Trust But Verify Quotes

Trust, but verify.

Trust, but verify.

Trust, but verify. Remember it when delegating. You have to do both.

Trust, But Verify...Ronald Reagan

Trust people. But verify that they’re not idiots.

Trust but verify. Or don't trust at all

Trust but verify.

Trust, but verify. —RONALD REAGAN

Like any good optimist, I don’t expect the worst to happen. Only, like any optimist worth his salt, I like to go and look as soon as possible afterward jest in case it did.

Доверяй, но проверяй (Trust but Verify)

Doveryai no proveryai—trust but verify,

If we are serious about seeking the facts, we can each make a small revolution in the way the internet works. If you are verifying information for yourself, you will not send on fake news to others. If you choose to follow reporters whom you have reason to trust, you can also transmit what they have learned to others. If you retweet only the work of humans who have followed journalistic protocols, you are less likely to debase your brain interacting with bots and trolls.

Trust, but verify, princess. - Lark

Of course power corrupts people. But that doesn't mean you don't trust - it just means you verify with care. In the end, people have no option but to work together.

Don’t Rely on Experts Doveryai, no proveryai (trust, but verify). —OLD RUSSIAN PROVERB,

Verification of value is repeat business.

Where value goes, dollars flow. As they say, people vote with dollars. Verification of value is repeat business.

Doveryai no Proveryai: Trust, but verify.

in the pedagogical domain, neither tradition nor intuition can be trusted: we need to scientifically verify which pedagogies actually improve students’ comprehension and retention, and which do not.

– a narrative, let me here say, which, in its latter portions, will be found to include incidents of a nature so entirely out of the range of human experience, and for this reason so far beyond the limits of human credulity, that I proceed in utter hopelessness of obtaining credence for all that I shall tell, yet confidently trusting in time and progressing science to verify some of the most important and most improbable of my statements.

If I now consider man in his isolated capacity, I find that dogmatic belief is no less indispensable to him in order to live alone than it is to enable him to co-operate with his fellows. If man were forced to demonstrate for himself all the truths of which he makes daily use, his task would never end. He would exhaust his strength in preparatory demonstrations without ever advancing beyond them. As, from the shortness of his life, he has not the time, nor, from the limits of his intelligence, the capacity, to act in this way, he is reduced to take on trust a host of facts and opinions which he has not had either the time or the power to verify for himself, but which men of greater ability have found out, or which the crowd adopts. On this groundwork he raises for himself the structure of his own thoughts; he is not led to proceed in this manner by choice, but is constrained by the inflexible law of his condition. There is no philosopher in the world so great but that he believes a million things on the faith of other people and accepts a great many more truths than he demonstrates. (Tocqueville 1945 2:9-10; Oeuvres Completes (M) 1(2):16-17, (B) 3:15-16).

New companies have sprung up to offer labeling data as a service; Mighty AI, for example, offers “the labeled data you need to train your computer vision models” and promises “known, verified, and trusted annotators who specialize in autonomous driving data.”11 The

If I now consider man in his isolated capacity, I find that dogmatic belief is no less indispensable to him in order to live alone than it is to enable him to co-operate with his fellows. If man were forced to demonstrate for himself all the truths of which he makes daily use, his task would never end. He would exhaust his strength in preparatory demonstrations without ever advancing beyond them. As, from the shortness of his life, he has not the time, nor, from the limits of his intelligence, the capacity, to act in this way, he is reduced to take on trust a host of facts and opinions which he has not had either the time or the power to verify for himself, but which men of greater ability have found out, or which the crowd adopts. On this groundwork he raises for himself the structure of his own thoughts; he is not led to proceed in this manner by choice, but is constrained by the inflexible law of his condition. There is no philosopher in the world so great but that he believes a million things on the faith of other people and accepts a great many more truths than he demonstrates. (Tocqueville 1945 2:9-10; Oeuvres Completes (M) 1(2):16-17, (B) 3:15-16).

Since in the age of the internet we are all publishers, each of us bears some private responsibility for the public’s sense of truth. If we are serious about seeking the facts, we can each make a small revolution in the way the internet works. If you are verifying information for yourself, you will not send on fake news to others. If you choose to follow reporters whom you have reason to trust, you can also transmit what they have learned to others. If you retweet only the work of humans who have followed journalistic protocols, you are less likely to debase your brain interacting with bots and trolls. We

Upon receiving that text from Georgie, she had, of course, wondered, Heard what? But she'd quickly gone from wondering to suspecting that she knew to being certain. Never would she have leapt to a conclusion this way when writing an article, never would she have allowed a fact to be alluded to without clarification. Trust but verify--that's what she'd have done. Yet not once in the past three months had she even attempted clarification. How sloppily, and with what slim evidence, she had embraced the disappointment of her own desires. Why on earth had she been so ready for, so complicit in, the denial of what she most wanted?

If we are serious about seeking the facts, we can each make a small revolution in the way the internet works. If you are verifying information for yourself, you will not send on fake news to others. If you choose to follow reporters whom you have reason to trust, you can also transmit what they have learned to others.

I have been thus particular in speaking of Dirk Peters, because, ferocious as he appeared, he proved the main instrument in preserving the life of Augustus, and because I shall have frequent occasion to mention him hereafter in the course of my narrative — a narrative, let me here say, which, in its latter portions, will be found to include incidents of a nature so entirely out of the range of human experience, and for this reason so far beyond the limits of human credulity, that I proceed in utter hopelessness of obtaining credence for all that I shall tell, yet confidently trusting in time and progressing science to verify some of the most important and most improbable of my statements.

MY MOTHER MADE me doubt and question my perceptions. The loving and warm persona that followed the tirades confused and destabilized me. I wanted a witness. An ally. To verify. To have proof. Someone I could turn to and say, “This happened, didn’t it?” Someone who could see the transformation I saw. “I have a right to be angry, don’t I? I don’t trust her,” I say. Only I didn’t say this. Because I was seven years old and I didn’t know yet that’s how I felt. And not trusting one’s mother is, on a cellular level, unjust. I needed to be heard and kept hoping she would hear me. As a child, it was too overwhelming to believe that she couldn’t recognize reality. My craving for her to be different was powerful. It inoculated me against the tumult. I descended deep within myself, far away to a place in the future. Where things would make sense and right was right and wrong was wrong. I was able to crawl away from my rage. But I never crawled away far enough.

People that think are many, people that reason are few. People that theorize are many, people that prove are few. People that speculate are many, people that know are few. People that assume are many, people that verify are few. People that hear are many, people that listen are few. People that preach are many, people that practice are few. People that see are many, people that observe are few. People that recall are many, people that comprehend are few. People that question are many, people that answer are few. People that entertain are many, people that educate are few. People that misguide are many, people that enlighten are few. People that lecture are many, people that demonstrate are few. People that start are many, people that finish are few. People that quit are many, people that persevere are few. People that fall are many, people that rise are few. People that compete are many, people that win are few. People that criticize are many, people that inspire are few. People that blame are many, people that pardon are few. People that condemn are many, people that console are few. People that undermine are many, people that strengthen are few. People that take are many, people that give are few. People that teach are many, people that mentor are few. People that harm are many, people that heal are few. People that doubt are many, people that believe are few. People that wish are many, people that strive are few. People that plan are many, people that prevail are few. People that lose are many, people that gain are few. People that fail are many, people that succeed are few. People that imitate are many, people that originate are few. People that innovate are many, people that invent are few. People that conceive are many, people that realize are few. People that dream are many, people that achieve are few. People that divide are many, people that unify are few. People that follow are many, people that lead are few. People that command are many, people that influence are few. People that control are many, people that guide are few. People that feel are many, people that empathize are few. People that yearn are many, people that fulfill are few. People that trust are many, people that are devoted are few. People that age are many, people that mature are few. People that rage are many, people that forgive are few. People that despair are many, people that hope are few. People that fear are many, people that love are few. People that curse are many, people that bless are few.

The overarching principle of a therapeutic relationship is that therapists should be ever mindful of a variant of the Hippocratic oath and, to the degree possible, strive to "do no more harm" (Courtois, 2010). Complex trauma clients have already experienced considerable harm, much of it at the hands of other human beings. As a result of the ubiquitous processes of transference, attachment styles, and IWM [Internal working models], these clients often view the therapist's behavior and their relationship through the lens of their trauma-related negative interpersonal expectancies and unhealed emotional wounds and injuries. Therapists should not be surprised to be "guilty until proven innocent", not because clients with complex trauma histories are "unfair" or "unreasonable" but precisely the opposite - because the most realistic self-protective stance for them (given the fact that betrayal and harm have been more the rule than the exception) is to "distrust first and verify" (or to be hypervigilant) rather than to start with an expectation of safety and trustworthiness.

Albert Einstein once said, “Most people say that it is the intellect which makes a great scientist. They are wrong: it is character.” . . . On one level, science is a collection of facts about the world, and adding to that collection does require discoveries. But science is also something larger. It’s a mindset, a process, a way of reasoning about the world that allows us to expose wishful thinking and biases and replace them with deeper, more reliable truths. Considering how vast the world is, there’s no way to check every reported experiment yourself and personally verify it. At some point, you have to trust other people’s claims—which means those people need to be honorable, need to be worthy of trusting. Moreover, science is an inherently social process. Results cannot be kept secret; they have to be verified by the wider community, or science simply doesn’t work. And given what a deeply social process science is, acts that damage society by shortchanging human rights or ignoring human dignity will almost always cost you in the end—by destroying people’s trust in science and even undermining the very conditions that make science possible.

If I now consider man in his isolated capacity, I find that dogmatic belief is no less indispensable to him in order to live alone than it is to enable him to co-operate with his fellows. If man were forced to demonstrate for himself all the truths of which he makes daily use, his task would never end. He would exhaust his strength in preparatory demonstrations without ever advancing beyond them. As, from the shortness of his life, he has not the time, nor, from the limits of his intelligence, the capacity, to act in this way, he is reduced to take on trust a host of facts and opinions which he has not had either the time or the power to verify for himself, but which men of greater ability have found out, or which the crowd adopts. On this groundwork he raises for himself the structure of his own thoughts; he is not led to proceed in this manner by choice, but is constrained by the inflexible law of his condition. There is no philosopher in the world so great but that he believes a million things on the faith of other people and accepts a great many more truths than he demonstrates. (Tocqueville 1945 2:9-10; Oeuvres Completes (M) 1(2):16-17, (B) 3:15-16).

To speak of a communication failure implies a breakdown of some sort. Yet this does not accurately portray what occurs. In truth, communication difficulties arise not from breakdown but from the characteristics of the system itself. Despite promising beginnings in our intimate relationships, we tend over time to evolve a system of communication that suppresses rather than reveals information. Life is complicated, and confirming or disconfirming the well-being of a relationship takes effort. Once we are comfortably coupled, the intense, energy-consuming monitoring of courtship days is replaced by a simpler, more efficient method. Unable to witness our partners’ every activity or verify every nuance of meaning, we evolve a communication system based on trust. We gradually cease our attentive probing, relying instead on familiar cues and signals to stand as testament to the strength of the bond: the words “I love you,” holidays with the family, good sex, special times with shared friends, the routine exchange, “How was your day?” We take these signals as representative of the relationship and turn our monitoring energies elsewhere. ... Not only do the initiator’s negative signals tend to become incorporated into the existing routine, but, paradoxically, the initiator actively contributes to the impression that life goes on as usual. Even as they express their unhappiness, initiators work at emphasizing and maintaining the routine aspects of life with the other person, simultaneously giving signals that all is well. Unwilling to leave the relationship yet, they need to privately explore and evaluate the situation. The initiator thus contrives an appearance of participation,7 creating a protective cover that allows them to “return” if their alternative resources do not work out. Our ability to do this—to perform a role we are no longer enthusiastically committed to—is one of our acquired talents. In all our encounters, we present ourselves to others in much the same way as actors do, tailoring our performance to the role we are assigned in a particular setting.8 Thus, communication is always distorted. We only give up fragments of what really occurs within us during that specific moment of communication.9 Such fragments are always selected and arranged so that there is seldom a faithful presentation of our inner reality. It is transformed, reduced, redirected, recomposed.10 Once we get the role perfected, we are able to play it whether we are in the mood to go on stage or not, simply by reproducing the signals. What is true of all our encounters is, of course, true of intimate relationships. The nature of the intimate bond is especially hard to confirm or disconfirm.11 The signals produced by each partner, while acting out the partner role, tend to be interpreted by the other as the relationship.12 Because the costs of constantly checking out what the other person is feeling and doing are high, each partner is in a position to be duped and misled by the other.13 Thus, the initiator is able to keep up appearances that all is well by falsifying, tailoring, and manipulating signals to that effect. The normal routine can be used to attest to the presence of something that is not there. For example, initiators can continue the habit of saying, “I love you,” though the passion is gone. They can say, “I love you” and cover the fact that they feel disappointment or anger, or that they feel nothing at all. Or, they can say, “I love you” and mean, “I like you,” or, “We have been through a lot together,” or even “Today was a good day.

The participants were twenty-six men engaged in a variety of professional occupations: sixteen engineers, one engineer-physicist, two mathematicians, two architects, one psychologist, one furniture designer, one commercial artist, one sales manager, and one personnel manager. At the time of the study, there were few women in senior scientific positions, and none was found who wished to participate. Nineteen of the subjects had no previous experience with psychedelics. They were selected on the basis of the following criteria: The participant’s occupation required problemsolving ability. The participant was psychologically stable, as determined by a psychiatric interview examination. The participant was motivated to discover, verify, and apply solutions within his current employment. Six groups of four and one group of three met in the evening several days before the session.a The sequence of events to be followed was explained in detail. In this initial meeting, we sought to allay any apprehension and establish rapport and trust among the participants and the staff.

Integration databases—don’t do it! Seriously! Not even with views. Not even with stored procedures. Take it up a level, and wrap a web service around the database. Then make the web service redundant and accessed through a virtual IP. Build a test harness to verify what happens when the web service is down. That’s an enterprise integration technology. Reaching into another system’s database is just…icky. Nothing hobbles a system’s ability to adapt quite like having other systems poking into its guts. Database “integrations” are pure evil. They violate encapsulation and information hiding by exposing the most intimate details about a system’s inner workings. They encourage inappropriate coupling at both the structural and semantic levels. Even worse, the system that hangs its database out for the world cannot trust the data in the database at all. Rows can be added or modified by other entities even while the owner has objects in memory mapped from those rows. Vital application logic can be bypassed, resulting in illegal or unreachable states.[119]

Like Ronald Reagan said, trust but verify.

his motto was Trust But Verify,

Don’t slow down delivery. Decide, when needed, at the right level. Do it with the right people. Go see for yourself. Only do it if it adds value. Trust and verify.

Delegation and trust are of course vital—you can’t do everything yourself, and you shouldn’t try. That said, you don’t want delegation to verge into a total abdication of authority on your part. You must verify that employees and the organization are actually executing as they are supposed to.

Before Grigg, in the 1990s, another visionary had also seen the potential power of a digital ledger. Nick Szabo was an early Cypherpunk* and developed some of the concepts that underlie Bitcoin, which is one reason why some suspect he is Satoshi Nakamoto. His protocol has at its heart a spreadsheet that runs on a “virtual machine”—such as a network of interlinked computers—accessible to multiple parties. Szabo envisioned an intricate system of both private and public data that would protect private identities but provide enough public information about transactions to build up a verifiable transaction history. Szabo’s system—he called it the “God Protocol”—is now more than two decades old. Yet it is remarkably similar to the blockchain platforms and protocols that we’ll learn about in the chapters to come. Szabo, Grigg, and others pioneered an approach with the potential to create a record of history that cannot be changed—a record that someone like Madoff, or Lehman’s bankers, could not have meddled with. Their approach might just help restore trust in the systems we use to transact with each other.

Scarecrow often would take me aside and explain that he lived by two simple rules. First, perception is reality. Second, trust but verify. Each of these rules, he was proud to say, he had learned during the most enlightened period in the history of the United States—1980 to 1988—from the most enlightened man alive during that period. Scarecrow believed Ronald Reagan was God, and at Morgan Stanley he wasn’t alone.

Trust but verify,

Trusting makes you weak. I prefer to pretend to trust while verifying everything. Verifying everything requires perfecting certain incognito sleuthing abilities, of course.

Consider one scenario that some envisage in an IoT world, where a self-driving car that needs to get somewhere in a hurry can make a small payment to another self-driving car to let it pass. As discussed, you’ll need a distributed trust system to verify the integrity of the transaction, which may involve a lot more information than just that of the money transfer before it can be processed—for example, you may need to know whether the overtaking car is certified as safe to drive at the faster speed, or whether one car’s software can be trusted not to infect the other with malware. These kinds of verifications, as well as that of the fund balance in the paying car’s wallet, could be run through a blockchain log to check the validity of each side’s claims, giving each the assurances they need without having to rely on some certifying central authority. The question, though, is: would this transaction be easily processed if it were based on a private blockchain? What are the chances, in a country of more than 230 million cars, that both vehicles would belong to the same closed network run by a group of permissioned validating computers? If they weren’t part of the same network, the payment couldn’t go through as the respective software would not be interoperable. Other car manufacturers might not want to use a permissioned verification system for which, say, GM, or Ford, is the gatekeeper. And if they instead formed a consortium of carmakers to run the system, would their collective control over this all-important data network create a barrier to entry for newer, startup carmakers? Would it effectively become a competition-killing oligopoly? A truly decentralized, permissionless system could be a way around this “walled-garden” problem of siloed technology. A decentralized, permissionless system means any device can participate in the network yet still give everyone confidence in the integrity of the data, of the devices, and of the value being transacted. A permissionless system would create a much more fluid, expansive Internet of Things network that’s not beholden to the say-so and fees of powerful gatekeepers.

If I can trust another person’s claims—about their educational credentials, for example, or their assets, or their professional reputation—because they’ve been objectively verified by a decentralized system, then I can go into direct business with them. I can give them a job. I can collaborate on a joint venture. I can share sensitive business information with them. All without having to rely on middlemen like lawyers, escrow agents, and others who add costs and inefficiencies to our exchanges. These kinds of agreements are the stuff of economic growth. They fuel innovation and prosperity. Any technology that reduces friction and makes such collaborations happen should benefit everybody, in other words.

With Bitcoin’s network of independent computers verifying everything collectively, transactions could now be instituted peer to peer, that is, from person to person. That’s a big change from our convoluted credit and debit card payments system, for example, which routes transactions through a long sequence of intermediaries—at least two banks, one or two payment processors, a card network manager (such as Visa or Mastercard), and a variety of other institutions, depending on where the transaction takes place. Each entity in that system maintains its own separate ledger, which it later must reconcile with every other entity’s independent records, a process that takes time, incurs costs, and carries risks. Whereas you might think that money is being instantly transferred when you swipe your card at a clothing store, in reality the whole process takes several days for the funds to make all those hops and finally settle in the storeowner’s account, a delay that creates risks and costs. With Bitcoin, the idea is that your transaction should take only ten to sixty minutes to fully clear (notwithstanding some current capacity bottlenecks that Bitcoin developers are working to resolve). You don’t have to rely on all those separate, trusted third parties to process it on your behalf.

Trust but verify was somehow safer, cleaner. It protected the soul and the heart.

Most buyers will go in aloof and reserved. They’ll shoot down ideas and inject cautionary responses at opportune times. They act like a conservative investor who must be convinced to be brought to the table, and if they do, their actions warn, it’s going to be hardball. This is not a trust but verify approach. It’s a prove it and then I’ll consider trusting you approach. There is a time to be a conservative investor during this process. This book, however, is not about how to become a conservative investor; it’s about acquisition entrepreneurship. Any acquisition will obviously include volumes of cautious investing analysis. Buying your first business is usually the largest investment you’ve ever made in your life and you will research accordingly. If there are snakes in the bushes, you will simply walk away later. The best buyers, however, understand that they too are entrepreneurs, just like the seller. The transaction will be completed within a few months after meeting the seller and then the buyer will be in the driver’s seat for the next four to forty years. Acting like an entrepreneur and not a venture capitalist during the interactions with the seller is the key to winning the seller over, getting the best deal outcome later, and behaving like the new CEO of the company—which you may or may not be, but that will be up to you and not them if you play your cards right.

At their core, cryptocurrencies are built around the principle of a universal, inviolable ledger, one that is made fully public and is constantly being verified by these high-powered computers, each essentially acting independently of the others. In theory, that means we don’t need banks and other financial intermediaries to form bonds of trust on our behalf. The network-based ledger—which in the case of most cryptocurrencies is called a blockchain—works as a stand-in for the middlemen since it can just as effectively tell us whether the counterparty to a transaction is good for his or her money.

November 30 Hear all sides and you will be enlightened. Hear one side and you will be in the dark. Wei Zheng Everyone perceives things through their own lens. There are very few people who can give you an unbiased opinion on any subject. If you have five people who witness a fight, you will get five different accounts of what happened, maybe not on the main points, but they will differ concerning the details. For this reason, it is always wise to hear all sides of the story before you form any opinions. True life court shows on television demonstrate this fact. They will go through the evidence and present the prosecution’s side of the case, and you think to yourself, “this guy is guilty as sin,” but when the defense presents their case, many times you start to see things in a different light. Don’t be too quick to form a decision. Once you have heard all sides of the issue, then you can form your opinion concerning the matter at hand. Strive to see things as they really are, not as they appear. Look for the truth. Too many people make decisions without having all of the pertinent information needed to come to a wise conclusion. Without all the information, you’re just guessing. Don’t be too quick to totally trust the information that you receive from someone else. Trust but verify. Don’t be duped, hear all sides before you make important decisions. Make sure that what you think is truly what you think, and not simply someone else’s thoughts which have been seeded in your mind. I hear all sides before I act.

Manuka Kitchen Remodeling Pros connects you with trusted verified remodeling professionals near you. With 10+ years of experience, we make dream kitchens. Our contractors can help you with kitchen design, expansion, cabinets, flooring, and kitchen counters. Give us a call today. We service all 50 states.

Trust, but verify.

Frame control creates power and power attracts. BY JOSH (JETSET) KING MADRID WHAT DO KANYE WEST AND ELON MUSK HAVE IN COMMON? When you put the two together, there may be few similarities, but I believe one trait they share is the ability to control their frame, also known as frame control. Frame control is a little-known underlying phenomenon that may be one of the reasons they are so influential and successful despite the controversy. Nonetheless, they maintain their status as some of our culture's most powerful figures. The power of how we frame our personal realities is referred to as frame control. A frame is a tool that you can use to package your power, authority, strength, information, and status. Standing firm in your beliefs can persuade and influence. I first discovered frame control in 2016 after coming across the book Pitch Anything by Oren Klaff. I was hooked instantly. I was a freshman in college at UC Irvine at the time and was earning a few thousand dollars a month in my online business. In just a few short months after applying the concept of frame control in my life and business, everything changed — I started dating the girl of my dreams, cleared my first $27,000 in one month and dropped out of college to go all in on my business. Since then, I've read every book, watched every video, and studied every expert-written blog I can find on the subject. This eventually led me to obtain NLP and neuro-marketing certifications, both of which explain the underlying psychology of how our brains frame social interactions and provide techniques for controlling these frames in oneself and others in order to become more likable, influential, and lead a better life overall. Frame control is about establishing your own authority, but it isn't just some self-help nonsense. It is about true and verified beliefs. The glass half-empty or half-full frame is a popular analogy. If you believe the glass is half-empty, that is exactly what it will be. But someone with a half-full frame can come in and convince you to change your belief, simply by backing it up with the logic of “an empty glass of water would always be empty, but having water in an empty glass makes it half-full.” Positioning your view as the one that counts does take some practice because you first have to believe in yourself. You won’t be able to convince anyone of your authority if you are not authentic or if you don’t actually believe in what you’re trying to sell. Whether they realize it or not, public figures are likely to engage in frame control. When you're in the spotlight, you have to stay focused on the type of person you want the rest of the world to see you as. Tom Cruise, for example, is an example of frame control because of his ability to maintain dominance in media situations. In a well-known BBC interview, Tom Cruise assertively puts the interviewer in his place when he steps out of line and begins probing into his personal life. Cruise doesn't do it disrespectfully, which is how he maintains his own dominance, but he does it in such a way that the interviewer is held accountable. How Frame Control Positions the User as Influential or Powerful Turning toward someone who is dominant or who seems to know what they are doing is a natural occurrence. Generally speaking, we are hard-wired to trust people who believe in themselves and when they are put on a world stage, the effects of it can be almost bewildering. We often view comedians as mere entertainers, but in fact, many of them are experts in frame control. They challenge your views by making you laugh. Whether you want to accept their frame or not, the moment you laugh, your own frame has been shaken and theirs have taken over.

Trusting makes you weak. I prefer to pretend to trust while verifying everything.

I don’t like living with scarcity. I don’t like having just enough to meet my needs. I don’t like being dependent. It makes me feel vulnerable. In my economy, I want a full oil flask and overflowing flour jar. I want to see exactly how and when God will provide for my needs. I want a guarantee I can independently verify. That’s because, deep down, I’d rather depend on myself than on God. Though I want to serve him with my whole heart, trusting him in the dark can be frightening; it’s far easier when the future looks bright. I’d rather praise God for his abundant provision than daily depend on him to meet my basic needs.

Trust, but verify.

Queer how that was always cropping up. Here she was highly respectable, married, mother of a small boy, and, in spite of all that, knowing all that, these people took one look at her and immediately got that now-I-wonder look. Apparently it was an automatic reaction of white people—if a girl was colored and fairly young, why, it stood to reason she had to be a prostitute. If not that—at least sleeping with her would be just a simple matter, for all one had to do was make the request. In fact, white men wouldn't even have to do the asking because the girl would ask them on sight. She grew angrier as she thought about it. Of course, none of them could know about your grandmother who had brought you up, she said to herself. And ever since you were big enough to remember the things that people said to you, had said over and over, just like a clock ticking, 'Lutie, baby, don't you never let no white man put his hands on you. They ain't never willin' to let a black woman alone. Seems like they all got a itch and a urge to sleep with 'em. Don't you never let any of 'em touch you.' Something that was said so often and with such gravity it had become a part of you, just like breathing, and you would have preferred crawling in bed with a rattlesnake to getting in bed with a white man. Mrs. Chandler's friends and her mother couldn't possibly know that, couldn't possibly imagine that you might have a distrust and a dislike of white men far deeper than the distrust these white women had of you. Or know that, after hearing their estimation of you, nothing in the world could ever force you to be even friendly with a white man. And again she thought of the barrier between her and these people. The funny part of it was she was willing to trust them and their motives without questioning, but the instant they saw the color of her skin they knew what she must be like; they were so confident about what she must be like they didn't need to know her personally in order to verify their estimate.

And he said explicitly: “We understand that not only for the Soviet Union but for other European countries as well it is important to have guarantees that if the United States keeps its presence in Germany within the framework of NATO, not an inch of NATO’s present military jurisdiction will spread in an eastern direction.” Not an inch eastward. The United States gave “categorical assurances” on that point, said Jack Matlock, the American ambassador in Moscow under Reagan and Bush. Gorbachev heard them clearly, and he heard them repeatedly. He responded: “Any extension of the zone of NATO is unacceptable.” He trusted but did not verify: he never got America’s assurances in writing.

To hold your soul in hell and not despair is to manage to hang on to the faith in the reality of the spiritual realm, even in the harshest time of the physical realm, even when all seems lost and in fact if you want to climb the mountain of spiritual awakening, spiritual consciousness there must be that stage where we are taken to the far edge beyond what we can bear or think we can bear. And if we hang on in faith and trust, if we call upon the help of that spiritual reality, that miracle will happen and against all odds renewal, new beginnings, redemption, can take place. This is a verifiable, magnificent experience that I know personally, that I know others have experienced, and that you can experience. So, from the point of view of the Fourth Way all the difficulties of life become firewood for the fire. In other words, strengthen your consciousness, raise your consciousness to another level of perspective and transcendence so that you can walk calmly through the nightmare and holding on through that dark night you will achieve a new level of faith, understanding, and relationship with the spiritual reality. If some of you are in times of great suffering and all of us walk that path somehow sometime, remember that and take it seriously for it is one of the pearls of great price and discover that the very negative things of life, personal and destructive can turn into the fertilizer for your soul, the awakening of a deeper self, and the face-to-face encounter with the reality of God's help. (p. 142-142)

you may question or even deny a bad vibe because you have no hard evidence to back up what you’re feeling. Don’t compromise your safety by falling into this trap. You do not need any other proof if you have bad vibes. If you sense that something is off, however difficult it may be to verify, trust your vibes and stay away. You may have to take a little heat for your suspicions, especially from five-sensory people who deny almost everything, but who cares?

We lose very little by taking a beat to consider our own thoughts. Is this really so bad? What do I really know about this person? Why do I have such strong feelings here? Is anxiety really adding much to the situation? What’s so special about __________? By asking these questions—by putting our impressions to the test as Epictetus recommends—we’re less likely to be carried away by them or make a move on a mistaken or biased one. We’re still free to use our instincts, but we should always, as the Russian proverb says, “trust, but verify.

There are all sorts of examples of how we have been urged to take on trust a variety of extraordinary claims. Practitioners of 'Fat Studies' maintain that there are no authentic health risks to obesity, and that the seemingly irrefutable evidence to the contrary is the product of the inherent bigotry of the scientific method. An image of an individual with a bloodstained crotch is shared online to prove that men can menstruate, when we can all quite clearly see that this is a biological female who identifies as male. According to the new puritans, the observable realities of existence are a mirage. Only they have access to the truth, and we are all invited to jettison verifiable facts and nod along. Is this really any different from a preacher who insists that his supernatural interpretation of the world must be uncritically accepted without any evidence to support it?

Trust but verify.

Trust, and verify

When the American republics begin to degenerate it will be easy to verify the truth of this observation, by remarking whether the number of political impeachments augments.

Don’t trust, and never verify.” Roy said, “That doesn’t fill me with confidence.

DEFENDING A RAPIST What is the character of a person who becomes a sexual enabler? We get an early glimpse into this question from 1975, when Hillary Clinton defended a man, Thomas Alfred Taylor, who was accused of beating and raping a twelve-year-old girl. A virgin prior to the attack, she spent five days in a coma, several months recovering from her injuries, and years in therapy. Even people who are accused of heinous crimes deserve criminal representation. Hillary’s strategy in defending Taylor, however, was to blame the teenage victim. According to an affidavit filed by Hillary, children who come from “disorganized families such as the complainant” sometimes “exaggerate or romanticize sexual experiences.” Hillary suggested the girl was “emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and engage in fantasizing.” Here Hillary seems to be echoing what Bernie Sanders wrote in his rape fantasy essay. In this case, however, the girl certainly didn’t dream up the assault and rape. There was physical evidence that showed she had been violated, and she was beaten so badly she was in a coma. Prosecutors had in their possession a bloodied pair of Taylor’s underwear. But fortunately for Hillary and her client, the forensic lab mishandled the way that evidence was preserved. At the time of trial, the state merely had a pair of Taylor’s underwear with a hole cut in it. Hillary plea bargained on behalf of Taylor and got him released without having to do any additional time. A tape unearthed by the Washington Free Beacon has Hillary celebrating the outcome. “Got him off with time served in the county jail,” she says. Did Hillary believe that, in this case, justice was done? Certainly not. On the tape, Hillary admits she never trusted her client. “Course he claimed he didn’t, and all this stuff.” So she decided to verify his story. “I had him take a polygraph, which he passed—which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs.” Clearly Hillary knows her client is guilty, and this fact doesn’t bother her. The most chilling aspect of Hillary’s voice is her indifference—even bemusement—at getting a man off after he raped a twelve-year-old. The episode is a revealing look into the soul of an enabler. In fact, it reminds me of Alinsky protesting to Frank Nitti about the wasted expense of importing an out-of-town-killer. Hillary, like Alinsky, seems to be a woman without a conscience.9

However it—or the kind of extreme individualistic epistemology it embraces—can lead historians to an overly skeptical approach particularly to those sources that were intended to recount and inform events of the past, that is, testimony in this restricted sense. Particularly in Gospels scholarship there is an attitude abroad that approaches the sources with fundamental skepticism, rather than trust, and therefore requires that anything the sources claim be accepted only if historians can independently verify it…..

It is hard to find many better examples of values-first leadership than Ventura, California-based outdoor clothing company Patagonia. For more than 30 years, the company has defied conventional wisdom by building its brand as much around environmental responsibility as on quality products and service. How many businesses would run a marketing campaign encouraging customers to not buy new products but repair the old ones instead in order to reduce their environmental footprint? Only companies interested in creating a “lovability economy” would prioritize sustainable growth for themselves and the world and take a long-term perspective. They see themselves as stewards of meaningful relationships and understand that mutually positive interactions and exchanges of value are lasting. Patagonia has even made its supply chain public with an online map showing every farm, textile mill, and factory it uses in sourcing its materials and manufacturing its products. Anyone who wants to can see where their Patagonia products come from and verify that the company is walking the walk — using sustainable materials and producing apparel in facilities that are safe for workers. That is transparency that breeds trust. Founder Yvon Chouinard’s vision has also led to a culture that is not only employee-friendly (the company even encourages employees at its corporate headquarters to quit early when the surf is up) but attracts people whose values align with the company’s. This aggressively anti-profit, pro-values approach has yielded big dividends. The privately-held benefit corporation is tight-lipped about its revenues, but two years after it began its “cause marketing” campaign, sales increased 27 percent, to $575 million in 2013.7

They trust in anything that verifies their importance as persons, tribes, societies, and particularly as a species that will endure in this world and perhaps in an afterworld that may be uncertain, unclear, or an out-and-out nightmare, but which sates their appetite for values not of this earth—that depressing, meaningless place they know so well and want nothing more than to obliterate from their consciousness. Sure enough, then, writers such as Zapffe, Schopenhauer, and Lovecraft only write their ticket to marginality when they fail to affirm the worth and wonder of humanity, the validity of its values (whether eternal or provisional), and, naturally, a world without end, or at least one that continues into the foreseeable future. Anything else is too depressing to be countenanced.

BF7BA421: "Eric Allman " 44 new signatures gpg: key A00E1563: "Gregory Neil Shapiro " 48 new signatures gpg: key 22327A01: "Claus Assmann (PGP2) " 14 new signatures gpg: Total number processed: 15 gpg: imported: 1 gpg: new user IDs: 4 gpg: new signatures: 222 gpg: 3 marginal(s) needed, 1 complete(s) needed, classic trust model gpg: depth: 0 valid: 1 signed: 0 trust: 0-, 0q, 0n, 0m, 0f, 1u Notice that the newest key imported in the preceding output was key 7093B841 (the signing key for 2007). To verify that this key is valid (not forged) print its fingerprint with a command like this: % gpg --fingerprint 7093B841 pub 1024R/7093B841 2006-12-16 Key fingerprint = D9 FD C5 6B EE 1E 7A A8 CE 27 D9 B9 55 8B 56 B6 uid Sendmail Signing Key/2007 Now compare the fingerprint displayed to the following list of valid fingerprints:

As you gain experience in business, as you see and solve more and more problems, you will get a fair idea of what works in your industry and what doesn’t. Although your gut will often be right, take a hint from former President Reagan: “Trust and verify.” As a McKinsey alumnus who now works as a merchant banker put it: A sharp manager with a lot of business experience can often reach the same conclusions as McKinsey—and in a much shorter time—by gut instinct, but most executives aren’t that good. Because McKinsey focuses so intently on a problem, it often produces a more robust solution than even the best executive can. Most executives will miss a few things because they don’t take the time—they usually don’t have the time. So, even though your initial instinct may be—and probably is—right, take enough time to verify your gut with facts.

I followed the words of the famous Russian proverb: Doveryai, no proveryai (or, in English, 'Trust, but verify').

The first drone strike outside of a declared war zone was conducted in 2002, yet it was not until May 2013 that the White House released a set of standards and procedures for conducting such strikes.3 Those guidelines offered little specificity, asserting that the United States would conduct a lethal strike outside an “area of active hostilities” only if a target represents a “continuing, imminent threat to U.S. persons,” without providing any sense of the internal process used to determine whether a suspect should be killed without being indicted or tried.4 The implicit message on drone strikes from the Obama administration has been Trust, but don’t verify.5

There is a place for knowing and hearing and reading. But there has to come a moment of personal surrender. Our commitment to God has sufficient objective truth so that the truth claims can be verified. The Bible is not a fanciful book of spiritual speculation conjured up by dreamers. There are historical, geographical, and philosophical assertions that can be measured and confirmed by the historian, the archeologist, and the philosopher, respectively. But the point of real contact comes when that third-person knowledge - that knowledge about God - becomes a first-person trust in God and commitment to His will. Only then does the personal understanding bring a transformed attitude.

How To Purchase Digital Securities On The BrightCOIN Platform In this post, we go over the steps an investor must complete to invest in an STO on the BrightCOIN platform. Almost all security token offerings in the US are launched under Reg. D, 506c, Reg. S, or Reg. A+. And as everyone knows by now, every contributor must not only pass KYC and AML screens but also must be accredited investors. So what does a contributor see when he clicks the “Invest Now” button on an STO landing page? You’re immediately taken to the issuer’s branded page to create an account. Once your email is verified, you’re presented with a screen that asks if you’re investing as an individual or an entity, such as an IRA or irrevocable trust, for example. You’ll then provide the information to complete the KYC and AML scans. If you registered as an individual, then you must upload the appropriate investor accreditation documents that will be verified. Alternatively, if you registered as an entity, you must upload the appropriate documents for verification as well. You’ll then be informed that your documentation has been submitted for verification. The verification process typically takes 24-48 hours to complete. Next, you’ll be asked to complete a questionnaire detailing the conditions of the offering. You must acknowledge that you’ve read them all individually then read and acknowledge terms of service and privacy policy. On the next page, you’ll be presented with a form to make your contribution. Choose the currency you wish to make your contribution with, in addition to the amount you’ll contribute. Your contribution will automatically calculate the number of tokens you’ll receive for your contribution based on the current exchange rate. Then, you’ll be presented with the issuer’s subscription agreement. Read it carefully, agree with the terms and sign. The only step left is to confirm your token purchase. That’s it! You’ve completed the whole token purchase process and will receive your tokens at the close of the STO. The content (Blogs, FAQs, News) posted on BrightCOIN may contain incorrect information, always get professional advice. Neither BrightCOIN nor any of its directors, officers, employees, representatives, affiliates or agents shall have any liability whatsoever arising from any error or incompleteness of fact or opinion in, or lack of care in the preparation of, any of the materials posted on this website. BrightCOIN does not provide legal, accounting or tax advice. Any representation or implication to the contrary is expressly disclaimed.

dangerous trade, and she knew there was a bevy of analysts

Verify first, then trust.

Trust but verify first.

Please note that the Gallup-documented changes in trust did not flow from the verifiable truth or falsity of the content. In the bubble, facts are no match for belief. There is no Democrat Party child-sex ring being operated out of a Washington, D.C., pizzeria, and never was. There is no fleet of UN black helicopters poised to invade the capitals of the world and steal their sovereignty, and never was. There was no U.S. military operation under the Obama administration to overthrow Texas and jail patriots in a vacant Walmart (I’m pretty sure we already have Texas, don’t we?). There was no George W. Bush administration plot to blow up the Twin Towers on 9/11 as a false-flag operation. There was no fake moon landing. Baby Barack Obama was born in a Honolulu, Hawaii, hospital, just as the birth certificate and contemporaneous newspaper announcements said. And at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012, having already shot his own mother to death, Adam Lanza murdered twenty children and six adults. It was not a hoax. No matter what that asshole Alex Jones or his addled followers believe, the victims’ grieving parents were not “crisis actors” in a plot to undermine the Second Amendment. It was a fucking massacre conducted with a fucking assault rifle such as the fucking NRA has fought for decades to be readily available.

The Security Function of the Blockchain The Merkle tree structure and cryptographic linkage of blocks are what give the blockchain its reliable security function.  People put their trust in the blockchain because every new block can be followed back through the chain, verified by recalculating hash functions, all the way back to the Genesis block.

Trust but verify

Wooqlaw Marketplace is a legal solution for overseas Pakistanis seeking legal assistance in their home country. The platform connects users with verified lawyers across Pakistan to manage legal matters remotely, Whether it's property disputes, family matters, or corporate legal concerns, our platform connects you with verified lawyers across Pakistan. With Wooqlaw®, you can access legal advice, manage cases, and schedule consultations online, all from the comfort of your current location. Stay connected, informed, and confident in resolving your legal matters with the best and most trusted lawyers in Pakistan