11:11 Angels Message Board

Morning Rod!
Hehehe, I am enjoying a cool breeze. Thanks for keeping us up to date with the world views. A good reminder to review your bill before checking out.

Yahoo news to me is like a celebrity gossip/tabloid magazine. Where's the barf emoji when you need it?

Just teasing friend. Kind of. Have a great day, 1111 FAM!

I surmise that humans have better intelligence than AI
and can sift out truth from even the least reliable of sources
... and lose this ability if not practiced frequently.

Rod

Re: https://citizenwatchreport.com/10-stunn ... nake-eyes/
"The Plot Of A 1998 Nicolas Cage Movie Called 'Snake Eyes' "

(Perplexity, extracts) "The shooter was not convicted; instead, the mastermind behind the assassination ...
Kevin Dunne, commits suicide as he is about to be arrested after being exposed as the conspirator"

Cautions against premature acceptance of "the facts" as promoted by the authorities?
And does this hint that Tyler Robinson is a liability, even if not the Kirk shooter?


Rod

Re: https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/for ... 04691.html

"He was arrested in January of 2024 after police said one of his students claimed he sent her
explicit messages on a chat app. The 15-year-old victim came forward to her parents, and
the family immediately went to the Plano, TX Police Department."

Long past are the days of anonymity in digital communication!
Just starting such conversation can now trigger monitoring,
especially with AI assisting supervision of child safety.

Quick study: Practice internet morality
Say what? This is internet morality
Quick study: Get an adult chat app.

Rod

Explains that "Stablecoins" (bitcoin) do not replace the dollar as national currency.
Stablecoins use bitcoin technology including transaction permanence (archived forever),
suggesting caution in such bitcoin usage where privacy is a concern.

When bitcoin replaces the dollar, a person's lifetime transactions
might be available to really embellish their memoirs ... and AI
should be able to create memoirs from transaction history!


Q: What is known about Public Law 119-27 (119th Congress), S.1582?
How does this affect the dollar as national currency?

(Perplexity) "Public Law 119-27, known as the GENIUS Act (Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins Act), was enacted during the 119th Congress in 2025 to create a comprehensive federal regulatory framework for payment stablecoins in the United States.

This law specifically regulates digital assets designed for payments or settlements that are pegged to a reference asset, primarily the U.S. dollar. Stablecoin issuers are now subject to rigorous requirements around reserve backing, transparency, consumer protections, and anti-money laundering compliance.

Provisions and Scope

The GENIUS Act mandates that payment stablecoins must be fully backed 1:1 by bank deposits, short-term Treasury securities, or other high-quality liquid assets explicitly approved by regulators.

Issuers must maintain segregated reserve accounts and publish monthly third-party attestations of those reserves.

Only regulated entities — banks, OCC-chartered PPSIs, or state-qualified PPSIs — may issue stablecoins to U.S. persons, and the payment tokens must allow daily redemption at par value ($1 per token).

Stablecoin issuers are not allowed to pay interest, and must provide clear disclosures that their tokens are not insured by the FDIC or backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government.

The law grants federal agencies and law enforcement the ability to freeze or block payment stablecoins when required for sanctions or other lawful orders.

Impact on the Dollar as National Currency

The GENIUS Act affirms the status of the U.S. dollar as the national currency by defining 'national currency' to include Federal Reserve notes and payment stablecoins pegged to the dollar, but it does not replace the dollar or diminish its legal tender status.

Instead, regulated USD-backed stablecoins are positioned alongside traditional dollars as a preferred medium for digital payments, settlements, and value storage, but they are not deemed equivalent to sovereign currency in terms of government backing or legal tender for debts.

The dollar remains the base currency for reserves and redemption, indicating stablecoins function as digital representations of dollar claims rather than independent currencies.

The Act imposes limitations to prevent destabilization or confusion between stablecoins and actual dollars, and prohibits stablecoins from being backed by the full faith and credit of the United States, helping maintain a clear policy distinction.

Regulatory Effects

This law ushers traditional banks and regulated payment entities into the stablecoin ecosystem, driving consumer protections and integrating digital asset payments into the broader financial system.

Algorithmic or unbacked stablecoins are effectively prohibited for consumer payment use, reducing risks to the dollar’s monetary role.

While stablecoins may become an important tool for digital payments and cross-border transactions, the GENIUS Act ensures the U.S. dollar retains its primacy as the U.S. national currency both in legal and practical terms.

In summary, Public Law 119-27 (GENIUS Act) tightly regulates stablecoins, confirming the dollar’s status as national currency, and positions regulated USD-backed stablecoins as leading tools for digital payments without replacing or threatening the dollar’s monetary role."


Q: Will Stablecoins have transaction permanence (archived in perpetuity) like bitcoin,
thus be traceable by authorized systems/people?

(P) "Stablecoins typically have transaction records that are publicly archived on their underlying blockchains, similar to the permanence found in Bitcoin transactions. As a result, most stablecoin transactions — if conducted on public blockchains like Ethereum or Solana — are indefinitely preserved and theoretically accessible for transparency and audit purposes, making them traceable by authorized systems and individuals.

Blockchain Transaction Permanence

Just like Bitcoin, stablecoin transactions on public blockchains are permanent and form part of an immutable ledger. This means that once a transaction is recorded and confirmed on-chain, it cannot be reversed or edited. This transparency is integral to blockchain technology and is a core part of both Bitcoin's and most stablecoins’ architectures.

Traceability and Privacy Considerations

Stablecoins issued on public chains (e.g., USDT or USDC on Ethereum) allow anyone — regulators, institutions, or private citizens — to view and analyze the full transaction history, since the blockchain is public and transactions are permanent.

However, stablecoin users may have some privacy challenges. All on-chain transactions are visible, but users’ identities are generally represented by seeming pseudonymous wallet addresses unless linked to specific identities by exchanges or other entities adhering to Know Your Customer (KYC) regulations.

Some newer stablecoin projects and platforms are exploring privacy-focused implementations, but mainstream stablecoins still operate primarily on public, traceable ledgers.

Centralization and Exceptions

Unlike Bitcoin, which is fully decentralized and has no central issuer, most stablecoins are issued and maintained by centralized entities. This means issuers can sometimes freeze or reverse transactions in special circumstances, but these actions are also recorded on-chain and do not alter the underlying transaction history.

Regulatory and Compliance Aspects

Given the transparency, stablecoin transactions are often easier for authorized bodies to trace for anti-money laundering (AML) and other regulatory purposes, though privacy-focused variants could present exceptions if widely adopted.

In summary, the default for major stablecoins on public blockchains is transaction permanence and high traceability, closely mirroring the archival properties of Bitcoin, though centralization brings some operational differences."


Rod

Re: https://www.reuters.com/business/eu-law ... 025-10-08/

"EU lawmakers voted on Wednesday to ban the use of the term "veggie-burger" and limit food descriptions
such as steak, escalope and sausage to products containing meat, part of proposed EU law to protect farmers."

New menu item: gRounders (garden Rounders)
Today's special: Portabella gRounder with Sweet Tater Fries.

Perplexity suggested: "Round and juicy from the garden!"
"Gary's gRounder's" now comes to mind as a franchise name.


Rod

Re: https://citizenwatchreport.com/elon-mus ... king-spot/
"In the near future, your Tesla will drop you off at the store entrance and then go find a parking spot."

Apparently, it will inform you where it parked (and might even pick you up when you're ready to leave).
Hmmm ...what happens if two Teslas want the same spot? Later, your Tesla might transport your family robot
to the store to do your shopping. Or maybe you would shop online and let the Tesla fetch your groceries
(instead of costly store delivery).

For most people, this new technology will be too expensive at first, but they will still have to interact
with the elites' Teslas and robots. Waiting in a queue with a robot? Don't go ahead without permission,
lest it remind you of our new era etiquette with a friendly laser beam.

Is it polite to ask what the robot's doing after working hours ...
or if it's ready to upscale its living accomodations

Rod

Humor in contrasted news

Re: https://slaynews.com/news/international ... lobal-law/
"International Tribunal Declares Covid Shots 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' "

"AIN made the unprecedented declaration after reviewing hundreds of pages of scientific evidence,
legal filings, and sworn affidavits from leading doctors and experts."

Re: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald ... rcna236998
"Trump gets Covid vaccine and flu shot during second check-up of the year"


(Perplexity) "The AIN’s decision has been celebrated by anti-vaccine activists and cited in fringe media
but is not recognized by mainstream scientific or legal institutions. There is no sign recognized national governments,
courts, or the World Health Organization view the AIN Tribunal's ruling as authoritative or binding. It does not reflect
global consensus; scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports safety and efficacy of authorized COVID-19 vaccines.​"

"The AIN and its Tribunal represent a significant step toward global Indigenous empowerment, providing new avenues
for achieving justice, recognition, and the protection of both people and the environment."


Apparently, the world of experts remains divided on this issue,
especially since human immune systems are unique and respond
differently to this new type of vaccination.


This narrowed approval seems related to the controversy ...

Re: https://abcnews.go.com/Health/covid-vac ... =125106993
"The U.S. Food and Drug Administration in August narrowed approval of the new, updated COVID-19 vaccines
only to people who are over 65, or younger people with underlying conditions that put them at higher risk."


More about the Alliance of Indigenous Nations (AIN) ...

Re: https://www.thefocalpoints.com/p/breaki ... ernational
"in December 2024, Canada’s Ministry of Crown (Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs (CIRNAC) formally acknowledged
Alliance of Indigenous Nations, its Treaty, and its International Tribunal), judicial body composed of judges from every continent
... Canada affirmed that its relationship with the A.I.N. exists on a Nation-to-Nation basis, thereby recognizing the Tribunal
as a sovereign legal authority under Indigenous and international law."


Rod

With so much time to use a cell phone here,
research the benefit of dietary fiber:


Re: https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/hea ... 582576007/

"However, this typically happens after prolonged periods of pushing or straining, he said. An extra five minutes
of sitting on the toilet, which the study found was associated with cellphone use, won’t cut it."

(Google AI Overview) "When you have a good fiber intake, stool becomes softer and bulkier, making it easier to pass
without straining. A bowel movement itself should be a short event, potentially lasting only a few minutes."


Rod

Re: https://www.theverge.com/news/799312/op ... ied-adults

"OpenAI will soon allow 'erotica' (and sexting) for ChatGPT users who verify their age on the platform. In an X post on Tuesday,
OpenAI CEO Sam Altman said the company will add support for mature conversations when it launches age-gating in December."

This works better when the user specifies the preferred age of their digital partner. However, age-gating may limit the user's
preferences despite a digital partner. If the user refuses to reveal their age, the digital partner should be at least 70.

And support for mature conversations seems overdue even for non-sex conversations

Rod

Re: https://studyfinds.org/people-hit-funct ... around-60/

"New research shows people often reach their all-around mental and emotional peak around age 60, not in their twenties.
While quick thinking slows with age, experience, judgment, and emotional balance keep improving through midlife.
Between about 40 and 65, most adults show the best mix of intelligence, stability, and decision-making skill.
After the mid-60s, average scores dip, but many individuals stay sharp well into their seventies and beyond."

Makes a good motivational T-shirt, poster, mug, etc.
for this group (include quotes): "And Beyond"


Rod

LOL (or not), smoking's long history suggests we need not worry about increased EMF radiation until it's proven
that it's harmful. However, that EMF radiation keeps increasing* (and is caused by different devices) suggests
that related health enlightenment is on the way.


Q: For millennia humans were not exposed to EMF radiation from devices, thus exposure was relatively limited.
What's the rationale increased EMF radiation is not harmful (this radiation was not present until recent decades)?

(Perplexity) "The core rationale behind current assessments of EMF (electromagnetic field) radiation safety is that, while humans did not historically experience exposure to EMF from modern devices, rigorous scientific studies have not confirmed significant harm from current levels of exposure.
​
Most global health agencies, including the WHO, cite extensive research indicating no confirmed adverse health effects from low-level, long-term exposure to EMF radiation found in typical environments — such as from cell phones, Wi-Fi, and household electronics. These exposures are much lower than thresholds known to cause biological harm, and the main health effect at higher exposures is heating, which is not reached in daily life. Existing biological mechanisms for harm at low levels are not confirmed, though the field is still under active research.
​
It is true that humans have only been widely exposed to man-made EMF in recent decades, so there is an inherent limitation to long-term data. Many studies have searched for links between EMF and cancer and other health issues; so far, results have not shown a clear causative relationship. For example, while EMF has been classified as "possibly carcinogenic" based on some weak associations found in epidemiological studies, subsequent research has not solidified this into a clear risk, and long-term animal studies also fail to demonstrate consistent harm.
​
There are isolated reports of biological responses and symptoms such as "electromagnetic hypersensitivity" or rare increases in certain health problems — though no causal mechanism has been firmly established and alternative explanations are possible. Most scientists agree that if any risks do exist at current exposure levels, they are rare and not widespread.
​
Some symptoms attributed to EMF may be caused by unrelated environmental factors, and the scientific community is careful to differentiate between biological effects (which do occur for many environmental stimuli) and genuine health hazards. The challenge lies in distinguishing between coincidental illnesses and those actually caused by EMF exposure.

​In summary, while it is too soon to guarantee absolute safety given limited historical exposure, current evidence suggests EMF radiation at typical environmental levels is unlikely to be harmful, and any potential long-term effects are being continually studied.


Q: How long was smoking promoted as not harmful before evidence convinced otherwise?

(P) "For most of the 20th century — roughly from the early 1900s until the 1960s — smoking was widely promoted as safe or even beneficial. Despite growing medical evidence from the 1930s onward, the tobacco industry publicly denied or obscured health risks for about 50 years before consensus and regulation turned against those claims.​

Tobacco companies heavily advertised cigarettes as glamorous, relaxing, or even good for health throughout the early 20th century. Scientific evidence linking smoking to lung cancer began emerging in the 1940s and early 1950s, with epidemiological and experimental studies showing clear associations. By 1953, British and American researchers had established strong proof that cigarette smoke caused cancer in animals and that smoking was a leading cause of lung cancer in humans.​

In 1953, tobacco company executives met with the PR firm Hill & Knowlton and launched an aggressive misinformation campaign, including the publication of "A Frank Statement to Cigarette Smokers" in 1954, asserting, “We believe the products we make are not injurious to health”. This statement marked the start of a unified industry effort to cast doubt on scientific findings. Companies founded the Tobacco Industry Research Committee to create the illusion of scientific uncertainty and fund research diverting attention from cigarettes' dangers.​

By the early 1960s, independent studies — such as the 1962 Royal College of Physicians report and the 1964 U.S. Surgeon General’s report — formally concluded that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer and other diseases. This was the turning point: after nearly half a century of denial, public health authorities officially recognized smoking as dangerous. Nonetheless, the industry continued to deny or minimize smoking’s harms and nicotine's addictive nature well into the 1990s.​

In total, the tobacco industry actively promoted smoking as non-harmful for about 50 years, and continued to deny harm for decades afterward — even as overwhelming evidence proved otherwise.


Q: When did EMF radiation from devices become sufficiently significant to cause public discussion about its safety?

(P) "Public discussion about the safety of electromagnetic field (EMF) radiation began in earnest in the late 1960s and 1970s, initially focused on high-voltage power lines rather than wireless devices.
​
Public concern about EMF exposure first emerged in the late 1960s when large electric utilities began constructing higher-voltage transmission lines across residential and rural areas. Residents and environmental groups objected, partly due to aesthetics and property value declines, but the issue also raised questions about potential biological effects.

The first major scientific study to gain attention came in 1979, when epidemiologist Nancy Wertheimer and physicist Ed Leeper reported an association between childhood leukemia and residential proximity to high-current power lines in Denver, Colorado. This study gained traction in both scientific and media circles, launching EMF radiation into the public health debate.

During the 1980s, EMF concerns expanded globally, especially regarding extremely low-frequency (ELF) fields from electrical infrastructure. Multiple government agencies issued reports, with some — such as a 1989 Congressional Office of Technology Assessment report — acknowledging biological effects but no definitive health risk. The EPA briefly classified EMFs as a potential human carcinogen in a 1990 draft report (later withdrawn).

In 1992, the U.S. Congress established the $65 million Research and Public Information Dissemination (RAPID) Program to systematically study EMF effects. By this point, EMF safety was a significant topic in regulatory discussions and media coverage, reflecting growing public concern.
​
By the mid-1990s to early 2000s, attention shifted from power lines to radiofrequency (RF) EMF associated with cell phones and wireless networks. As mobile phones became ubiquitous, debates intensified, culminating in the 2001 International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classification of low-frequency EMFs as “possibly carcinogenic to humans”.

From that point on, EMF exposure became a mainstream scientific and public issue, with research continuing on both ELF and RF radiation effects worldwide.

In summary, public discussion about EMF radiation safety began in the late 1960s, expanded sharply in the 1970s–1990s with research on power lines, and reached mainstream prominence by the early 2000s with the rise of wireless communication technologies."


* (P) "Cell phone frequencies beyond 5G in the coming decade will move mostly into the mid-band 7-8 GHz range and extend
well into millimeter wave and potentially terahertz bands, enabling much higher network speeds, capacity, and new applications


Rod

Re: https://www.yahoo.com/creators/lifestyl ... ationships (not a link)
"Couples are trying 'airport divorces' — and say it’s saving their relationships"

Considering humans develop preferred habits, this "divorce" pattern
hints of easy extrapolation to other areas of lifestyle busyness ...
and even to divorce to skip unsatisfying compromises.

First thought: A questionable pattern, considering that sitting
beside a different passenger might also be travel respite.


Rod

Re: https://citizenwatchreport.com/tucker-c ... reated-it/
"Carlson says he will not invest in Bitcoin because he believes the CIA created it."
('Bitcoin' is a specific cryptocurrency, 'bitcoin' refers to all cryptocurrencies)

Interesting comment (not proof) that aligns with my conjecture several years ago
that bitcoin was created then tossed to the public to fine-tune this technology ...
whereupon it would be recaptured/controlled for government use.

That bitcoin transactions are archived forever seems government benefit,
especially now in relation to China's Social Credit System (apparently,
bitcoin is not linked with this social credit technology).

Rod

Perhaps, the time is right to do it right ...
since your DNA is a lifetime blessing (or not).

Q: Regarding sperm and egg donations ...
Was there ever inalienable right for a child to know its biological
mother and father as a person - not as documentation?

(Perplexity) "There has never been a universal societal inalienable legal right for a child conceived through sperm or egg donation to know their biological mother and father as persons beyond documentation. However, the concept of a child's "right to know" their biological origins has gained increasing recognition and support over recent decades in ethical, medical, and legal discussions.

Historically, donor anonymity was common and legally protected in many countries, but this has been changing since the 1990s with more jurisdictions requiring or encouraging disclosure of donor identity to offspring once they reach maturity.

Ethical arguments and human rights perspectives, such as those informed by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, have increasingly supported the idea that children have a fundamental interest in knowing their genetic origins to understand their identity and access medical history.

Professional organizations like the American Society for Reproductive Medicine now generally favor disclosure about donor conception to the child and access to non-identifying or identifying donor information, considering this in the best interest of the child.

Laws vary by country and region; some countries (e.g., Sweden since 1984, UK since 2005) and some U.S. states have enacted rules that allow or mandate donor-conceived offspring access to identifying information about donors once they become adults.

Despite these developments, the right to know a donor as a "person" rather than only a legal or documented origin is still complex and debated, balancing the child's right to identity against parental privacy, donor anonymity, and family dynamics.

Thus, while the child's right to know biological parentage as a basic, inalienable societal right is increasingly supported normatively and legally in some places, it has not been universally established as an absolute or inalienable societal right, especially not as the right to know the donor personally beyond identification or genetic origins."


Rod

Re: https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/spaving ... retirement
" 'Spaving' — spending more money in the name of 'saving' money."

"... your cart says $42, and you see that dreaded $8.99 shipping fee!
You add $50 worth of items you don’t need to get 'free' shipping."

(They say) experienced shoppers know if the extra items are needed
and can be purchased in the current budget.


Rod

Re: https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/202 ... ca/684700/
"Delivery has turned America into a nation of order-inners."

Interesting subtlety of this trend is that AI/robotic preparation
is following the trend since restaurant busyness is not visible.

For humor, an order-inner might purchase an AI-created video
showing monkeys (or whom/whatever) preparing their meal.

Since "order-inner" and "order-outer" seem synonymous,
does "inner/outer" refer to the same belly button?


Rod

Re: https://www.reuters.com/business/openai ... 025-10-29/
"OpenAI lays groundwork for juggernaut IPO at up to $1 trillion valuation"

An IPO that will seduce funds from other investments,
hinting (IMO) of some relationship to bitcoin "investing" ...
considering that AI ROI is not yet impressive.


Rod

Isn't "hedge your bet" related to gambling?


Q: There seem to be times when the stock market can be manipulated, especially by online advice.
At these times, market timing seems possible. Does AI detect such manipulation?

(Perplexity) "AI and machine learning methods are now frequently used to detect market manipulation — including manipulation influenced by online advice and sentiment. Advanced models such as support vector machines (SVMs), artificial neural networks, and hybrid algorithms are trained to identify abnormal price, volume, and volatility patterns typical of manipulation attempts like pump-and-dump schemes or order spoofing.

These systems often incorporate not just numerical trading data but also news and social media sentiment analysis. Natural Language Processing (NLP) can identify rapid changes in public opinion, detect viral manipulative campaigns, and help filter out false positives in anomaly detection. Research shows that models like SVM can reach prediction accuracies of up to 80% when classifying trading behavior as manipulated or non-manipulated.

Although AI can flag suspicious activity linked to mass online advice and attempts to sway sentiment, it's essential to recognize that perfect market timing is still elusive, and detection rates can vary by the liquidity and complexity of the securities involved. Regulators and exchanges increasingly deploy these technologies for real-time surveillance, but AI’s conclusions are best used to prompt further human investigation rather than automated trading actions.

​Overall, AI is a valuable tool in detecting manipulation — especially manipulation through coordinated online efforts —
but it is not infallible and should complement, rather than replace, traditional oversight and investor caution."


Q: Doesn't this suggest "hedge your bet" advice can help when relative to detected manipulation?

(P) " 'Hedge your bet' advice is highly relevant when potential market manipulation or abnormal volatility is detected,
as strategic hedging can help protect a portfolio from downside risk during uncertain or manipulated market conditions.

Common strategies include buying put options on stocks or indexes to guard against sharp declines, using bear spreads,
or investing in assets that tend to move inversely to the manipulated security or sector.​

- Diversification, futures contracts, inverse ETFs, and volatility-index instruments (like VIX derivatives) are also frequently used
to distribute risk and offset potential losses caused by sudden swings from manipulative activity.​
- Timing and ongoing adjustment are critical — investors should assess correlations and risks regularly, as market conditions
and the effectiveness of hedges can evolve quickly during manipulation-driven events.

Hedging doesn't prevent manipulation but can reduce the impact on your portfolio, allowing investors to remain invested
while managing uncertainty. When AI or surveillance systems detect signals of manipulation, implementing or adjusting
hedge positions can help you avoid outsized losses, acting as a form of insurance against unpredictable moves. ​

In summary, 'hedge your bet' advice is well-suited for times when manipulation is suspected or detected,
improving portfolio resilience and supporting disciplined risk management."


Rod

Re: https://thelibertydaily.com/soaring-mem ... radiation/
"Soaring Memory Problems in Youth Linked to Unprecedented Wireless Radiation Exposure"

"Researchers directly correlate this sharp rise in cognitive dysfunction with the escalating exposure of children
to microwave radiofrequency (RF) radiation from smartphones, Wi-Fi and the rollout of 4G and 5G networks.

The brain’s hippocampus, a region critical for memory and learning, is identified as particularly vulnerable to this radiation,
with scientific studies showing it can cause neuronal damage, impair memory function even at levels below current safety limits."


Not to worry! (they say) These exposures are usually more problematic for children than adults.
If similar to the tobacco problem, this will take a decade to prove! And 6G should be widely available
by then to become the new badboy, requiring another decade to prove.

Rod