TaN: The issue with the withdrawal of Uber from the Philippines is another point in my argument against giving too much attention or preference to foreign investments — be they direct or indirect. It is well and good if or when foreigners decide to invest locally — in any country, for that matter — but we, the locals, have to remember one thing: Foreign investors are only after one thing…PROFIT! And or but what is (more) important is true motive or intention for investing — i.e., are they in only for the money or do they really and truly want to help the domestic economy and the local development along with making a decent return on their investment/s.
To give (more worth) than deserved to foreign investments is to become dependent on others and this goes against self-reliance and makes the country beholden. And self-reliance is key to self-respect, dignity, autonomy, and self-determination. Should foreign investments be accorded more importance than what is deserved gives them power over a country’s self-determination — global village, globalization, and interdependence notwithstanding. It likewise gives foreign investments the power to demand incentives and special treatment or consideration (that frequently prove to be detrimental or disadvantageous to local or domestic businesses and rivals/competitors) as well as the tendency or temptation for foreign investors to look at the host country as lower in stature.
In conclusion, just as in the case of FedEx and several other foreign companies that decided to pull out when the profit margin could no longer be sustained at the desired level, foreign investments desert the host country and seek greener pastures. It is not as if the foreign investment’s return of investment is falling below break-even, which is a justifiable reason to pull out, but that the desired rate of return desired can no longer be maintained and there is nothing can be done because they have every right to go somewhere else where they can get better rates of returns.
TaN: One way of ensuring a secure password — aside from taking precautions and not leaving it lying around or accidentally blurting it out — is to use either the equivalent in a foreign language or remote dialect (that you are familiar with and will not forget) but can be represented in or by the English alphabet or a phonetic or homophonic equivalent that you can easily remember or will not forget (like in Arabic or Navajo or Inuit). And to make it even more challenging but making sure that you will not forget, is to jumble it up — like by reversing the sequence of the letters or the syllables or the words themselves (in case it is a phrase or something).
Personally, I do not like to keep changing passwords as a security measure against being hacked. The problem here is, sooner or later, you will have changed too many times and eventually become confused as to which one is the current.
One way to avoid this problem is to maintain a short list of chosen passwords and come up with a repetition cycle — like four passwords to be used and swapped every quarter or 3 months of the year.
Another is to double the password but the second will be the reverse of the first or, if the software will permit, I embed spaces (not necessarily single but may be double or triple) at strategic points — this way, even if I write it down, people will not know if there are spaces, where they are, and how many successive spaces per occurrence.
In any case, security can actually be very simple. In fact, the simpler it is, the more difficult it is for the people to guess — just make sure it is not obvious. Be creative and imaginative.
However, the best security is to make everything open and public. This way, there is nothing to fear about being attacked or stolen — never do anything you will be ashamed of later; think things through carefully and thoroughly. Personally, I never put sensitive data — personal or otherwise — online. Anything true I make public is guaranteed to be meant for public knowledge, otherwise I fabricate.
In conclusion, it must always be remembered that convenience and control are directly or diametrically opposed — at least as far as technology is concerned. The more convenience we enjoy, the less control we have over our choice or decision — e.g., if we want driverless cars, we cede controlling the car (i.e., determining the direction or route, the speed, the stop-overs, etc).
TaN: The principal and probably the only reason for the increasing incidence of not only diseases and (even minor) medical issues but likewise the appearance or emergence of apparently new diseases and maladies and various other (“exotic”) medical conditions are not because of evolution or any other such similar “scientific” processes but because our immune system(s) have been severely compromised — “severely” because even in a supposedly weakened state, our immune system can still do its job reasonably well with the exception of critical or terminal stages and instances of multiple organ failures — and the different organs, systems, and body areas that traditionally do not encounter health problems but now experience issues and they now manifest them through these so-called “modern” diseases.
Different dietary deficiencies (and especially if they are essential) to health and bodily processes and functions (may frequently) produce different and somewhat unrelated (although they may sometimes appear superficially to be identical or related) medical conditions — and these do not yet include or discount combinations of deficiencies.
Most of our medical or health issues stem from either deficiencies or oversupplies of certain key nutrients — and not from the lack of (toxic) chemicals of pharmaceuticals. It is insane to even entertain the idea that our (modern) diseases are caused by deficiencies in pharmaceuticals and the Western/mainstream/conventional allopathic medicine’s approach and philosophy of isolationism reductionism is not only dangerous but utterly and completely erroneous.
Moreover, the rampant and global putsch of (deadly) vaccines as a form of “pre-emptive or preventive” medicine is the other principal reason behind the rise and spread of pandemic diseases — especially and mostly attacking the brain and nervous system and the mind (in the forms of depression, suicides, schizophrenia, anxiety, autism, paranoia, delusions, homicidal tendencies (which are now manifesting in mass shootings, mostly in schools and heavily populated public places), and many more that attack and alter the brain’s perception and interpretation of reality.
In conclusion, there is no such thing as a new disease. Diseases that were never encountered in the past only means that as diets change over the years, there is the possibility that there will be deficiencies or “new” medical and health issues that will develop as we “exchange” one “improper or incorrect” dietary aspect for another when we change diets in our history, especially when we migrate to “greener but unfamiliar pastures” (whether voluntarily or not) — like when early African natives are brought to the New World as slaves to work the plantations or in current times when entire populations are displaced due to violent physical conflicts or in search of better employment opportunities.
TaN: In a telephone discussion with my aunt in New York, I realized a clearer argument in advocacy against diseases being inherited. In the conversation, I explained that diseases cannot be inherited — at least not directly.
Diseases — i.e., current lifestyle diseases, such as diabetes mellitus and cancer and obesity and hypertension and arthritis and osteoporosis and Alzheimer’s and autism and stroke — appear to be inherited because we “inherited” or are exposed to the wrong lifestyle from our parents and other people living with us. Since the current crop of (more prominent and controversial) diseases are caused by the wrong lifestyle (and diet) and we unfortunately are influenced (at the very least) by imitating or imbibing and adapting them as our own, it is likewise for this very reason that we see the emergence of these so-called lifestyle diseases in younger and younger generations — because they are exposed to them at an early stage in their life and and not due to genetics or “inheritance”.
However, even if armed with the knowledge that it is the “passing on” of the erroneous lifestyle that is at the root of the rampant and epidemic-wide spread of lifestyle diseases, not properly and correctly identifying the true cause is leading many down paths that are making things worse.
It is sad that many share the erroneous idea that it is the eating of the food that is the key or solution. In truth, it is not (so much) the types of food consumed that is the principal culprit but the way the (healthy) foods are prepared and consumed. Even with the healthiest of foods — many even falsely believe and claim the existence of the so-called super foods — the wrong manner of consumption will make all the effort and care to no avail. A vegetarian or even a vegan who eats dry-cooked — or worse, over-cooked — foods will still get the lifestyle disease (if not sooner…later).
The key is to preserve the nutrients for them to be useful to the body and the nutrients are very heat sensitive. Upon exceeding a maximum overall temperature threshold, nutrients not only break down and become useless but may even — as in the case of carbohydrates which turn into acrylamides, of protein which turn into nitrosamines and nitrosamides, and of fats or lipids which are rapidly and easily oxidized and become rancid and toxic — become carcinogenic.
Especially with (our) health, one should not readily jump to conclusions at the first sign of something “rational” or just because experts (and so many of them) say so. A great majority of so-called (pseudo) experts are so eager to jump into the bandwagon and proudly proclaim and parrot inaccurate and misleading information to capitalize on and ride (at the crest of) the wave of hype and mania for their own personal profit and agenda, not thinking just how much harm and damage they will cause to others.
How true it was alleged that a certain Mark Twain was to have once said (according to URL: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/mark_twain_105716): “Be careful about reading health books. You may die of a misprint.”
TaN: Watching the video regarding Sta Cruz del Islote, Colombia — regarded as the most densely-populated island (as of this writing) in the world — it suddenly dawned on me that, no matter how squalid or wretched one’s existence is or the living conditions are, (the natural instinct of) people will still claim “territory” where one can call one’s own (where one can feel safe and secure and certain of one’s survival).
It is really jam-packed and yet people appear to be happy and content, despite the severely sub-standard living conditions that exist. This only shows that our idea or concept of what makes us happy and contented is very subjective as well as entirely dependent on one’s attitude and expectations.
In conclusion, no matter how crowded and deplorable one’s surroundings are, if the neighbors are good people and treat each other with dignity, respect and community and look out for each other, we can cope with whatever the world can throw at us.