Arvon juoksussa

Is it possible to ask for shareholder communication rights towards all employees, in the name of the fulfilment of data transparency? I’d want this right just so that I can have the market created (by way of the becoming of the law) to build the technology that facilitates the discussion: who could imagine a better retirement than hounding the working with all manners of questions of all types of subject matter related to the continuance of the working world? Giving Grandma (and all the other Grandpeople) the right to pester the working might actually be an integral part of ensuring high life-quality stability levels in the future. The funny thing is that this might just make sense (or it might be the one thing that literally makes People just go on final work strike haha who is to know)


Kaupunki ulottuu aina maaseudulle asti: jostain peltoalasta ruoan on kasvettava. Se on sitten eri asia onko tämä maaseutu maantieteellisesti kaukana keskellä luontoa, vai nätisti jossain viherpaketissa keskellä lähiasuinalueiden varastoseutuja. Mutta käsitteellisesti ajatellen: kaupungin ja maaseudun on kuljettava yksi toisessa kiinni. Ei ole mahdollista ajatella muulla tavoin, niin kauan kuin keho puhuu.


I implore the Leaders of the Formula 1 World to remember their Fans when making manoeuvres guiding the future life of the sport. Just as Champagne has lived for centuries, pacing the passing of the years in its moments of liquid delight, then I myself hope for the continuation of the story of Formula 1 towards a similar state of commercial institutionalization. I seriously couldn’t imagine a better retirement, decades from now, as one spent traveling around the world watching Young People battle it out, speeding through the tunnels of death around the track: destroying fear of it and killing time whilst doing it.

Why not set up the Formula One Foundation? It would be a great way to design longevity into the organisational structure of the sport. There could be an intra-Foundational market with Participating and Non-Participating Shares: automobile manufacturers and other combatants-for-victory could take turns filling the twenty slots-for-cars on the grid. Doing this would essentially turn Formula 1 into a high-quality commodity (the definition of setting up a Foundation) designed for long-term operation: set a cost base, keep funding it on a value-argument based on a set share of revenue (eg. Foundation Shareholders in-business revenue cut: “F1 lives on a 3% continuing investment of its Foundational Shareholders and on the commercial profits its generates”).

If this were to happen at the request of the current F1 world, then it would be like they were a circus-crowd holding up their hosts for ransom: suggesting a taxation-based funding model. That’d be fun to see happen: F1 would keep on living, as long as there were People who wanted to work in it to keep making it real! Given how many fans the sport has (over half-a-billion media reach), then I don’t think finding workers will be a problem: F1 does not face a shortage of talent supply, as far as I understand.


Kielitaidon arvo ei ole suorassa suhteessa pelkästään siihen, kuinka moni Ihminen puhuu kyseistä kieltä. Se on suorassa suhteessa myös siihen kuinka paljon rahaa kyseisen kielen käyttäjien lävitse virtaa, ja kuinka paljon heidän kotimaahan on entuudestaan istutettu pääomaa. Sitten aletaan ymmärtää arvon perusteita jossain toimintaympäristössä. 

Mutta on tärkeätä heti muistaa, että arvo ei elä tyhjiössä: absoluuttisessa tilassa. Emme voi asettaa arvoja hyllylle ja olettaa niiden pysyvän samassa järjestyksessä yli ajan. Arvo elää dynaamisessa virrassa historian jatkuvan kehityksen kanssa ja siten kielitaito on mitä luonnollisin esimerkki siitä, miten vallan kehittymisellä on taidonkehityksellinen korrelaatio. Jos talouden geopoliittiset virrat muljahtavat uuteen asentoon vaikka vuosikymmenen tai muutaman aikana niin vanhasta kielitaidosta ei ole enää samalla tavalla arvoa synnyttääkseen, ellei keskity vanhemman markkinan ylläpitoon ja lyhyempään tulevaisuuden horisonttiin: ellei “tartu institutionalisoituvaan liiketoimintaan,” niin sanotusti.

Toki joistain arvoista on sopivaa pitää kiinni muuttumattomina. Kaikki yksilöinä tietänevät juttunsa, on olettamani tässä asiassa. Minä ainakin pidän siitä kiinni, että vapausasteeni Ihmisenä on nykymaailman kontekstissa funktionaalinen yhdistelmä rahan määrää, sen valuutallista laatua ja siihen sidottuja velvoitteita.

Rahan numero on kuin materia kun taas valuutta ja velvoitteet ovat siihen sidottuja massan (eri määrissä näkyviä ja näkymättömiä) muotoja. Nämä massat ohjaavat käyttäytymistäni suuntaan ja toiseen, sillä haluan varmistaa niitä tuovan rahan virran valumisen jatkossakin. Näin sanoo homo economicus, käytännössä määritelmältään.

Loppupeleissä vapaudellani on hyvin vähän tekemistä Valtion ja sen järjestelmän kanssa, kunhan minulla on rahaa enkä käyttäydy tyhmästi. Minä ainakin pyrin olemaan homo economicus: hän ollessaan, koen pukevani vaatteena päälle eräänlaisen vapauden määritelmän, optimoidessani tieteellisen brändin voimaannuttamana omaa utiliteettifunktiotani ja sen toteutumista elämässä.

Toiminnan alkaessa olen aina sitä mieltä, että minä osaan laskea arvonmäärityksen toteumaa ihan itsekseni: kykenen olemaan täysin rationaalinen kohtaamani tiedon edessä tietäessäni mitä tavoittelen sillä uskallan lukea tunteitani: kyseenalaistaa sekä ymmärrystäni että ymmärtämättömyyttäni, ja puhua tarvittaessa ääneen niiden kanssa keiden voimin tavoitteet toteutetaan. Kukaan muu ei voi ymmärtää rationaalisuutta täydellisesti samalla tavalla, kuin minä: olen tämän ymmärryksen voimin homo economicuksen turvassa, motivaatioitteni tarkoitusperieni ollessani omiani. Voin kuitenkin jakaa rationalisuuttani muiden kanssa, motivoiden heidän toimintaan kanssani: tätä kutsutaan myyntisopimuksen aikaansaamiseksi ja sen saadessa voi tietää ohittaneensa aloitusvaiheen.

Kun on kauppasopimus kädessä, silloin ollaan kaupallisesti liikkeessä. Siten se kaupallinen liiketoiminta käytännössä määritellään: kauppasopimuksella.


Post break-up time is all-excuses on deck –time. To the absolutely pure finesse Lady on Tinder (Russian origin, perhaps?) with whom I matched, whose profile text said ”Looking for the Man me and my Kids can look up to”: my sincerest apologies. There was no way I was gonna lie to you that much just for the ”short-term optimal outcome” – I don’t have that much excuse in my all-excuses pack: my brand is worth more than carrying too much excuse in my backpack.

I just didn’t read your profile: I swipe at-speed. I’m beginning to learn that it might actually be very unhealthy for the mind: analysing myself, Tinder feels like some form of accelerator. My goal is to solve it and get off it with a single solution (the nature of which still eludes me): that is how I keep my motivations in check when looking at actual human beings on Tinder. Let us remember it is what in Finland amongst the bars and nightclubs is called a lihatiski. Tinder is, in a way, terminal velocity in human beings’ mutual approach towards each other (instant speed of swipe, I know you’re fast on the dance floor but you ain’t that fast: even if you’re a good sprinter). It is good to have brakes at maximum speed.

There is no way past that ultimate light-speed connection. I don’t know if that is a good slogan or not. ps. no I don’t think so: I literally think Tinder is a disease, at least if you are speed-sensitive like me. I prefer to project my speed-sensitivity (calculation capacity) towards my desired significant other, my work and my dream cars and houses and maybe boats. And literally – the addiction-deploying power is like an anti-gravity that I feel I am working against (feel as in reporting this as written down in real-time, because that’s what I’m feeling, and I feel it is worth sharing, so I’m doing it).


One of the best books in organization released is General Stanley McChrystal’s Team of Teams. In just the span of its title it allows for the broadest of considerations in leadership. For one, it is a whole other thing to be a leader of a team than to be a leader of leaders at the helm of a team of teams. As another example, organizations by their very nature are teams of teams. I consider General McChrystal an Indiana Jones -type figure who went to war to discover a logical truth about how human co-operation works at the light-speed of the Internet, under wartime mental pressures. What he learned is so applicable to modern, global leadership (in which competition levels are so immense that it is essentially continuous war up there) that they can be applied anywhere across the Planet. They are facts of life in the sciences of organization: a Team of Teams is a set of sets in Nature.


I do not find it a positive thing that it is probable that the sales flows of global commercial markets are driven by the quarterly reporting rate driven, in turn, by the financial markets. This is one thing that I learned at IBM: always buy at the end of the quarter, when Salespeople are at their closest to target-failure. You’ll get the biggest discount.

Thus, I believe it is a good thing that some companies are now reporting on a six-month interval. That being said, as a Salesperson, I should say that a six-month interval should be deemed the fast one and the annual pace the norm. If you think about the markets as the engine of growth that they are, then I think that a quarterly reporting rate is overdoing it on the revs: it’s cookin’ the grill too hot, and there is a reason for the existence of the word too.

We have to remember: the markets themselves are a media, where the exchange of the information of valuation occurs. The definition of riches and rags originates from the trading floor, just as much as it does from the voice of the masses that build up the market outside the building. The balance goes back and forth over time.

So, if the media is increasing the pressure of the economic machine to run its rounds (by depending on a quarterly supply of information), that meat-literally translates to the speed at which aggregate global Salespeople need to run at. Meat-literally as in watch them go! That translates to time lost in organizations buying and selling, which is expensive, because it takes away from their serving of the Customer.

By decelerating the market-based mediums, by lessening their thirst for knowledge and toning down the global reporting rate (or speeding it up to real-time, but that’d be an insane market form, in my opinion – full publicity operation: real-life isn’t a game show), sales rhythms could even out on the side of the business operation, whereas on the side of the banking operation (the two always go hand-in-hand), equity analysis could settle down and focus on a steadier rhythm that leaves time for deeper valuative insight to occur.

Daily trading is, to be honest, a snake pit of hearsay and opinion, and quarterly mindsets don’t get far from it. Slowing down is often the best way to speed up, as is learned from the racing track.

© 2019 Jens J. Sørensen

Taj

The language of the obtainment of beauty
Is the counter-operating against oneself
In real-time
To account for the very realistic potential 
That you are
Undervaluing yourself
In your current beauty holdings


“I like it how, because Diplomats have to recite predescribed doctrine that ultimately comes from national politics, they are essentially Flag Priests. The only thing is that their book constantly keeps moulding and remoulding itself into form. These days, it can be hard to keep up with the formation of the word as it keeps embroidering itself into the book, through all the news and academics and so forth. Information is coming in from all fronts, which it didn’t use to do, before. Not anywhere near as fast, at least.”


Time can be seen legal-objectively. It is a time: this is where I (whoever) was, am or must be then. Time can be seen legal-subjectively. There is a time, or is there: really? Time can be seen quantum-objectively. There is a certain amount of time, we all have our own meaning for it. Time can be seen quantum-subjectively. There is a certain amount of time, my meaning has a relation to your meaning, or does it: really?


“Talousjärjestelmän toimintatahti ja sen eri osatahtien jakauma ympäri yhteiskuntaa ovat Kansan kello: kehon ja mielen tahdistin. On erittäin tärkeätä seurata tahtia, sekä yksilö- että järjestelmätasoilla. Missä pitää olla milloinkin tekemässä mitä: kuin koulujen lukujärjestyksissä, tahdin määrittely on vaikeaa ja aikaa vievää työtä, eikä sen arvoa tulisi koskaan väheksyä. En siis missään nimessä tarkoita mitään kansalaislukujärjestyksien rakentamista! Vaan sitä, että tietyt mittarit kertovat yli- ja alinopeuksisesta toiminnasta yhteiskunnassa, jotka vaikuttavat kilpailukykyymme globaalissa taloudessa. Niitä mittareita on hyvä seurata, jotta niihin voi vaikuttaa: korkean elintasomme säilyttämisen vuoksi.”


Täysitseriippuvainen uudelleen syntyminen keskelle elämää, jota Yrittäjyys on, vaatii melkoista täydellisyydenhahmotuskykyä onnistuakseen puhtaasti. Homma kiteytyy käytännössä kykyyn olla hetkessä ja toteuttaa oikeita liikkeitä riittävällä tarkkuusasteella ja tahdin sopivalla rytmillä. Täydellisen suorituksen takaa sen, että tekee aina parhaansa, mitä se kulloisenakin päivänä, viikkona, kuukautena tai vuotena ikinä sitten tarkoittaakaan. Todellisuudessa uskottavan suorituksen kertominen on riippuvainen siitä, onko siinä ollut matkan varrella virheitä, vai ei. Virheettömät tulkinnat omasta elämästä ovat lähtökohtaisesti virheellisiä.


Olen lähettänyt tämän THL:n Johdolle – koska haluan tietää.

Tilannelogiikka

Totuus Alaisista ja Johtajista: välillä Te vedätte Meitä, ja välillä toisinpäin. Niin se vaan menee: se organisaation sisäisen keskustelun tuoma hengityksen voima. Miten muuten se menisikään, kuin ees-taas? Tiedon lähteet, tiedon ohjaajat, koko prosessi siinä välissä: arjen palikat.

Tämän tiedostaessa pitää varmistaa, että happi kulkee hyvin: että ideat ja tieto virtaavat mahdollisimman vähin estein. Esteitä olisi kuitenkin tärkeätä olla, jotta ei pääsisi syntymään viestinnällistä ylikuormitusta: eräänlaista mielen läskiä liiallisesta virrasta. Pitää siis osata hallita venttiileitä: tiedon sisääntuloa ja ulosmenoa, niiden sisäisten ja keskeisten virtojen määrää, laatua ja tyyppiä. Arvovalinnat kaikkien asioiden takana ovat tärkeitä tiedostaa, sillä niiden avulla on mahdollista ehkäistä virheitä ja estää haitallista toimintaa etukäteen: estetyökaluja myös, siis, muiden voimaannuttavien vaikutustensa ohella.

Tilannelogiikka käytännössä

Oman kalenterin hallinta ja kellonaikoihin tarttuminen on mielestäni tärkeämpää kuin koskaan, sillä nykypäivässä on totuttava kaikkeen uuteen arjen teknologiaan: älypuhelimesta alkaen. Vanhat tendenssit olla koko ajan täydessä vauhdissa muuttuvat riskialttiimmiksi, sillä keho pystyy kokonaisuutena hallitsemaan vain tietyn fyysisen ja kognitiivisen kuorman. Kun nykyään on mahdollista olla juoksussa paikasta toiseen ja vielä samalla näprätä älypuhelinta, niin oli ennen mahdollista vain siirtyä yhdestä paikasta toiseen ja ajatella juuri tapahtunutta ja sitten seuraavaksi tapahtuvaa. Älykytkösten tuomat rytminkatkokset tuovat merkittävän potentiaalin keskittymisen heikentymiselle laajemmalla skaalalla, kun vain varsinaisessa kytköshetkessä.

Mielestäni tässä päivässä on siis syytä olla varovainen, hyvän rytmin kadotusta ehkäistääkseen. Muutos luonnon viestintäympäristöstä digitaaliseen on ollut nopea. Älypuhelinten voima rikkoa luonnollista kehonrytmiämme – joka syntyi aikoina ennen älyteknologiaa ja elää arjen kelloissamme läpi yhteiskunnan – on vielä toistaiseksi epävarma, vaikkakin tutkimukselliset mittaukset ovat käynnissä.

Olen itse mielummin varuillani kuin löysänä älypuhelinten vaikutusten edessä. Tiedän, että älypuhelin on erinomainen arjen työkalu tulevaisuudelle: siitä ei pitäisi enää olla kysymyksiä. Mutta miten itse laitetta hallitaan ja miten sen sisäisissä eri sovellusympäristöissä lennetään turvallisesti: keksittiinhän autokoulukin, joskus aikoinaan.


Continued from here:

…well not unless time is an organization and an organization is time. 

What I mean by this is that the clock of the organizations in our lives determines how we move in life and where, meaning time is an organization (of organizations, perhaps said best). 

One way that things are organized is time, and so on the other hand an organization (a way to do it) is time. Things are also organized in many other ways than time: order, as one example, not to mention law.

Did I as ”One” simply solve time? That depends on the audience: whether or not they got it. I can’t know that for myself without feedback. But my own feedback is positive: I get myself.

All of this is, of course, just my way of getting time (as a businessperson, I find my view to make a whole lot of sense): I am sure there are an infinite variety of other ways as well, the set of everything that isn’t this way of getting time.


The hard drive is such a commodity that it might as well be on par with the raw materials that it is built of. That being said, would it make sense to limit data storage production in order to create scarcity and thus help conserve raw material? Would it make sense to decommoditize the hard drive industry?

Production caps would boost incentives to build higher-quality hard drives at higher prices. One positive impact is that it would, for example, make unnecessary consumer tracking more expensive (because it uses hard drive space, which would cost more: if there were less hard drives, in supply). It would also help combat climate change, because less electricity would need to be generated. 

We must ask ourselves: is all the bigness of the data required? Would a lesser degree of big provide just as good data for decision-making analysis purposes? I believe the IT industry requires this type of legislative structure: similar to what the oil industry has self-imposed upon itself with, for example, OPEC. Could it be called OITC:

Organization for Information Technology Companies?

© 2019 Jens J. Sørensen

Algorithms

“Algorithms are just opinions expressed in numbers,” says mathematician Cathy O’Neil.


Derivatives traders are essentially People that say to their Customers: “if these numbers do that (derivative source pointed at) then your number does this (show impact to Customer).” It is important work. Don’t make it (too) difficult. Pay well, to keep it responsible: on some level it’s always a game against the alternatives, a gamble.


If I had to, I would describe conscious reality as continuous multi-perception across time. I know there’s a philosophical discussion going on on the consciousness front: this is how I’d word it from a money-perspective, which I seek to embody. Sales is all about being superconscious about the impacts of your actions. Since there is always a multifaceted strategy of actions going on, that is why there must be multi-perception. It’s a bit like there must be an equal and opposite reaction to every action: another bridge of relativity between two extremes.


“The pronouncement by Vice President Mike Pence of the intent of the United States of America to go to the Moon within five years is one of the best pieces of news in a long time. Such a religious man such as he is making such a gesture on behalf of the advancement of science: bravo! Seriously – BRAVO.

And it isn’t as if anything and everything space isn’t the highest-demand operative realm for those well-grounded in a religion. I literally find it impossible to think of anything else that requires the skilled power of faith as much as anything and everything space. Even love falls into second place on this front: I require less faith thinking about love than thinking about the vast expanse of space that we’ve barely begun to step into.

The continuation of the Space Race is an excellent thing. Just work together with everyone else on the weaponized parts of it, so that our Planet can jointly point all the Space Nukes and stuff at the potential Aliens (not back at us on Earth).

Once more: bravo, Mike Pence. Bravo.


Behind all the fancy talk then what we are talking about is middle school mathematics, and everyone should be capable of understanding how ridiculously simple this is.

From someone called Zach at Stackoverflow, who clearly has the capacity of intelligence that I do to think clearly:

“An algorithm is a set of instructions. In computer programming, a function is an implementation of an algorithm.”

In the example of a digital commercial organisation, an algorithm is how they process you as a Customer through an encounter with them. This process is the aforementioned set of instructions through which you-as-a-Customer flow from the organisation’s perspective, leading towards a deal or other outcome. An algorithm is like a freeway with a beginning and an end. Imagine yourself flowing through a light-speed freeway that branches out into multiple potential paths ahead of you: the potential paths then all collapse into a set of potential deals or other outcomes (the path taken determining what the specific end result is). That is you surfing through the algorithm.

So, to compare, if you are a Salesperson on the floor of a store, you are running the “algorithm” of how your Employer treats Customers: how you’ve been taught to serve. You look at the situation, perceive all the signals, and act accordingly: like a function operating an algorithm in a digital space, you are doing the same in a physical space. Same freeway stuff goin’ on but in a human head: not in a computer.

You can consider a store from the perspective of its design, as well. Anyone familiar with IKEA or Flying Tiger Copenhagen will recognize that their store layouts, that guide you through a pre-determined path, are also algorithms. Instead of being implemented by computer programming, they are implemented by all the different Craftspeople that build physical things.

There is absolutely nothing special about algorithms. They perform in digital what has forever-herein been done in material: connect humans to create value.


In terms of obvious things sold as the highest of wisdom, the entire discussion around algorithms is pretty much on par with two Nobel-prize winning economists strutting around saying that “stories” have an impact on the economy.

George and Robert – if you ever read this – then yes: that is what we Marketers and Salespeople do (gasp of surprise). I, for one, am not surprised that my work “telling stories” has an inter-human impact, since that is indeed what I am going for, since that is what creates the money so that we can live in modern quality (which we could never have reached without money’s being: so thanks, money!). Since telling stories is what I am contracted and thus incentivized to do, then according to Hart and Holmström’s Nobel winner, that is what I will do.

Oh, damn what strength of insight! Oh, the sweet jubilance of knowledge!

😉

I understand objective data is important in science. I really do. I can be your object. Allow me to be your data point proving that stories make a difference. Let me know if you need me to find someone I’ve sold to who can attest that “yes, Jens made a difference in my thinking with his story on what he was selling.” Whether or not they bought from me is irrelevant: I’ll be the first to admit that a pitch can go badly so as to negate the potential for a deal-event to occur. But I have many People as proof-of-stories. Myself (and you reading this) to start with haha


I’d like to point out that, at this time in history, our best strategy as humankind would be to destroy any ideas of degrowth (which I think are philosophically solid but operatively impossible) and vabank (verb, to go all-in) on the now well-established market system and really put it to the test. The generations that currently live are completely money-washed – that is to say we have all grown up in money-prime times, where it has driven the advancement of the global ecosystem – so instead of trying to fight against that acquired skill in any way, we should put forth a full acceleration on all engines and encourage economic activity. With this proactive strategy, instead of the outputs (wage and well-being distribution, for example) we should overconcern (reallocate working effort from elsewhere towards) ourselves with the inputs: calculate that a purchase made available by the supply chain is net-positive for global sustainability, and every purchase made becomes a sign of good for global development, by its systemic definition.

To make this conceivably possible (where every purchase is net-positive: an economic state where sustainable fiscal flows are outcompeting unsustainable ones in catching market attention), purchases would need to drift towards immaterial products (which are less cumbersome for Nature). This is already happening in the economy on its own. So I’d say we keep up on digitalisation, and we should be good. There are many ways to do so: an extreme but (I hypothesize) highly-effective one would be the Global Centurion Debt, where Banks collectively fund national Governments to overinvest into IT, allowing for wages to rise, skills to spread broader into the economy, and more young People to be drawn into the industry, creating a massive push towards a more sustainable global economy that is more digital than material. Essentially, implementation of the GCD would be testing whether or not the hypothesis of increased productivity (more for less) holds true, since that assumption is what supports the approval of the loan. My opinion is that fiscal leadership has value in guiding towards proving the hypothesis: those who cash in as wage leaders in IT would essentially be holding the “primary money” – it is up to the spending capacity of the fiscal leader (assumed first recipient of newly-created money, which IT would be with the GCD) whether or not the money catches enough accelerative speed to spin through the entire economy and come back to them.

The GCD would also be feeding the Millennial Spirit by preparing for their inheritance a world familiar to them: a digitalized one, the birth of which helped solve climate change (because, if it is done, it is inevitably what would happen: digitalization would have helped, because that is just how it is in improving economic productivity – which means you get more with less, and that’s exactly what we need right now).


As an opposite to the money-acceleration of the global economy (just to make sure we remember that, when it comes to money, there are always infinite options-to-operations available), there are alternative fiscal methods of progressing humankind, as well.

For example, Jim Bridenstine could build the next Generation of space-operation experts by constructing Rocket City in such a fiscal manner that – since everyone requires everyone, making no skill of higher value than the next in putting People into space – the best applicants across all required skills are invited to live in a perfectly non-fiscal, fully-standardized environment of equality, one that is (obviously) constructed at heightened-yet-sensible quality so as to not too-extensively burden the cost base of the entire organization and thus endanger its operation.

Put plainly: live and work in a place called Modern Rocket City where money isn’t needed day-to-day (sort of like working at Facebook or Google, then, with their free food and services et cetera) so that you can focus fully on work and rest. Fiscal standardization removes fiscal competition, allowing for increased focus on the task at hand.

I’d accept an offer only if it came with a significant lump-sum monetary reimbursement after tenure at Modern Rocket City has ended. So the money-function (shared by everyone) m(x) = €500,000x where ‘x’ denotes the number of years spent working at Modern Rocket City: that’d get me to sign a contract to live in the high-quality working jail, waiting to cash out and watch the results of my work fly into the great dark (or maybe join the ride?). I don’t know how many years I could do living in one City (given my international land-hopping background): the constant on the money-function above probably has some impact..

It is good to note, however, that I, as one example, simply would not want this kind of wage and life equalization in any other operating economy than a small, localized, closed-loop (and probably purpose-directed) one such as Modern Rocket City (I recommend adding Modern for the rebrand operation that must be done).

But in Modern Rocket City, it makes perfect sense. The People working in Modern Rocket City would become test subjects of living in well-controlled high-quality equality, which I sort of find to sound like something that is absolutely necessary to pre-learn for successful longer-distance humanned space flight than the Moon. There have already been the Mars Simulations with a few People in a dome, but what about the data needed for the time when the Space Ships carry hundreds or thousands of People: like the great oceanliners of today?

So I mean really MRC is just the perfect concept. Outside of Modern Rocket City, I guess this type of life-domes would make sense in very homogeneous local communities, as well: particular places out in Farmland, but probably not more than a minority of places. My feeling is that humans, on the whole, enjoy their individuality enough so as to not want to live inside a standardized product (money allows for the not living in it: having money expands a range of options-of-being, not having it decreases it and essentially takes us back to City-States trading raw materials).

All this being said, sharing communities such as this exist all around the world: it’s just a different way to be. I myself think that the power of money, as it has evolved over the centuries, is here to stay. Thank God, for it is the fuel allowing me to be who I am.

© 2019 Jens J. Sørensen

Superconsciousness

I was born in 1987, a year in a region of time during which was born what I refer to as the Techshift Generation. There is something very particular about those born towards the latter 1980s and early 1990s because of the relatively immediate leap from living without modern communications technology as a child and early-years teenager and then having modern communications technology brought in as a young adult. This as compared to those born before, whose modern technological immersion happened in working life, and as compared to those born after, who went straight into a full digital life at the onset of or even before Puberty 1 (I believe Puberty 2 happens at the start of the consideration of becoming a parent, but that is a different story). I’m not just speaking for myself – there are a lot of things that the Techshifters have to say that are most smart, because we are uniquely positioned to tie-in the intergenerational divides that now so grossly pervade across our societies.

“Shit is often seen as a thing to suppress or hide. It should be seen as our continuously-reproducing lifeline: a most natural savior.”

Eeppinen poliitikko: “Minä olen tätä päivää – nyt enkä melkeen.”

“Minusta on hämmentävää, että F1-kuski Kimi Räikkönen sanoo haastattelussa, ettei hän tiedä mistään tunteista mitään. Siis F1-kuski, joka ajaa monen geen voimalla ympäri mutkien, lentäen maata pitkin, joka on eronnut Jenni Dahlmanista (siis what siit aidoimmast Jennistä habadahabada), jolla on kaks skidii (ja kaunis Vaimo, tietty), jonka Faija delas riidan jälkeen.. Eiei – ei mitään tunteita. Ei suomalaisella MIEHELLÄ 😉 Raidaa vahvasti jatkossakin Kimi, sinä uroksellisin kaikista! Aivan varma autoseksuaali: Tiedon Mies, herra Kimi Räikkönen.”

“I believe the reason we hate our opposites so much is that our contrast with them makes us question ourselves, which is strenuous: wouldn’t life have been easier without the impacts of the opposite? That said, this is why we should also love the opposite: being put to the test strengthens us, as long as we face the situation with the correct frame of mind. I think that that frame is an educational one. You have to be ready to learn: about the nature of the opposite, about yourself, and where the boundaries between you lie. With the correct amount of patience, an encounter with the opposite is guaranteed to be a strengthening experience that helps form a more solid version of you and the other. I think it is smart to remember that, technically, everyone is everyone’s opposite because you are not everyone else – they are: and that goes for you in relation to them, as well – them considered as individuals and as a group. It is smart to remember this because this way you’ll realise that you are constantly meeting your opposite: it just comes down to what degree of opposite you’re dealing with.

Tinder (by Natural assumption: Child always possible.. well not always, but often): tap- and swipetime-based human life valuation process (because every swipe creates Child potential).

The moment a match happens on Tinder, a private virtual space is created. Evolution doesn’t get more discrete than that: the flipping of the Match card on to the screen is like an evolutionary revolution, because with the correct settings in play, there can be assumed human reproductive potential. Because of that, the probabilities of a future directional shift in the continued unfurling of human history, as affected by the current and future societal impact of the potential Child in consideration (as relates to the capacity to forecast societal impact of said Child), have been set into motion upon the creation of a Tinder vestibule. Whenever a Match is set, there is theoretically infinite potential for outcomes (given the infinite outcome potential of a Child), and the calculation towards some outcome begins immediately. Having been a test subject of the platform myself, I would say (based on my own experiences and thus most certain data – for me, at least) that this theory of infinite potential outcomes carries its weight in practice, as well. Literally anything can come your way. I would relate Tinder most closely with some form of extreme sport.


I think about being asleep and being awake on a longer-term level. What I am saying here is that in life there are times when we are actively conscious of what we are doing, because we understand their importance on our future, and then there are the phases of subconsciousness where we’re just operating life day-to-day and basically living in Peace. Because having to actively think about the future impacts of your actions: that’s always a bit of a War against the future, itself. And then there is the Superconsciousness of Aggregate Everyone: as represented by the Internet, and that’s just going on everyday because there are a lot of People out there in the societal multiverse.
No one is so dumb as to not realise that the money is dependent on the global. Besides, leaving would create a very 1984-type situation in the land of the leaver. So I don’t think anyone is seriously considering it – I see the entire idea as more of a scare tactic to motivate the furthering of regulation to ensure public safety. For example, I completely understand Russia’s fears for its Citizens, given the unfurling social media situation (as being led by the United Kingdom and its media coverage). What I’m saying is that leaving the joint Internet is an overblown reaction: the sources of the problems can be turned into net-positive tools, as long as time is given for learnings to be accomplished and implemented for future protection through the education & legislative et cetera work created. We must remember that we have only just entered the Digital Age: evolution into new conditions doesn’t happen instantly. I’d say that instead of rushing things, taking it coolly on Internet legislation is the best way forward. It’s a new era we’re in, meaning there is no precedent for the technology we’re dealing with – so its effects are also new. Allow science to lead the way in combatting the worst of Internet Change: fund Academia, don’t leave the Internet.
Strategy: keep making sure these are available. Both require vacation-in-year to be used properly, with time for in-depth analysis of further improvement. Just ask any Finn about mökketitiveness – with enough time on their hands to play with the skills of continued improvement, they’ve really learned how to put together some brilliant technological innovations allowing them to be lazier than they were, innovations that wouldn’t have been possible without the vacation.
My Philosophy of Work.
So I’m having trouble deciding is it best to have one or the other or both in the home? How scary can home get haha
Terveiset koti-Suomeen: maailmantalouden kiertoradalta.

I was brought up (Royal) Air Force but I can’t deny it: I am much more Navy these days, since that is where I served my time. I think I said my familial farewells to the skies with skydiving – which I’m just not sure I’m going back to – since I now continuously feel compelled towards the sea, not the sky. I think I’m going to be all about boats – not planes – going forwards: that doesn’t mean I’m not going to drive fast cars and jump out of perfectly fine-workin’ airplanes – it just means that, on the ground, most People will know me for the fleet of boats, yachts, and even ships that I aim to control with the power of ownership within my fleeting but ever-so-awesome moment of life here on Earth. I’m not sure about what happens after that (my fleeting moment, that is), but I guess it’s back to all the God stuff, then –> you know haha: living forever through the Private “Navy of Well-being” constructed of De-weaponised Military Vessels, the Navy I should leave behind here upon the fine waters of this Planet and that should forever bear my name and come with an extremely-well defended (own) service plan extended to perpetuity. Does anyone want to fund a tits-cool (me) Entrepreneur to buy up global oversupply of Military Vessels (for any wanting sellers-to-be) for the repurposing of them and the refurbishing of them to be floating oases of extreme luxury for People (especially Rich Old People, from Everywhere) wishing to live off of the land –> just a very different kind of “off of the land” than before?

Of course, all of this in the name of not just defending but constructively creating actual, real world peace so we can all get back to you know what and with you know who hehe

Ps. please no one actually reach out with any offers – this is a work of art, a pointed joke of Entrepreneurial wisdom (if it can be done with money, it can be made real). No, I do not actually wish to be Infinite Navy Man (haha!1!) – I run a consulting firm, real-happy with it right now thx for asking).

Pps. Well, I guess I could be Infinite Navy Man if the pieces were there to be put together. What would that be like, riding around the world: being Jack Sparrow and all that? I’d have to have Johnny Depp along for the ride, at the very least. Add in a bit of Lord Mortdecai and the Ladies Worthy of Gwyneth and the rest of life lived on-sea sounds like a fair bit of fun haha say no more say no more


A joke: an unintelligent statement made with an intelligent purpose.
A bad joke: an intelligent statement made with an unintelligent purpose.


I’m posting this here and not on my professional website, because this is in a weird space where I find it is useful for professional usage, but I’d still rather post it on my personal site. I guess it could be something that I’d use in the future when there are a lot more People working at my firm, and having such a policy would make sense. I guess the thought came pre-emptively:

Sexual orientation considered from a technological standpoint: we are all Human, carry a set of reproductive tools, they are to an extent functional or not – desire to use being one component of functionality. As a default starting point, these things shouldn’t need to be considered at a workplace. If workplace romances spark up, the participants must be highly aware of their potential impact upon those around them that they work with. At workplaces, because there is money naturally flowing through, People’s lives are in the balance. Thus, whilst not being condoned nor sanctioned in any way, should IT happen: be safe (unwanted Child: huge risk to organisational stability) and be really Spy about it all.

© 2019 Jens J. Sørensen

InceptioUN

In all seriousness:

“Given that it is impossible to create fully objective thought out of matters that are inherently subjective, especially when considered at varying dimensions of scale, then it must be said the UN World Happiness Report is not worth more than a starting point for science: it can be the beginning of a more in-depth investigation as to why the results were as they were, for example by considering the variance across ways that nations value their happiness and reporting on that. That brings us closer to objective. But as the report stands, it is not more than a starting point for science. The numbers presented simply should not be put forth as a competitive list, not now or in the future: they are the starting point for the actual investigation of why the numbers are as they are. The actual outcome of any report dealing with happiness can only be presented as textual philosophy concerning views of life across nations: that is the closest to objective that something like this can get.”

“The news: not something that is wanted or not wanted. The news are. Your opinion on the news is separate from the being of the news.”

At liist ai piliiv tät sens häs piin meit: pikoos ai meit it maiself – for maiself, än enivan huus lisenin (pai riidin, ool tis staf hier)

More lightheartedly speaking:

Finland taking the lead spot in the World Happiness Report, published by the United Nations, is a fun thing.

First off, the entire report is questionable – to say the least – as regards any potential to compare the differences between nations. The survey asks for a self-defined perception of happiness, and as perception is subjective to the individual, we must then dig in to ask the individual questions as to how those perceptions are formed across different nations. 

Only after this depth-dive has been taken can we begin to find relativities in perceptions of happiness. Finnish journalist Pekka Seppänen described, in a column published on the national public broadcaster YLE’s website, how answering the UN survey is self-biased in many ways simply because of the different ways in which the question asked (a 0-10 scale of worst life to best life) can be analyzed.

As the question is being put forward, I myself could have given my happiness ratings a round ten simply based on the argument that I am happy to be alive – which I am, because life is great. The purely numbers-driven analysis of the answer gives no basis for any rational reasoning in comparing my perception to anyone else’s. One’s view of a rational answer to happiness could be another’s view of perfect irrationality: a skydiver finds happiness in facing extreme danger (and snubbing the fear with practice and preparation), whereas someone else will look at them and question the skydiver’s rationality.

As it stands, I personally give the UN World Happiness Report near-bagel value: bagel meaning zero in New York City –moneyspeak (near because as I said seriously above, it is a starting point, and that has some value that is fully dependent, ultimately, on operative realization). Well – that’s an overstatement: there is value in noting the existence of crap, as it teaches you to steer clear of it in the future (or at least until there are better reasons for approaching the crap – does anyone have any for the UN, by the way?).

Happiness and its relative understanding lives so close to home that I simply do not see any value in trying to compare entire human populations on such a scale. It is as far from objective knowledge as it gets, and I am thoroughly surprised that the United Nations allows this type of mathematilogical failure to carry its brand.

In comparing happiness, it is already difficult enough to put two people together and get something objective out of the exercise of trying to understand their relative happiness levels as compared to each other. How should we think about putting all the Flags side-by-side, then?

Then comes the entire issue of competitizing happiness between nations, which is what the very being of a report such as the World Happiness Report does in and of itself. Is this something we wish for the United Nations to do as a peace-brokering entity? Is competitive peace a thing? It probably is for Leader-individuals such as myself, where a state of competitiveness in life is the norm and thus it is a state of peace (it is just who I and other competitive souls are), but as I understand it this is not so for the vast majority of People out there, those whom the Leaders serve to promote and protect.

Look – I’m not going to lie to you. Finland is a great place if you’ve got it going good, just like every other place, because good builds great. If not, it is not such a great place, just as with every other place. There is a familiar logic here: that good builds great and not good.. well – not so much. Funny, isn’t it, how different lands are alike in that they are all lands, where good builds great and not good doesn’t. Experiential context is grown close to home, and happiness is all about experiential context across space and time: it is a process of comparison to self-in-time and surroundings-in-space, a process completely owned and defined by the individual experiencing the happiness or its lack.

Like Pekka Seppänen brings to light in his excellent piece, happiness is completely subjective to its perceiver. What motivates an answer on the UN World Happiness Report is completely dependent on who’s answering. Perhaps Finland is leading because our citizens fear retribution from hurting Finland’s brand? Perhaps it is because most Finns have only just emerged from the forests and swamps during the past decades and literally know of nothing else to compare to? Maybe we’re just particularly happy about having turned 100 years old in 2017, a bit surprised – even – that we’re still independent given that history could have gone many other ways, as well?

I’m not saying these aren’t reasons to be happy, nor am I questioning that many Finns truly are happy, but what I am saying is that comparison between nations on one of the most subjective matters in existence is insane. Each nation has its own history and perception on life, and each individual within them their own, as well. If anything, the United Nations report is a starting point for further investigation of relativity, as discussed above, not an endpoint to be discussed in and of itself. Why are the numbers as they are in each nation? How have they been answered? What is being thought of in answering them?

Finally come the real facts (serious, decades-old hearsay -style) on the ground! If you actually talk to our neighbours then you will find that the generalized truth is that the Danes, Norwegians and Swedes all consider us Finns crazy. This is not a joke – it is well-known amongst our fellow North-dwellers that Finland is completely nuts, known historically for overdrinking and brawls with hunters knives involved (happily enough these are disappearing from our zeitgeist, probably in relation to our continued emergence from the forests and swamps).

We hold these truths to be self-evident based on decades if not centuries of feedback! Did you know that the Finns were never Vikings, but the Vikings did hire the craziest Finns as mercenaries for their journeys? That says something about our heritage, doesn’t it, when some of the scariest historical figures paid to get even scarier fellows onboard their quests.

As for the Russians? My understanding is that they barely know anything about us Finns – we are a quiet little land on the far Northwestern border of their vastness. Many Russians apparently have little knowledge of the fact that there was a pair of wars between us seven and a half decades ago. Their rich from St. Petersburg, which has the population of our entire nation, come over to relax in tiny little Helsinki – a quaint village by their standards. That said, Helsinki is a quaint village by the standards of most anyone with an experience of cities around the globe.

Honestly, the Estonians are our best friends, and we barely pay them any mind because we have trouble admitting how much more awesome the Estonians are than us Finns. Finland has prided itself for rising out of being a fledling, poor agrarian state to a statistical leader in three-quarters of a century, but Estonia has done the same in a single quarter – not to mention doing so after Soviet occupation, a burden Finland didn’t have (though, that said, our burden was avoiding succumbing to Soviet domination). Estonia is a light-year ahead in digitalisation, Tallinn has a much more hopping scene than Helsinki, and if you think Finnish is a fun language then.. well: let’s just say Estonian takes the lead spot on that front, as well.

All in all, Finland standing on top of the UN World Happiness Report is final proof that – indeed – the world has gone completely and perhaps irrevocably bonkers. Wherever lieth the sense factory that maketh the sense required to understand the future, given the confounding state of the present: bring it to us first.

God knows Finland needs it.


I also rather enjoy controlling myself in life, knowing the boundaries between addiction and additive and getting the benefits of mastering the skills involved.

© 2019 Jens J. Sørensen

Balance

“One deal that social media companies and societies could make is that all data is made available, in an anonymous and highly-secured (eg. Defence Forces brands in play) fashion, for academic study at the highest levels. As a source of information on societal well-being and threats to it, social media is a treasure trove. Once, through experience, People form the boundaries between addiction and additive (define the healthy and unhealthy use of social media, which we must remember has only just entered our lives) then we can realise that there is nothing wrong with social media in and of itself – simply with how it is used: just as with any other device or substance. To that end, academic monitoring would be a powerful tool to maintain the stability of the digital social ecosystems and turn the data they generate into a broad-scale benefit past the commercial advertising activities that they make possible.”

Kun yhdistää tiedettä ja tunnetta saa taidetta ja kun usko taiteen voimaan kasvaa niin sitä mukaa syntyy johtajuutta jonka siivellä voi lentää isommatkin massat kun alkuperäiset yhdistäjät. Varmaan eteenpäin menemisensä vuoksi he alunperin yhdistivätkin.


Siel ollaa. Ja sit sielt tullaa pois. Ja sit siel ollaa taas. Ja sit sielt tullaa pois. Ja elämä jatkuu.
Here I combine what I learned from Dr. David Sloan Wilson and F. Scott Fitzgerald.
There’s so much more to them than this, but you can only fit a certain amount on a Post-It. My favourite point from this piece is the floor that sits under our modern “Engineered Reality” – it is what I call the System of Flags.
When working with the infinity of thought, know when to take a break.
As One is something, and so is time: then simply by its being, time solves One.

© 2019 Jens J. Sørensen

Apex

Entrepreneurship is science-in-reality. There are hypotheses of self-as-supplier and market-as-buyer, they are tested, and then there is or isn’t money as an objective outcome. There will always be learning as a subjective outcome: an attempt never goes unrewarded, since data is always created. That People can choose to not buy from an Entrepreneur brings falsifiability into the process. That Customers as ”test subjects” act upon their own free will means that the ”Entrepreneurial experiment” is controlled by Nature itself. Entrepreneurship is really cool. I recommend it.



The prevailing culture of an organization is always a reflection of the mental capacity of its highest leader.

The prevailing culture of a societal organization is always a reflection of the mental states of its organizations.

© 2019 Jens J. Sørensen

Suomi, havaitsijan näkökulmasta

Time is not money: time is relative to money. Time can be turned into money, just as money can be turned into time, but that does not mean they are one and the same. It takes a contract to carry out their interequital transformation, during the realisation of which one form of equity becomes the other. That said, in and of themselves, time is not money and money is not time. They are relative, but not the same.

Huippumyyjä osoittaa asiansa kauniisti mutta suoraviivaisesti. Näin saavutetaan teorian optimaalinen myyntisuoritus, sillä tuodaan kauneuden lisäarvoa ja suoraviivaisuuden nopeudella (olettaen täydellisen korrelaation vastaanottajan ymmärryskykyyn) poistetaan ajan kadotuksen ulkoiskustannuksia. Kaupan itsensä tuoma lisäarvo saa rinnalleen myös kauneuden mittaamattomuuden että ajansäästön mitattavuuden tuomat arvot, aivan luonnostaan (on toki syytä kysyä, olisiko kauppa toteutunut ilman näitä tekijöitä). Myyntitaidossa on siis itseisarvoa sekä ulkoista tehokkuus- että tyyliarvoa.


Akatemialle laajemmat sisäänpääsyoikeudet Pankkien sisälle.
A decision inputs energy to power the Humans operating the value chain.

Sekä pieni että iso rahaluuppi ovat käytännöllisiä ja periaatteellisia työkaluja. Erot eri polkujen ymmärryksessä, sisältä ja ulkoapäin, pitäisi havaita ja molempien hyödyllisyys ongelmien ratkomisessa pitäisi tiedostaa yleisesti. Aktiivisesti on syytä tiedostaa se, kuinka kompleksinen Ihmisverkosto ja juridinen suo rahaluuppien yksinkertaisen pinnan takaa löytyy. Peruslähtökohtana pitäisi nähdä se, että sijainti luuppien sisällä vaikuttaa todistavasti siihen väittämään, että Ihmisillä on eri näkökulmia yhteiskunnasta.

Ollakseen selkeämpi kokonaisuus, mielestäni kolmijako Taloustiede, Pankki- ja Valtatieteet sekä Tuotantotieteet olisivat Aalto-yliopiston kauppakorkeakoululle oikea tapa suunnata koulunsa. Näihin suuntautuminen toisena opintovuonna perustuisi yhteisille ensimmäisen vuoden opinnoille Antropologiassa ja Organisaatiotieteissä. Korjaus 15.3.2019: Arviointi-, M&M&M-* ja Tuotantotieteet. *Mainonta, Markkinointi ja Myynti. Ps. Käännä Talous-Suomen kolikko ympäri: löydät Pankin.

Minua kiinnostaa hyvinvoiva Rahavalta yksityisen sektorin ainaisena tukena erittäin paljon, sillä tiedän sen olevan terveen yhteiskunnan merkki Poliittisen Äänivallan tasapainona. Rahavalta ja Poliittinen Äänivalta tasapainottavat toisiaan ja sen myötä yhteiskuntajärjestelmämme toimii siten, kuin se toimii: loppupeleissä Poliittinen Äänivalta luo ne lainsäädännölliset puitteet jossa Rahavalta elää – ne ovat luonnollinen vastinpari. Sen takia kannatan Akatemian laajempaa sisäänpääsyä Pankkeihin, että Yhteiskunta saisi siitä lopputuloksena vakaammat perustukset. Pankki- ja Valtatieteiden koulu, osana Aalto-yliopiston kauppakorkeakoulua, loisi tutkimusolosuhteet jossa teorian ja todellisuuden välinen kuilu olisi sopivan kapea, mahdollistaen sulavammat ylisukupolviset kehityskaaret yhteiskuntamme perustuksien tutkimisessa ja työstämisessä. Julkinen ja yksityinen sektori luonnostaan kiteytyvät yhteen Pankki- ja Valtatieteiden kohdalla, jota ylläoleva Talous-Suomi diagrammi esittelee. Koulun ikään kuin luonnostaan kuuluu olla osana opetuskenttäämme, sillä julkinen ja yksityinen sektori luonnostaan kohtaavat ja tämä luonnollinen kohtaamispiste on niin merkittävä tässä päivässä, että se ansaitsee oman koulunsa.

Täten ehdotan koulun perustamista: Pankki- ja Valtatieteiden koulu osaksi Aalto-yliopiston kauppakorkeakoulua – omasta mielestäni niin pian kuin mahdollista. Lähtiessään ratkomaan tämän päivän tasapaino-ongelmia yhteiskunnan rakenteissa, tutkimalla sen rakenteita (esimerkiksi Systeemitieteen työkaluin) ja tuottamalla tietoa taustoista, nykytiloista ja tulevista poluista eteenpäin, Pankki- ja Valtatieteiden koulu olisi välittömästi hyödyksi Suomen puolesta, hyödyntäessään sen verorahoja. Suomen äskettäisen merkittävän vaurastumisen varmistamiseksi ja tulevaisuuden hahmotuskyvyn kehityksen puolesta, en näe älykkäämpää koulutusinvestointia Suomelta tällä hetkellä. Viestintätieteet (osana Valtatieteitä) tekisivät työnsä varmistaessaan, että koko Kansa kykenee ymmärtämään merkittävimmät osat näiden keskeisten Instituutioiden tehtävästä ja viestistä.

It is beneficial to keep in mind that lawyers have mostly been in charge of the construction of the foundations of the State, what with a boatload of philosophy acting behind the scenes. Taking into account a working generalisation that lawyers are hardwired by training to look to the future and imagine what can go wrong, then the State is by its constructed structures tilted towards standing on the brakes. Whilst this can be perceived positively as a conservative measure in keeping the People safe – which it is – then it is not conducive to the creation of an operating culture where a positive imagination of what can go right is fostered. This is what Entrepreneurs do – not those trained in the law. How could Finland develop the operating culture of its Parliament in a more balanced direction, where the positive imagination of potential success is emblazoned into being alongside the negative, almost depressive fatalism that so plagues the decision-making system of this Far Northern land?


Muita ajatuksia:

Maybe 2050 is more realistic.

Mielestäni olisi hieno asia, jos uusi Eduskunta menisi ensitöikseen porukalla mökille. Kokemuksena he määrittelisivät käytöstaparajoja keskenään siitä, miten Suomen yhteiskunnan huipulla ollaan yhteisellä mökkireissulla. Tämän yhteisen kokemuksen positiiviset heijastusvaikutukset saattaisivat olla merkittäviä ympäri yhteiskuntaa, sanan levitessä oppeineen – kuten se taipuu tekemään. Media: se kun on aina jollain tasolla läsnä.

FI Advice.
I’m not saying I have the funding in reality, but I have given it in theory: with this idea you are able to start the investigation of the practice and its potential. Must-use 300-year funding means that the project would be mandated to last 300-years: so large should be its scale to implement. First counter-argument you can take is that it would take less or should take more: I’m already leaning towards a Century potential-speed, because of the capabilities of modern technologies. Starting with correctly based educational investments, used to build IT-based economies operating around modern cities placed alongside a most arable route, this Project would immediately start to face many existent challenges. The primary challenge being faced by the Project would be climate change, with significant masses of people moving into technologically more efficient living clusters that are (because of the technology) more sustainable, as they remain within the Earth’s Human life supply-limits, by their design. What is an IT-based economy? Ultimately, it reduces down to an economy that has the self-sufficient skills-capacity to create and maintain websites. Education mainframe-up is required. With a price-competitive mid-market strategy, African high-tech cities (with healthy wealth distributions, for better international investment potential) – placed along this new Freeway Nile – could compete in the global market for IT services: especially against India and South East Asia. Maybe Finland could help on the strategic level with the full IT-education path, perhaps also in construction on projects that would require high-precision engineering, requiring experience from harsh working environments to prove problem-solving capacity (harsh which Finland is, capacity which Finland has). Oh – and – I’m not saying there wouldn’t be trains and airports, as well. It’s just that I’m a car person: even when we go electric, I like the privacy and I love driving (probably because I’m so good at it), so I expect they simply won’t be phased out in the future: by Nature, I believe there are many other people out there who feel the same way about private travel (possible en masse by car). Africa could set a great example for the construction of the infrastructure of the future.

© 2019 Jens J. Sørensen