Hello,

More about simulation and about prediction and more..

I am a white arab from Morocco, and i think i am smart since i have also
invented many scalable algorithms and algorithms..

So as you have just noticed that i just said that i have just
invented two software scalable algorithms that i think are
breakthroughs, but you have to know that one of them has needed from
me to simulate it, so i have abstracted the real world behavior
of one of this new scalable algorithms as a model that i have simulated
by software and this has permitted me to "ensure" that this new scalable
algorithm of mine, that i think is a breakthrough, is "reliable" and is
working perfectly, also simulation in general also permits
to not only ensure the "reliability" but also to "predict" the behavior
of the real world systems.

More of my philosophy about the inventors and about algorithms and more..

If you ask me the following question:

What are you, Amine Moulay Ramdane, doing right now ?

I will say that the most important thing that i am doing
is that i have just today invented two software scalable
algorithms that i think are breakthroughs, but i am not
thinking too much about money since what i have done
is that i have invented many software scalable algorithms
and algorithms to better our humanity and our world, so as you notice
that my personality is also that i am an "inventor" that have invented
really interesting things. Also i am right now implementing some
interesting software projects from the ground up with artificial
intelligence, So i invite you to read all my following thoughts so that
to know more about my personality:

More of my philosophy about mathematics and the Minimizers that fit models..

I have just read the following web pages about comparing Minimizers that
fit models, and i invite you to read them here:

https://docs.mantidproject.org/v3.7.1/concepts/FittingMinimizers.html

And i am working with some software projects now that need good
Minimizers that fit models, and i have implemented two of them with the
simplex method and with Levenberg-Marquardt, but i am not satisfied
since i think that the Simplex method is better in convergence than
Levenberg-Marquardt since it rarely converges to a local minimum, but i
will implement or build a minimizer from the ground up with artificial
intelligence that fits Models and that is much more sophisticated and
much more efficient than the Simplex or Levenberg-Marquardt, so stay
tuned since i am actually implementing it !

More of my philosophy of how to become rich and more..

I invite you to look at the following video that speaks
about how to become rich:

STOP Chasing Money -- Chase WEALTH. | How To get RICH | Garry Tan's Office

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Hdu4DlnLIk&t

The person that is speaking on the above video is called Garry Tan,
and here he is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garry_Tan

And I think i am smart and i invite you to look at the following
"defect" or "bug" of the above video, look here at what he is saying:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Hdu4DlnLIk&t=425s

So he is saying the following:

"So what is most useful, is actually acquiring skills that nobody else
has, especially in combination that are rare. If you can rebound the
ball and nobody does it quite the way you can, you can be a Hall of Fame
basketball player. And that applies to all the things in your career and
in life."

So look at the following how he is giving the "general" way:

"So what is most useful, is actually acquiring skills that nobody else
has, especially in combination that are rare."

I think that the "defect" in the above saying and "general" way of the
above video is that it is not taking into account the factor of the
usefulness to consumers or to customers since you can acquire skills
that nobody else has, especially in combination that are rare, but those
skills can still be useless to the consumers or customers, so i think
that the above saying is not so smart. So the person on the above video
has forgot the very basis of what is it of something has to be useful
for the consumers or customers, so read my following smart
"redefinition" of Utilitarianism so that to understand:

More of my philosophy about why the definition of Utilitarianism is like
an IQ test..

Notice that i think i am smart, since when i just looked rapidly at the
definition below of Utilitarianism, i have rapidly discovered a pattern
with my fluid intelligence and it is that even if the definition
of Utilitarianism is: That Utilitarianism prescribes actions that
maximise happiness and well-being for all affected individuals,
i can easily see a pattern with my fluid intelligence since i am
smart, since the pattern is that Utilitarianism maximises happiness and
well-being by well balancing taking into account not
only the present but also the future, i mean that responability
is inherent to the definition since the well balancing forces us
to be responsability in the present or today so that to maximize
correctly happiness and well being tomorrow or in the future.

I can give you another IQ test that i have rapidly invented and
here it is:

So i will give my example of pattern recognition with my fluid
intelligence that permits to understand, here it is:

So if you want to go fast from my country Morocco to another country
called USA , how will you do it ? or what will you do ?

It is like my IQ test..

So if you answer that you need for example to use a fast airplane to go
fast from Morocco to USA, your answer is a stupid answer, so you need
the smart answer, so i will answer that the fast airplane too has to be
"reliable" and your "health" has too to permit it and the "weather" has
too to permit it, so now you are clearly noticing that you need to take
into account many "factors" so that to go fast from Morocco to USA, so
you are clearly noticing that being smart needs also a good plan.

More precision of my philosophy about Utilitarianism..

I invite you to read the following definition of what is Utilitarianism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism

So as you are noticing, it says that Utilitarianism prescribes actions
that maximise happiness and well-being for all affected individuals,
but i think that Utilitarianism is not idiotic since it maximises
happiness and well-being by well balancing taking into account not
only the present but also the future.

So you can read all my other proverbs that i have just invented quickly
here:

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.culture.morocco/c/ZyUvFt_nix8

More of my philosophy about correlation and about diversity and more..

I think i am smart, and i will say to look again at what is saying
the Ph.D Katherine W. Phillips that is the Paul Calello Professor of
Leadership and Ethics Management at Columbia Business School(Read about
her here: https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/profile/katherine_phillips):

"Large data-set studies have an obvious limitation: They only show that
diversity is correlated with better performance, not that it causes
better performance."

So i will say that this Ph.D and other researchers are not so smart,
since notice how is speaking the Ph.D Katherine W. Phillips in the
following article:

How Diversity Makes Us Smarter

Read more here:

https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/how_diversity_makes_us_smarter

So notice that she is not saying that human diversity is a "mechanism"
that can cause "competition" or more competition between people, and
then competition can be the cause of better performance, so you are
noticing that the above Ph.D and researchers are trying to measure it
empirically, but i think that this kind of measuring is not a correct
measuring, since what i am showing you by my way of thinking is the fact
that there is a "tendency" in human diversity that it causes competition
or more competition, so it causes better performance, so then we can
notice that by not following there way of empirical measuring we can still
know about the process. So as i said, i think this Ph.D and other
researchers are not thinking and abstracting correctly since from my
saying below we can notice that human Diversity in a global world or in
a society or in a group brings more "competition" between people, so it
makes us work harder and better cognitively and socially, but if we are
not being the right human diversity and we are working harder and better
cognitively and socially, then i think being human diversity can still
"keep" or "maintain" the working harder and better cognitively and
socially, also human diversity brings different human perspectives or
views and it brings different human experiences and different human
knowledges and it is good for creativity and innovation since it is also
good for divergent thinking that enhance creativity and innovation.

More of my philosophy about USA and human diversity and more..

I just said the following:

"I think i am understanding rapidly, since i think that human Diversity
in a global world or in a society or in a group brings more
"competition" between people, so it makes us work harder and
better cognitively and socially, also human diversity brings different
human perspectives or views and it brings different human experiences
and different human knowledges and it is good for creativity and
innovation since it is also good for divergent thinking that enhance
creativity and innovation."