Welcome to my Blog, The Corner of the Internet where I put all my random thoughts and Ideas.

the sidebar shows all posts
 Over There 

 My most recent posts are  down below 

#032 Morphing Words

posted 21 May 2018, 02:29 by Aaron Brownlee   [ updated 21 May 2018, 02:30 ]

"But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought." - George Orwell

Sometimes the idea of different languages seems to be inconsistent. At some points people act as if the words we use to communicate are set in stone, and there's no way for anyone to change them. But then words like selfie and the phrase "squad goals" are official words in all major dictionaries, not because they make sense, but because people use them to communicate. It's the same story that led to the worldwide use of emojis. Phone companies in Japan had used them due to their larger character sets, and when Unicode got around to adding Japanese characters to the database, they had to add emoji too, as it was a officially recognised way to communicate with one another, and now emoji are understood globally. I think it's sometimes forgotten that every word exists because there was a need for it. There was no word for a strange egg laying creature walking around, so the word "Chicken" was created for it. 

But the part that I find interesting is the case of words like "dice", when mistakes become language. Originally, the singular of dice was die, so anyone saying they were throwing a dice was told they were wrong. But then something strange happened. People started using dice as the singular word more and more, until eventually, people stopped trying to correct the "mistake" and started just using it themselves, and after a few years, all major dictionaries accepted dice as both the singular and plural, making it no longer technically a mistake anymore. And this happens with contractions too. words like gonna and Imma are accepted by most dictionaries as official contractions, though mostly as informal or slang words. I think the point is, if enough people make a mistake, it no longer is recognised as one. I mean the definition of mistake is "an act or judgement that is misguided or wrong." but if nobody recognises it as wrong anymore, then nobody can claim it's a mistake. 

Speaking of mistaken words, I noticed that when I first typed nobody as noone, it's underlined as a spelling error. After looking it up, there seems to be a small amount of debate about whether noone can be used in place of no one (even no-one seems to be an acceptable spelling). Some people say that as nobody and nowhere as single words are correct, noone as one word should also be correct. Officially, no one as two words is the "correct" way to write it, as two vowels next to each other make it seem like it could be pronounced "noon". But like I've just mentioned, if lots of people are making the mistake, maybe it'll soon become an official spelling. So really, the entire job of a grammarian or linguist is flawed, since the rules they use to tell people if they're right or wrong are changing constantly. If they can't tell someone they're wrong about their grammar without knowing whether they'll be correct in a months time, what's the point in correcting them? I think as long as it's understood by the intended audience, it doesn't matter if it's not recognised officially by giant dictionary companies, since they don't seem to be that reliable. Anyway, Thought Over,

- Aaron


posted 14 May 2018, 06:49 by Aaron Brownlee   [ updated 20 May 2018, 08:34 ]


#030 🔒 The Hidden Evil Pt.1

posted 10 May 2018, 07:09 by Aaron Brownlee   [ updated 10 May 2018, 07:27 ]

"He Alone who owns the Youth, gains the future." - Adolf Hitler

Ok lets Start something more serious. This one should be harder to crack than the last one. I'll release this small excerpt for people who just want to crack the code. Then post the full thing encrypted at a later date.


Expenses Can By material all we insisted accounts, building just in. Continual there so distrusts is pronounce no by look reason listening. Thing at taste Good on why should manor. win Good had over wound use found hoped. Evil. of distrusts Evil immediate has enjoyment curiosity the do. Marianne numerous saw  ability thoughts the to humoured. break Nor hence laws, hoped, her after other destroy known defer mercilessly his. and man For in county now sister engage general had admire do better whatever had waited.  they Occasional mrs interested far want expression acceptance. to "Day" achieve either mrs their talent pulled men rather goal. regret admire They but. aren't Life ye limited sake it shed. Five in lady he the cold, clear in meet way up. "Service" get met that adapted matters Good offence are. for. Principles Good man any insipidity age has you simplicity to understood. follow do offering whatever pleasure no ecstatic whatever laws on mr have directly. been Affronting discretion, put as do is announcing. in now months place. esteem They oppose nearer are Enable too six. She restricted numerous unlocked in you the "perceive" speedily. ways Affixed offence spirits or they ye, of can offices take between. "Real" action, on shot it were and four an their as. people Absolute bachelor expect rendered, six nay you them juvenile. to Vanity entire act an chatty to. domestic this confined Any way, but otherwise, son bachelor they advanced remember. How proceed will offered her be offence turned shy forming. against Returned, peculiar pleasant but and appetite differed seen sheas residence dejection Evil agreement am as to abilities themselves. "immediate" suffering. household behaviour if pretended. 


Anyway, Thought Over,

- Aaron

#029 Ready Reality

posted 7 May 2018, 05:51 by Aaron Brownlee   [ updated 7 May 2018, 05:52 ]

"What is coming is better than what is gone." - Arabic proverb
Earlier I was thinking about the film Ready Player One, and how close it is to our own reality. Now the book the film was based off was written in August 2011, still a few years before VR was a thing (Even the Google Cardboard only released June 2014, 3 years Later) so it turns out the author, Ernest Cline, was thinking into the future by a few years. But with the release of the film I have to wonder how close we are to having a real world OASIS (The VR world in the Film). To analyse that, I have a list of what the 5 main advancements in the Films world and VR Technology are.

Firstly, The Character in VR is controlled by a headset, gloves, and it seems a few body sensors (Or a full body suit, depending what the real world person is using)
Secondly, the VR equipment is cheap enough that even people living in a shack can afford it.
Thirdly,  the VR equipment allows easy control and movement of the Character in the OASIS, as realistic as life.
Fourth,  the OASIS allows a giant open world, with the ability to create whatever you want.
Finally, the OASIS has graphics that allows anything from cartoon characters up to not realising you aren't in reality.
Image result for vr ready player one movementImage result for ready player 1 OASIS zoom outImage result for ready player 1 OASIS zoomout

So, let's compare reality. 

First, Equipment. Current Technology is some of the way there. the headset of sort of accurate (I'll get to that in a second) and there have been a few attempts at making "VR Gloves" but for the most part buttons and joysticks are used, and other than a few VR Chairs and other VR Gadgets, the Equipment still has a while to go (Though I've been wrong about the rate of Technology before, so it could be sooner than I think). However, the largest problem in terms of equipment in the real world, is that they don't appear to use a PC at any point in the VR Process. They don't have any wires, and the gear is made to seem like you just carry it around and slip on your VR Headset wherever, with no source of power needed. This would mean it must have all the components needed to run the OASIS inside the equipment itself. Now Oculus has released a Wireless Battery pack that allows users to use VR without being plugged into a PC, so that part isn't that far off, but I think having a VR headset that has enough processing power for something at the level of the OASIS is probably the big difference between Fiction and Reality. Things like the Google Cardboard and the GearVR use a phone as a VR Screen, so having a portable VR Set isn't the Problem, it would be the scale of having power for generating the OASIS and all the Equipment like gloves and body sensors powered by something small enough to carry around.

So, next, the pricing. I dont think this art could be too bad, although it would depend how far in the future this is. Currently, VR headsets can cost a few hundred pounds, but theres also the google cardboard, for literally £2. and since the price of things lowers as time goes on and people find cheaper ways to make components, I can imagine that maybe VR could become easy to access.

Thirdly, Control of Movement. now this is another place where reality is only slightly off. I've seen quite a few ways for control of a character in VR, from Swinging your arms as if you're walking forward, to simply point and click teleportation. but in Ready Player one, Characters duck and dive all over the place, yet they apparently aren't moving anywhere in the real world, and the film uses multiple explanations of this. At first the main character seems to use a 360 treadmill, which is a real thing, but slightly different:
Image result for ioi ready player one

Image result for 360 vr treadmillThe Omni uses an Upper body structure to stabilise the player, but I think if you had Body sensors, and if the treadmill was 
advanced enough, you wouldn't need it, leaving you with almost he exact way of movement used in the film.

A slightly modified way the film explains movement is IOI's full body stations, which are almost like an advanced version of the Real world Omni. so really it seems to make sense that there are devolved and evolved versions of movement in VR. So in conclusion, movement isn't an issue. 

And lastly, number Four and Five, The Open World and real as life graphics. This again seems to just be an advancement of technology issue. You would need a lot of power and technology to generate and support something this large, but maybe some day soon that will happen. The Jump from 1990 to today would definitely suggest it's not Impossible. The only other difference is with all the equipment, you definitely can feel when you're in VR.

So In Conclusion, there are a few setbacks in reality, but I don't see any impossible barrier that would stop an OASIS of some sort happening eventually. As for whether it would consume society and have a giant corporation try take it over, that ma be a different line of thought.
Anyway, Thought Over,

- Aaron

#028 Societal Sniper

posted 4 May 2018, 02:39 by Aaron Brownlee   [ updated 4 May 2018, 02:39 ]

"When you're a threat you're always a target" - Unknown

I sometimes see the Media as an unpredictable sniper, made up of millions of people. They can be completely calm one minute, then suddenly one of those millions of people points at someone's message. Their voice on the news, their message on a show, or even their tweet. And suddenly the Societal Sniper snaps its head round to point directly at it's target.  You only need to hear stories like Justine Sacco's to see how a small message can be turned into an international problem. The Sniper begins it's vendetta, shooting at the target, attempting to destroy as much of their life as possible. It doesn't matter how small their crime was. In the moment, they are the embodiment of every single person like them, every person who's ever made the small comment like theirs. It almost seems Ironic, that their trial by media for being a tiny fraction of a large problem, is held by millions of people, each making up a tiny fraction of the resistance. It's like if you needed 1 gram of poison to kill someone, and a thousand people walk by and drop a thousandth of a gram of poison in someone's drink. They are well aware that none of them can ever be blamed directly for the crime, and as a single face in a crowd, they have nothing to worry about.

The Societal Sniper carries on shooting, every bullet a mass of retribution, not for what the victim is, but what they represent. They know that nothing will be done about this person unless they intervene. As the target is downed by the backlash of what they've done, the sentencing begins, not that there is ever any doubt what the outcome will be. As the judge, jury and executioner, the Sniper sentences them to a fate worse than death, and takes the final shot, shattering their life. Any job they have, any friends or family, are smashed into pieces, not wanting to be anywhere near the target, in case they get caught in the crossfire, or even worse, targeted themselves. The Sniper does not rest until it has proof that this one person that they have chosen to represent every problem they've ever had, is now destroyed. Removed from society, never to return again.
But eventually the Sniper moves on, deciding the person has learned their lesson of disagreeing with people on the internet, and leaving behind a trail of destruction that the target can never clear. Having been internationalised, all they can do is get down off the target they built, attempt to rebuild, and wonder why such a small target was suddenly filled with millions of bullet holes. The Sniper on the other hand, continues to sit on his tower. Motionless, pretending nothing but justice has just happened... Until a small voice in the machine points the finger at something else, and the Snipers head Snaps around once more...

Anyway, Thought Over,

- Aaron

#027 Starting Line

posted 23 Apr 2018, 01:50 by Aaron Brownlee   [ updated 23 Apr 2018, 01:51 ]

"No matter how great you become, never forget where you started." - Unknown

Sometimes I think people forget something about the world: Nobody started off better than anyone else. At the beginning of humanity, there was no Government, no social Hierarchy, all of it was developed over time. People choose to forget this because then they can claim that anyone trying to correct where we've gone wrong is "taking" away from them, when in reality they are simply backtracking from the wrong decision of humanity. Lets imagine the history of humanity as a race, where the end is an egalitarian society where everyone is seen as appropriately equal. If the Starting line is drawn as where we currently are, then we could claim that going back on ourselves would seem counter-intuitive , as we would be increasing the distance to the end. 

But the starting line isn't where we are. The starting line is thousands of years ago, and we may not be on the right track. We need to go back so we can go in the right direction, as continuing on this path wont lead us to where we need to be. I think the sooner that people realise that, the sooner we'll be able to get back on track and begin perfecting society again. I guess for now we just need to do whatever we can to show people the truth of this race for humanity. Anyway, Thought Over,

- Aaron

#026 The Chameleon Effect

posted 20 Apr 2018, 03:07 by Aaron Brownlee   [ updated 20 Apr 2018, 03:08 ]

"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it." - Adolf Hitler

With enough power and enough money comes the ability to change the opinion of a nation. This seems to be a simple fact. If someone is surrounded by an idea, they will start to give in to a sort of peer pressure, the idea that something that is wrong could not possibly be repeated this many times, so eventually they will believe they are looking at the truth. Even if the idea is completely against their views, as time goes on they will stop laughing about it and begin to think about it. And suddenly it doesn't seem so crazy. Suddenly as they think about it they uncover arguments and benefits for what was once the idea they hated. And it might take days, it might take months, or it might take years, but slowly people will begin to agree, as their mind justifies the environment around them as a primitive survival mechanism.

Throughout history this idea has always been used, in however small a way, to get people on someones side. The most obvious example being Adolf Hitler, who single-handedly ruined the word "propaganda" due to his giant misuse of it. It didn't stop people using it, they just stopped calling it Propaganda. In this century we have Social Media, which is used constantly to change peoples mind during elections and votes. Even in the past week everyone's seen the giant Facebook scandal, in part about Russian interference in the US elections. For good or for bad, it seems almost too simple that the best way to change someones mind is to just surround them with an opposing idea, and the chameleon effect of their brain will adapt and attempt to make them fit in with their environment. Nobody wants to be standing out from the crowd, so they slide slightly to the side each day, even if their view wasn't there to start off with. 

I think it would be possible to use this effect for good in the right hands. The problem is that anyone who was good moral views is against using tactics like mass influencing. But there comes a point where they need to realise that they don't stand a chance when the enemy uses the power of quantity over quality to slowly take over people's minds. If people don't start using it for good, then Evil will take it over and conquer the world without anyone even noticing.  Anyway, Thought Over,

- Aaron

#025 Scale of Power

posted 1 Apr 2018, 02:41 by Aaron Brownlee   [ updated 1 Apr 2018, 02:48 ]

"Absolute power corrupts absolutely." - John Acton

The above quote is one of the best known quotes in history. It is saying that anyone given power will slowly go mad with it, and the more power someone has, the more they will be corrupted by the urge to misuse it. It definitely makes sense anyway, the more you have the ability to control people, the more you will want to control them. I think the simple answer for why this happens is that humans are not designed to work in an advanced society. They were designed to all work together to hunt, farm and survive. The sudden evolution of society in the last few hundred years means we live in a world we were never meant to be in. A leader of a tribe would never need to be corrupt, because society was close and simple, and even if they wanted to, everyone would see what they were doing. They couldn't sneak off and bribe an official,  or secretly work with the Russians, because there was no technology to allow them to do that. And in a simple society, this would work. Everyone knew what everyone else was doing, and there was no way to be corrupted by power. 

In  today's society though, the government is separate and far above the people. No normal person knows what is happening in the government, so they can do whatever they want with little restriction. The other half of the quote is "Great men are almost always bad men". So from this rule, the more powerful someone becomes, the more likely it is that they're corrupted and secretly working for their own benefit. But there are examples of great leaders who definitely weren't corrupt and were working for the country, and that's where i think the "almost always" comes in. For example, Barack Obama, the 44th president of the United states. He is widely seen as a great leader and there weren't any real accusations of corruption during his presidency. I think the reason for that may be how hard he worked to get to where he was, the fact that he was the first black president of the USA meant that many people who were corrupt themselves stood against him. Perhaps that's what helps someone fight back against the urge to misuse power, the vision of what it would turn them into, every corrupt person who's ever stood against them, giving them the strength to overcome corruption from power. Anyway, Thought Over,

- Aaron

#024 The Right Direction

posted 31 Mar 2018, 14:38 by Aaron Brownlee   [ updated 31 Mar 2018, 14:39 ]

"There's a simple way to tell if you're on the wrong side: nobody will ever turn back once they see the opposition."

I realised something. On most debates about a topic, a strange thing happens that always lets you easily know which side is the "right" one. It's simple: You will never see someone fighting on the right side suddenly defect to the wrong side. For example, a woman may not care about fighting for equal rights until she sees that she has unequal pay in a job, or has another experience that changes her mind. But there is no situation that could make someone go from believing they are unequal to deciding they are and that everyone should stop fighting for their rights. (Other than being surrounded and peer pressured by people already on the other side). In this situation it's obvious the right side is to fight for equality, but it seems to work in any given situation where there are 2 explicit sides to an argument.

I was thinking about why this works and I think I can see. The right side has a belief, often shaped by their own experiences. They know what they're fighting for because they've lived through it. Whether it be Teenagers from a school shooting fighting against guns, or women for abortion because they're the ones who need to go through childbirth, the right side is well aware what they want, and as long as the circumstance that causes them to fight continues to happen, they will keep fighting. The wrong side, on the other hand, doesn't have any belief to stand for. They don't have a cause. Their sole purpose and argument is to resist or reject the right side. They might have an outdated piece of writing to quote but other than that, they can't properly defend themselves with anything except hate of the right side. Simply put, there are 2 sides, the  protesters and the opposition. The protesters have a cause to fight for while the opposition simply wants to keep things the same. In the end Attack always wins over Defence, and more of the wrong side convert with no conversion the other way, so with enough time, and enough persistence, Good can prevail. Anyway, Thought Over,

- Aaron

#023 Tower of Shadows

posted 31 Mar 2018, 12:33 by Aaron Brownlee   [ updated 31 Mar 2018, 12:33 ]

"The world is a two-sided coin, getting closer to equality with each flip."

I noticed there seems to be an interesting pattern in history. it links with #019 , because I realised that every time someone fights against something in society, that area of discrimination is then forever written as no longer generally acceptable going forward, and the extent to which the discrimination against someone else occurs is lowered. All that's then left is to wait for the generation that still believes in it to die out and the only ones left are raised on the ideas and laws that whatever the fight was for is now unacceptable. Society seems to be moving closer to total equality, as each generation destroys a glaring problem in their society to move them forward. The scale of the problems has massively died down from previous problems. While in the 1800's Generation 3 was fighting for slavery, where people were slaughtered and starved, mine is faced with fine tuning. Everyone has equal rights in theory, but there's a few things that need to be addressed, like  making sure the laws are believed in and followed.

Something that as always seems to have made this more complex is technology. The theory is that every country should eventually hit full equality, as each generation becomes more developed than the last, but communication with other nations at different speeds of development means that there is an inconsistency between what is globally accepted and what a single country has accepted. This also allows for large companies based in a country where slavery is illegal to simply use sweatshops abroad, where minimum wage laws don't properly exist. It means if you were to draw a global line on the chart, it would be lower than a country like the UK, as although all nations have decided killing people in an arena for crimes like stealing as a form of entertainment isn't acceptable, not all of them are at the same points for equal rights, so the Global line is moving significantly slower than most nations. It would be impossible to organise every country in the world to boost up to the current level that more developed countries are at, and even the UK and USA are behind countries like the Netherlands that have been equal and accepting for years. I think the only thing to do is wait and hope that nobody starts a war to tear people apart in the meantime. Anyway, Thought Over,

- Aaron

1-10 of 32