Comparison vs. Context acquisition

Archetype pipeline of superhighway lacking constructive criticism.

Analyzing by comparisons is lacking context and opposition: penetrating to ascertain values relevant and measure the degree these values pertain to the 21st Century.

We have an anti-matter model desiring utter destruction of existence.

Since it can’t correctly prioritize values, bottomline is it’s senseless deep thinking that lacks context and, in making comparisons, lack proportional values that would prioritize to give a clear context in any event occurring.

Added to this energy goes an algorithmic comparison that has no basis in values and copies values used in a moment of time and seen (focus) in visual depiction at a locus digitally.

It’s a whopping break in intelligence when older people begin to have neurodegeneracy (perchance) and they want to use computer analysis as a crutch to replace declining cognitive function.

Deep thinking lacks basic human reasoning and as such cognitive function is not necessarily programmed into AI.

It is human judgement that can sense something wrong that a high speed “on and off” computer would miss because to analyze a system something out of left field or “out of the box” has to be for correct analysis to answer the questions “what’s wrong?

Locating where to correct (digital locus) in the system that at first seems unrelated to the novel heuristic drawn from analysis involving human judgement or cognitive function.

It is our neuropsychiatric brain dynamic that allows us to think outside of “on and off” computing and comparisons and relate that focus thought (cognitive function) to the locus on the system-in-question of “what’s wrong here?” in this perceived “schematic” or systemic managed by the computer.

Instead AI makes comparisons and gives values using whatever legend is chosen as reference, and whatever context is drawn that does not ensure accuracy or correctness in premises and does not ensure accuracy or correctness in conclusions drawn by the AI.

This realization is a recalibration on computational work that is not categorical, all or nothing thinking in its conclusions.

Computing’s severe limitations does not mean it can’t do certain tasks and do them well, it can be very fast.

What I get from this evaluation is that a bot thinks, when thinking particulars, on types of decisions that are selected from certain parameters pertaining to certain criteria all add up and determinants legend to clarify risk or offer possible market share in new markets.

The determinants are thought ahead of time and the binary thinking, sharing at the top of the system has “either or” inputs criteria into parameter or categories chosen and programmed into the system yielding greater outputs in some bottom columns than in other bottom output columns.

What the computer can do is suggest an “Other?” if the determinants legend do not fit the parameters.

Hence, thought on fields or markets get thought by humans to enhance parameters with extended concluding choices (more areas of acceptable risk) and more markets or marketplaces given the opportunity to be chosen in binary logic.

Graphically, applied entrepreneurial economic modeling snapshots an evolving state in applied entrepreneurial economics that has continually changing stabilizers that mirror the market in small time intervals and can be a directional: forward, with a look at long-term horizons, while busy in the short term.

Five years may take a “small giant” to maturity, but we are looking to “flip the sustainable factors of results- driven, goals “achieved in 3 years,” although it will take four years to achieve.

A critical hour requiring a 24-hour clock. And an invitation to apply employment to 8-hour shifts in three shifts around the globe. Incentive does exist for such a horizontal hierarchy. Entrepreneurial culture can be employed to become a self-starter and have team results driven.

With this timeframe we have “built to last” pacing with a new “success built to last” corporately.

In other words, the thought put into a program flow chart determines its thinking, whether or not it’s good thinking and whether or not it is working in virtual reality that mirrors accurately the work or political situation layout that is to be modified or replaced, or enhanced.

Rather than refine the above material further, I have something to comment on present conditions.

The Tao is fundamental binary thinking system of comparison that serves as a satisfactory model of comparison that some nations may feel is adequate for analytica.

In fact it is rudimentary and escapes critical review that holds human judgement and cognitive function as both necessary and superior to mere comparisons and tallying of “what could be happening” as the output in computing.

In short, we must use our minds and brains critically and use our psyches sanely to avoid diabolical villainy personality and incomplete analysis and noncomprehensive conclusions.

Repeating, the enemy uses anti-matter energy in socio-political drama (i.e., “to eradicate existence.”)

Secondly, the Tao is so fundamental in binary logistics that human discourse and sound reasoning and constructive, sound conclusions are absent in it’s very quick analyses.

Abraham Boulder