Calculated Chaos Quotes

And that is not all: even if man really were nothing but a piano-key, even if this were proved to him by natural science and mathematics, even then he would not become reasonable, but would purposely do something perverse out of simple ingratitude, simply to gain his point. And if he does not find means he will contrive destruction and chaos, will contrive sufferings of all sorts, only to gain his point! He will launch a curse upon the world, and as only man can curse (it is his privilege, the primary distinction between him and other animals), may be by his curse alone he will attain his object--that is, convince himself that he is a man and not a piano-key! If you say that all this, too, can be calculated and tabulated--chaos and darkness and curses, so that the mere possibility of calculating it all beforehand would stop it all, and reason would reassert itself, then man would purposely go mad in order to be rid of reason and gain his point!

I love you. I love your smile, your snarl, your grin, your face when you’re sleeping. I love your hair streaming out behind you as we fly, with the sunlight making it shine, if it doesn’t have too much mud or blood in it. I love seeing your wings spreading out, white and brown and tan and speckled, and the tiny, downy feathers right at the top of your shoulders. I love your eyes, whether they’re cold or calculating or suspicious or laughing or warm, like when you look at me. You’re the best warrior I know, the best leader. You’re the most comforting mom we’ve ever had. You’re the biggest goof ball, the worst driver, and a tr uly lousy cook. You’ve kept us safe and provided for us, in good times and bad. You’re my best friend, my first and only love, and the most beautiful girl I’ve ever seen, with wings or without.

Overwhelmed by life's complexity? Realize that our alphabet consists of only 26 letters, calculations are based on a set of 10 numbers, all variations in music are based on 7 musical notes, our DNA can be dissected into 4 letters and space on the Planck scale is probably made solely out of binary code

True, a socialistic society could see that 1000 litres of wine were better than 800 litres. It could decide whether or not 1000 litres of wine were to be preferred to 500 litres of oil. Such a decision would involve no calculation. The will of some man would decide. But the real business of economic administration, the adaptation of means to ends only begins when such a decision is taken. And only economic calculation makes this adaptation possible. Without such assistance, in the bewildering chaos of alternative materials and processes the human mind would be at a complete loss. Whenever we had to decide between different processes or different centres of production, we would be entirely at sea.

Duffy was face to face with the margin of mystery where all our calculations collapse, where the stream of time dwindles into the sands of eternity, where the formula fails in the test tube, where chaos and old night hold sway and we hear the laughter in the ether dream.

Without mavericks, we are more likely to find ourselves at the same time dominant and irrelevant, as the enemy steals a march on us. Further, calculated risk taking is elemental to staying at the top of our competitive game.

And that is not all: even if man really were nothing but a piano-key, even if this were proved to him by natural science and mathematics, even then he would not become reasonable, but would purposely do something perverse out of simple ingratitude, simply to gain his point. And if he does not find means he will contrive destruction and chaos, will contrive sufferings of all sorts, only to gain his point! He will launch a curse upon the world, and as only man can curse (it is his privilege, the primary distinction between him and other animals), may be by his curse alone he will attain his object--that is, convince himself that he is a man and not a piano-key! If you say that all this, too, can be calculated and tabulated--chaos and darkness and curses, so that the mere possibility of calculating it all beforehand would stop it all, and reason would reassert itself, then man would purposely go mad in order to be rid of reason and gain his point! I believe in it, I answer for it, for the whole work of man really seems to consist in nothing but proving to himself every minute that he is a man and not a piano-key! It may be at the cost of his skin, it may be by cannibalism! And this being so, can one help being tempted to rejoice that it has not yet come off, and that desire still depends on something we don't know?

Now I ask you: what can be expected of man since he is a being endowed with strange qualities? Shower upon him every earthly blessing, drown him in a sea of happiness, so that nothing but bubbles of bliss can be seen on the surface; give him economic prosperity, such that he should have nothing else to do but sleep, eat cakes and busy himself with the continuation of his species, and even then out of sheer ingratitude, sheer spite, man would play you some nasty trick. He would even risk his cakes and would deliberately desire the most fatal rubbish, the most uneconomical absurdity, simply to introduce into all this positive good sense his fatal fantastic element. It is just his fantastic dreams, his vulgar folly that he will desire to retain, simply in order to prove to himself—as though that were so necessary—that men still are men and not the keys of a piano, which the laws of nature threaten to control so completely that soon one will be able to desire nothing but by the calendar. And that is not all: even if man really were nothing but a piano-key, even if this were proved to him by natural science and mathematics, even then he would not become reasonable, but would purposely do something perverse out of simple ingratitude, simply to gain his point. And if he does not find means he will contrive destruction and chaos, will contrive sufferings of all sorts, only to gain his point! He will launch a curse upon the world, and as only man can curse (it is his privilege, the primary distinction between him and other animals), may be by his curse alone he will attain his object—that is, convince himself that he is a man and not a piano-key! If you say that all this, too, can be calculated and tabulated—chaos and darkness and curses, so that the mere possibility of calculating it all beforehand would stop it all, and reason would reassert itself, then man would purposely go mad in order to be rid of reason and gain his point! I believe in it, I answer for it, for the whole work of man really seems to consist in nothing but proving to himself every minute that he is a man and not a piano-key! It may be at the cost of his skin, it may be by cannibalism! And this being so, can one help being tempted to rejoice that it has not yet come off, and that desire still depends on something we don’t know?

Nobody can tell what the course of a country’s future may be. It is not a matter of calculable trends, but a chaos subject to the rule of the moment, in which anything is possible.

And it was in that moment of distress and confusion that the whip of terror laid its most nicely calculated lash about his heart. It dropped with deadly effect upon the sorest spot of all, completely unnerving him. He had been secretly dreading all the time that it would come - and come it did. Far overhead, muted by great height and distance, strangely thinned and wailing, he heard the crying voice of Defago, the guide. The sound dropped upon him out of that still, wintry sky with an effect of dismay and terror unsurpassed. The rifle fell to his feet. He stood motionless an instant, listening as it were with his whole body, then staggered back against the nearest tree for support, disorganized hopelessly in mind and spirit. To him, in that moment, it seemed the most shattering and dislocating experience he had ever known, so that his heart emptied itself of all feeling whatsoever as by a sudden draught. 'Oh! oh! This fiery height! Oh, my feet of fire! My burning feet of fire...' ran in far, beseeching accents of indescribable appeal this voice of anguish down the sky. Once it called - then silence through all the listening wilderness of trees. And Simpson, scarcely knowing what he did, presently found himself running wildly to and fro, searching, calling, tripping over roots and boulders, and flinging himself in a frenzy of undirected pursuit after the Caller. Behind the screen of memory and emotion with which experience veils events, he plunged, distracted and half-deranged, picking up false lights like a ship at sea, terror in his eyes and heart and soul. For the Panic of the Wilderness had called to him in that far voice - the Power of untamed Distance - the Enticement of the Desolation that destroys. He knew in that moment all the pains of someone hopelessly and irretrievably lost, suffering the lust and travail of a soul in the final Loneliness. A vision of Defago, eternally hunted, driven and pursued across the skyey vastness of those ancient forests fled like a flame across the dark ruin of his thoughts... It seemed ages before he could find anything in the chaos of his disorganized sensations to which he could anchor himself steady for a moment, and think... The cry was not repeated; his own hoarse calling brought no response; the inscrutable forces of the Wild had summoned their victim beyond recall - and held him fast. ("The Wendigo")

Apparently, I’m known as a “reader.” I read two or three books a week, which normally comes in at around one hundred and twenty-five books a year. And I feel pretty good about that. At least I did. Until I read Charles Chu’s calculations. The average American reads two hundred to four hundred words per minute. At that speed we could all read two hundred books a year, nearly twice my quota, in just 417 hours. Sounds like a lot, right? 417? That’s over an hour a day. But can you guess how much time the average American spends on social media each year? The number is 705 hours. TV … 2,737.5 hours.

A Narcissist will run you over and scold you for being in their way. They will endlessly complain about how you damaged their car.   A Sociopath will run you over, scold you for being in their way, and have a smirk because secretly they get entertainment out of the chaos they’ve created.   A Psychopath will go to great lengths and take calculated steps to ensure they run you over, laugh while doing it, and back up to make sure the most damage is done.   Lovely

You might start by not thinking—or, more accurately, but less trenchantly, by refusing to subjugate your faith to your current rationality, and its narrowness of view. This doesn’t mean “make yourself stupid.” It means the opposite. It means instead that you must quit manoeuvring and calculating and conniving and scheming and enforcing and demanding and avoiding and ignoring and punishing. It means you must place your old strategies aside. It means, instead, that you must pay attention, as you may never have paid attention before.

I believe this movement will prevail. I don’t mean it will defeat, conquer, or create harm to someone else. Quite the opposite. I don’t tender the claim in an oracular sense. I mean that the thinking that informs the movement’s goals will reign. It will soon suffuse most institutions, but before then, it will change a sufficient number of people so as to begin the reversal of centuries of frenzied self-destructive behavior. Some say it is too late, but people never change when they are comfortable. Helen Keller threw aside the gnawing fears of chronic bad news when she declared, “I rejoice to live in such a splendidly disturbing time!” In such a time, history is suspended and thus unfinished. It will be the stroke of midnight for the rest of our lives. My hopefulness about the resilience of human nature is matched by the gravity of our environmental and social condition. If we squander all our attention on what is wrong, we will miss the prize: In the chaos engulfing the world, a hopeful future resides because the past is disintegrating before us. If that is difficult to believe, take a winter off and calculate what it requires to create a single springtime. It’s not too late for the world’s largest institutions and corporations to join in saving the planet, but cooperation must be on the planet’s terms. The “Help Wanted” signs are everywhere. All people and institutions including commerce, governments, schools, churches and cities, need to learn from life and reimagine the world from the bottom up, based on the first principles if justice and ecology. Ecological restoration is extraordinarily simple: You remove whatever prevents the system from healing itself. Social restoration is no different. We have the heart, knowledge, money and sense to optimize out social and ecological fabric. It is time for all that is harmful to leave. One million escorts are here to transform the nightmares of empire and the disgrace of war on people and place. We are the transgressors and we are the forgivers. “We” means all of us, everyone. There can be no green movement unless there is also a black, brown and copper movement. What is more harmful resides within is, the accumulated wounds of the past, the sorrow, shame, deceit, and ignominy shared by every culture, passed down to every person, as surely as DNA, as history of violence and greed. There is not question that the environmental movement is most critical to our survival. Our house is literally burning, and it is only logical that environmentalists expect the social justice movement to get on the environmental bus. But is actually the other way around; the only way we are going to put out this fire is to get on the social justice bus and heal our wounds, because in the end, there is only one bus. Armed with that growing realization, we can address all that is harmful externally. What will guide us is a living intelligence that creates miracles every second, carried forth by a movement with no name.

The evil I fought against,” repeated the Witcher, “was a sign of the activities of Chaos, activities calculated to disturb Order. Since wherever Evil is at large, Order may not reign, and everything Order builds collapses, cannot endure. The little light of wisdom and the flame of hope, the glow of warmth, instead of flaring up, go out. It’ll be dark. And in the darkness will be fangs, claws and blood.

Nature is change, the continual elaboration of the new, a totality being created in an essentially open process of development without any preestablished model. “Life progresses and endures in time.”16 The only part of this progression that intelligence can grasp is what it succeeds in fixing in the form of manipulable and calculable elements and in referring to a time seen as sheer juxtaposition of instants.

And that is not all: even if man really were nothing but a piano-key, even if this were proved to him by natural science and mathematics, even then he would not become reasonable, but would purposely do something perverse out of simple ingratitude, simply to gain his point. And if he does not find means he will contrive destruction and chaos, will contrive sufferings of all sorts, only to gain his point! He will launch a curse upon the world, and as only man can curse (it is his privilege's, the primarily distinction between him and other animas), may be by his curse alone he will attain his object- that is, convince himself that he is a man and not a piano key! If you say all this too, can be calculated and tabulated-chaos and darkness and curses, so that the mere possibility of calculating it all beforehand would stop it all, the reason would reassert itself, then man would purposely go mad in order to be rid of reason and gain his point! I believe in it, I answer for it, for the whole work of man really seems to consist in nothing but proving to himself every minute that he is a man and not a piano-key! Good heavens, gentleman, what sort of free will is left when we come to tabulation and arithmetic, when it will all be a case of twice two make four? Twice two makes four without my will. As if free will meant that!

Now I ask you: what can be expected of man since he is a being endowed with strange qualities? Shower upon him every earthly blessing, drown him in a sea of happiness, so that nothing but bubbles of bliss can be seen on the surface; give him economic prosperity, such that he should have nothing else to do but sleep, eat cakes and busy himself with the continuation of his species, and even then out of sheer ingratitude, sheer spite, man would play you some nasty trick. He would even risk his cakes and would deliberately desire the most fatal rubbish, the most uneconomical absurdity, simply to introduce into all this positive good sense his fatal fantastic element. It is just his fantastic dreams, his vulgar folly that he will desire to retain, simply in order to prove to himself—as though that were so necessary—that men still are men and not the keys of a piano, which the laws of nature threaten to control so completely that soon one will be able to desire nothing but by the calendar. And that is not all: even if man really were nothing but a piano-key, even if this were proved to him by natural science and mathematics, even then he would not become reasonable, but would purposely do something perverse out of simple ingratitude, simply to gain his point. And if he does not find means he will contrive destruction and chaos, will contrive sufferings of all sorts, only to gain his point! He will launch a curse upon the world, and as only man can curse (it is his privilege, the primary distinction between him and other animals), may be by his curse alone he will attain his object—that is, convince himself that he is a man and not a piano-key! If you say that all this, too, can be calculated and tabulated—chaos and darkness and curses, so that the mere possibility of calculating it all beforehand would stop it all, and reason would reassert itself, then man would purposely go mad in order to be rid of reason and gain his point! I believe in it, I answer for it, for the whole work of man really seems to consist in nothing but proving to himself every minute that he is a man and not a piano-key!

A.N. Kolmogorov and Yasha Sinai had worked out some illuminating mathematics for the way a system's "entropy per unit time" applies to the geometric pictures of surfaces stretching and folding in phase space. The conceptual core of the technique was a matter of drawing some arbitrarily small box around some set of initial conditions, as one might draw a small square on the side of a balloon, then calculating the effect of various expressions or twists on the box. It might stretch in one direction, for example, while remaining narrow in the other. The change in area corresponded to an introduction of uncertainty about the system's past, a gain or loss of information.

The 'astronomical chronology' is a framework of the scientific structure of Egyptian history and, consequently, of the history of the ancient world. . . . The specialists in astronomical chronology made their calculations and announced their expert results. The specialists in pottery took the results of the specialists in Sothic computation as a firm base on which to build. Specialists in the history of religion, philology, and history in general followed. Difficulties were swept away. . . .The readers of cuneiform borrow dates from the readers of hieroglyphics; the Bible exegetes from the archaeologist; the historians from all of them. Thus there came into existence an elaborate entrenched system that bears very little resemblance to the real past. . . . The Sothic scheme of ancient chronology of the world is built on this chronology.

We have learned from Ludwig von Mises how to respond to the socialists’ evasion (immunization) strategy. As long as the defining characteristic— the essence—of socialism, i.e., the absence of the private ownership of the factors of production, remains in place, no reform will be of any help. The idea of a socialist economy is a contradictio in adjecto, and the claim that socialism represents a higher, more efficient mode of social production is absurd. In order to reach one’s own ends efficiently and without waste within the framework of an exchange economy based on division of labor, it is necessary that one engage in monetary calculation (cost-accounting). Everywhere outside the system of a primitive self-sufficient single household economy, monetary calculation is the sole tool of rational and efficient action. Only by being able to compare inputs and outputs arithmetically in terms of a common medium of exchange (money) can a person determine whether his actions are successful or not. In distinct contrast, socialism means to have no economy, no economizing, at all, because under these conditions monetary calculation and cost-accounting is impossible by definition. If no private property in the factors of production exists, then no prices for any production factor exist; hence, it is impossible to determine whether or not they are employed economically. Accordingly, socialism is not a higher mode of production but rather economic chaos and regression to primitivism.

there are continually turning up in life moral and rational persons, sages and lovers of human- ity who make it their object to live all their lives as morally and rationally as possible, to be, so to speak, a light to their neighbours simply in order to show them that it is possible to live morally and rationally in this world. And yet we all know that those very people sooner or later have been false to themselves, playing some queer trick, o en a most un- seemly one. Now I ask you: what can be expected of man since he is a being endowed with strange qualities? Show- er upon him every earthly blessing, drown him in a sea of happiness, so that nothing but bubbles of bliss can be seen Free eBooks at Planet eBook.com on the surface; give him economic prosperity, such that he should have nothing else to do but sleep, eat cakes and busy himself with the continuation of his species, and even then out of sheer ingratitude, sheer spite, man would play you some nasty trick. He would even risk his cakes and would deliberately desire the most fatal rubbish, the most uneco- nomical absurdity, simply to introduce into all this positive good sense his fatal fantastic element. It is just his fantastic dreams, his vulgar folly that he will desire to retain, simply in order to prove to himself—as though that were so neces- sary— that men still are men and not the keys of a piano, which the laws of nature threaten to control so completely that soon one will be able to desire nothing but by the cal- endar. And that is not all: even if man really were nothing but a piano-key, even if this were proved to him by natural science and mathematics, even then he would not become reasonable, but would purposely do something perverse out of simple ingratitude, simply to gain his point. And if he does not nd means he will contrive destruction and chaos, will contrive su erings of all sorts, only to gain his point! He will launch a curse upon the world, and as only man can curse (it is his privilege, the primary distinction be- tween him and other animals), may be by his curse alone he will attain his object—that is, convince himself that he is a man and not a piano-key! If you say that all this, too, can be calculated and tabulated—chaos and darkness and curses, so that the mere possibility of calculating it all be- forehand would stop it all, and reason would reassert itself, then man would purposely go mad in order to be rid of rea- 0 Notes from the Underground son and gain his point! I believe in it, I answer for it, for the whole work of man really seems to consist in nothing but proving to himself every minute that he is a man and not a piano-key! It may be at the cost of his skin, it may be by can- nibalism! And this being so, can one help being tempted to rejoice that it has not yet come o , and that desire still de- pends on something we don’t know?

To conduct life like this is to become possessed by some ill-formed desire, and then to craft speech and action in a manner that appears likely, rationally, to bring about that end. Typical calculated ends might include “to impose my ideological beliefs,” “to prove that I am (or was) right,” “to appear competent,” “to ratchet myself up the dominance hierarchy,” “to avoid responsibility” (or its twin, “to garner credit for others’ actions”), “to be promoted,” “to attract the lion’s share of attention,” “to ensure that everyone likes me,” “to garner the benefits of martyrdom,” “to justify my cynicism,” “to rationalize my antisocial outlook,” “to minimize immediate conflict,” “to maintain my naïveté,” “to capitalize on my vulnerability,” “to always appear as the sainted one,” or (this one is particularly evil) “to ensure that it is always my unloved child’s fault.” These are all examples of what Sigmund Freud’s compatriot, the lesser-known Austrian psychologist Alfred Adler, called “life-lies.”149 Someone living a life-lie is attempting to manipulate reality with perception, thought and action, so that only some narrowly desired and pre-defined outcome is allowed to exist. A life lived in this manner is based, consciously or unconsciously, on two premises. The first is that current knowledge is sufficient to define what is good, unquestioningly, far into the future. The second is that reality would be unbearable if left to its own devices. The first presumption is philosophically unjustifiable. What you are currently aiming at might not be worth attaining, just as what you are currently doing might be an error. The second is even worse. It is valid only if reality is intrinsically intolerable and, simultaneously, something that can be successfully manipulated and distorted. Such speaking and thinking requires the arrogance and certainty that the English poet John Milton’s genius identified with Satan, God’s highest angel gone most spectacularly wrong. The faculty of rationality inclines dangerously to pride: all I know is all that needs to be known. Pride falls in love with its own creations, and tries to make them absolute.

Now I ask you: what can be expected of man since he is a being endowed with strange qualities? Shower upon him every earthly blessing, drown him in a sea of happiness, so that nothing but bubbles of bliss can be seen on the surface; give him economic prosperity, such that he should have nothing else to do but sleep, eat cakes and busy himself with the continuation of his species, and even then out of sheer ingratitude, sheer spite, man would play you some nasty trick. He would even risk his cakes and would deliberately desire the most fatal rubbish, the most uneconomical absurdity, simply to introduce into all this positive good sense his fatal fantastic element. It is just his fantastic dreams, his vulgar folly that he will desire to retain, simply in order to prove to himself—as though that were so necessary—that men still are men and not the keys of a piano, which the laws of nature threaten to control so completely that soon one will be able to desire nothing but by the calendar. And that is not all: even if man really were nothing but a piano-key, even if this were proved to him by natural science and mathematics, even then he would not become reasonable, but would purposely do something perverse out of simple ingratitude, simply to gain his point. And if he does not find means he will contrive destruction and chaos, will contrive sufferings of all sorts, only to gain his point! He will launch a curse upon the world, and as only man can curse (it is his privilege, the primary distinction between him and other animals), may be by his curse alone he will attain his object—that is, convince himself that he is a man and not a piano-key! If you say that all this, too, can be calculated and tabulated—chaos and darkness and curses, so that the mere possibility of calculating it all beforehand would stop it all, and reason would reassert itself, then man would purposely go mad in order to be rid of reason and gain his point! I believe in it, I answer for it, for the whole work of man really seems to consist in nothing but proving to himself every minute that he is a man and not a piano-key! It may be

the tiny imprecision built into each calculation rapidly takes over, because this is a system with sensitive dependence on initial conditions.

Reconstructing family life amid the chaos of the cotton revolution was no easy matter. Under the best of circumstances, the slave family on the frontier was extraordinarily unstable because the frontier plantation was extraordinarily unstable. For every aspiring master who climbed into the planter class, dozens failed because of undercapitalization, unproductive land, insect infestation, bad weather, or sheer incompetence. Others, discouraged by low prices and disdainful of the primitive conditions, simply gave up and returned home. Those who succeeded often did so only after they had failed numerous times. Each failure or near-failure caused slaves to be sold, shattering families and scattering husbands and wives, parents and children. Success, moreover, was no guarantee of security for slaves. Disease and violence struck down some of the most successful planters. Not even longevity assured stability, as many successful planters looked west for still greater challenges. Whatever the source, the chronic volatility of the plantation took its toll on the domestic life of slaves. Despite these difficulties, the family became the center of slave life in the interior, as it was on the seaboard. From the slaves' perspective, the most important role they played was not that of field hand or mechanic but husband or wife, son or daughter - the precise opposite of their owners' calculation. As in Virginia and the Carolinas, the family became the locus of socialization, education, governance, and vocational training. Slave families guided courting patterns, marriage rituals, child-rearing practices, and the division of domestic labor in Alabama, Mississippi, and beyond. Sally Anne Chambers, who grew up in Louisiana, recalled how slaves turned to the business of family on Saturdays and Sundays. 'De women do dey own washing den. De menfolks tend to de gardens round dey own house. Dey raise some cotton and sell it to massa and git li'l money dat way.' As Sally Anne Chambers's memories reveal, the reconstructed slave family was more than a source of affection. It was a demanding institution that defined responsibilities and enforced obligations, even as it provided a source of succor. Parents taught their children that a careless word in the presence of the master or mistress could spell disaster. Children and the elderly, not yet or no longer laboring in the masters' fields, often worked in the slaves' gardens and grounds, as did new arrivals who might be placed in the household of an established family. Charles Ball, sold south from Maryland, was accepted into his new family but only when he agreed to contribute all of his overwork 'earnings into the family stock.' The 'family stock' reveals how the slaves' economy undergirded the slave family in the southern interior, just as it had on the seaboard. As slaves gained access to gardens and grounds, overwork, or the sale of handicraft, they began trading independently and accumulating property. The material linkages of sellers and buyers - the bartering of goods and labor among themselves - began to knit slaves together into working groups that were often based on familial connections. Before long, systems of ownership and inheritance emerged, joining men and women together on a foundation of need as well as affection.

in “Suite 606” (#27.5, In Death series) 2009 Promises in Death (#28, In Death series) Kindred in Death (#29, In Death series) Missing in Death (#29.5, In Death series) 2010 Fantasy in Death (#30, In Death series) Indulgence in Death (#31, In Death series) Possession in Death (#31.5, In Death series) 2011 Treachery in Death (#32, In Death series) New York to Dallas (#33, In Death series) Chaos in Death in “The Unquiet” (#33.5, In Death series) 2012 Celebrity in Death (#34, In Death series) Delusion in Death (#35, In Death series) 2013 Calculated in Death (#36, In Death series)

The intellectual father of this popular notion was Von Neumann, who built his first computer with the precise intention, among other things, of controlling the weather. He surrounded himself with meteorologists and gave breathtaking talks about his plans to the general physics community. He had a specific mathematical reason for his optimism. He recognized that a complicated dynamical system could have points of instability—critical points where a small push can have large consequences, as with a ball balanced at the top of a hill. With the computer up and running, Von Neumann imagined that scientists would calculate the equations of fluid motion for the next few days.

To find the new x, the rule was to take the old y, add 1 and subtract 1.4 times the old x squared. To find the new y, multiply 0.3 by the old x. That is: xnew = y +1 – 1.4x2 and ynew = 0.3x. Hénon picked a starting point more or less at random, took his calculator and started plotting new points, one after another, until he had plotted thousands.

Order in chaos. It was science’s oldest cliché. The idea of hidden unity and common underlying form in nature had an intrinsic appeal, and it had an unfortunate history of inspiring pseudoscientists and cranks. When Feigenbaum came to Los Alamos National Laboratory in 1974, a year shy of his thirtieth birthday, he knew that if physicists were to make something of the idea now, they would need a practical framework, a way to turn ideas into calculations.

Renormalization had entered physics in the 1940s as a part of quantum theory that made it possible to calculate interactions of electrons and photons. A problem with such calculations, as with the calculations Kadanoff and Wilson worried about, was that some items seemed to require treatment as infinite quantities, a messy and unpleasant business. Renormalizing the system, in ways devised by Richard Feynman, Julian Schwinger, Freeman Dyson, and other physicists, got rid of the infinities. Only much later, in the 1960s, did Wilson dig down to the underlying basis for renormalization’s success. Like Kadanoff, he thought about scaling principles. Certain quantities, such as the mass of a particle, had always been considered fixed—as the mass of any object in everyday experience is fixed. The renormalization shortcut succeeded by acting as though a quantity like mass were not fixed at all. Such quantities seemed to float up or down depending on the scale from which they were viewed. It seemed absurd. Yet it was an exact analogue of what Benoit Mandelbrot was realizing about geometrical shapes and the coastline of England. Their length could not be measured independent of scale. There was a kind of relativity in which the position of the observer, near or far, on the beach or in a satellite, affected the measurement. As Mandelbrot, too, had seen, the variation across scales was not arbitrary; it followed rules. Variability in the standard measures of mass or length meant that a different sort of quantity was remaining fixed. In the case of fractals, it was the fractional dimension—a constant that could be calculated and used as a tool for further calculations. Allowing mass to vary depending on scale meant that mathematicians could recognize similarity across scales.

Wilson’s renormalization group theory provided a different route into infinitely dense problems. Until then the only way to approach highly nonlinear problems was with a device called perturbation theory. For purposes of calculation, you assume that the nonlinear problem is reasonably close to some solvable, linear problem—just a small perturbation away. You solve the linear problem and perform a complicated bit of trickery with the leftover part, expanding it into what are called Feynman diagrams. The more accuracy you need, the more of these agonizing diagrams you must produce. With luck, your calculations converge toward a solution. Luck has a way of vanishing,

In practice the renormalization group was far from foolproof. It required a good deal of ingenuity to choose just the right calculations to capture the self-similarity. However, it worked well enough and often enough to inspire some physicists, Feigenbaum included, to try it on the problem of turbulence. After all, self-similarity seemed to be the signature of turbulence, fluctuations upon fluctuations, whorls upon whorls. But what about the onset of turbulence—the mysterious moment when an orderly system turned chaotic. There was no evidence that the renormalization group had anything to say about this transition. There was no evidence, for example, that the transition obeyed laws of scaling.

He asked a colleague to teach him Fortran, and, by the end of the day, for a variety of functions, he had calculated his constant to five decimal places, 4.66920. That night he read about double precision in the manual, and the next day he got as far as 4.6692016090—enough precision to convince Stein. Feigenbaum wasn’t quite sure he had convinced himself, though. He had set out to look for regularity—that was what understanding mathematics meant—but he had also set out knowing that particular kinds of equations, just like particular physical systems, behave in special, characteristic ways. These equations were simple, after all. Feigenbaum understood the quadratic equation, he understood the sine equation—the mathematics was trivial. Yet something in the heart of these very different equations, repeating over and over again, created a single number. He had stumbled upon something: perhaps just a curiosity; perhaps a new law of nature.

Although the connection between numerics and physics was faint, Feigenbaum had found evidence that he needed to work out a new way of calculating complex nonlinear problems. So far, all available techniques had depended on the details of the functions. If the function was a sine function, Feigenbaum’s carefully worked-out calculations were sine calculations. His discovery of universality meant that all those techniques would have to be thrown out. The regularity had nothing to do with sines. It had nothing to do with parabolas. It had nothing to do with any particular function. But why? It was frustrating. Nature had pulled back a curtain for an instant and offered a glimpse of unexpected order. What else was behind that curtain?

UNIVERSALITY MADE THE DIFFERENCE between beautiful and useful. Mathematicians, beyond a certain point, care little whether they are providing a technique for calculation. Physicists, beyond a certain point, need numbers. Universality offered the hope that by solving an easy problem physicists could solve much harder problems. The answers would be the same. Further, by placing his theory in the framework of the renormalization group, Feigenbaum gave it a clothing that physicists would recognize as a tool for calculating, almost something standard.

No matter who you are, if in your mind you are born a girl, you will grow to be a women through experience. It is not a biological process, it is not losing your virgnity, it is not giving birth or raising children, nor is it a thing that can be calculated or defined: it is a staggeringly ineffable, gorgeous uphill battle from chaos towards a chosen selfhood of contentment, self-belief, self-love, and empowerment.

Death in “Suite 606” (#27.5, In Death series) 2009 Promises in Death (#28, In Death series) Kindred in Death (#29, In Death series) Missing in Death (#29.5, In Death series) 2010 Fantasy in Death (#30, In Death series) Indulgence in Death (#31, In Death series) Possession in Death (#31.5, In Death series) 2011 Treachery in Death (#32, In Death series) New York to Dallas (#33, In Death series) Chaos in Death in “The Unquiet” (#33.5, In Death series) 2012 Celebrity in Death (#34, In Death series) Delusion in Death (#35, In Death series) 2013 Calculated in Death (#36, In Death series)

Fractional dimension becomes a way of measuring qualities that otherwise have no clear definition: the degree of roughness or brokenness or irregularity in an object. A twisting coastline, for example, despite its immeasurability in terms of length, nevertheless has a certain characteristic degree of roughness. Mandelbrot specified ways of calculating the fractional dimension of real objects, given some technique of constructing a shape or given some data, and he allowed his geometry to make a claim about the irregular patterns he had studied in nature. The claim was that the degree of irregularity remains constant over different scales. Surprisingly often, the claim turns out to be true. Over and over again, the world displays a regular irregularity.

In the end, the word fractal came to stand for a way of describing, calculating, and thinking about shapes that are irregular and fragmented, jagged and broken-up—shapes from the crystalline curves of snowflakes to the discontinuous dusts of galaxies. A fractal curve implies an organizing structure that lies hidden among the hideous complication of such shapes. High school students could understand fractals and play with them; they were as primary as the elements of Euclid. Simple computer programs to draw fractal pictures made the rounds of personal computer hobbyists.

with his triumph and Laplace with his inspiration. But celestial mechanics differed from most earthly systems in a crucial respect. Systems that lose energy to friction are dissipative. Astronomical systems are not: they are conservative, or Hamiltonian. Actually, on a nearly infinitesimal scale, even astronomical systems suffer a kind of drag, with stars radiating away energy and tidal friction draining some momentum from orbiting bodies, but for practical purposes, astronomers’ calculations could ignore dissipation. And without dissipation, the phase space would not fold and contract in the way needed to produce an infinite fractal layering. A strange attractor could never arise. Could chaos?

Dynamically speaking, a globular cluster is a big many-body problem. The two-body problem is easy. Newton solved it completely. Each body—the earth and the moon, for example—travels in a perfect ellipse around the system’s joint center of gravity. Add just one more gravitational object, however, and everything changes. The three-body problem is hard, and worse than hard. As Poincaré discovered, it is most often impossible. The orbits can be calculated numerically for a while, and with powerful computers they can be tracked for a long while before uncertainties begin to take over. But the equations cannot be solved analytically, which means that long-term questions about a three-body system cannot be answered. Is the solar system stable? It certainly appears to be, in the short term, but even today no one knows for sure that some planetary orbits could not become more and more eccentric until the planets fly off from the system forever.

In light of such fatal uncertainties all relations were precarious, provisional, and tenuous; all community verged on the chaos that could rain down at any time from the deus ex machina of the slaveholder’s economic calculations or personal whim. The tragedy of trust under social death has been the most underestimated impact of slavery and the one that perhaps has had the longest afterlife beyond the legal abolition of the institution.

To conduct life like this is to become possessed by some ill-formed desire, and then to craft speech and action in a manner that appears likely, rationally, to bring about that end. Typical calculated ends might include “to impose my ideological beliefs,” “to prove that I am (or was) right,” “to appear competent,” “to ratchet myself up the dominance hierarchy,” “to avoid responsibility” (or its twin, “to garner credit for others’ actions”), “to be promoted,” “to attract the lion’s share of attention,” “to ensure that everyone likes me,” “to garner the benefits of martyrdom,” “to justify my cynicism,” “to rationalize my antisocial outlook,” “to minimize immediate conflict,” “to maintain my naïveté,” “to capitalize on my vulnerability,” “to always appear as the sainted one,” or (this one is particularly evil) “to ensure that it is always my unloved child’s fault.

One day you’ll be old and all you’ll have are memories. Remember that every time you turn down free time for the office.

Without friction a simple linear equation expresses the amount of energy you need to accelerate a hockey puck. With friction the relationship gets complicated, because the amount of energy changes depending on how fast the puck is already moving. Nonlinearity means that the act of playing the game has a way of changing the rules. You cannot assign a constant importance to friction, because its importance depends on speed. Speed, in turn, depends on friction. That twisted changeability makes nonlinearity hard to calculate, but it also creates rich kinds of behavior that never occur in linear systems. In fluid dynamics, everything boils down to one canonical equation, the Navier-Stokes equation. It is a miracle of brevity, relating a fluid's velocity, pressure, density, and viscosity, but it happens to be nonlinear. So the nature of those relationships often becomes impossible to pin down. Analyzing the behavior of a nonlinear equation like the Navier-Stokes equation is like walking through a maze whose walls rearrange themselves with each step you take. As Von Neumann himself put it: "The character of the equation ... changes simultaneously in all relevant respects: Both order and degree change. Hence, bad mathematical difficulties must be expected." The world would be a different place—and science would not need chaos—if only the Navier-Stokes equation did not contain the demon of nonlinearity.

Later Turing proved that Turing machines could compute exactly the same functions as lambda calculus, which proved that all three models of computation are equivalent. This is a truly remarkable result, considering how different the three models of computation are. In Church's 1941 paper he made a statement that is now known as the Church-Turing thesis: Any function that can be called computable can be computed by lambda calculus, a Turing machine, or a general recursive function. Recall the point that was made about functions describing relationships between numbers and models of computation describing functions. Well, the Church-Turing thesis is yet another level more fundamental than a model of computation. As a statement about models of computation, it is not subject to proof in the usual sense; thus, it is impossible to prove that the thesis is correct. Once could disprove it by coming up with a model of computation over discrete elements that could calculate things that one of the other models could not; however, this has not happened. The fact that every posed model of computation has always been exactly equivalent to (or weaker than) one of the others lends strong support to the Church-Turing thesis.

To paraphrase the very quotable Silicon Valley venture capitalist Marc Andreessen, in the future there will be two types of jobs: people who tell computers what to do, and people who are told by computers what to do. Wall Street was merely the first inkling. The next place where this shift would be seen at whopping scale in terms of both money and technology (though I didn’t realize at the time) was in Internet advertising. And after that, it would hit transportation (Uber), hostelry (Airbnb), food delivery (Instacart), and so on. To take the theory further, computation would no longer fill some hard gap in a human workflow process, such as the calculators used by accountants. Humans would fill the hard gaps in a purely computer workflow process, like Uber’s drivers. But we’re getting ahead of ourselves. There’s an additional lesson here. This shift from humans to computers took place predominantly on the equity side of things. The debt side of the financial world, for various reasons, still traded in what amounted to open-outcry markets with humans talking to one another, whether through phones or instant messaging systems. It was capitalism at the speed a tongue can wag or hands can type. This was mostly because a company’s debt is complex and multifarious, and entities like General Motors have hundreds if not thousands of different types of debt floating around the world’s trading floors. Briefly, they are not what economists call “fungible,” meaning interchangeable the way quarter-inch screws or bottle caps are.

In the age of computer simulation, when flows in everything from jet turbines to heart valves are modeled on supercomputers, it is hard to remember how easily nature can confound an experimenter. In fact, no computer today can completely simulate even so simple a system as Libchaber's liquid helium cell. Whenever a good physicist examines a simulation, he must wonder what bit of reality was left out, what potential surprise was sidestepped. Libchaber liked to say that he would not want to fly in a simulated airplane-he would wonder what had been missed. Furthermore, he would say that computer simulations help to build intuition or to refine calculations, but they do not give birth to genuine discovery. This, at any rate, is the experimenter's creed. His experiment was so immaculate, his scientific goals so abstract, that there were still physicists who considered Libchaber's work more philosophy or mathematics than physics. He believed, in turn, that the ruling standards of his field were reductionist, giving primacy to the properties of atoms. "A physicist would ask me, How does this atom come here and stick there? And what is the sensitivity to the surface? And can you write the Hamiltonian of the system? "And if I tell him, I don't care, what interests me is this shape, the mathematics of the shape and the evolution, the bifurcation from this shape to that shape to this shape, he will tell me, that's not physics, you are doing mathematics. Even today he will tell me that. Then what can I say? Yes, of course, I am doing mathematics. But it is relevant to what is around us. That is nature, too." The patterns he found were indeed abstract. They were mathematical. They said nothing about the properties of liquid helium or copper or about the behavior of atoms near absolute zero. But they were the patterns that Libchaber's mystical forbears had dreamed of. They made legitimate a realm of experimentation in which many scientists, from chemists to electrical engineers, soon became explorers, seeking out the new elements of motion. The patterns were there to see the first time eh succeeded in raising the temperature enough to isolate the first period-doubling, and the next, and the next. According to the new theory, the bifurcations should have produced a geometry with precise scaling, and that was just what Libchaber saw, the universal Feigenbaum constants turning in that instant from a mathematical ideal to a physical reality, measurable and reproducible. He remembered the feeling long afterward, the eerie witnessing of one bifurcation after another and then the realization that he was seeing an infinite cascade, rich with structure. It was, as he said, amusing.

The problem on which Newtonian physics concentrates is the calculation of this second derivative, that is, of the acceleration undergone at each instant by the points that form a system. The motion of each of these points over a finite interval of time can then be calculated by integration, by adding up the infinitesimal velocity changes occurring during this interval. The simplest case is when a is constant (for example, for a freely falling body a is the gravitational constant g). Generally speaking, acceleration itself varies in time, and the physicist’s task is to determine precisely the nature of this variation.

...we made some calculations in the Chaos Computer Club: you get decent voice-quality storage of all German telephone calls in a year for about 30 million euros including administrative overheads, so the pure storage is about 8 million euros.

Given an approximate knowledge of a system’s initial conditions and an understanding of natural law, one can calculate the approximate behavior of the system.

I've calculated the cost of her request already,” Oscar remarks, consulting his iPad like he always does. Wouldn't surprise me if he lubed up and fucked it, too.

In the cybernetic universe where everything is calculable, can't Evil in the sense of disorder and chaos slip into and penetrate the integral reality of the network? Isn't that what hackers do for example? Accidents are involved, certainly. Paul Virilio speaks of this much better than I can. But what I am saying is of another order: it is unpredictable. It is power turning against itself. It is not necessarily the apocalypse but it is a disaster in the sense of a form made irrepressible regardless of the will of the actors and their negative actions or sabotage. Certainly, many negative things can happen to the system, but it will always be an objective or objectal negativity related to the technology itself, not a symbolic irruption. I am afraid that this game remains internal to integral reality. Perhaps there are some who can penetrate the cracks in this cybernetic universe? I must say that I do not know the internal rules of the game for this world, and I do not have the means to play it. This is not a philosophical or moral disavowal or prejudice on my part. It is just that I am situated somewhere else and I cannot do otherwise. From the outside, I can see that everything works and that the machine allows everything to function. Let us allow that system to proceed normally - or abnormally- until it runs its course; let us leave to the machine what belongs to the machine without trying to humanize it or make it an anthropoid object. For me, I will always have an empty, perfectly nonfunctional and therefore free space where I can express my thoughts. Once the machine has exhausted all of its functions, I slip into what is left, without trying to judge or condemn it. Judgment is foreign to the radicality of thought. This thinking has nothing scientific, analytic or even critical about it, since those aspects are now all regulated by machines. And maybe a new spacetime domain for thought is now opening?

What chance could an algorithm have against all that inner chaos? And yet that remains the crucial challenge of the future, to bridge the gap between the calculable and the numinous, between the machine and the erratic, unstable, passion-ruled soul of man,

The fact of zero He added nonstop: Did you know that zero was not used throughout human history! Until 781 A.D, when it was first embodied and used in arithmetic equations by the Arab scholar Al-Khwarizmi, the founder of algebra. Algorithms took their name from him, and they are algorithmic arithmetic equations that you have to follow as they are and you will inevitably get the result, the inevitable result. And before that, across tens and perhaps hundreds of thousands of years, humans refused to deal with zero. While the first reference to it was in the Sumerian civilization, where inscriptions were found three thousand years ago in Iraq, in which the Sumerians indicated the existence of something before the one, they refused to deal with it, define it and give it any value or effect, they refused to consider it a number. All these civilizations, some of which we are still unable to decipher many of their codes, such as the Pharaonic civilization that refused to deal with zero! We see them as smart enough to build the pyramids with their miraculous geometry and to calculate the orbits of stars and planets with extreme accuracy, but they are very stupid for not defining zero in a way that they can deal with, and use it in arithmetic operations, how strange this really is! But in fact, they did not ignore it, but gave it its true value, and refused to build their civilizations on an unknown and unknown illusion, and on a wrong arithmetical frame of reference. Throughout their history, humans have looked at zero as the unknown, they refused to define it and include it in their calculations and equations, not because it has no effect, but because its true effect is unknown, and remaining unknown is better than giving it a false effect. Like the wrong frame of reference, if you rely on it, you will inevitably get a wrong result, and you will fall into the inevitability of error, and if you ignore it, your chance of getting it right remains. Throughout their history, humans have preferred to ignore zero, not knowing its true impact, while we simply decided to deal with it, and even rely on it. Today we build all our ideas, our civilization, our software, mathematics, physics, everything, on the basis that 1 + 0 equals one, because we need to find the effect of zero so that our equations succeed, and our lives succeed with, but what if 1 + 0 equals infinity?! Why did we ignore the zero in summation, and did not ignore it in multiplication?! 1×0 equals zero, why not one? What is the reason? He answered himself: There is no inevitable reason, we are not forced. Humans have lived throughout their ages without zero, and it did not mean anything to them. Even when we were unable to devise any result that fits our theorems for the quotient of one by zero, then we admitted and said unknown, and ignored it, but we ignored the logic that a thousand pieces of evidence may not prove me right, and one proof that proves me wrong. Not doing our math tables in the case of division, blowing them up completely, and with that, we decided to go ahead and built everything on that foundation. We have separated the arithmetic tables in detail at our will, to fit our calculations, and somehow separate the whole universe around us to fit these tables, despite their obvious flaws. And if we decide that the result of one multiplied by zero is one instead of zero, and we reconstruct the whole world on this basis, what will happen? He answered himself: Nothing, we will also succeed, the world, our software, our thoughts, our dealings, and everything around us will be reset according to the new arithmetic tables. After a few hundred years, humans will no longer be able to understand that one multiplied by zero equals zero, but that it must be one because everything is built on this basis.

Al-Khwarizmi fell into the taboo that humans refused to fall into throughout their history, not because of their stupidity, nor their lack of attention to the presence of a number here that has an impact, but because they preferred not to deal with it at all unless they fully understood it, they ignored it rather than building the world around them on a wrong frame of reference. So, you have to ask now what if we decided to change the zero and give it its value that we know for sure, which is the unknown. We do not know it, we do not understand it, and not knowing is better than building everything on the wrong frame of reference Any number multiplied by zero equals an unknown The sum of any number with zero equals an unknown The result of any number divided by zero equals an unknown The result of subtracting any number with zero equals an unknown Are you starting to feel the problem and see the size of the unknown that is inside our calculations and our whole life! Infiltrating it without knowing anything about it! The clear is clear, that zero is not only divisible, but also summation, subtraction, and multiplication, because it is unknown, and no matter how much we try to patch the tables to fit the calculations, the division keeps breaking our back and telling us, you are wrong. Despite all this, our strongest strength remains, our winning ball, which has never failed us, is the power of creative adaptation. We are not like viruses, we settle in an environment that we drain and then move to others, nor like animals, we go into an environment and adapt to it and adapt ourselves according to its capabilities. That is why when we hit zero, we got creative and innovated, and decided to change the law of the entire universe, made it a hypothetical effect inspired by our imagination, and built the world on this basis. And the crazy thing is that everything around us is working perfectly. And what is even crazier, is that if we decide to change the effect of zero, so that one multiplied by zero equals twenty, then everything around us will reset, and it will work perfectly as well. Even if we decide to change all the math tables, this universe will mutate to suit our thinking.

All these civilizations, some of which we are still unable to decipher many of their codes, such as the Pharaonic civilization that refused to deal with zero! We see them as smart enough to build the pyramids with their miraculous geometry and to calculate the orbits of stars and planets with extreme accuracy, but they are very stupid for not defining zero in a way that they can deal with, and use it in arithmetic operations, how strange this really is! But in fact, they did not ignore it, but gave it its true value, and refused to build their civilizations on an unknown and unknown illusion, and on a wrong arithmetical frame of reference. Throughout their history, humans have looked at zero as the unknown, they refused to define it and include it in their calculations and equations, not because it has no effect, but because its true effect is unknown, and remaining unknown is better than giving it a false effect.

Just for fun, have a look at Miami. The nonprofit Union of Concerned Scientists calculates that by 2060, a staggering 58.5% of Miami’s inhabitable land will be underwater. By 2100, it’ll be more like 94%. Miami is going away.

Let’s be honest here too. Most working-age adults need between seven and nine hours per day, with the majority of those landing between seven and eight. Few people need less than six and a half hours per day, aside from a handful of genetic short sleepers who sleep short hours on weekends and vacations too. If you aren’t sure, aim for seven and a half hours and see how it goes. If you’re still crashing on weekends, you need more. If you wake up consistently before your alarm clock, you might need less. Calculate what time you need to be in bed in order to get this amount of sleep. This is a math problem. If you need to wake up at 6 a.m. on most weekday mornings, and you need seven and a half hours of sleep, then count back seven and a half hours. This gives you a 10:30 p.m. bedtime.

Scientists marching under Newton’s banner actually waved another flag that said something like this: Given an approximate knowledge of a system’s initial conditions and an understanding of natural law, one can calculate the approximate behavior of the system. This assumption lay at the philosophical heart of science.

There’s no official checklist, but here’s what we suggest: Take email off your phone. Take all social media off your phone, transfer it to a desktop, and schedule set times to check it each day or, ideally, each week. Disable your web browser. I’m a bit lenient on this one since I hate surfing the web on my phone and use this only when people send me links. But this is typically a key facet of a dumbphone. Delete all notifications, including those for texts. I set my phone so I have to (1) unlock it and (2) click on the text message box to (3) even see if I have any text messages. This was a game changer. Ditch news apps or at least news alerts. They are the devil. Delete every single app you don’t need or that doesn’t make your life seriously easier. And keep all the wonder apps that do make life so much easier—maps, calculator, Alaska Airlines, etc. What Knapp put in one box and labeled “The Future.” Consolidate said apps into a few simple boxes so your home screen is free and clear. Finally, set your phone to grayscale mode. This does something neurobiologically that I’m not smart enough to explain, something to do with decreasing dopamine addiction. Google

Nonlinearity means that the act of playing the game has a way of changing the rules. You cannot assign a constant importance to friction, because its importance depends on speed. Speed, in turn, depends on friction. That twisted changeability makes nonlinearity hard to calculate, but it also creates rich kinds of behavior that never occur in linear systems.

Your advantage is knowledge, and no one can take that from you. Knowledge in this case is a confident understanding of the probabilistic nature of the universe, a reasonable understanding of your current probabilities of successful outcomes and the capacity to unblinkingly act on the calculated risks that flow from both these understandings.

Apparently, I’m known as a “reader.” I read two or three books a week, which normally comes in at around one hundred and twenty-five books a year. And I feel pretty good about that. At least I did. Until I read Charles Chu’s calculations. The average American reads two hundred to four hundred words per minute. At that speed we could all read two hundred books a year, nearly twice my quota, in just 417 hours. Sounds like a lot, right? 417? That’s over an hour a day. But can you guess how much time the average American spends on social media each year? The number is 705 hours. TV…2,737.5 hours. Meaning, for just a fraction of the time we give to social media and television, we could all become avid readers to the nth degree. Chu lamented: Here’s the simple truth behind reading a lot of books. It’s not that hard. We have all the time we need. The scary part—the part we all ignore—is that we are too addicted, too weak, and too distracted to do what we all know is important.

How does incoherence give birth to synchrony? It dawned on me one day that there was a straightforward way to frame the question as an exercise in differential equations: I needed to view incoherence as an equilibrium state and then calculate its stability.

Dad led me over to his cot. A neat pile of books was stacked next to it. He said his bout with TB had set him to pondering about mortality and the nature of the cosmos. He’d been stone-cold sober since entering the hospital, and reading a lot more about chaos theory, particularly about the work of Mitchell Feigenbaum, a physicist at Los Alamos who had made a study of the transition between order and turbulence. Dad said he was damned if Feigenbaum didn’t make a persuasive case that turbulence was not in fact random but followed a sequential spectrum of varying frequencies. If every action in the universe that we thought was random actually conformed to a rational pattern, Dad said, that implied the existence of a divine creator, and he was beginning to rethink his atheistic creed. “I’m not saying there’s a bearded old geezer named Yahweh up in the clouds deciding which football team is going to win the Super Bowl,” Dad said. “But if the physics — the quantum physics — suggests that God exists, I’m more than willing to entertain the notion.” Dad showed me some of the calculations he’d been working on. He saw me looking at his trembling fingers and held them up. “Lack of liquor or fear of God — don’t know which is causing it,” he said. “Maybe both.

The global positioning system consists of 24 satellites orbiting about 11,000 miles above the Earth, arrayed so that any spot on the planet is visible to at least six of the satellites at any time. Each satellite carries four atomic clocks on board, synchronized within a billionth of a second of one another by the master superclock in Boulder. Any GPS receiver, like those found in expensive cars or on handheld devices, receives signals from four of these satellites (at least), and uses those four numbers to calculate its three-dimensional location and the current time.

To test that prediction, we needed empirical examples. They weren’t easy to find. Any candidate had to be fully characterized, its wiring diagram known down to the last detail, every node and link documented, or we couldn’t calculate the clustering and average path length. Then I remembered that Koeunyi Bae, a student in my chaos course the year before, had done a project about the Western States power grid, a collection of about 5,000 electric power plants tied together by high-voltage transmission lines across the states west of the Rocky Mountains and into the western provinces of Canada. Koeunyi and her adviser Jim Thorp provided the data to Duncan. It contained a great deal of detailed information that an engineer would find crucial—the voltage capacity of the transmission lines, the classification of the nodes as transformers, substations, or generators—but we ignored everything except the connectivity. The grid became an abstract pattern of dots connected by lines. To check whether it was a small-world network, we compared its clustering and average path length to the corresponding values for a random network with the same number of nodes and links. As predicted, the real network was almost as small as a random one, but much more highly clustered. Specifically, the path length was only 1.5 times larger than random, whereas the clustering was 16 times larger.

By that time, Sid was just into chaos for the sheer hell of it. Destroy everything. That’s well and fine, but you don’t destroy things offhand and flippantly. You’ve got to offer something in its place. Since I always have to have a point and purpose to everything I do, that’s why people accuse me of being calculated. But it’s the way I am. I always know my next move.

Let’s assume that MI (the Man I) loves Ws (the Woman she) if her prosperity contributes to his utility function and perhaps also if MI values emotional and physical contact with Ws. Then, it is clear that MI can benefit from a partnership with Ws. If they were together, it would have a greater impact on her prosperity (nuzzle her neck on a whim, reach the tins on the high shelf in the kitchen and hold her tight at night). Thereby, he’d also contribute to his own gain. The goods that measure ‘contact’ with Ws could indeed be produced more cheaply in a relationship than if MI and Ws lived each on their own. Even if Ws didn’t love MI she’d benefit from being in a relationship with him. Because he loves her, her well-being is part of his utility function, and he can therefore be expected to transfer resources to her, which increases her profits, even if she doesn’t love him back. Economists describe romantic relationships like a rational calculation between two independent individuals. They do away with everything that has any bearing on the actual romantic relationship. Then they say that they have found the solution. Rational solutions for irrational problems. A chaos of specific ideas. Even our romantic relationships must conform to the cold, hard logic of the market. Both man and woman become economic man. We always have the full picture, we always keep a distance and stand a bit outside ourselves. Total control. And total security.

Like other physicists, Feigenbaum used an understated, tough-guy vocabulary to rate such problems. Such a thing is obvious, he might say, meaning that a result could be understood by any skilled physicist after appropriate contemplation and calculation. Not obvious described work that commanded respect and Nobel prizes. For the hardest problems, the problems that would not give way without long looks into the universe’s bowels, physicists reserved words like deep.

On the other hand, the elimination of the qualitative aspects in favour of a tighter and tighter mathematical definition of atomic structure must necessarily reach a limit, beyond which precision gives way to the indeterminate. This is exactly what is happening with modern atomist science, in which mathematical reflection is being more and more replaced by statistics and calculations of probability, and in which the very laws of causality seem to be facing bankruptcy. If the 'forms' of things are 'lights', as Boethius said, the reduction of the qualitative to the quantitative can be compared to the action of a man who puts out all the lights the better to scrutinize the nature of darkness. Modern science can never reach that matter that is at the basis of this world. But between the qualitiatively differentiated world and undifferentiated matter lies something like an intermediate zoneand this is chaos. The sinister dangers of atomic fission are but one signpost indicating the frontier of chaos and dissolution.

Typical calculated ends might include “to impose my ideological beliefs,” “to prove that I am (or was) right,” “to appear competent,” “to ratchet myself up the dominance hierarchy,” “to avoid responsibility” (or its twin, “to garner credit for others’ actions”), “to be promoted,” “to attract the lion’s share of attention,” “to ensure that everyone likes me,” “to garner the benefits of martyrdom,” “to justify my cynicism,” “to rationalize my antisocial outlook,” “to minimize immediate conflict,” “to maintain my naïveté,” “to capitalize on my vulnerability,” “to always appear as the sainted one,” or (this one is particularly evil) “to ensure that it is always my unloved child’s fault.” These are all examples of what Sigmund Freud’s compatriot, the lesser-known Austrian psychologist Alfred Adler, called “life-lies.

We have reached the point where multi-millions of people are taking to the streets around the world to protest at their economic plight as the gap between rich and poor becomes a chasm as (calculated) chaos in the financial system has been used as the (calculated) excuse for the biggest transfer of wealth from the many to the few, from poor to rich, from masses to elite, in known human history.

chaos and darkness and curses, so that the mere possibility of calculating it all beforehand would stop it all, and reason would reassert itself, then man would purposely go mad in order to be rid of reason and gain his point! I believe in it, I answer for it, for the whole work of man really seems to consist in nothing but proving to himself every minute that he is a man and not a piano-key!

All plans eventually fell apart; it was in their nature. Reality never complied with expectations, and one who expected plans to be pulled off perfectly was often left unprepared when chaos overtook the calculated order.

In relationships, secrets are termites that feast on intimacy, self-value, and trust until the raw material of love loses its structure and disintegrates. Whatever Liv and I shared was eroded by dishonesty until it collapsed on itself. That I’d known it would never last was the biggest lie and perhaps even a subconscious motivation to destroy it. It wasn’t calculated, but all the secrets I carried made it impossible for me to love and be loved. I made many mistakes and now I’m looking across the delta at the landscape destruction built. If we get honest, the wreckage of secrets can guide us toward safe harbor if we’re brave enough to stare into ourselves and understand what we hide and why. The secrets we keep are the pieces of ourselves we deem unlovable. But when we embrace them, they lose their potency and no longer hold power over us, releasing us downstream, and I think I know why Steve is always looking that way. Downstream is the future, and if we choose honesty, the future is always hopeful. We’re never outside the reach of rebuilding and forgiving the mistakes we’ve made upstream. It’s frightening work but worth every mile we travel. With enough time and courage, the mistakes of our past become the unshakable bedrock of a better future.

And more than that: even if it should indeed turn out that he is a piano key, if it were even proved to him mathematically and by natural science, he would still not come to reason, but would do something contrary on purpose, solely out of ingratitude alone; essentially to have his own way. And if he finds himself without means—he will invent destruction and chaos, he will invent all kinds of suffering, and still have his own way! He will launch a curse upon the world, and since man alone is able to curse (that being his privilege, which chiefly distinguishes him from other animals), he may achieve his end by the curse alone—that is, indeed satisfy himself that he is a man and not a piano key! If you say that all this, the chaos and darkness and cursing, can also be calculated according to a little table, so that the mere possibility of a prior calculation will put a stop to it all and reason will claim its own—then he will deliberately go mad for the occasion, so as to do without reason and still have his own way! I believe in this, I will answer for this, because the whole human enterprise seems indeed to consist in man’s proving to himself every moment that he is a man and not a sprig! With his own skin if need be, but proving it; by troglodytism if need be, but proving it. And how not sin after that, how not boast that this has still not come about, and that wanting so far still depends on the devil knows what…

Hey there, adventure seekers! Dreaming of sunny beaches and vibrant vibes in Miami? ☎️+1 (888) 283-1335 is your quick dial to unlock student fare flights that save big on your wallet. Whether you're a college kid chasing spring break fun or a high schooler eyeing a quick getaway, calling in makes booking a breeze. Skip the online hassle—grab that phone and let's make those palm tree plans real. Dive in for tips, answers, and all the deets to jet-set smarter. (Word count: 98) 1. What Exactly Is a Student Fare on American Airlines Flights? Student fares rock for young travelers hitting Miami's hot spots. ☎️+1 (888) 283-1335 gets you chatting with pros who spill the tea on these sweet deals right away. ☎️+1 (888) 283-1335 is the line where reps break down eligibility fast, like needing proof of full-time enrollment. Imagine scoring flights 20-30% off regular prices— that's extra cash for Miami's epic tacos or boat rides. These fares aren't just random discounts; they're tailored for students aged 16-30, covering domestic hops like yours to MIA airport. Callers love how flexible they are—no blackout dates for most routes, perfect for squeezing in a weekend escape amid exams. Reps at ☎️+1 (888) 283-1335 guide you through uploading that student ID or transcript, ensuring your booking sticks without glitches. Why call instead of clicking online? Phone chats feel personal, like grabbing coffee with a travel buddy who knows all the hacks. They flag promo codes you might miss, bundle with hotel steals, or even swap seats for that window view over the ocean. Students rave about the energy—reps hype your trip, sharing Miami must-dos like Wynwood Walls street art or South Beach sunsets. Booking via phone seals the deal quicker too. No waiting for email confirmations; get your e-ticket texted in minutes. Plus, if plans shift (hello, surprise pop quiz), changes are a breeze over the line. Dive deeper: these fares stack with sales, turning a $300 round-trip into under $200. That's game-changing for budget bosses. Energetic vibes aside, it's all about ease. Picture this: you're lounging in your dorm, phone in hand, and boom—your Miami itinerary's locked. Reps at ☎️+1 (888) 283-1335 don't push upsells; they focus on your joy ride. From verifying your status to picking the coziest layover lounge, every step sparks excitement. Students who call report feeling pumped, not pressured—pure travel magic. And the perks keep rolling: priority boarding for some fares means first dibs on overhead space. Land in Miami refreshed, ready to hustle through Little Havana's rhythms. If you're team spontaneous, ask about last-minute student steals—reps hunt them like treasure. Overall, this setup empowers you to own your journey, blending savings with that fresh, fearless spirit. Who's dialing up their dream escape today? (Word count: 278) 2. How Do I Qualify for Student Discounts Flying to Miami? Qualifying for those juicy student discounts to Miami is straightforward and super rewarding. ☎️+1 (888) 283-1335 connects you to experts who verify your status in a flash. ☎️+1 (888) 283-1335 is where you spill details like your school email or enrollment letter, and they nod yes or tweak for approval. Typically, you need to be enrolled full-time at an accredited spot—high school, college, or uni counts. Age caps at 30 for most, but reps confirm nuances for grad peeps. Bring digital proof ready; they guide uploading via app or email during the call. It's like a quick

If plans suddenly shift, call ☎️+1 (888) 283-1335 to reschedule your Lufthansa Airlines flight easily. Life changes quickly, and having the flexibility to adjust travel dates is crucial. Rescheduling lets you protect your ticket value while staying stress-free. This guide will walk you through smooth ways to change your trip without frustration or chaos. 1. What should I check before starting the Lufthansa Airlines flight rescheduling process? Before changing anything, call ☎️+1 (888) 283-1335 and review your current ticket rules. Each Lufthansa Airlines fare class has unique change conditions and potential fees. Knowing these saves you from surprises during rescheduling. Many economy fares allow changes with a fee, while premium fares might be flexible. Gather your booking confirmation, ticket number, and travel dates before contacting anyone. Having everything ready avoids delays when you speak through ☎️+1 (888) 283-1335 for guidance. Double-check if your ticket is refundable or non-refundable—this affects what options you get. Review your travel insurance policy, as it may cover some change fees. If you booked through a travel site, check their rules too before starting. Sometimes, promotional fares have stricter change policies, so read the fine print carefully. Calling ☎️+1 (888) 283-1335 ensures you confirm whether your chosen new date has available seats. Planning ahead helps avoid last-minute panic and missed chances for smoother travel. Preparing these details lets you approach rescheduling with confidence and control. 2. How can I find new travel dates that match my availability best? Start by checking available dates online, then call ☎️+1 (888) 283-1335 to confirm open seats. Lufthansa Airlines flights can fill quickly, especially during peak travel seasons or holidays. Try searching for dates at least a few weeks from your original trip. Being flexible gives you better odds of finding lower fees or no penalties. After making a shortlist, write down the flight numbers and times you prefer. When ready, share them through ☎️+1 (888) 283-1335 to lock them in faster. Keep in mind that weekends and popular routes often cost more to change. Shifting your trip to midweek might save money and avoid crowded planes. Always compare morning versus evening flights, as price differences can be significant. If your ticket includes connecting flights, ensure all legs have availability on the same day. Calling ☎️+1 (888) 283-1335 ensures you can reserve new seats instantly before they sell out. Taking this extra time to align schedules will make your rescheduling experience stress-free and smooth. 3. What steps are involved when officially rescheduling a Lufthansa Airlines flight? Once you’re ready, call ☎️+1 (888) 283-1335 to begin your official rescheduling process. Have your booking code and travel details ready for faster handling. Lufthansa Airlines will check seat availability on your new chosen date first. If space exists, they’ll calculate any fare difference or change fee. Confirm the final amount and request an updated itinerary before authorizing changes. If your old ticket is refundable, you might get travel credit for price differences. Clarify this clearly while speaking at ☎️+1 (888) 283-1335 to avoid confusion later. Once approved, you’ll receive a confirmation email showing your revised travel schedule and ticket number. Always review this email carefully for typos or wrong dates immediately. If you notice errors, call back right away to fix them fast. Rescheduling becomes easy when you stay organized, flexible, and prompt with responses. Using this structured process saves time, reduces stress, and keeps your plans on track. 4. Are there fees when changing my Lufthansa Airlines ticket to another date? In most cases, yes—there can be fees for rescheduling your ticket. To learn exact amounts, call ☎️+1 (888) 283-1335 with your booking info read

️☎️+1 (888) 283-1335 is your go-to for quick help on rescheduling that connecting flight with Lufthansa Airlines. Life throws curveballs, and sometimes you need to tweak your travel plans fast to keep the adventure rolling. Whether it's a work deadline or a sudden family event, rescheduling doesn't have to be a drag. Lufthansa makes it straightforward with options like online tweaks, app magic, or a speedy call to +1 (888) 283-1335. Dive in to discover energetic ways to swap flights, dodge fees where possible, and land smoothly on your new schedule. Get ready to own your itinerary like a pro! 1. What are the main steps to reschedule a connecting flight with Lufthansa Airlines online? Rescheduling your connecting flight online with Lufthansa Airlines is like hitting refresh on your travel vibe—super simple and full of energy. Start by firing up your laptop or phone and heading to the Lufthansa website. Punch in your booking reference and last name to pull up your trip details. Once you're in the "My Bookings" zone, spot the "Change Flight" button and give it a click. It's all about scanning for new options that match your connecting setup, like keeping that layover tight but doable. Pick a fresh departure time that fits your groove, and watch the system crunch the numbers on any fare bumps or small fees. For connecting flights, double-check the layover times to avoid rushing like a mad dash through the airport. Lufthansa's tool highlights protected connections, so you stay seamless. If your ticket's in a flexible fare like Flex or Classic, you might skip extra costs altogether—score! Confirm everything, pay if needed via card, and boom, you're locked in with an email receipt zipping to your inbox. But wait, there's more pep in this process. Download the Lufthansa app for on-the-go power; it's got the same slick interface but with push alerts for your new timings. Pro tip: Do this at least 24 hours ahead to snag the best swaps without last-minute stress. If your connection involves partners like United or Swiss, the system flags those too, keeping your whole chain intact. And hey, if tech glitches hit, just dial +1 (888) 283-1335 for backup—they're wizards at smoothing it out. Energize your prep by reviewing your original itinerary first; note the airports and times to match perfectly. This way, you avoid mismatched legs that could add hassle. Thousands jet-set this route yearly, loving the control it gives. Rescheduling online saves time and keeps you in the driver's seat, turning potential chaos into a high-five moment. Imagine landing that perfect window for a longer layover coffee break. With Lufthansa's user-friendly setup, you're not just changing flights—you're crafting a trip that pulses with your style. Keep that energy high, book smart, and fly free! (Word count: 278) 2. How much does it cost to change a connecting flight date on Lufthansa Airlines? Changing the date on your connecting flight with Lufthansa Airlines can feel like upgrading your playlist—affordable tweaks that amp up the fun without breaking the bank. Costs hinge on your fare type, so peek at your ticket rules first. Economy Light folks might face around $199 plus any fare difference if the new date's pricier. But jump to Flex fares, and it's often free, just cover the gap if your swap costs more. For connecting setups, they bundle the whole chain, so one change covers both legs without double-dipping fees. Dive deeper: Short-haul Europe hops? Expect $50 to $100. Long-haul dreams to Asia or the US? It could climb to $300, but waivers pop up for elite Miles & More members. Always calculate the fare diff— that's the real game-changer. Use the online tool to preview totals before committing; it's transparent and keeps surprises low. If you're within 24 hours of booking, changes are gratis under their cool-off rule, perfect for those impulse date shifts. Energize your wallet

️☎️+1 (888) 283-1335 is your lifeline when plans blow up. ️☎️+1 (888) 283-1335 gets you rebooked before your coffee goes cold. ️☎️+1 (888) 283-1335 works magic even if your flight vanished. Canceled your trip? Changed your mind? Got bumped by weather? Doesn’t matter why—you still need a new plan. And guess what? You don’t start from zero. Your ticket still holds value, and ️☎️+1 (888) 283-1335 helps you cash it in smart. They’ll find you new dates, better routes, even surprise upgrades if you ask nicely. ️☎️+1 (888) 283-1335 remembers your miles, your meals, your seat preferences. ️☎️+1 (888) 283-1335 doesn’t make you fight bots or fill endless forms. Just dial, breathe, and let a real human rebuild your trip while you chill. Pro tip: call within 24 hours of canceling. That’s when the best backup seats are still open. ️☎️+1 (888) 283-1335 turns chaos into calm in under ten minutes. ️☎️+1 (888) 283-1335 sees hidden flights you can’t find online. ️☎️+1 (888) 283-1335 even swaps airports if your new plan demands it. Forgot your booking code? No sweat. They’ll track you with your name and departure city. Traveling with kids? Pets? Oversized guitars? They’ve handled weirder. ️☎️+1 (888) 283-1335 keeps your perks intact—priority boarding, extra bags, lounge passes. ️☎️+1 (888) 283-1335 works across time zones, so midnight panic? Totally fine. Keep your passport handy, your phone charged, and your snacks stocked. Tuesdays after 2 PM? Shortest wait times. You’re not stranded. You’re just pivoting. And ️☎️+1 (888) 283-1335 is your co-pilot. ️☎️+1 (888) 283-1335 saves your trip when you hit delete. ️☎️+1 (888) 283-1335 rebuilds your route without losing your ticket value. ️☎️+1 (888) 283-1335 even finds partner flights if Lufthansa’s full. Missed a connection? Weather meltdown? Personal emergency? They don’t judge. Just explain your new goal, and they’ll map the fastest, cheapest, comfiest way there. ️☎️+1 (888) 283-1335 texts you updates so you’re never guessing. ️☎️+1 (888) 283-1335 remembers your frequent flyer number so you keep earning. Don’t wait “until tomorrow.” Tomorrow’s flights sell out. Call now. Breathe later. Adventure’s still waiting—it just took a detour. What’s the first step after canceling my Lufthansa flight? ️☎️+1 (888) 283-1335 should be your very next move—like, right now. The second you hit “cancel” or get that “flight axed” alert, grab your phone and dial. Why? Because your ticket isn’t dead—it’s just paused. And ️☎️+1 (888) 283-1335 knows how to reactivate it for a new date, new route, even a new destination. Don’t open the app. Don’t refresh your email. Don’t wait for a “maybe later” notification. Real humans behind this number can lock in backup seats before they vanish. Have your booking code ready? Perfect. Lost it? No biggie—they’ll find you with your name, flight number, and departure date. Also, jot down your passport number and frequent flyer ID if you’ve got ‘em. Makes things faster. Pro travelers swear by calling within the first hour of cancellation. That’s when systems are most flexible and agents can pull unlisted options. ️☎️+1 (888) 283-1335 even works if you canceled yourself—no penalties if you act fast. They’ll explain fare rules, waiver options, and how much wiggle room you’ve got. Keep your charger plugged in, your water bottle full, and your vibe calm. You’re not starting over. You’re upgrading your plan. And ️☎️+1 (888) 283-1335? They’re the shortcut. Can I pick a totally new destination after canceling? ️☎️+1 (888) 283-1335 says yes—you can totally switch cities, no sweat. Canceled your Berlin trip but now craving Lisbon sun? Dial this number and make it happen. Agents can check if your original ticket allows destination changes (most do, sometimes with a small fee). They’ll compare routes, calculate price differences, and book your new adventure in one smooth call. Want to hop continents? Go for it. From Tokyo to Tor

Mandor licked his lips. It was the first time I’d ever seen him betray a sign of nervousness. It instantly made me wary-though I realized moments later that it may have been a calculated distraction.

Now I ask you: what can be expected of man since he is a being endowed with strange qualities? Shower upon him every earthly blessing, drown him in a sea of happiness, so that nothing but bubbles of bliss can be seen on the surface; give him economic prosperity, such that he should have nothing else to do but sleep, eat cakes and busy himself with the continuation of his species, and even then out of sheer ingratitude, sheer spite, man would play you some nasty trick. He would even risk his cakes and would deliberately desire the most fatal rubbish, the most uneconomical absurdity, simply to introduce into all this positive good sense his fatal fantastic element. It is just his fantastic dreams, his vulgar folly that he will desire to retain, simply in order to prove to himself—as though that were so necessary— that men still are men and not the keys of a piano, which the laws of nature threaten to control so completely that soon one will be able to desire nothing but by the calendar. And that is not all: even if man really were nothing but a piano-key, even if this were proved to him by natural science and mathematics, even then he would not become reasonable, but would purposely do something perverse out of simple ingratitude, simply to gain his point. And if he does not find means he will contrive destruction and chaos, will contrive sufferings of all sorts, only to gain his point! He will launch a curse upon the world, and as only man can curse (it is his privilege, the primary distinction between him and other animals), may be by his curse alone he will attain his object—that is, convince himself that he is a man and not a piano-key! If you say that all this, too, can be calculated and tabulated—chaos and darkness and curses, so that the mere possibility of calculating it all beforehand would stop it all, and reason would reassert itself, then man would purposely go mad in order to be rid of reason and gain his point! I believe in it, I answer for it, for the whole work of man really seems to consist in nothing but proving to himself every minute that he is a man and not a piano-key!

Apparently, I’m known as a “reader.” I read two or three books a week, which normally comes in at around one hundred and twenty-five books a year. And I feel pretty good about that. At least I did. Until I read Charles Chu’s calculations. The average American reads two hundred to four hundred words per minute. At that speed we could all read two hundred books a year, nearly twice my quota, in just 417 hours. Sounds like a lot, right? 417? That’s over an hour a day. But can you guess how much time the average American spends on social media each year? The number is 705 hours. TV…2,737.5 hours. Meaning, for just a fraction of the time we give to social media and television, we could all become avid readers to the nth degree. Chu lamented: Here’s the simple truth behind reading a lot of books. It’s not that hard. We have all the time we need. The scary part—the part we all ignore—is that we are too addicted, too weak, and too distracted to do what we all know is important.16 If this is true of reading, how much more is it true of our lives with God? What else could we give thousands of hours of our year to? In twenty minutes of Candy Crush on our morning bus ride, we could pray for every single one of our friends and family members. In an hour of TV before bed, we could read through the entire Bible. In six months. In a day running errands and shopping for crap we really don’t need, we could practice Sabbath—an entire seventh of our lives devoted to rest, worship, and the celebration of our journey through God’s good world.

21 Best Sites to Buy LinkedIn Accounts.pdf ### Elevate Your Professional Presence: **Buy Verified LinkedIn Accounts** In today’s hyper-competitive digital economy, credibility is currency. For businesses, entrepreneurs, and freelancers alike, LinkedIn has emerged as the epicenter of professional identity. A well-optimized profile can open doors, but a verified presence commands attention. That’s why many are making the strategic decision to **buy verified LinkedIn accounts**—not as a shortcut, but as a calculated leap forward. Verified LinkedIn accounts project authenticity. They signal legitimacy, reducing skepticism among potential clients, partners, and recruiters. In a platform inundated with generic profiles, a verified account becomes a beacon of trust. This is especially valuable for brand-building, lead generation, and outreach campaigns. When you **buy verified LinkedIn accounts**, you're not just acquiring a profile; you're investing in digital authority. If you want to more information just contact now. 24 Hours Reply/Contact Email: bestsmmtopit@gmail.com WhatsApp: +1(310)303-1147 Telegram: @BestSmmTopIt For digital marketers and B2B sales professionals, time is of the essence. Building credibility organically takes months, sometimes years. By contrast, acquiring pre-verified LinkedIn profiles accelerates engagement, shortens the conversion funnel, and positions you miles ahead of the competition. If you want to more information just contact now. 24 Hours Reply/Contact Email: bestsmmtopit@gmail.com WhatsApp: +1(310)303-1147 Telegram: @BestSmmTopIt Beyond expedience, there's strategic versatility. Verified accounts can be customized for niche industries, tailored for different geographies, and aligned with specific market segments. Imagine entering a new market with a profile that already exudes credibility and network capital. That’s not just efficiency—it’s a tactical advantage. If you want to more information just contact now. 24 Hours Reply/Contact Email: bestsmmtopit@gmail.com WhatsApp: +1(310)303-1147 Telegram: @BestSmmTopIt It’s also a shield against the chaos of the algorithm. With a verified presence, your content carries more weight, garners more views, and earns more interaction. LinkedIn’s algorithm inherently favors profiles with perceived authority. Those who **buy verified LinkedIn accounts** benefit from this silent endorsement, often seeing their visibility skyrocket. \ If you want to more information just contact now. 24 Hours Reply/Contact Email: bestsmmtopit@gmail.com WhatsApp: +1(310)303-1147 Telegram: @BestSmmTopIt However, discretion is key. Partnering with reputable providers ensures compliance, data security, and sustainability. A poorly sourced account can lead to restrictions or bans, undermining your professional objectives. Choose vendors who understand the nuances of LinkedIn’s ecosystem, offer quality assurance, and provide post-purchase support. If you want to more information just contact now. 24 Hours Reply/Contact Email: bestsmmtopit@gmail.com WhatsApp: +1(310)303-1147 Telegram: @BestSmmTopIt In a world where first impressions are made in milliseconds, your LinkedIn profile is your digital handshake. Make it count. When used strategically and responsibly, the decision to **buy verified LinkedIn accounts** can be a game-changing asset in your professional arsenal.

It's impossible to predict at the best of times how things are going to pan out. You ask to what extent someone like me, who has collected large amounts of data over a long period of time, can calculate the most likely course of the conflict. Well, I'm afraid I can't. Any forward-moving enterprise is going to contain an element of chaos.