight against integration, so they needed a new issue to fight which, without actually saying it, promoted the white supremacy ideals. And that was abortion.

And abortion was chosen because they knew it was an issue that affected the poor and people of colour disproportionally more than whites. Whites knew that regardless of an abortion ban, whites could get their precious Tiffany a safe abortion when a 'mistake' was made. So the roots of the abortion debate is racism.

2) And today, the US Supreme Court knows this and doesn't care. They know that the poor and people of colour are the victims of this decision. They know that it does not impact the rich at all. In fact, it favours the rich immensely. Because this decision puts more financial pressure on the people who can least afford it. And these people, who are forced to bear another child, now have even less freedom and therefore less ability to live free independent lives, and most importantly, mount any opposition to the rich. In other words, the abortion bans allow the rich to engage in slavery without the beatings and chains.

Don't think it has anything to do with the unborn child.

Depression vs 'Who am i?"

I think depression is the constant stress that the persona you have created of yourself does not bring you happiness. Whatever you try, it's always decided upon and seen through the lenses of your persona. And you don't know where to turn, because wherever you turn, you are there. It's like this great sentence my mum told me once: when you move, you bring yourself with you.

But true internal happiness can not come from a persona, unless you are amongst the rare individuals that have never had a deep thought in your entire life. I can be happy as Eric of course, but that is only if the persona of Eric is happy, and this is always fleeting. 

And what is the persona of Eric? Well, I've made it up. I have taken my experiences and thoughts I had when I was 10, 15, ..., 62 and formed a character. It's like an author of a book creating a character and thinking of what attributes this character will have, except I have done this with myself. But what I have forgotten is that Eric, at times, has output the full set of human personality that my DNA can produce; I've been quiet and loud, introverted and extroverted, smart and dumb, caring and indifferent, articulate and completely tongue-tied, aggressive and timid, etc. But we never ask ourselves why we were (say) extroverted on that particular day; we would probably answer "because I felt good" or something. But that's not the truth; I was extroverted that day because my persona allowed extroversion to be possible that day. Or a better way to put it is; my persona did not get in the way of any number of actions on that particular day, and extroversion just popped out... because I am capable of extroversion. 

This is why the self-created persona is bad, and greatly contributes to suffering and depression. It robs us of the range of the actions/thoughts we can have in any particular situation. 

So a person will ask: So who are we then? If a persona is made-up, then who really am I? The answer is I am all of the different personalities and characteristics I have ever projected, and I am none of them. And this answer won't sit well with people, they will say it's all hand-wavy and nebulous, and it doesn't define me as an individual. But it's true. I can be all of them or none of them, with every situation being a mixture of them.

And this concept of having the capability to be any set of characteristics on any given situation, scares some people. They want to wake up as Sally, not as just a collection of possible thoughts and actions. But Sally comes with self-imposed baggage, for her persona has been created out of fear masquerading as practicality. 

What is this fear? It is a fear that the consequences of being free is that you are lost. It is the fear that being completely yourself is not enough. And depression is the persona drowning that person in those thoughts. 

I like Eric. Overall he's a good guy. But I want to be free, and to truly be free I have to ditch my friend, Eric. I shouldn't say that... Eric is good for lots of things; like he comes in handy when I want to travel and can use his passport, so he has to stay. But he can be an albatross around my neck at times. And if my inner happiness is somehow tied to how Eric is feeling that day, well then, I'd rather not have him there if I am to be fully open to what I have been given and can harness at any given time. If I can meet every new situation with the full range of my thoughts then how could I possibly be inwardly unhappy? What would I need Eric for?

US gun-shop owners still grapple with morality

 

Why are those gun-shop owners so skittish about talking about whether the Buffalo serial killer got his weapons from them? If they believe in the US gun laws and the 2nd amendment right to own a firearm, and more importantly, their ability to arm the populace with said weapons, why are they unwilling to talk about their possible involvement? Shouldn't they have long since justified their part in the whole cesspool that is America gun ownership? 32,000 Americans die from firearms per year. Do they not see their personal connection to all of this, and produced a logic in their head which allows them to sleep at night?

I find that one gun-shop owner so interesting. Here he is... making his money on the sale of guns, which constitutes 90% of his business, yet says “If he had bought the gun from me and mowed down those poor people,” he said, “I would not be able to go to work.”. What did he think a 18yo man would be doing buying a multi-round assault rifle? Squirrel hunting?

So it seems these gun-shop owners are fine with the legality of buying/owning guns, but still haven't come to grips with the morality of it.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-local-correspondents/the-buffalo-shooter-shopped-at-their-gun-stores

Oh well. There goes our right for privacy once again.

 

This shows you how convoluted the laws are in terms of privacy. So the ABF is getting into trouble because they went into people's phone without a warrant. That's a good thing. They should get into trouble. The government has no right to invade your private spaces without legal authorisation. Your phone is just as private as your house.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/apr/08/australian-border-force-searched-822-phones-in-2021-despite-having-no-power-to-demand-passcodes

However, on the exact same day, another article came out (and I will post that link separately below) outlining that Telstra, and all major AU telcos, now scans all SMS messages. The excuse is to reduce scam messages, which to me is a pretty flaccid excuse.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/apr/07/telstra-to-scan-all-text-messages-for-malicious-content-in-anti-scam-program

But what is the difference between physical going into my phone or reading all my SMS messages? Nothing. Should I now be careful about what content I add to my SMSs? The technology on scanning SMSs for scam content could just as easily be used for any other content. My SMSs are just as personal as my phone. It is illegal for the businesses/government to listen in on your calls, why are SMSs now fair game? And as usual, these exemptions to the privacy laws and the chipping away of our human rights, start out as benign intrusions advertised as beneficial, until the governments realise the power of the information that can be gained.

Here's to the cowards at military command

 

So I've been waiting for evidence like this to come out. It follows such a familiar corrupt path with the military: military creates a killer, turns a blind eye to atrocities on the battlefield, rewards him with promotions and Victoria Cross, journalists dig up some dirt on some misdeeds, military command doesn't want the heat and sacrifices this soldier to uphold whatever honour and ethics the killing of other humans has, news leaks out that the real issue is the military command.

But they can't have that, can they? The military command can't be seen as complicit in these acts, the entire ethos of the military which trains these men to kill and allows these atrocities cannot be put on trial. So they throw these PTSD-ridden soldiers under the bus, to persuade us that there is somehow a code of honour and ethics in the system of invading another country and killing their people. Disgusting.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/apr/04/ben-roberts-smith-and-patrol-let-down-by-weak-leadership-in-sas-court-hears

Into the minds of the Russian soldiers right now

 

I find it difficult to comprehend that there are thousands of young Russian men right now that are stationed on the Ukraine border who are waiting for the order to risk their lives, their limbs, their health, their futures solely for the ambitions of some psychotic dictator. And not only that, but to go out with the desire to kill other humans, who they have no qualms against and would probably share a beer with if they met them at a pub.

What drives these young men to give the control of their lives to some megalomaniac who suffers from short-man syndrome who has $50 Billion stashed offshore yet wants more? Do these men feel they are worthless and deserving of such horrible fates? That they are only pawns to be used?

But to go out with the express intent to kill others is what really confuses me. Do they (or we all) have this inner self that is capable of such action, or are they groomed to accept the fate of sticking a bayonet into the guts of another person who they do not know and whose only 'crime' is an allegiance to some other piece of land on the planet. And 99.9999% of these thousands of men have never killed before. What allegiance to a leader is worth the nightmarish psychological leap of actually killing another person?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/feb/20/russia-invasion-ukraine-biden-blinken-us-national-security-council

Tax cuts. Tax cuts.

 

Tax cuts. Tax cuts. Tax cuts. The goto strategy for a government that can't govern. The quick fix which fixes nothing, in fact makes everything worse.

Tax cuts are always regressive and favour the rich. For this tax cut, the bottom 40% of wage earners get just 2% of the benefits.

Tax cuts is like getting a pay-raise at work. For the 1st month after a raise, you think the company is the greatest thing on the planet, and you come in early/leave late, then the raise becomes normal and life becomes exactly the same as it was and your hatred of the company and your job returns.

Tax cuts are done so you can consume more. Simple as that. You might upgrade your phone, or replace that 10yo microwave but life becomes the same. What isn't the same is that $184 Billion is removed from the government's coffers, and this is where life becomes worse for all of us other than the rich. You need new medical facilities in your area? Sorry, it's not in the budget. Your kid needs additional NDIS funding for further treatments. Sorry, we can't afford it. Your school teacher/student ratio has increased to 30-to-1 and needs new computers. Sorry, no new funds for education.

What we all want, and what we need in society to increase our overall well-being is a government that has the resources to supply the aggregate services that we need. And the rich, who will get the bulk of these tax-cuts, don't really care about aggregation because they can afford private schools, and pay for any required services they need anyway. So the person who gets a whopping $15 per week tax-cut suffers, and since this is the bulk of the people in society we all suffer.

The government, and any government that cuts taxes, have it all ass-backwards. Society prospers when the tax-rates for profitable companies and rich people is high. Then the divide between the rich and the poor is lower, the middle class has access to the necessary government services, and resources such as medical care, education, disability services can be fully funded.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/feb/17/men-on-high-incomes-to-take-lions-share-of-coalitions-184bn-tax-cuts-analyses-find

Those pesky little religious people are at it again. Those wily rascals.

 

It's beyond me how a modern society can still condone and participate in the medieval practices of a group which has had a privilege for so long that equality now seems like oppression. To petition the government to give them the ability to discriminate against 5% of the people solely based on thoughts in their heads and the excuse of "Well, we've always discriminated against them so we want to continue" is laughable if it wasn't so evil.

So they are in an uproar because they can't expel kids based on sexuality. They want to damage kids as collateral damage to protect the very institutions that promote this discrimination. It is to protect an ethos formed from a single sentence in a 3,000yo book, and if they damage these kids or people lose their jobs, well, so be it.

And the reasoning is childish. “simply wanting to uphold scientific truth and the Christian worldview of human sexuality”. I assume when they talk of 'truth', they are talking about our physical bits which is a red herring. Who cares about the physical bits. People have the right to be who they are. But they mention 'truth' yet still feel that being gay is a choice or lifestyle. Where's the truth there? And this talk of their worldview makes me want to puke. Who cares about your worldview when you want to force your dogma onto society adversely affecting people who just want to live their lives in peace.

And... “This is a sad day for all Australians and particularly faith schools as it has put religious freedom and free speech at risk”. As I said, they believe equality is oppression. And people don't understand this concept of free speech. Free speech allows you to publicly voice your opinion on anything, but it does not mean that there are no consequences that others may levy on you for that opinion. These people feel that free speech is some get-out-of-jail card which has never been the case.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/03/christian-lobby-groups-attack-morrison-for-vowing-students-wont-be-expelled-due-to-their-sexuality-or-gender

The human species has done bloody well

 

I think the human species has done bloody well. Our roots is a messy violent evolutionary path. We were little scurrying fearful animals like merkats back whenever. Now we have laws, and morality, and care. Got to think of the good that we have. 2,000 years ago we lived until 40.

You had a good run, America.

 

You had a good run, America. No need to be melancholy about the downfall.

Interesting that money, which vaulted the US into the consumer capital of the world and created the gazillion of billionaires, is the thing that will bring down your country. Can't have your cake and eat it too, you know.

You had a good go with your profit-based healthcare, and your profit-based prison system, and your profit-based asset-forfeiture-loving police forces, and your profit-based labour laws, and your profit-based hate of 'socialistic' programs unless they are for the rich. You only lasted this long because of FDR.

But your idolised founding fathers (aka founding white supremacists) didn't want democracy, so what can you do?

The dilemma of killing animals

We are getting to the point of a real dilemma. On the one hand, we have 8 billion people on the planet to feed and every single day, 240,000 new mouths to feed.

On the other hand, we are gaining compassion about the other species and we understand more every day about their unique intelligent and sentience. We protect and care for some species like this whale and slaughter others.

We now have classed octopus and squids as sentient creatures. Do sentient creatures have rights? Perhaps the most basic of them; the right to live?

As we continue to research the animals, we will understand that we are not on the top of the evolutionary pyramid. Such a concept will be absurd. What it will look like is not a pyramid but a mountain range. With the various species all occupying their own unique mountain of consciousness, sentience, and intelligence. One mountain being no more privileged than another. Why is our bigger brains more privileged than the ability to migrate thousands of kilometres every year, or the ability to regrow an appendage?

For example, birds. Birds do not come from an evolutionary path of fear like mammals. At the end of the dinosaur period, mammals were small fearful animals like today's merkats. Always fearful, always vigilant, and we have kept this fear in our evolutionary path as an important factor in our survival. Birds did not start this way. Birds evolved from dinosaurs and upon having the ability to fly away from danger, became less reliant on fear as a positive evolutionary factor. Of course, they need to recognise danger but their ability to fly away from danger means that fear is much less a part of their genetic makeup as humans who have little natural defences. In this respect, birds have the ability to evolve much faster then humans when the evolutionary requirement for fear is less. Their mountain may become higher than the human's.

So we have a dilemma, and this dilemma will grow in importance as we gain more understanding of sentience, and also gain compassion as we transform to a less tribal species.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jan/17/entangled-humpback-whales-sad-fate-has-researchers-calling-for-action-on-fishing-nets

Djokovic loves the rules of the rich

 

Well, isn't this dandy. Just more evidence that there are two sets of rules in this society. One for the rich, one for everyone else.

I can certainly imagine that a tennis player ranked (say) 100 in the world would, of course, be given the same exemption. Because the rules apply to everyone equally, right?

And it creates a terrible message for the measures that we Australians have had to do in the previous months to try to mitigate the damage of the virus here. But hey. So long as Djokovic can get his $2 million prize for winning, makes it all worthwhile for me.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/jan/04/novak-djokovic-secures-medical-exemption-to-play-in-australian-open-tennis

My thoughts on Brian Cox's wise words

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntaidEKs_Ks

Brian Cox talks of the the movie Don't Look Up, a satire (hopefully!) about the struggles astrophysicists have to convince everyone of an impending comet strike. And I think there is some wisdom in what he says which may be applicable to this sub. Please delete this if not.

1st, he talks that the universe is a violent place. And a corollary to this, it is a fragile place. It is not fine-tuned for anything other than an existence based on it's physical laws. And we know this. Amongst the sheer number of events which could harm us, an asteroid or comet could wipe us out as it did for the dinosaurs. We only have to look at the Moon with it's millions of impact craters to know the power of nature and the absolute certainty of long probabilities.

2nd, he talks of 'meaning'. And I love how he phrases it that "we may be the only ones in the galaxy that can think about meaning". So we need to be humble and truthful about what actually constitutes meaning for us. In other words, 'meaning' may be a very precious thing and we need to think deeply on what it truly is.

3rd, he talks of his concern with all the 'noise' which is a central part of the movie. How do we make people pay attention to what is real amongst this increasing noise. So we owe it to ourselves and the long evolutionary progression of our species to be inquisitive about what is the truth. And we know full well what this truth is. And we all know that this truth is what is important for our species to continue to move forward. Cox is right; people spend more time on their favourite footballer than the things that truly matter.

Lastly, it's a poignant moment at the end when DiCarpio says "we really did have it all". And I agree. We have won the cosmic lottery by being born sentient creatures on this gorgeous planet. We should be respectful and appreciative of this fact. We should come at life based on a sense of gratitude rather than we are damaged souls in a damaged world.