you have Euclidean geometry and you can also become non-Euclidean, you have aristotle logic and it seems you can have non-Aristotlean logic too, the trivlent logic (of Aymara, a southamercian people) https://aymara.org/biblio/html/igr/igr3.html

microplastics, now found in human blood, foundto pass BBB barrier in mice https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01143-3?fbclid=IwAR3xaaMzRgYrrg0D980ccmoZSif1HdebRh4PQq3L_aIg6P5M9l7cmDkaeg8

Doctorow on cryptography, crypopuncks vs spooks, financial secrecy for abused minorities and abusing elites, the need for the rule of law, the only ultimate protection because of the attacker advantage and the rubber-hose cryptanalysys, i.e. even with the best crypto you can be mugged to give out keys https://onezero.medium.com/rubber-hoses-fd685385dcd4

Tooze on urban warfare, urbicide, MOUT, history and theory to start thinking about Mariupol, and new wars https://adamtooze.substack.com/p/chartbook-104-from-mostar-to-mariupol?s=r

Policy Tensor on tge geopolitics of money in Asia, following the war in Ukraine. Currency reserves, possible decline os USD as reserve currency, India pivot etc https://policytensor.substack.com/p/the-geometry-of-fear-in-eurasia?s=r

reading, started reading, will I be able to get to the end ? Better save it:

It from Qubit,, reading Preskill on Twitter he said this is the most interesting physics problem and I found Devid Deutsch on google http://www.daviddeutsch.org.uk/wp-content/ItFromQubit.pdf

(BTW finished today, Deutsch writes that the human brain is surely a classical computer, not quantum. And even if we were living in a computer simulation we could not possibily know so why not revert to the sex quarrels of Greek gods)

Murray Bookchin group on Facebook, I clicked on it “Sociobiology or social ecology?” Bookchin is on my reading list longtime, I also have some curiosity for OE WIlson who just died, founder of sociobiology https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/murray-bookchin-sociobiology-or-social-ecology?fbclid=IwAR3_TjXUihXvRz6S5My-gsd0OLK1NXQLrN4Y7wgCOPjYsx1hqmYRZtEHVUo

tbh Taleb got me curious about WIlson, when Scientific American published that offensive obituary on him. This is a quote by Taleb:

“gene plays a role, are quite tractable, but anything entailing higher dimensionality falls apart. Understanding the genetic makeup of a unit will never allow us to understand the behavior of the unit itself. A reminder that what I am writing here isn’t an opinion. It is a straightforward mathematical property. The mean-field approach is when one uses the average interaction between, say, two people, and generalizes to the group—it is only possible if there are no asymmetries. For instance, Yaneer Bar-Yam has applied the failure of mean-field to evolutionary theory of the selfish-gene narrative trumpeted by such aggressive journalistic minds as Richard Dawkins and Steven Pinker, with more mastery of English than probability theory. He shows that local properties fail and the so-called mathematics used to prove the selfish gene are woefully naive and misplaced. There has been a storm around work by Martin Nowack and his colleagues (which include the biologist E. O. Wilson) about the terminal flaws in the selfish gene theory”

― Nassim Nicholas Taleb, Skin in the Game: Hidden Asymmetries in Daily Life

and today I found in my inbox Razib Kahn rebuttal to Scientific American “Setting the record straight: open letter on E.O. Wilson’s legacy”