Hi everyone,

I thought I would discuss a YouTube video that, while not extremely compelling to me and while featuring an actor who, although he doesn't offend me that much, seems determined to continue writing skits that seem to be about my life without my permission, in spite of my lack of consent to this, my unfortunate circumstances, and my status as an uncompensated US law-abiding citizen, inspired me to think of an interesting question: Why isn't there more high-energy music, of the sort there was in 2009 and 2010, these days?....

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

My immediate reaction was to ask myself: Is this a phenomenon driven by some sort of supply-side protest, perhaps related to song-writer dissatisfaction with the treatment of high-energy pop music creators such as Kesha Sebert and Britney Spears or the creation of new jobs that draw high-energy-only songwriters (??) away from popular music composition to other roles? Or, did cultural attitudes change nationally in the US, due to some political or societal shift in collective interests in music? (What happened to alt rock bands like Linkin Park from the early 2000's?) As a third possibility, did some innovative breakthrough in technology, such as an artificial intelligence or other CS breakthrough, lead to a modification of the music landscape that could be explained by forces other than strictly economic forces (e.g., I presented powerful ideas about relativization on this forum and cstheory.stackexchange.com; perhaps more people suddenly figured out PSPACE = PH based on my ideas, and gained access to technologies related to genetic algorithms or annealing?)? Finally, I considered that it might be possible that some sort of plot--either a very old plot with a recently-activated condition, such as one created by a legal scholar, or some sort of political action by a powerful, well-known, knowledgeable, or wealthy figure--was undertaken to methodically bring about an outcome of this nature.

If you listen to music over the past decade, there is much less electronic and upbeat or high-energy music than there was in 2009 in particular. As a long-time music fan, I remember songs like "Sweet Escape" by Gwen Stefani in 2007, and electronic music bands like "The Prodigy" and "The Crystal Method" that really went away in a real sense after 2012 in particular, even before Keith Flint's tragic suicide in 2019.

My unproved guess is that it has something to do with demand from fans. If you listen to The Crystal Method's latest album that I remember, "The Trip Home," you can see that like many of TCM's previous albums, this music represents another big change from TCM's previous sound.

This is just anecdotal evidence and one example, but I suppose the interesting question to pose is: Why isn't there more high-energy pop music produced by the media these days? If it is a demand-from-fans issue, then what happened to our society to change demand for music?

-Philip White (philipjwhite@yahoo.com)

On Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 6:02:01 PM UTC-5, B.H. wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I thought I would discuss a YouTube video that, while not extremely compelling to me and while featuring an actor who, although he doesn't offend me that much, seems determined to continue writing skits that seem to be about my life without my permission, in spite of my lack of consent to this, my unfortunate circumstances, and my status as an uncompensated US law-abiding citizen, inspired me to think of an interesting question: Why isn't there more high-energy music, of the sort there was in 2009 and 2010, these days?...
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrNOYudaMAc
>
> My immediate reaction was to ask myself: Is this a phenomenon driven by some sort of supply-side protest, perhaps related to song-writer dissatisfaction with the treatment of high-energy pop music creators such as Kesha Sebert and Britney Spears or the creation of new jobs that draw high-energy-only songwriters (??) away from popular music composition to other roles? Or, did cultural attitudes change nationally in the US, due to some political or societal shift in collective interests in music? (What happened to alt rock bands like Linkin Park from the early 2000's?) As a third possibility, did some innovative breakthrough in technology, such as an artificial intelligence or other CS breakthrough, lead to a modification of the music landscape that could be explained by forces other than strictly economic forces (e.g., I presented powerful ideas about relativization on this forum and cstheory.stackexchange.com; perhaps more people suddenly figured out PSPACE = PH based on my ideas, and gained access to technologies related to genetic algorithms or annealing?)? Finally, I considered that it might be possible that some sort of plot--either a very old plot with a recently-activated condition, such as one created by a legal scholar, or some sort of political action by a powerful, well-known, knowledgeable, or wealthy figure--was undertaken to methodically bring about an outcome of this nature.
>
> If you listen to music over the past decade, there is much less electronic and upbeat or high-energy music than there was in 2009 in particular. As a long-time music fan, I remember songs like "Sweet Escape" by Gwen Stefani in 2007, and electronic music bands like "The Prodigy" and "The Crystal Method" that really went away in a real sense after 2012 in particular, even before Keith Flint's tragic suicide in 2019.
>
> My unproved guess is that it has something to do with demand from fans. If you listen to The Crystal Method's latest album that I remember, "The Trip Home," you can see that like many of TCM's previous albums, this music represents another big change from TCM's previous sound.
>
> This is just anecdotal evidence and one example, but I suppose the interesting question to pose is: Why isn't there more high-energy pop music produced by the media these days? If it is a demand-from-fans issue, then what happened to our society to change demand for music?
>
> -Philip White (philip...@yahoo.com)

One TCS-related possibility I just thought of is: Something happened to the "career graph" in the US economy. If you think of the idea of altenating-P problems about directed graphs, you might vaguely consider the idea of "I have a career path from node to node that is good for me" and "I as a business have the ability to modify the graph so that for all career paths for adversary X, such career paths do not threaten my competitive interests." That idea is very vague, but just as game theory is relevant to decision making in economics, so too can problems in graph theory (potentially) be related to challenges for firms and people in strategic "path-charting tasks" in terms of navigating node-wise expressed economic terrain.

It is possible that PH = PSPACE, which was likely not widely known at first, led to some big tech firms taking actions that influenced the economy to be very much more efficient in terms of job-search--I would bet that maybe "job search skills" became much less relevant than on-the-job skills, due to this release of "automated career/business strategy" that some would take advantage of once the "viral concept" was "in the professional graph," so to speak.

Perhaps the sudden increased understanding by firms of PH = PSPACE, coupled with widespread government and corporate corruption, wiped out highly competitive jobs in fields like science/technology and art, perhaps among others, due to a sudden mysterious change in what it takes to get and keep a job--I would bet that interviewing skill and job search strategies stopped working as well as simply "proving you've got a job-relevant capability," perhaps on the internet (you might say that the job market got less interested in how you present yourself and more interested in what you do on the job). To come to another point, it seems that this could be another way to look at the causes of the coronavirus--quietly decreased morale in elite STEM and art career fields might have "teamed up with corruption," which I've clearly demonstrated to exist in STEM academia on this forum, to create an environment where highly skilled workers can't or won't work productively for long.

Actually, if you think about it, this addendum post that I've just written showcases some more very excellent reasons to hire me immediately into a computer programming job, regardless of what nay-sayers might try to tell you about me; the benefits of hiring me very astronomically outweigh the costs, and it is rather upsetting, perhaps and hopefully not just to me, that the computer programming market in general seems not to have perceived this fact. It is sad, actually; the job market is both asleep with its eyes seemingly glued shut and also quite sick, with very sad consequences.

-Philip White

On Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 6:24:11 PM UTC-5, B.H. wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 6:02:01 PM UTC-5, B.H. wrote:
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > I thought I would discuss a YouTube video that, while not extremely compelling to me and while featuring an actor who, although he doesn't offend me that much, seems determined to continue writing skits that seem to be about my life without my permission, in spite of my lack of consent to this, my unfortunate circumstances, and my status as an uncompensated US law-abiding citizen, inspired me to think of an interesting question: Why isn't there more high-energy music, of the sort there was in 2009 and 2010, these days?...
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrNOYudaMAc
> >
> > My immediate reaction was to ask myself: Is this a phenomenon driven by some sort of supply-side protest, perhaps related to song-writer dissatisfaction with the treatment of high-energy pop music creators such as Kesha Sebert and Britney Spears or the creation of new jobs that draw high-energy-only songwriters (??) away from popular music composition to other roles? Or, did cultural attitudes change nationally in the US, due to some political or societal shift in collective interests in music? (What happened to alt rock bands like Linkin Park from the early 2000's?) As a third possibility, did some innovative breakthrough in technology, such as an artificial intelligence or other CS breakthrough, lead to a modification of the music landscape that could be explained by forces other than strictly economic forces (e.g., I presented powerful ideas about relativization on this forum and cstheory.stackexchange.com; perhaps more people suddenly figured out PSPACE = PH based on my ideas, and gained access to technologies related to genetic algorithms or annealing?)? Finally, I considered that it might be possible that some sort of plot--either a very old plot with a recently-activated condition, such as one created by a legal scholar, or some sort of political action by a powerful, well-known, knowledgeable, or wealthy figure--was undertaken to methodically bring about an outcome of this nature.
> >
> > If you listen to music over the past decade, there is much less electronic and upbeat or high-energy music than there was in 2009 in particular. As a long-time music fan, I remember songs like "Sweet Escape" by Gwen Stefani in 2007, and electronic music bands like "The Prodigy" and "The Crystal Method" that really went away in a real sense after 2012 in particular, even before Keith Flint's tragic suicide in 2019.
> >
> > My unproved guess is that it has something to do with demand from fans. If you listen to The Crystal Method's latest album that I remember, "The Trip Home," you can see that like many of TCM's previous albums, this music represents another big change from TCM's previous sound.
> >
> > This is just anecdotal evidence and one example, but I suppose the interesting question to pose is: Why isn't there more high-energy pop music produced by the media these days? If it is a demand-from-fans issue, then what happened to our society to change demand for music?
> >
> > -Philip White (philip...@yahoo.com)
> One TCS-related possibility I just thought of is: Something happened to the "career graph" in the US economy. If you think of the idea of altenating-P problems about directed graphs, you might vaguely consider the idea of "I have a career path from node to node that is good for me" and "I as a business have the ability to modify the graph so that for all career paths for adversary X, such career paths do not threaten my competitive interests." That idea is very vague, but just as game theory is relevant to decision making in economics, so too can problems in graph theory (potentially) be related to challenges for firms and people in strategic "path-charting tasks" in terms of navigating node-wise expressed economic terrain.
>
> It is possible that PH = PSPACE, which was likely not widely known at first, led to some big tech firms taking actions that influenced the economy to be very much more efficient in terms of job-search--I would bet that maybe "job search skills" became much less relevant than on-the-job skills, due to this release of "automated career/business strategy" that some would take advantage of once the "viral concept" was "in the professional graph," so to speak.
>
> Perhaps the sudden increased understanding by firms of PH = PSPACE, coupled with widespread government and corporate corruption, wiped out highly competitive jobs in fields like science/technology and art, perhaps among others, due to a sudden mysterious change in what it takes to get and keep a job--I would bet that interviewing skill and job search strategies stopped working as well as simply "proving you've got a job-relevant capability," perhaps on the internet (you might say that the job market got less interested in how you present yourself and more interested in what you do on the job). To come to another point, it seems that this could be another way to look at the causes of the coronavirus--quietly decreased morale in elite STEM and art career fields might have "teamed up with corruption," which I've clearly demonstrated to exist in STEM academia on this forum, to create an environment where highly skilled workers can't or won't work productively for long.
>
> Actually, if you think about it, this addendum post that I've just written showcases some more very excellent reasons to hire me immediately into a computer programming job, regardless of what nay-sayers might try to tell you about me; the benefits of hiring me very astronomically outweigh the costs, and it is rather upsetting, perhaps and hopefully not just to me, that the computer programming market in general seems not to have perceived this fact. It is sad, actually; the job market is both asleep with its eyes seemingly glued shut and also quite sick, with very sad consequences.
>
> -Philip White

(The idea of the graph game, which is not well-known to scholars I don't think, is: You have a big graph, and you chart a course from node A to node B for you, perhaps with a particular (edge-weight-driven?) cost to the path.. In addition to following your course, you also might "occupy and control/block" some of the nodes along the way--like if you got a job at firm X and told everyone that employee-type Y is terrible and should never be hired by the firm again. Thus, you can ask and efficiently answer TQBF-like questions about this graph, for example: "Does there exist a path for me such that for all strategies for opponent B, B has a path that blocks out his/her opponents C, D, and E, but B's strategies only help me or are neutral with respect too me?" I suspect no one thought of this exact problem, but likely, other TQBF-like problems in PSPACE were attacked, and that led to comparable results--results that differ only slightly, in the sense that all such related problems are PTIME reducible to TQBF. If I'm right, this has led to a situation where people are not always correct or aware or powerful with respect to questions of "if and how they have been 'blocked' in their activities"--the average person doesn't actually know what he/she can or can't do, leading to some vicious cycles where people feel compelled not to do things that seem difficult that are actually easier than people think, leading in turn to actual failures for certain things to happen, since people can't find anyone to work with them on certain projects--a lot of people feel unempowered, I think. The problem is still "failure to stop attacking politically unpopular people in illegal ways" and "failure to stop keeping important stories/articles out of the news and academia"; this is another way to express it. I think things will improve when political bad-guys start losing everything over highly illegal activities, which I predict should start to happen soon. If my analysis is right, which it might not be, the best way to stop this from hurting you if it is going to hurt you is to not break any laws.)

On Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 6:43:13 PM UTC-5, B.H. wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 6:24:11 PM UTC-5, B.H. wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 6:02:01 PM UTC-5, B.H. wrote:
> > > Hi everyone,
> > >
> > > I thought I would discuss a YouTube video that, while not extremely compelling to me and while featuring an actor who, although he doesn't offend me that much, seems determined to continue writing skits that seem to be about my life without my permission, in spite of my lack of consent to this, my unfortunate circumstances, and my status as an uncompensated US law-abiding citizen, inspired me to think of an interesting question: Why isn't there more high-energy music, of the sort there was in 2009 and 2010, these days?...
> > >
> > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrNOYudaMAc
> > >
> > > My immediate reaction was to ask myself: Is this a phenomenon driven by some sort of supply-side protest, perhaps related to song-writer dissatisfaction with the treatment of high-energy pop music creators such as Kesha Sebert and Britney Spears or the creation of new jobs that draw high-energy-only songwriters (??) away from popular music composition to other roles? Or, did cultural attitudes change nationally in the US, due to some political or societal shift in collective interests in music? (What happened to alt rock bands like Linkin Park from the early 2000's?) As a third possibility, did some innovative breakthrough in technology, such as an artificial intelligence or other CS breakthrough, lead to a modification of the music landscape that could be explained by forces other than strictly economic forces (e.g., I presented powerful ideas about relativization on this forum and cstheory.stackexchange.com; perhaps more people suddenly figured out PSPACE = PH based on my ideas, and gained access to technologies related to genetic algorithms or annealing?)? Finally, I considered that it might be possible that some sort of plot--either a very old plot with a recently-activated condition, such as one created by a legal scholar, or some sort of political action by a powerful, well-known, knowledgeable, or wealthy figure--was undertaken to methodically bring about an outcome of this nature.
> > >
> > > If you listen to music over the past decade, there is much less electronic and upbeat or high-energy music than there was in 2009 in particular. As a long-time music fan, I remember songs like "Sweet Escape" by Gwen Stefani in 2007, and electronic music bands like "The Prodigy" and "The Crystal Method" that really went away in a real sense after 2012 in particular, even before Keith Flint's tragic suicide in 2019.
> > >
> > > My unproved guess is that it has something to do with demand from fans. If you listen to The Crystal Method's latest album that I remember, "The Trip Home," you can see that like many of TCM's previous albums, this music represents another big change from TCM's previous sound.
> > >
> > > This is just anecdotal evidence and one example, but I suppose the interesting question to pose is: Why isn't there more high-energy pop music produced by the media these days? If it is a demand-from-fans issue, then what happened to our society to change demand for music?
> > >
> > > -Philip White (philip...@yahoo.com)
> > One TCS-related possibility I just thought of is: Something happened to the "career graph" in the US economy. If you think of the idea of altenating-P problems about directed graphs, you might vaguely consider the idea of "I have a career path from node to node that is good for me" and "I as a business have the ability to modify the graph so that for all career paths for adversary X, such career paths do not threaten my competitive interests." That idea is very vague, but just as game theory is relevant to decision making in economics, so too can problems in graph theory (potentially) be related to challenges for firms and people in strategic "path-charting tasks" in terms of navigating node-wise expressed economic terrain.
> >
> > It is possible that PH = PSPACE, which was likely not widely known at first, led to some big tech firms taking actions that influenced the economy to be very much more efficient in terms of job-search--I would bet that maybe "job search skills" became much less relevant than on-the-job skills, due to this release of "automated career/business strategy" that some would take advantage of once the "viral concept" was "in the professional graph," so to speak.
> >
> > Perhaps the sudden increased understanding by firms of PH = PSPACE, coupled with widespread government and corporate corruption, wiped out highly competitive jobs in fields like science/technology and art, perhaps among others, due to a sudden mysterious change in what it takes to get and keep a job--I would bet that interviewing skill and job search strategies stopped working as well as simply "proving you've got a job-relevant capability," perhaps on the internet (you might say that the job market got less interested in how you present yourself and more interested in what you do on the job). To come to another point, it seems that this could be another way to look at the causes of the coronavirus--quietly decreased morale in elite STEM and art career fields might have "teamed up with corruption," which I've clearly demonstrated to exist in STEM academia on this forum, to create an environment where highly skilled workers can't or won't work productively for long.
> >
> > Actually, if you think about it, this addendum post that I've just written showcases some more very excellent reasons to hire me immediately into a computer programming job, regardless of what nay-sayers might try to tell you about me; the benefits of hiring me very astronomically outweigh the costs, and it is rather upsetting, perhaps and hopefully not just to me, that the computer programming market in general seems not to have perceived this fact. It is sad, actually; the job market is both asleep with its eyes seemingly glued shut and also quite sick, with very sad consequences.
> >
> > -Philip White
> (The idea of the graph game, which is not well-known to scholars I don't think, is: You have a big graph, and you chart a course from node A to node B for you, perhaps with a particular (edge-weight-driven?) cost to the path. In addition to following your course, you also might "occupy and control/block" some of the nodes along the way--like if you got a job at firm X and told everyone that employee-type Y is terrible and should never be hired by the firm again. Thus, you can ask and efficiently answer TQBF-like questions about this graph, for example: "Does there exist a path for me such that for all strategies for opponent B, B has a path that blocks out his/her opponents C, D, and E, but B's strategies only help me or are neutral with respect too me?" I suspect no one thought of this exact problem, but likely, other TQBF-like problems in PSPACE were attacked, and that led to comparable results--results that differ only slightly, in the sense that all such related problems are PTIME reducible to TQBF. If I'm right, this has led to a situation where people are not always correct or aware or powerful with respect to questions of "if and how they have been 'blocked' in their activities"--the average person doesn't actually know what he/she can or can't do, leading to some vicious cycles where people feel compelled not to do things that seem difficult that are actually easier than people think, leading in turn to actual failures for certain things to happen, since people can't find anyone to work with them on certain projects--a lot of people feel unempowered, I think. The problem is still "failure to stop attacking politically unpopular people in illegal ways" and "failure to stop keeping important stories/articles out of the news and academia"; this is another way to express it. I think things will improve when political bad-guys start losing everything over highly illegal activities, which I predict should start to happen soon. If my analysis is right, which it might not be, the best way to stop this from hurting you if it is going to hurt you is to not break any laws.)

(Basically, the consequence of the deletion of me from society and the economy, as the world's best math/CS thinker, has been chaos over the past decade--new algorithms that are not widely known have been playing games that no one knew existed with people's careers and businesses for over the past decade, due to my removal from society and also my inability to publish or discuss research I've done when I publish it (which is important and generally helpful), since the PSPACE-problem-solver algorithms that are quietly being run on data on the internet can be thought of as influencing the internet in ways that have not been studied--I believe that no one thought of the connection I posted above other than me, a few minutes ago. You might think what I'm saying is crazy; it just means you don't understand the math/CS/physics of it...it's like a person from medieval times not understanding what an armed police officer is, it doesn't mean the person who tried to warn you is delusional or wrong at all.)

On Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 6:53:04 PM UTC-5, B.H. wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 6:43:13 PM UTC-5, B.H. wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 6:24:11 PM UTC-5, B.H. wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 6:02:01 PM UTC-5, B.H. wrote:
> > > > Hi everyone,
> > > >
> > > > I thought I would discuss a YouTube video that, while not extremely compelling to me and while featuring an actor who, although he doesn't offend me that much, seems determined to continue writing skits that seem to be about my life without my permission, in spite of my lack of consent to this, my unfortunate circumstances, and my status as an uncompensated US law-abiding citizen, inspired me to think of an interesting question: Why isn't there more high-energy music, of the sort there was in 2009 and 2010, these days?...
> > > >
> > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrNOYudaMAc
> > > >
> > > > My immediate reaction was to ask myself: Is this a phenomenon driven by some sort of supply-side protest, perhaps related to song-writer dissatisfaction with the treatment of high-energy pop music creators such as Kesha Sebert and Britney Spears or the creation of new jobs that draw high-energy-only songwriters (??) away from popular music composition to other roles? Or, did cultural attitudes change nationally in the US, due to some political or societal shift in collective interests in music? (What happened to alt rock bands like Linkin Park from the early 2000's?) As a third possibility, did some innovative breakthrough in technology, such as an artificial intelligence or other CS breakthrough, lead to a modification of the music landscape that could be explained by forces other than strictly economic forces (e.g., I presented powerful ideas about relativization on this forum and cstheory.stackexchange.com; perhaps more people suddenly figured out PSPACE = PH based on my ideas, and gained access to technologies related to genetic algorithms or annealing?)? Finally, I considered that it might be possible that some sort of plot--either a very old plot with a recently-activated condition, such as one created by a legal scholar, or some sort of political action by a powerful, well-known, knowledgeable, or wealthy figure--was undertaken to methodically bring about an outcome of this nature.
> > > >
> > > > If you listen to music over the past decade, there is much less electronic and upbeat or high-energy music than there was in 2009 in particular. As a long-time music fan, I remember songs like "Sweet Escape" by Gwen Stefani in 2007, and electronic music bands like "The Prodigy" and "The Crystal Method" that really went away in a real sense after 2012 in particular, even before Keith Flint's tragic suicide in 2019.
> > > >
> > > > My unproved guess is that it has something to do with demand from fans. If you listen to The Crystal Method's latest album that I remember, "The Trip Home," you can see that like many of TCM's previous albums, this music represents another big change from TCM's previous sound.
> > > >
> > > > This is just anecdotal evidence and one example, but I suppose the interesting question to pose is: Why isn't there more high-energy pop music produced by the media these days? If it is a demand-from-fans issue, then what happened to our society to change demand for music?
> > > >
> > > > -Philip White (philip...@yahoo.com)
> > > One TCS-related possibility I just thought of is: Something happened to the "career graph" in the US economy. If you think of the idea of altenating-P problems about directed graphs, you might vaguely consider the idea of "I have a career path from node to node that is good for me" and "I as a business have the ability to modify the graph so that for all career paths for adversary X, such career paths do not threaten my competitive interests." That idea is very vague, but just as game theory is relevant to decision making in economics, so too can problems in graph theory (potentially) be related to challenges for firms and people in strategic "path-charting tasks" in terms of navigating node-wise expressed economic terrain.
> > >
> > > It is possible that PH = PSPACE, which was likely not widely known at first, led to some big tech firms taking actions that influenced the economy to be very much more efficient in terms of job-search--I would bet that maybe "job search skills" became much less relevant than on-the-job skills, due to this release of "automated career/business strategy" that some would take advantage of once the "viral concept" was "in the professional graph," so to speak.
> > >
> > > Perhaps the sudden increased understanding by firms of PH = PSPACE, coupled with widespread government and corporate corruption, wiped out highly competitive jobs in fields like science/technology and art, perhaps among others, due to a sudden mysterious change in what it takes to get and keep a job--I would bet that interviewing skill and job search strategies stopped working as well as simply "proving you've got a job-relevant capability," perhaps on the internet (you might say that the job market got less interested in how you present yourself and more interested in what you do on the job). To come to another point, it seems that this could be another way to look at the causes of the coronavirus--quietly decreased morale in elite STEM and art career fields might have "teamed up with corruption," which I've clearly demonstrated to exist in STEM academia on this forum, to create an environment where highly skilled workers can't or won't work productively for long.
> > >
> > > Actually, if you think about it, this addendum post that I've just written showcases some more very excellent reasons to hire me immediately into a computer programming job, regardless of what nay-sayers might try to tell you about me; the benefits of hiring me very astronomically outweigh the costs, and it is rather upsetting, perhaps and hopefully not just to me, that the computer programming market in general seems not to have perceived this fact. It is sad, actually; the job market is both asleep with its eyes seemingly glued shut and also quite sick, with very sad consequences.
> > >
> > > -Philip White
> > (The idea of the graph game, which is not well-known to scholars I don't think, is: You have a big graph, and you chart a course from node A to node B for you, perhaps with a particular (edge-weight-driven?) cost to the path. In addition to following your course, you also might "occupy and control/block" some of the nodes along the way--like if you got a job at firm X and told everyone that employee-type Y is terrible and should never be hired by the firm again. Thus, you can ask and efficiently answer TQBF-like questions about this graph, for example: "Does there exist a path for me such that for all strategies for opponent B, B has a path that blocks out his/her opponents C, D, and E, but B's strategies only help me or are neutral with respect too me?" I suspect no one thought of this exact problem, but likely, other TQBF-like problems in PSPACE were attacked, and that led to comparable results--results that differ only slightly, in the sense that all such related problems are PTIME reducible to TQBF. If I'm right, this has led to a situation where people are not always correct or aware or powerful with respect to questions of "if and how they have been 'blocked' in their activities"--the average person doesn't actually know what he/she can or can't do, leading to some vicious cycles where people feel compelled not to do things that seem difficult that are actually easier than people think, leading in turn to actual failures for certain things to happen, since people can't find anyone to work with them on certain projects--a lot of people feel unempowered, I think. The problem is still "failure to stop attacking politically unpopular people in illegal ways" and "failure to stop keeping important stories/articles out of the news and academia"; this is another way to express it. I think things will improve when political bad-guys start losing everything over highly illegal activities, which I predict should start to happen soon. If my analysis is right, which it might not be, the best way to stop this from hurting you if it is going to hurt you is to not break any laws.)
> (Basically, the consequence of the deletion of me from society and the economy, as the world's best math/CS thinker, has been chaos over the past decade--new algorithms that are not widely known have been playing games that no one knew existed with people's careers and businesses for over the past decade, due to my removal from society and also my inability to publish or discuss research I've done when I publish it (which is important and generally helpful), since the PSPACE-problem-solver algorithms that are quietly being run on data on the internet can be thought of as influencing the internet in ways that have not been studied--I believe that no one thought of the connection I posted above other than me, a few minutes ago. You might think what I'm saying is crazy; it just means you don't understand the math/CS/physics of it...it's like a person from medieval times not understanding what an armed police officer is, it doesn't mean the person who tried to warn you is delusional or wrong at all.)

On Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 10:10:58 PM UTC-5, B.H. wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 6:53:04 PM UTC-5, B.H. wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 6:43:13 PM UTC-5, B.H. wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 6:24:11 PM UTC-5, B.H. wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 6:02:01 PM UTC-5, B.H. wrote:
> > > > > Hi everyone,
> > > > >
> > > > > I thought I would discuss a YouTube video that, while not extremely compelling to me and while featuring an actor who, although he doesn't offend me that much, seems determined to continue writing skits that seem to be about my life without my permission, in spite of my lack of consent to this, my unfortunate circumstances, and my status as an uncompensated US law-abiding citizen, inspired me to think of an interesting question: Why isn't there more high-energy music, of the sort there was in 2009 and 2010, these days?...
> > > > >
> > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrNOYudaMAc
> > > > >
> > > > > My immediate reaction was to ask myself: Is this a phenomenon driven by some sort of supply-side protest, perhaps related to song-writer dissatisfaction with the treatment of high-energy pop music creators such as Kesha Sebert and Britney Spears or the creation of new jobs that draw high-energy-only songwriters (??) away from popular music composition to other roles? Or, did cultural attitudes change nationally in the US, due to some political or societal shift in collective interests in music? (What happened to alt rock bands like Linkin Park from the early 2000's?) As a third possibility, did some innovative breakthrough in technology, such as an artificial intelligence or other CS breakthrough, lead to a modification of the music landscape that could be explained by forces other than strictly economic forces (e.g., I presented powerful ideas about relativization on this forum and cstheory.stackexchange.com; perhaps more people suddenly figured out PSPACE = PH based on my ideas, and gained access to technologies related to genetic algorithms or annealing?)? Finally, I considered that it might be possible that some sort of plot--either a very old plot with a recently-activated condition, such as one created by a legal scholar, or some sort of political action by a powerful, well-known, knowledgeable, or wealthy figure--was undertaken to methodically bring about an outcome of this nature.
> > > > >
> > > > > If you listen to music over the past decade, there is much less electronic and upbeat or high-energy music than there was in 2009 in particular. As a long-time music fan, I remember songs like "Sweet Escape" by Gwen Stefani in 2007, and electronic music bands like "The Prodigy" and "The Crystal Method" that really went away in a real sense after 2012 in particular, even before Keith Flint's tragic suicide in 2019.
> > > > >
> > > > > My unproved guess is that it has something to do with demand from fans. If you listen to The Crystal Method's latest album that I remember, "The Trip Home," you can see that like many of TCM's previous albums, this music represents another big change from TCM's previous sound.
> > > > >
> > > > > This is just anecdotal evidence and one example, but I suppose the interesting question to pose is: Why isn't there more high-energy pop music produced by the media these days? If it is a demand-from-fans issue, then what happened to our society to change demand for music?
> > > > >
> > > > > -Philip White (philip...@yahoo.com)
> > > > One TCS-related possibility I just thought of is: Something happened to the "career graph" in the US economy. If you think of the idea of altenating-P problems about directed graphs, you might vaguely consider the idea of "I have a career path from node to node that is good for me" and "I as a business have the ability to modify the graph so that for all career paths for adversary X, such career paths do not threaten my competitive interests." That idea is very vague, but just as game theory is relevant to decision making in economics, so too can problems in graph theory (potentially) be related to challenges for firms and people in strategic "path-charting tasks" in terms of navigating node-wise expressed economic terrain.
> > > >
> > > > It is possible that PH = PSPACE, which was likely not widely known at first, led to some big tech firms taking actions that influenced the economy to be very much more efficient in terms of job-search--I would bet that maybe "job search skills" became much less relevant than on-the-job skills, due to this release of "automated career/business strategy" that some would take advantage of once the "viral concept" was "in the professional graph," so to speak.
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps the sudden increased understanding by firms of PH = PSPACE, coupled with widespread government and corporate corruption, wiped out highly competitive jobs in fields like science/technology and art, perhaps among others, due to a sudden mysterious change in what it takes to get and keep a job--I would bet that interviewing skill and job search strategies stopped working as well as simply "proving you've got a job-relevant capability," perhaps on the internet (you might say that the job market got less interested in how you present yourself and more interested in what you do on the job). To come to another point, it seems that this could be another way to look at the causes of the coronavirus--quietly decreased morale in elite STEM and art career fields might have "teamed up with corruption," which I've clearly demonstrated to exist in STEM academia on this forum, to create an environment where highly skilled workers can't or won't work productively for long.
> > > >
> > > > Actually, if you think about it, this addendum post that I've just written showcases some more very excellent reasons to hire me immediately into a computer programming job, regardless of what nay-sayers might try to tell you about me; the benefits of hiring me very astronomically outweigh the costs, and it is rather upsetting, perhaps and hopefully not just to me, that the computer programming market in general seems not to have perceived this fact. It is sad, actually; the job market is both asleep with its eyes seemingly glued shut and also quite sick, with very sad consequences.
> > > >
> > > > -Philip White
> > > (The idea of the graph game, which is not well-known to scholars I don't think, is: You have a big graph, and you chart a course from node A to node B for you, perhaps with a particular (edge-weight-driven?) cost to the path. In addition to following your course, you also might "occupy and control/block" some of the nodes along the way--like if you got a job at firm X and told everyone that employee-type Y is terrible and should never be hired by the firm again. Thus, you can ask and efficiently answer TQBF-like questions about this graph, for example: "Does there exist a path for me such that for all strategies for opponent B, B has a path that blocks out his/her opponents C, D, and E, but B's strategies only help me or are neutral with respect too me?" I suspect no one thought of this exact problem, but likely, other TQBF-like problems in PSPACE were attacked, and that led to comparable results--results that differ only slightly, in the sense that all such related problems are PTIME reducible to TQBF. If I'm right, this has led to a situation where people are not always correct or aware or powerful with respect to questions of "if and how they have been 'blocked' in their activities"--the average person doesn't actually know what he/she can or can't do, leading to some vicious cycles where people feel compelled not to do things that seem difficult that are actually easier than people think, leading in turn to actual failures for certain things to happen, since people can't find anyone to work with them on certain projects--a lot of people feel unempowered, I think. The problem is still "failure to stop attacking politically unpopular people in illegal ways" and "failure to stop keeping important stories/articles out of the news and academia"; this is another way to express it. I think things will improve when political bad-guys start losing everything over highly illegal activities, which I predict should start to happen soon. If my analysis is right, which it might not be, the best way to stop this from hurting you if it is going to hurt you is to not break any laws.)
> > (Basically, the consequence of the deletion of me from society and the economy, as the world's best math/CS thinker, has been chaos over the past decade--new algorithms that are not widely known have been playing games that no one knew existed with people's careers and businesses for over the past decade, due to my removal from society and also my inability to publish or discuss research I've done when I publish it (which is important and generally helpful), since the PSPACE-problem-solver algorithms that are quietly being run on data on the internet can be thought of as influencing the internet in ways that have not been studied--I believe that no one thought of the connection I posted above other than me, a few minutes ago. You might think what I'm saying is crazy; it just means you don't understand the math/CS/physics of it...it's like a person from medieval times not understanding what an armed police officer is, it doesn't mean the person who tried to warn you is delusional or wrong at all.)
> In case readers doubt the idea that PTIME reducibility implies that the PSPACE problem that reduces to TQBF would be "automatically solved" by algorithms "by accident"...the argument for how it would work, which I thought of basically just now, is: Machine learning algorithms that sense patterns, strategies, algorithms, and other approaches to solving problems on the internet sense the use of TQBF solvers on the internet--perhaps in terms of news stories, stock prices, Facebook posts, or any other data that is affected by it. Some of the "worked PSPACE problems" that the TQBF solver has solved will surely "leave a trail" in a sense, buried somewhere in the data in the internet; if data mining and machine learning algorithms can learn from the work of the TQBF solver, some of the same work can be copied, learned from, and repeated on other problems, including graph theory problems that are quite close to the precise problem I mentioned. Basically, I'm discussing an idea akin to the idea that long-ago historical businesses (or their equivalents) had a big effect on supply and demand even before economists understood what these concepts were.

On Thursday, 13 January 2022 at 05:36:56 UTC+8, B.H. wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 10:10:58 PM UTC-5, B.H. wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 6:53:04 PM UTC-5, B.H. wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 6:43:13 PM UTC-5, B.H. wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 6:24:11 PM UTC-5, B.H. wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 6:02:01 PM UTC-5, B.H. wrote:
> > > > > > Hi everyone,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I thought I would discuss a YouTube video that, while not extremely compelling to me and while featuring an actor who, although he doesn't offend me that much, seems determined to continue writing skits that seem to be about my life without my permission, in spite of my lack of consent to this, my unfortunate circumstances, and my status as an uncompensated US law-abiding citizen, inspired me to think of an interesting question: Why isn't there more high-energy music, of the sort there was in 2009 and 2010, these days?...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrNOYudaMAc
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My immediate reaction was to ask myself: Is this a phenomenon driven by some sort of supply-side protest, perhaps related to song-writer dissatisfaction with the treatment of high-energy pop music creators such as Kesha Sebert and Britney Spears or the creation of new jobs that draw high-energy-only songwriters (??) away from popular music composition to other roles? Or, did cultural attitudes change nationally in the US, due to some political or societal shift in collective interests in music? (What happened to alt rock bands like Linkin Park from the early 2000's?) As a third possibility, did some innovative breakthrough in technology, such as an artificial intelligence or other CS breakthrough, lead to a modification of the music landscape that could be explained by forces other than strictly economic forces (e.g., I presented powerful ideas about relativization on this forum and cstheory.stackexchange.com; perhaps more people suddenly figured out PSPACE = PH based on my ideas, and gained access to technologies related to genetic algorithms or annealing?)? Finally, I considered that it might be possible that some sort of plot--either a very old plot with a recently-activated condition, such as one created by a legal scholar, or some sort of political action by a powerful, well-known, knowledgeable, or wealthy figure--was undertaken to methodically bring about an outcome of this nature.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If you listen to music over the past decade, there is much less electronic and upbeat or high-energy music than there was in 2009 in particular. As a long-time music fan, I remember songs like "Sweet Escape" by Gwen Stefani in 2007, and electronic music bands like "The Prodigy" and "The Crystal Method" that really went away in a real sense after 2012 in particular, even before Keith Flint's tragic suicide in 2019.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My unproved guess is that it has something to do with demand from fans. If you listen to The Crystal Method's latest album that I remember, "The Trip Home," you can see that like many of TCM's previous albums, this music represents another big change from TCM's previous sound.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This is just anecdotal evidence and one example, but I suppose the interesting question to pose is: Why isn't there more high-energy pop music produced by the media these days? If it is a demand-from-fans issue, then what happened to our society to change demand for music?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -Philip White (philip...@yahoo.com)
> > > > > One TCS-related possibility I just thought of is: Something happened to the "career graph" in the US economy. If you think of the idea of altenating-P problems about directed graphs, you might vaguely consider the idea of "I have a career path from node to node that is good for me" and "I as a business have the ability to modify the graph so that for all career paths for adversary X, such career paths do not threaten my competitive interests." That idea is very vague, but just as game theory is relevant to decision making in economics, so too can problems in graph theory (potentially) be related to challenges for firms and people in strategic "path-charting tasks" in terms of navigating node-wise expressed economic terrain.
> > > > >
> > > > > It is possible that PH = PSPACE, which was likely not widely known at first, led to some big tech firms taking actions that influenced the economy to be very much more efficient in terms of job-search--I would bet that maybe "job search skills" became much less relevant than on-the-job skills, due to this release of "automated career/business strategy" that some would take advantage of once the "viral concept" was "in the professional graph," so to speak.
> > > > >
> > > > > Perhaps the sudden increased understanding by firms of PH = PSPACE, coupled with widespread government and corporate corruption, wiped out highly competitive jobs in fields like science/technology and art, perhaps among others, due to a sudden mysterious change in what it takes to get and keep a job--I would bet that interviewing skill and job search strategies stopped working as well as simply "proving you've got a job-relevant capability," perhaps on the internet (you might say that the job market got less interested in how you present yourself and more interested in what you do on the job). To come to another point, it seems that this could be another way to look at the causes of the coronavirus--quietly decreased morale in elite STEM and art career fields might have "teamed up with corruption," which I've clearly demonstrated to exist in STEM academia on this forum, to create an environment where highly skilled workers can't or won't work productively for long.
> > > > >
> > > > > Actually, if you think about it, this addendum post that I've just written showcases some more very excellent reasons to hire me immediately into a computer programming job, regardless of what nay-sayers might try to tell you about me; the benefits of hiring me very astronomically outweigh the costs, and it is rather upsetting, perhaps and hopefully not just to me, that the computer programming market in general seems not to have perceived this fact. It is sad, actually; the job market is both asleep with its eyes seemingly glued shut and also quite sick, with very sad consequences.
> > > > >
> > > > > -Philip White
> > > > (The idea of the graph game, which is not well-known to scholars I don't think, is: You have a big graph, and you chart a course from node A to node B for you, perhaps with a particular (edge-weight-driven?) cost to the path. In addition to following your course, you also might "occupy and control/block" some of the nodes along the way--like if you got a job at firm X and told everyone that employee-type Y is terrible and should never be hired by the firm again. Thus, you can ask and efficiently answer TQBF-like questions about this graph, for example: "Does there exist a path for me such that for all strategies for opponent B, B has a path that blocks out his/her opponents C, D, and E, but B's strategies only help me or are neutral with respect too me?" I suspect no one thought of this exact problem, but likely, other TQBF-like problems in PSPACE were attacked, and that led to comparable results--results that differ only slightly, in the sense that all such related problems are PTIME reducible to TQBF. If I'm right, this has led to a situation where people are not always correct or aware or powerful with respect to questions of "if and how they have been 'blocked' in their activities"--the average person doesn't actually know what he/she can or can't do, leading to some vicious cycles where people feel compelled not to do things that seem difficult that are actually easier than people think, leading in turn to actual failures for certain things to happen, since people can't find anyone to work with them on certain projects--a lot of people feel unempowered, I think. The problem is still "failure to stop attacking politically unpopular people in illegal ways" and "failure to stop keeping important stories/articles out of the news and academia"; this is another way to express it. I think things will improve when political bad-guys start losing everything over highly illegal activities, which I predict should start to happen soon. If my analysis is right, which it might not be, the best way to stop this from hurting you if it is going to hurt you is to not break any laws.)
> > > (Basically, the consequence of the deletion of me from society and the economy, as the world's best math/CS thinker, has been chaos over the past decade--new algorithms that are not widely known have been playing games that no one knew existed with people's careers and businesses for over the past decade, due to my removal from society and also my inability to publish or discuss research I've done when I publish it (which is important and generally helpful), since the PSPACE-problem-solver algorithms that are quietly being run on data on the internet can be thought of as influencing the internet in ways that have not been studied--I believe that no one thought of the connection I posted above other than me, a few minutes ago. You might think what I'm saying is crazy; it just means you don't understand the math/CS/physics of it...it's like a person from medieval times not understanding what an armed police officer is, it doesn't mean the person who tried to warn you is delusional or wrong at all.)
> > In case readers doubt the idea that PTIME reducibility implies that the PSPACE problem that reduces to TQBF would be "automatically solved" by algorithms "by accident"...the argument for how it would work, which I thought of basically just now, is: Machine learning algorithms that sense patterns, strategies, algorithms, and other approaches to solving problems on the internet sense the use of TQBF solvers on the internet--perhaps in terms of news stories, stock prices, Facebook posts, or any other data that is affected by it. Some of the "worked PSPACE problems" that the TQBF solver has solved will surely "leave a trail" in a sense, buried somewhere in the data in the internet; if data mining and machine learning algorithms can learn from the work of the TQBF solver, some of the same work can be copied, learned from, and repeated on other problems, including graph theory problems that are quite close to the precise problem I mentioned. Basically, I'm discussing an idea akin to the idea that long-ago historical businesses (or their equivalents) had a big effect on supply and demand even before economists understood what these concepts were.
> Hi everyone,
>
> I decided to add some more thoughts to this, specifically about this idea and mentally ill disabled people this time. What I wrote follows.
>
> It is worth noting that many of the more sophisticated TQBF solvers working to achieve, e.g., corporate firm goals, might have been designed with secrecy in mind and in anticipation of machine learning algorithms detecting the impact of such algorithms. Thus, many of the TQBF solvers would in a sense be "partly puppeting" machine learning algorithms, sharing data that such algorithms could find (and even perhaps influencing humans--like me, I don't mind that much and am careful about what I post) to further the interests of some of the AI algorithms running on firms' servers.
>
> In case you think this is scary--I think it is a little bit minorly haunting myself, although it doesn't bother me that much--you are probably not alone. I believe, as a non-psychologist of course, that many people with schizophrenia / thought disorder might feel "highly sensitive to undiscovered science issues," such as for example what you might term "the physics/mechanics of (the use of) language" and how that might affect society and societal events in hidden ways. Of course, in a world where no one knows this sort of science, there is nothing much to fear--it's all just randomness and things that no one can do yet, like worrying about rocket ships in Roman times. At the same time, given mathematical and other relationships between related concepts, sometimes you (if you're schizophrenic, with good treatment or not) might worry that a scientific breakthrough of today might influence important things related to very real scientific principles that are currently completely undiscovered...a good example is what I said in a previous post about influencing supply and demand before it was discovered in whatever century. Another key concern, which might explain why many people who have a thought disorder and are in serious need of treatment, might be extremely focused on "big, powerful, and secretive organizations" (and/or the people who might influence them), like intelligence agencies, famous business leaders of any virtue level, political figures who speak subtly, successful artists, out-of-the-way and quiet organizations like think tanks, spiritual leaders like Jesus Christ or Gandhi, or well-known STEM thinkers from recent or less recent history. FYI, I don't know for sure if that's a trait of all schizophrenics...I just have a feeling that that is true, not any scientific data to support that claim. My point is that there is, according to my unproved belief, plenty of reason for someone interested in or haunted by or otherwise sensitive to "secret science ideas that no one else has ever seen or known" might be drawn to these sorts of entities and other (maybe) seemingly unusual interests.
>
> -Philip White (philip...@yahoo.com)