IT has been chosen that the show should continue

If you have never considered Coder-Pope Relativity with future-projected space-time bend, then one aspect of it is thinking about the Grand Codemaster of the future who will spend the days reciting some really epic code.

(does anyone want to set up the betting market for someone actually reciting the above code that activated them: say 800 years from now? A Dannebrog away in time? That’d be fun: time capsules of code to wake up new Popes or similar in the future. Their initiation is like getting to open an old bottle of wine, by citing a really old slice of previously unopened code: in this case to learn about the circular nature of potential time)

If I am everywhere, am I nowhere: for I have devalued the presence of being?

People really need to understand that epic Individuals are also Human. Even though they are very good at what they do, they are not machines. They are just very good at what they do, because they practice a lot. So if you are a Person with a lower capacity for focus on practice – which there is absolutely nothing wrong with – then keep that in mind with epic Individuals. You can learn many things from your contrast: both ways.

Seriously one of the best things if not the best thing about being off of social media is the humour. After enough time has passed (I’m hitting one-year off Facebook and six-months off Instagram) I’ve started noticing situations where before I would have snapped a pic and shared it to everyone: now I own the moment and enjoy it so much more, because it is mine, had and uninterrupted. But then the humour: you immediately thereafter notice a string of pic-worthy views and have a chance to view them all, because your smartphone isn’t out! Your head is spinning around like “like like like like like” but just to yourself. I promise it is actually funny once you realise how awesome it is to experience the feeling of being completely in your own head (what’ll scare you is realising you’d lost it). But you must make the investment: jump off SoMe Ship: to experience the reality.

I believe it should be a well-believed fact that the Media has the power to start wars (a fact that is believed because it shall not be tested). If the Media starts to scramble, for whatever reason (fiscal, reputational), then their incentives to escalate pre-existing situations will go up as their capacity to see new situations (because of the scrambling) starts to go down. This can ultimately pressurize the winds of consciousness to a breaking point, because the Media sits on top of the power divide: if it escalates both sides, then ultimately it itself will rip apart in two as war breaks out and People choose sides. So therefore it is smart to pre-empt against this by holding the well-believed fact that the Media has the power to start wars, and to keep understanding what that means.

Raha on järisyttävän vahva voima. Ei se luonnostaan valu sinne, missä sitä ei kyetä hallitsemaan: se on yksi rahankantajien perusaisteista. Hallintakyky, siis, joka on oikeasti hyvin objektiivisesti kehitettävä taito eikä missään nimessä mitään erityisen vaikeata: kyse on vain siitä opetetaanko sitä vai ei, vai annetaanko rahanhallinnan osaamismarkkinoiden pysyä rajoitettuina, siten heikentäen kaikkien hyvinvointia. Ollakseni täysin rehellinen, on yksi hupaisimmista asioista, että rahoituksen järisyttävän yksinkertainenaidosti kymmenvuotiaille sopiva ja mielestäni peräti tarpeellinen – matematiikka on Maailman vahvin voima tällä hetkellä.

It has been said that Economics has always had “Physics-envy” in that Economics has lacked the predicability of fundamental base laws that Physics has. This is silly. For every action there is an opposite and equal reaction: for every credit there is a debit. Given that there are always two parties to a contract (Even if you’re with yourself, then there is past- and future-you, contracting in the now) then you will always have a balance in the meeting of concepts. It is pretty much what Accountancy is all about. How the balance of the meeting of the concepts plays out in reality – who loses their shit over what amount of lost money and when – a much more subjective matter.

But yes it does seem like high-time for Economics to really start talking about emotions, given it has been over 80 years since Keynes started doing it. I understand this can be hard, but perhaps there is a way to play emotional games on Excel – to learn. Given that using money in reality is, ultimately, all about emotion, then I’d definitely recommend Economists consider if the worthiness of their title is being given an Academically-governed, self-operated slice of equity (part of the Academic Commons) which is tied to one’s remuneration: creating incentives to continue equilibrating the market with the best available research – one’s own.

A contract-forming escape room. A contract-giver creates a contract-signing space that is as repugnant as possible for the contract-signer. Each moment that passes makes the contract even better for the contract-signer. But they must stay in the space. Could this be a fun game for Salespeople to play, or would it be considered ”Dark Magic”: a form of torture? Natural: that is one thing that it would be hahahahaha

Whatever form IT whenever takes: Information Technology (the concept and the reality): IT always is.

The evolution of intelligence is easily measured: YOUTUBE —> look at how intensely fast the Airplanes and the Boats and the Cars and the Trains and all the Athletes that ride in them to go and athleticize go as compared to before. Then think about how much shit they can calculate with all the supercomputers than they could before. That is pretty hard-ass data right there, even if it is just me saying it. Consider it an ad for the research I recommend you do yourself: modern technology and how we got here is awesome.

The speed of business ultimately reduces down to the interaction of the Server and the Served. What fidelity-level of quality that interaction is had in: that is another question, one that is more subjective.

Saatan olla Suomen lepäävin henkilö. En lepäävä, mutta lepäävin hahahaha

Muuttuvassa mielipideympäristössä on silti varma Ihmisiä yhdistävä tekijä: Sää. Millaisena se sää koetaan: keskustelun kautta yhdistävä tekijä. Ja takaisin mielipideympäristöön..

I know that Internationally there are People with Elite-financing. In Töölö Village, Helsinki, Finland: I sometimes have Elite-fooding. Your time is definitely worth the time-trip to the 1930s, which eating here essentially is. This is a super-tits place.

Literally never try and remove the melancholy out of a Finn. It literally powers us through the Winter’s dark lived in the Far North: the utilization of the skill of spitting out our hatred because of and upon its weather.

On tuplasti viestinnällisiä massaobjekteja jos tulee ravintolaan kirjalla ja kännykällä. Jätä jompi kumpi kotiin niin koet eri median välityksen tunnelmassasi. Kuljet puolet keveämpänä. Voit myös kantaa molempia mutta silloin kun päädyt käyttämään toista toisen kustannuksella niin joudut katsomaan kun toista ei käytetä. Tuplasti painavampi olo, ainakin kahdella tavalla kelattuna. Jätä molemmat kotiin: olet Luonnon helmassa.

All Salespersons-with-Apple know the Expectation of the Blue Dot: that’s a show you don’t want to have to watch too often. Especially when you’re expecting something big, which paradoxically is a nice place to be in: because you’re expecting something big. But I mean seriously God damn it with the Expectation of the Blue Dot. It is hell waiting for it to come in. In particular, even, when it’s something big.

Am I more Smartphone than Human? Ask my Thumbs: they’re the Ones balancing the pull and push between the force of me and the suction of IT. The screen: it’s not just like we go in and out of it. It’s exactly like we do.

© 2019 Jens J. Sørensen

Sales Path Duality and the Fuzzy Truth

I know Finland is all about forests. I really do. That being said: it is the Mystery Spot in California that really forest-fucks your mind for good. I mean what in the fucking shit is going on with gravity and perception and all that over there?

I wonder if Jeremy Clarkson is also an autosexual*: does he get sexual satisfaction from himself? I mean – I really hate to say it – but for a second there I thought I wanted to imagine (for the lulz) that Jeremy Clarkson does indeed get naked at home in front of a mirror and compare himself to a Ferrari 458: “haha I also light up on fire!” Hahaha

*seriously though: I wonder how many People actually are this or are we just picking up on some self-sensory overloads from the Authors? Hmm. Ping me an academic study and I’ll trust its being. As for its beingness: I’ll have to try it on for size first, but I have always been a Carboy then -Man (bodes well for success). But – to be really honest – I myself wouldn’t get too much into that stuff, overloading on yourself. It leaves less space for others. But if I were to think of it like – uhh – I am like a car that drives around gathering money for my Family and future with said Family: I could probably work with an autosexuality like that (dreams of future highways). That said I’ll probably still be having some of the other type of autosexuality as well haha motivation for the Gym (Gravity’s most centred point – gotta be or you might break your back, and you need that not broken for f’in).

Onko Digitaalilapset hyvä nimike sukupolvelle, joka on syntynyt siten, että Internetin kuluttaja-aikakauden jälkeistä aikaa on enemmän kuin puolet heidän elämästään? Jos sanotaan, että Internetin kuluttaja-aikakausi alkoi 2009 (riittävä teknologiapenetraatioaste), niin tämä tarkoittaisi vuonna 1999 syntyneiden olevan ensimmäiset Digitaalilapset. Mielestäni etenkin heiltä pitäisi tällä hetkellä kysyä mielipiteitä Maailman meiningistä: ovat sentään jo nuoria Aikuisia ja hyvin koulutettuja sellaisia – suomalaisia.

Myös itse-edustamani Techshift Sukupolvi (jostain seiska-kasariluvulta Digitaalilapsiin asti), joka on elänyt kasvavat vuotensa digitaalittomassa luonnossa (mutta Commodore 64:sta se pelien ja koodien tie alkoi..) ja sitten alkanut aikuistua kasvavaan digitaalisuuteen: myös meidän ääntä voisi tuoda esille jotta pääsemme nauttimaan entisestään kasvavista tulovirroista tälle Maailman huippuyhteiskunnalle, meidän ymmärrystämme ammentaen rahavirtojen ohjauksen kohdentamisessa tässä hetkessä, missä nyt elämme.

Meidän isoin eromme Digitaalilapsiin on mielestäni se, että Digitaalilasten IT:n käyttö on painottunut korkeafideliteettisiin (älypuhelin, fideliteetti eli laatu) kuluttajapalveluihin, ja siitä aiemmissa sukupolvissa enenevissä määrin IT:hen asennoidutaan työn kautta, kuin luonnollisena liukumana. IT on kehittynyt kuin luonnostaan: työn kautta leikkiin.

Nyt pitää sitten tietenkin kysyä, kun aina sanotaan, että “leikkivä lapsi on terve lapsi” – ylileikkivätkö lapset nykyään? En tiedä, mutta kysymys on mielestäni arvokas. Sen tiedän, monivuotisena Perinneleikit ry:n lahjoittajana, että he ovat toimintansa aikana vissiin kohdanneet jo miljoonan palvellun kansalaisen rajapyykin. Ansaitsevat himmeet aploodit tässä hetkessä.

All right Everyone, on-in from 0 to 1: is there Knowledge? Yes, there is Knowledge! What’s one of the first things you figure out? That when it comes to math, there’s always a further dimension: but when it comes to reality, that’s not true. “When it comes to life: there is no reset button.” Ultimately, that’s the biggest difference between Digital and Natural reality: been saying it since I was a Kid. God knows how many thousands of hours I’ve spent on an F1 simulator (and how many times I would’ve wrecked myself if I was trying to drive an actual F1 car haha can you imagine the G’s?! But yea so I am pretty good (still, 20 years in): I am “herrakirjuri” on F1 2018.)

Let’s remember that all Spies of National Governments essentially do the exact same thing as Sales Analysts: they seek information on the target that money is being extracted from, so that a decision can be made to either invest into the Sales deployment or not. Information gatherers, as a concept, go across all industries. Now that I mention it: throughout all conscious being, since my opinion is that the act of being is not possible without information perception, and gathering simply must be a part of that: at least on the level of your body gathering enough energy to project to your mind the information that it needs to take a leak. Because if you’re not getting that, that means you’re probably dehydrated and need to get some water ASAP.

How would you create such a contract that you, as its Buyer, could say “Ah! No advertising in my life for five years!” The answer is by founding an Advertising Defence* Company, and then becoming your own first customer, and selling the method onwards (or setting up an associate training facility) to fund yourself in creating value in other People’s lives (but you have to get them to buy first).

Entrepreneurship: what addition or subtraction (opelated with multiplication and division and their continuous cycle of functions) do you want in your life, once you’re done making them?

*I think it is always good to note that the defence industry goes all the way down to Cleaning supplies and components and substances required for creation of said supplies. Even Janitor has a rank to pull: one over the dust. That is super-respectable.

Change. Sometimes you’ve got it. Depends on if there was a deal or not.

One of the main differences about the Digital Age and the time before it is the access and access-speed to data. In times before, much leadership was reactive: annual financial figures were studied and situations reacted to as they happened. What data allows us to do in the Digital Age is pre-empt disasters by being able to forecast problems before they happen. We can become more proactive with less effort. As one example, predictive analytics companies track data from the factory floor to spot anomalies before they lead to catastrophes: they are like Medical Doctors conducting a continuous health check. The Digital Age has only just begun: we have barely started scratching the surface of the possibilities that data-based forecasting provides us across societies. If consulting – in practice, coaching – was only available to the entitled before (because the costs of data analysis were greater, before it started becoming a commodity), then computer-based data analysis should make it possible for all Leaders across the economy to get help in operating their responsibilities. As we all know: they’re not light to carry. Consulting: it can help.

For me, relying on God to solve the problems when they get too messy is the economically-viable thing to do (you know: starts with advice like “sleeping on it”). Even if I’m having to slow down while God gets the stuff together (you know: let’s remember relativity of age! But which way does that correlate as regarding speed? Probably depends on the mental and physical demand-nature of the task at hand, as related to the operating experience and current state of the parties involved), I can focus on other things in life: making it a fuller experience for myself and the others around me to live in. What I make sure to do is not rely on God too often: that would devalue the power. For me, pushing myself mentally, physically, soulfully and spiritually is what gives me the earned right to rely on God’s power every now and then (that the contract should form). I’ll bet top Athletes feel the same: it seems that they talk about this stuff a lot (assessing based on news of top profile Athletes), because of the very precisely-measured impacts of their actions and the benefits and costs attached. There are benefits: surely that is an obvious reason why people choose to have the power of God within them, as a fact of belief (I think it helps One understand the Masses, and that’s useful to have in selling and keeping oneself safe whilst doing it). There are also costs: it is important to realise that religion is a bit like any other discrimination-undergoing environment. Being even a bit open on having faith in the power of higher-powers can cost you money (if your counterpart finds it scary that you have the capacity to outsource problem-solving capacity, then it is hard to say who is losing). That being said, it can also earn you money: because what doesn’t match on one end of the market, can match on the other.

Mielestäni on hyvä muistaa, että konseptiparina on olemassa Johtajia ja Johdettuja, mutta että konseptit ottavat myös tarkemmat muotonsa. On Turvaajia ja Turvattuja, on Leikkaavia ja Leikattavia, on Lentäjiä ja Lennätettyjä. Jopa Yksinyrittäjän ammatilla on vastaparinsa, vaikka ei ole alaisia tai johtajia: on nimittäin aina Asiakas. Onko Asiakas sitten aina oikeassa vai ei, muodostaen Palvelijan lopullisen alaisuuden: se riippuu monesta käyrätekijästä hetkessä ja yli ajan mitattuna. Uusasiakasmarkkinoita (joiden perässä jättää hankalat Asiakkaat) kun syntyy jatkuvasti: ainakin niin kauan kun ideat saavat kohdata ja kun halutaan tehdä niitä.

Varallisuuden avaimet. Se on vähän kuin kilpailu: niiden kiinni saaminen omaan tajuntaansa ja toimintaansa.

There are two ways to carry out a commercial deal: racing on the run or building the package. They have their advantages and disadvantages across different situations.

Racing on the run means going into a price negotiation. When racing on the run, you have a certain price range that you are trying to stay within or beat (it doesn’t matter if you’re buying or selling: same essential logic, the numbers just go in different directions). So, in the example of a salary negotiation, you might think that you won’t take anything less than 50, you’ll be thinking through to 100, and you’ll auto-accept at anything past that.

Building the package means ”starting with the Banker.” This is going the other way: not assuming price certainty (that a negotiation will prevail with a result) but investing time up-front to obtaining price certainty (also called cost-plus). The investment makes the difference. To compare against the job applicant racing on the run, an Entrepreneur might be ”applying to work” in a commodity industry. A commodity industry is one where the product is so machine-maximized that it is as available as air: a stable production cycle and maximum-cheap price. The only way to compete in a commodity industry (where you can’t brand-inflate) is by doing what you do faster and cheaper than your competition (commodities are natural races to the bottom, Nature’s counterbalancing against inflation). The basic strategic way that this is done is by applying new technology or using existing technology better somehow: the Engineers do their wizardry and figure out the competitive edge. Hence, you go to the Banker and put together an informational package where you calculate the costs of applying the technology to make the commodity at a certain market-defeating price, which you then sell at a certain (probably tight) margin.

When it comes to the deal, the price is it: it’s what you’ve optimized towards. Theoretically, you shouldn’t have to negotiate, because you’ve calculated the optimal numerical reality that should seal the instant deal.

Theoretically. Racing on the run and building the package, in reality, happen all in one jumble of a mess called the everyday. Sales strategies play out naturally: you don’t see much haggling going on at the local grocery store over the price of a chocolate bar. That said, when you’re buying corporate supercomputers, things aren’t so straightforward. There are a lot of components going into a package and things don’t necessarily always go in as perfectly as planned. The numbers fluctuate as if of natural tectonic shifts taking place: essentially, that is what the colliding of balance sheets is, which is what doing deals causes.

But – yes – when you stop to think about it, then those are the two ways to approach the formation of a living, commercial deal: dynamic pricing and set pricing. Whatever the method, it will always collapse to a number at dealpoint. If there are questionables involved, requiring more due diligence, then dealpoint might be an extended period of months or even years.

The different paths of pricing duality have their advantages and disadvantages, which grow out of their temporal profiles and the relation of said profiles to those of the deal counterparties (as in how the calendar plays out – can the meeting be seeded, so to say) .

The reality of it all crumbles the theory straight away. Yes: the above depicts the two absolute ways that a price can be put together. A range becoming narrowed to a point by the pressure of a deadline (“the prevailing of a negotiation with a result”) or a pre-calculated & fully-fixed number holding until dealpoint (or not, meaning collapse to zero).

But, that said, reality is fuzzier: business relationships in Nature can continue for decades simply because demander and supplier like each other so much. The working time spent together becomes time spent together working: there is a big difference. The exactness of the price and the interest of pinging the market for options is swept away by the desire to keep life flowing: usually meaning that other options do not even come to mind, because happiness is already had.

It’s like I’ve said before: after the buyin’ starts the bein’. Once you’re pleased with your holdings, you can turn off or (at least) de-emphasize the buying-seeing and turn on the holding-seeing. So starts the being after the buying.

The buying-seeing uses more energy than the holding-seeing, and blurs your picture. I find that, with money, it’s a bit like driving a racing car, actually. The differences in speed narrow your gaze to a (braking) point where a deal is made and expand it to a full stop where the outcome of the deal is put into operation (thus becoming a part of the now-lived reality).

Like in all other action, a human being can only withstand a total physical and cognitive load of some amount. Alteration between states in speed also takes time: like acclimatising to jetlag or high altitude. Thus, the very real and wholesomely experienced pressures of handling capital can be conducted better and better with increased data perception, allowing for energy-loss points to be plugged. A Leader’s embodiment of an Organization is, ultimately, like the skill of a tailor or sports coach: fitting pieces together with practice until energy isn’t lost – it is gained, and seen on the income statement.

Olen ylpeästi Greta Thunbergin kannattaja. En voi käsittää, että yksikään koululaitos sanktioisi oppilasta joka osoittaa mieltään tulevaisuutensa puolesta. Lukujärjestyksen noudatuksen kirkkojako ne ovat, vai järjenkäytön keitaita? Mielestäni nuori käyttää järkeään ilmaisemalla mieltään ja osoittaa siten toiminnallaan mitä suurinta kunnioitusta koululaitokselle.

For any other Scientists trying to keep up: I believe the språk of sales is mostly consistent of an event-based language, which can be studied and learned for increased clarity, consistency, and more healthy co-operative competition across the global economy. It all comes down to assumed behavioural sets, which the Diplomats know all about. When operating internationally with matters of high sensitivity (such as corporate ownership et cetera) then having assumed behavioural sets is important. What if homo economicus (or one of its instances) is a mentally-operable technology: a business leadership simulator? When Leaders around the world play it together, the system can learn of them and define theoretical perfect behaviour sets. One benefit of this is that it could allow for more nervous-oriented type People (examples of whom I know in significant leadership positions) to practice the art before projecting the show.

Essentially, the Homo Economicus Games would be like a global business simulator. It could be engineered in such a fashion that it trains Leaders to be better Individuals from the perspective of the People they serve in the workforce and in the boardroom while serving the customers and making sure other stakeholder -relations are in check.

Who knows, maybe there’s even a gaming aspect to it that can expand to something much bigger than we’ve ever seen in entertainment: maybe the imaginary economy built on Homo Economicus’ Spine (core architecture and engine) will be significantly bigger than the real economy in the future, if playing the imaginary one is more fun than operating the real one? Who knows what stories an imaginary economy might be able to tell, given the freedom of thought that the imagination allows for? What I do know is that the first one to know will be (or will have been) an Entrepreneur: by definition.

I believe that one thing that that Entrepreneur will ask is “where does the border between imagination and reality lie? What is value, to begin with?” That would be a great way to start a speech about the Homo Economicus Games. It’d be like some Roman Emperor calling the amphitheatre to order before the commencing of the festivities. But can you get a good festivity out of an imaginary economy? Depends on the quality of the Emperor. They’re probably the first customer of their own game.

Tietääkö kukaan onko olemassa sanaa lapsenpelon pelolle? Se on hyvä voima. Auttaa tekemään parhaansa.

© 2019 Jens J. Sørensen


Essentially, the entire value chain of top-level advisors exists to help support leadership in the decision-making process. It is so by definition.

Imagination is designed: reality happens.

Thor-wledge: Hela’s problem is that she wants to control everything, all the realms. Dear Hela – to allow for outsourcing and less stress: work with the other realms with the Money – you don’t gotta always be conquerin’. You’ll all live better, if you respect the Commons. That begins with having less realms: not taking too many, so the others don’t get their share. You have to understand that there are limits to how much you can carry, Hela. Every back’s got a breaking point.

Normaaliolosuhteissa painovoiman tietää: ei sitä niinkään tunne. Epänormaaleissa olosuhteissa painovoiman kyllä tuntee, monella eri tavoin.

Keeping an interest is ultimately all about understanding importance. If you’re a Banker, interest is important because that is how People pay you with their holding-time to take care of their wealth. Which you are interested in doing, because that payment is how you pay your bills. And the money goes on.

By the way, I believe this is a good reason to assume that money will keep growing: because it grows out of time, which just keeps on coming as a natural resource. There will continue to be interest, because People will continue to find their necessities for life important. As long as People can trust the continued being of money (for trust: it just has to flow in the correct directions that maintain econological (economy & ecology) sustainability), it will continue to grow in the long-run. If not by the logic of the continued revolutionary evolution of innovation, as Generations come and go (as the Youth come and revolutionize the Lands, Generation by Generation), then by the sheer expansion of Humankind further out into the Solar System, and eventually beyond (I do believe the Youth will continue to prevail, as well: the Solar System and the Youth aren’t in competition with each other – quite the opposite ends of the investment sector there! Space and Youth. Unless we’re training Child Cadets? I don’t think we’ll do that haha there was that Ender’s Game stuff and we don’t want to make it real).

Just because it isn’t happening tomorrow or notification-ohh-right-now doesn’t mean it won’t happen. Decades-long investments that secure centuries-long potential: even they are at some point made.

It is how we ride the rivers of the money that gush, drip, and stream their way around the sun that powers the whole machine feeding our desires to do stuff in life. Step one: save the Planet. Step two: enjoy living on its surface again.

Your message response rate determines your working speed. Your message response depth determines your working fidelity. These are living functions (outcome undefined until reached) relative to the state of your own being and the beingness of those People that have a noticeable impact upon your behaviour with their own. These are the primary operative algorithms of sales, whilst the concepts and substances of money and time are what they steer across time and the market. What type of life those substances are steering through the contracts they are embodied into: that depends on who you are asking. But up to that point: market operants all be created equal, since they’re steering the same thing. The economy, that is. How well they do that, given relative-situation and other power-context: determines race outcome. What’s the race all about? Again: really depends on who you’re asking.

What’s your polarisation?* Never be ashamed of your natural preference: I love both but ultimately I am always going to be in for the Classic. One thing I wish for from the future is more trains: I’d love to add more train to my travel-method portfolio. Nothing beats a comfortable, long, well-rested and -dined train ride. Hot damn: trains of the future. That’s a time-pipe worth getting sucked into. I wonder when I can capitalize upon the accelerating function of the money in making the time-pipe dreamphase actually real? As an Entrepreneur, that is what I do: aim for the real thing, then try to get there (understand the motivational power of dreams, know the actual power of mind and muscle). Updated April 2nd, 2019: I just realized that the entire Classic Economy is a ploy to travel to meet People on Company money haha but I believe that is worth constantly funding at lower- and higher-levels of seniority, because I’m a fan of the travel: and am happy with freeways and trains if the aviation industry ends up having a last flight, climate change et cetera.. I doubt it, however, even if it might be possible a century or two from now).

EDIT:// April 11th, 2019: Happy to see that I am not the only one carrying this idea. Given that this is far-removed from myself and in the UK, I’d say that even this one data point proves there is an order in the demand-pipeline from the People for this.

If Facebook were to operate upon a User ID -system built upon hard-, Government-verified -login (easily doable via mobile operators), then the value of a click and impression would go up, because the definition of its human origin would be of a higher-fidelity. The thing about Government-verified ID is that you actually have to show up somewhere, in the flesh, to get it. That’s just a great quality-assurance and value-retainment access-protocol to have, and a stupid one to throw away as an option to use because of things such as, for example, anti-Government sentiment. The truth is: having ID is what makes us safe in the first place. It is how the authorities know who to protect and who to protect from.

Grounding Facebook into the public system, across its user base, through the identification protocol, is an excellent way to increase security on all fronts, at the same time, whilst also creating business value through more accurate data. The simultaneous census-like check conducted on Facebook’s operative base would have long-term valuational value for the financial markets: it will undoubtedly have an impact to see how much trash in the numbers is cleared out by the grounding process – for that reason I am publicly committing to remaining free of Facebook ownership (and commenting upon its share price), having just potentially impacted its value significantly (based on the assumption that I have supplied a workable, global solution to the regulation demanded by Facebook Incorporated’s Highest Leader, Mark Zuckerberg).

If Mark Zuckerberg is reading this: Mark – by offloading the ID protocol to the State as a natural monopoly, you also offload the costs. All of the costs: development, security.. Everyone wins.

The UN is silly.

Just because we can ask Human, then who is to say that Human is actually any happier than Dog, watching TV as compared to smelling a mate’s poo? Happiness: absolutely relative.

Reasons to Not Hate Life

There are many reasons these days to hate life: environmental ecosystems and their beauty are at significant risk, financial and monetary markets are unreliable, political movements have lost all sense of direction. History has never been at a point like this before: not least because of the fact that this text is being typed up on an iPhone and probably being read on one.
These things said, I think there are many reasons to not hate life.

For one: life is and will be. I am the type of Person that always turns the page on uncontrollables, accepting them and moving forward. So I’ve really worked my way around understanding why it would be of the most silly essence to think that the very core (life) of what I am should be hated, the primary finding being that without it I should not be able to experience the joy that, if it isn’t here already, can be in the future. Because the future: it’s still out there, coming in as it has always done. What quality-level the continuous download flows in: that’s up to the work we do. The rate of arrival should, by all forecasts, continue to remain the same: one day, week, month, year, decade et cetera at a time.

Secondly: there’s just so much going on right now. Even if a lot of it is super dumb (just.. on another level; dimension even) then at least there is none of the worst fear that exists: that there shouldn’t be any work. There is so much work: the main problem is access. The investment into the leadership and capital required to create work by organizing the workers into solving the problem: that is important, especially if you want to say that you are creating work.

As a final point, at least there is content on the flight down to hell: if that’s where you’re stuck. Netflix, public libraries: so much content. Omnomnom.

What is the fear of an airport nationalist upon a flight to HEL? That the airport at HEL is better than the one at home. One does not wish to be worse than HEL. That does not mean one cannot be it. HEL is a pretty good airport. Better than Arlanda and Kastrup, at least.

Welcome to the intra-North battles of quality supremacy, as flown into and out of. Then we also have the other battles where we walk into and out of, like foyers and lobbies (never underestimate the power-perception force of an astonishing lobby, not to even begin to mention the entrance to your home).

Then it gets very real, because it is defined in contract tied to many People.

© 2019 Jens J. Sørensen

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


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.


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 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


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


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


“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


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