Computer Games

Back in 1998, before I'd even got my very first computer, I borrowed a PlayStation off someone together with a couple of games, "Resident Evil" and "Tomb Raider".  I hadn't played any computer games since the early 80's when I used to play space invaders, asteroids, pacman etc, both in the arcades and in a simpler form on my Atari 2600 console.

Anyway, I used to love playing those games, although they did get tedious after a while.  I got ridiculously good at all of them e.g watch me play the first Space Invaders here, or Space Invaders 2 here. And then I started playing Resident Evil . .wow . . just wow!  Really it bore absolutely no relationship to the computer games I had hitherto played.  I was in a 3D environment controlling a person called Jill being attacked by zombies and solving puzzles.  I was entranced!  7/03/22 Edited to add.  I've managed to get hold of this original 1996 version!  Played it live as Jill using no saves and just using a knife.  Go here. 

Then I played Tomb Raider, and I was even more blown away!  The haunting music, the satisfaction of figuring out the puzzles, completely exploring a level, only to then start a brand new level with more puzzles and exploring to do.  I loved it!

Those two games, the first two 3D games I ever played, have remained unsurpassed. Tomb Raider 2, Half Life (the 1st one) and Far Cry (the 1st one) were all excellent too, but not as good as those first 2 games.

Now I'm trying to play games such as Far Cry 3 etc (see me play Far Cry 3 here), but these more modern games just don't hold the same magic, and I get sick of playing them.  I don't know why, maybe because I'm older, but I suspect not so much thought has been put into these games to make them so entrancing.

How successful are people with high IQ's?

Reading the following article it says:

[M]any Termites failed to become highly successful in any intellectual capacity. These comparative failures were far less likely to graduate from college or to attain professional or graduate degrees, and far more likely to enter occupations that required no higher education whatsoever.

Termites = those with average IQ's of 151 at 11 years of age

Being successful in a capitalistic sense will presumable involve all sorts of factors of which IQ is only one small part. Equally essential is working hard at school, being ambitious, being able to get on with other people, being good looking, being gregarious and social. Most important of all is expressing views consonant with the prevailing consensus (i.e not rocking the boat). Otherwise you won't get promoted, or even land a prestigious job in the first place.

Also I'm not sure how far IQ reflects actual intelligence.

I have no idea why the author and so many others considers this to be remotely surprising.  Moreover, I do not get the impression that rich people and those with Ph.D's, tend, on average, to be particularly intelligent.  Regular readers of my 2 blogs (if there are any) will understand why I hold this view.

25/04/2020 Edited to add:  Another link that supports my contention here.

More to Reality than what it seems?

I see no reason why there couldn't be something behind it all, some ultimate reason. That, after death, our existence might continue to adventures anew into new realities where everything comes right at the end and our hearts are filled with joy and happiness. Maybe, or maybe not, but I believe there's a damn sight more to reality than appears on the surface.

Free trial of "Amazon Prime"

I was offered a free trial period of Amazon prime for 28 days. After that period they take money out of my account every month.

So I took up the offer, then immediately cancelled, so I simply get the 28 days for free then it ends. However, they don't like that!

I clicked the cancel prime link and it took me to a page saying "Ian, we'd hate for you to miss out on your unlimited one-day deliver". Then gave me 4 options -- keep membership, extend trial, decide later, cancel membership. So I clicked the cancel membership, to get another screen imploring me to extend my membership for 7 days for 99p. Another 4 options exactly the same. I click cancel my membership for a 3rd time. Took me to another page wanting me to confirm my cancellation offering me 3 options, again keep membership, remind me later, cancel membership. Eh?? Already clicked it 3 times! So I click cancel for the 4th time.

At last success! I get a yellow triangle with an exclamation mark alerting me that my prime will end on the 9th November (doesn't that give me 29.5 days rather than 28 . .not complaining, or perhaps I should, they might give me another 28 days for free).

Brexit and the Business Backlash

According to this article Jane Gratton, head of business at the British Chambers of Commerce, said:

“Any sudden cutoff of EEA skills and labour would be concerning, if not disastrous, for firms across a wide range of regions and sectors.”

I should first of all note that we have approximately 67 million people living in the UK, and I think something like 15% of these people were born abroad.   Due to the fact that over the past couple of decades there has every year been a surplus of immigrants over emigrants, our population is continually increasing.  At the current rate of net migration, in 50 years time the population will increase from 67 million to 83 million, in 100 years there will be 107 million people. 

Big business says this situation must continue (for years? decades? forever?) otherwise they claim it'll be economically catastrophic. This means they regard a successful economic model as being parasitic on the UK population spiralling ever upwards, even though parts of the UK -- precisely those parts of the UK where migrants tend to settle -- are already vastly overcrowded. That presents quite a dilemma.  Either suffer an economic catastrophe by reducing net migration close to zero so the size of the UK population remains more or less static, or have a continually increasing population with all the population problems this will entail (having to build new homes, strains on public services, pressure on infrastructure, social cohesion, etc).

I submit that having a continually exponential increase in population is simply not viable over the long-term.  If these firms depend upon this scenario, then they simply don't deserve to thrive. They need to adapt to the reality that the UK population cannot simply keep increasing forevermore. They need to accommodate themselves to this reality.

I am also cynical that such a dilemma exists. First of all, even economists predictions are scarcely better than flipping a coin. But, apart from that, there are vested interests here and we should treat the predictions of big business with a grain of salt. Clearly it favours employers to have a large pool of employees, especially those who are agreeable to work for low wages, since this puts a general downward pressure on wages resulting in greater profits for employers. It's also worth noting that the negative consequences of ever more migration -- housing, infrastructure pressure, strains on public services, effects on social cohesion etc -- don't fall upon employers.

Conversely, what is advantageous for employers is generally disadvantageous for employees.  Wages will only rise if workers are in fairly tight supply, which of course won't happen with the immigration policy of the last 20 years or so. So mass immigration has a negative effect for many workers as their wages are suppressed. Workers also have to contend with all the other aforementioned negative consequences of an ever spiralling increasing population.

Why do objects fall?

Why do objects fall down? Is it because:

a) The law of gravitation *compels* objects to fall down?

b) The law of gravitation, in common with all physical laws, just describes what happens, and it is in fact gravitational force or the warping of space-time, that compels objects to fall down?

c) Neither the law of gravitation nor gravitation itself (so defined) compel objects to fall down. Rather objects fall down because it's just the way reality is. The law of gravitation is merely a mathematical description of the falling process.  Gravity, as such, doesn't exist.

d) Some other reason.

I gravitate towards "c".

A fleeting intimation of a memory

Just been for a walk. The grass, the trees, the birds, seemed to trigger the very faintest feeling, the very faintest intimation of a memory that was immediately lost before I could focus on it. An eternity ago. Feelings of complete fulfilment, contentment, meaning and happiness. The Universe was full of love and meaning and I was part of it.

I think it was the barest glimpse of a memory when I was a small child. Although maybe it was a previous life, or even the time between lives. But the most likely is that it was a briefest of memories of this life when I was a child. When I felt very very different about the world.

Eating fruit is not so straightforward

And to think people say it's incredibly easy to eat 5 portions of fruit and veg a day.

Heart age test

Apparently a NHS test shows that almost 80 per cent of people have a heart age higher than their real age.  The Guardian claims that "doctors call figures for England alarming and urge people to adopt healthier lifestyles".

Now, we need to think about this.  Clearly doctors will already be aware of the rates of heart attacks and strokes in England.  These current rates will presumably be a reflection of peoples' cardiovascular health.  So the test results don't indicate the population of England's cardiovascular health is worse than was thought -- we already can infer this from the rate of heart attacks and strokes. If the Guardian is correct and these doctors are calling these figures alarming, then they simply are not understanding this very simple fact. I think this in itself is cause for concern since we generally trust our doctor's advice on health issues.

A word about the actual test.  I completed it and it said my heart is 3 years older than my actual age.  I know my systolic (the top figure) blood pressure, which is 131, but I don't know my cholesterol figures, so they just applied some average.

Altering my weight had no effect on my result.  Reducing my systolic BP -- presumably to less than 120 -- made my heart 2 years older rather than the current 3.  Putting in my old address made my heart 4 years older.  Reducing my cholesterol had the only significant effect bringing my heart age to the same as my actual age.  However, I never provided any cholesterol figures, they're just using some average.

I'm surmising that the calculation depends mostly on my sex, where I live, and the average cholesterol figures of some subset of the population.  Apart from BP, no relevant questions were asked that might have shed light on how healthy my heart is.  For example, questions such as whether I get breathless climbing a flight of stairs, what my resting pulse rate is etc, were not asked.

Here a brief digression is called for. Until 3 years ago I had lived my entire life in a place in the north-east of England called Teesside.  Stockton centre in Teesside has a life expectancy of 64 for men.  I lived approximately 10 minutes walk away from the centre, and given I am now in my 50's (although looking very young for my age) that suggests I only have a few years left!  However, on digging a bit deeper, it seems that men in this area have such a low life expectancy due to their lifestyles; namely heavy smoking, binge drinking, eating junk foods, drug taking etc.  Suffice to say that many people who live in this area have a lifestyle which is, and was, very far removed from my own.  Hence, there's no reason why I should think that such a low life expectancy will be applicable to my own particular case.  Specific questions regarding my specific lifestyle would need to be asked before any reasonable life expectancy can be surmised.

I think precisely the same applies for this NHS test.  They are simply taking averages and are not asking a sufficient number of relevant questions specific to the individual.  I think it is far more sensible to not take any notice of this test, but to judge for oneself how healthy one's heart is e.g how easily one gets out of breath with specific activities.

Far Cry with Dinosaurs

I think it would be a splendid idea if someone made a computer game -- perhaps a "far cry" game -- where the hero travels back in time to the age of the dinosaurs. Of course he (or she) would have plenty of weapons. As well as dinosaurs like the T rex etc, perhaps there might be a super intelligent dinosaurs of around our size with ray guns.

Anyway, that would be an absolute blast. Don't know why no one thinks of making a game like that. It would be incredibly popular and make huge amounts of money.