Limot
@limot.bsky.social
Mukesh Prasad writing as Limot. Graduate of 55 NDA, India. Graduate degrees from Yale University USA. I have taken 30 courses in Computer Science which is not a science despite the name and 20 in Physics which is a science despite no "science" in the name.
Do liberals understand the meaning of "Projected"?
It means TIME magazine is trash talking, secure in the knowledge that its readership is clueless about the difference in "Projected" vs. "Measured."
When the "Projected" fails next year, where will the outrage be? Nowhere, Liberals can't remember.
It means TIME magazine is trash talking, secure in the knowledge that its readership is clueless about the difference in "Projected" vs. "Measured."
When the "Projected" fails next year, where will the outrage be? Nowhere, Liberals can't remember.
December 8, 2025 at 11:56 PM
Do liberals understand the meaning of "Projected"?
It means TIME magazine is trash talking, secure in the knowledge that its readership is clueless about the difference in "Projected" vs. "Measured."
When the "Projected" fails next year, where will the outrage be? Nowhere, Liberals can't remember.
It means TIME magazine is trash talking, secure in the knowledge that its readership is clueless about the difference in "Projected" vs. "Measured."
When the "Projected" fails next year, where will the outrage be? Nowhere, Liberals can't remember.
When I inflict damage on MAGA, it's not to give Democrats an advantage.
It is just that MAGA are White Trash, who can't say my name, or else Democrats would be history. As in "There used to be a party called Democrats, who were followers of the principles of Joseph Goebbels, and were disbanded."
It is just that MAGA are White Trash, who can't say my name, or else Democrats would be history. As in "There used to be a party called Democrats, who were followers of the principles of Joseph Goebbels, and were disbanded."
December 8, 2025 at 11:30 PM
When I inflict damage on MAGA, it's not to give Democrats an advantage.
It is just that MAGA are White Trash, who can't say my name, or else Democrats would be history. As in "There used to be a party called Democrats, who were followers of the principles of Joseph Goebbels, and were disbanded."
It is just that MAGA are White Trash, who can't say my name, or else Democrats would be history. As in "There used to be a party called Democrats, who were followers of the principles of Joseph Goebbels, and were disbanded."
If you think I am mass murderer or other type of criminal, do your social duty and provide the police or FBI all the information you have.
But even if your information is correct and I do get put in jail, it would STILL be incredibly evil to not discuss me and the information I provide.
But even if your information is correct and I do get put in jail, it would STILL be incredibly evil to not discuss me and the information I provide.
December 8, 2025 at 11:22 PM
If you think I am mass murderer or other type of criminal, do your social duty and provide the police or FBI all the information you have.
But even if your information is correct and I do get put in jail, it would STILL be incredibly evil to not discuss me and the information I provide.
But even if your information is correct and I do get put in jail, it would STILL be incredibly evil to not discuss me and the information I provide.
I don't care WHAT their excuse is, it is irrational. Obviously, I provide unusual information. I could be a mass murderer writing from jail, it would be still suicidal and amazingly stupid/evil to ignore the unusual information I provide. Prove it wrong if it is wrong.
December 8, 2025 at 11:22 PM
I don't care WHAT their excuse is, it is irrational. Obviously, I provide unusual information. I could be a mass murderer writing from jail, it would be still suicidal and amazingly stupid/evil to ignore the unusual information I provide. Prove it wrong if it is wrong.
Or else, they are possibly just suicidal and subtle racists, who would rather die than acknowledge that somebody non-white could be superior to their entire scientific structure.
Or maybe just authoritarian censorions, who would die before asking for open discussions. Again, socially suicidal.
Or maybe just authoritarian censorions, who would die before asking for open discussions. Again, socially suicidal.
December 8, 2025 at 11:16 PM
Or else, they are possibly just suicidal and subtle racists, who would rather die than acknowledge that somebody non-white could be superior to their entire scientific structure.
Or maybe just authoritarian censorions, who would die before asking for open discussions. Again, socially suicidal.
Or maybe just authoritarian censorions, who would die before asking for open discussions. Again, socially suicidal.
This article can either be proved wrong, or this really happened.
If this can really happen how can you possibly have good healthcare without discussing this issue?
Therefore anybody who claims they want better healthcare but don't ask Mukesh Prasad's views, will lie to you about other things too.
If this can really happen how can you possibly have good healthcare without discussing this issue?
Therefore anybody who claims they want better healthcare but don't ask Mukesh Prasad's views, will lie to you about other things too.
December 8, 2025 at 11:13 PM
This article can either be proved wrong, or this really happened.
If this can really happen how can you possibly have good healthcare without discussing this issue?
Therefore anybody who claims they want better healthcare but don't ask Mukesh Prasad's views, will lie to you about other things too.
If this can really happen how can you possibly have good healthcare without discussing this issue?
Therefore anybody who claims they want better healthcare but don't ask Mukesh Prasad's views, will lie to you about other things too.
I have argued that people claiming they want better healthcare are just frauds and pretenders who are fighting for their own (usually silly) solutions.
If they REALLY want better healthcare where are the subscriptions and publicizing of my works? E.g. to start,
limotsnewsletter.com/2025/02/24/t...
If they REALLY want better healthcare where are the subscriptions and publicizing of my works? E.g. to start,
limotsnewsletter.com/2025/02/24/t...
The Covid threat : math vs. language
There was a strange mismatch between numbers and language on the Covid issue. Numbers said there was NO PUBLIC HEALTH EMERGENCY. In that case, the response to covid was – nothing, ignore, che…
limotsnewsletter.com
December 8, 2025 at 11:13 PM
I have argued that people claiming they want better healthcare are just frauds and pretenders who are fighting for their own (usually silly) solutions.
If they REALLY want better healthcare where are the subscriptions and publicizing of my works? E.g. to start,
limotsnewsletter.com/2025/02/24/t...
If they REALLY want better healthcare where are the subscriptions and publicizing of my works? E.g. to start,
limotsnewsletter.com/2025/02/24/t...
Note: According to my interpretation, Indian Brahmins are not physically and medically "Twice Born", they just pretend by tying a string, as if the string somehow changes their corpus collosum and affects both brain hemispheres. 😂😂
It does not, it is just standard typical superstition.
It does not, it is just standard typical superstition.
December 8, 2025 at 11:09 PM
Note: According to my interpretation, Indian Brahmins are not physically and medically "Twice Born", they just pretend by tying a string, as if the string somehow changes their corpus collosum and affects both brain hemispheres. 😂😂
It does not, it is just standard typical superstition.
It does not, it is just standard typical superstition.
Scientific ethics is not about parroting, or about referencing random irrelevant URLs.
If you can understand that URL, behave like a scientist.
(1) If you can find an objection, state it.
(2) If you can find a scientist, a Nobel Prize winner, anybody, get them to object.
(3) State if you failed.
If you can understand that URL, behave like a scientist.
(1) If you can find an objection, state it.
(2) If you can find a scientist, a Nobel Prize winner, anybody, get them to object.
(3) State if you failed.
December 8, 2025 at 8:14 PM
Scientific ethics is not about parroting, or about referencing random irrelevant URLs.
If you can understand that URL, behave like a scientist.
(1) If you can find an objection, state it.
(2) If you can find a scientist, a Nobel Prize winner, anybody, get them to object.
(3) State if you failed.
If you can understand that URL, behave like a scientist.
(1) If you can find an objection, state it.
(2) If you can find a scientist, a Nobel Prize winner, anybody, get them to object.
(3) State if you failed.
In science there is never "no debate". Newton's work was challenged hundreds of years later, nobody said "no questioning."
Science is all about questioning, your physics learning is obviously pathetic.
But let's see, can you understand any of this?
limotsnewsletter.com/2025/02/22/m...
Science is all about questioning, your physics learning is obviously pathetic.
But let's see, can you understand any of this?
limotsnewsletter.com/2025/02/22/m...
Exposé of Manmade Climate Change Theory
The theory of manmade climate change happens to be scientifically incorrect. The warming itself was discovered by Eunice Foote in 1856. But the theory is not wrong because she is a woman. She was a…
limotsnewsletter.com
December 8, 2025 at 8:12 PM
In science there is never "no debate". Newton's work was challenged hundreds of years later, nobody said "no questioning."
Science is all about questioning, your physics learning is obviously pathetic.
But let's see, can you understand any of this?
limotsnewsletter.com/2025/02/22/m...
Science is all about questioning, your physics learning is obviously pathetic.
But let's see, can you understand any of this?
limotsnewsletter.com/2025/02/22/m...
Have you ever made mistakes in math? If you haven't, you haven't done any serious math, or else are lying.
How do you KNOW that manmade climate change is "proven science"? You do not know the science, I doubt you know absorption frequencies from emissivity. You are parroting journalists' words.
How do you KNOW that manmade climate change is "proven science"? You do not know the science, I doubt you know absorption frequencies from emissivity. You are parroting journalists' words.
December 8, 2025 at 7:45 PM
Have you ever made mistakes in math? If you haven't, you haven't done any serious math, or else are lying.
How do you KNOW that manmade climate change is "proven science"? You do not know the science, I doubt you know absorption frequencies from emissivity. You are parroting journalists' words.
How do you KNOW that manmade climate change is "proven science"? You do not know the science, I doubt you know absorption frequencies from emissivity. You are parroting journalists' words.
Blocked! It seems the journalist has one single journalistic response - censorship of anything the journalists and politicians have decided is "misinformation".
Because journalists and politicians may not know the name of any one scientist who would back them up but know what "all scientists" say.
Because journalists and politicians may not know the name of any one scientist who would back them up but know what "all scientists" say.
December 8, 2025 at 7:17 PM
Blocked! It seems the journalist has one single journalistic response - censorship of anything the journalists and politicians have decided is "misinformation".
Because journalists and politicians may not know the name of any one scientist who would back them up but know what "all scientists" say.
Because journalists and politicians may not know the name of any one scientist who would back them up but know what "all scientists" say.
Politicians need to know that whoever decides, the decision is not for the politician.
(With exception, it is possible for anybody to learn the science and comment upon it.)
This is the arrogance of the Left, every Tom Dick and Harry is an expert on science. But they are not.
(With exception, it is possible for anybody to learn the science and comment upon it.)
This is the arrogance of the Left, every Tom Dick and Harry is an expert on science. But they are not.
December 8, 2025 at 7:12 PM
Politicians need to know that whoever decides, the decision is not for the politician.
(With exception, it is possible for anybody to learn the science and comment upon it.)
This is the arrogance of the Left, every Tom Dick and Harry is an expert on science. But they are not.
(With exception, it is possible for anybody to learn the science and comment upon it.)
This is the arrogance of the Left, every Tom Dick and Harry is an expert on science. But they are not.
What is really important is for people to have humility, to know when they can debate the science and when they are spectators.
Journalists need to know that whoever decides it is not up to any journalist. They report the debates, the decisions, the people, not decipher science from misinformation.
Journalists need to know that whoever decides it is not up to any journalist. They report the debates, the decisions, the people, not decipher science from misinformation.
December 8, 2025 at 7:12 PM
What is really important is for people to have humility, to know when they can debate the science and when they are spectators.
Journalists need to know that whoever decides it is not up to any journalist. They report the debates, the decisions, the people, not decipher science from misinformation.
Journalists need to know that whoever decides it is not up to any journalist. They report the debates, the decisions, the people, not decipher science from misinformation.
Who gets to decide what is science, and what is misinformation?
All replies here are from extremely arrogant people, who are saying THEY get to decide. Why? Because they may not have known how to spell Thermodynamics, but they can read articles from journalists.
All replies here are from extremely arrogant people, who are saying THEY get to decide. Why? Because they may not have known how to spell Thermodynamics, but they can read articles from journalists.
December 8, 2025 at 7:12 PM
Who gets to decide what is science, and what is misinformation?
All replies here are from extremely arrogant people, who are saying THEY get to decide. Why? Because they may not have known how to spell Thermodynamics, but they can read articles from journalists.
All replies here are from extremely arrogant people, who are saying THEY get to decide. Why? Because they may not have known how to spell Thermodynamics, but they can read articles from journalists.
Prize notwithstanding, there exists a duty of journalists. When you utterly fail on that duty, you may get prizes from your fellow delinquents, don't get too stuck up on that. It means nothing whatsoever, just that the prize has become a bribe.
December 8, 2025 at 12:48 PM
Prize notwithstanding, there exists a duty of journalists. When you utterly fail on that duty, you may get prizes from your fellow delinquents, don't get too stuck up on that. It means nothing whatsoever, just that the prize has become a bribe.
When Anne Applebaum decides manmade climate change is obviously true, what is true that she is being a delinquent reporter. No matter the accolades, that is the fundamental reality. Refusing to try to report ALL sides honestly is delinquent, I don't care what Pulitzer has to say. IT. IS. DELINQUENT.
December 8, 2025 at 12:46 PM
When Anne Applebaum decides manmade climate change is obviously true, what is true that she is being a delinquent reporter. No matter the accolades, that is the fundamental reality. Refusing to try to report ALL sides honestly is delinquent, I don't care what Pulitzer has to say. IT. IS. DELINQUENT.
Because an argument like that, is a STORY of interest. How did these people get in that controversy, is your domain, your expertise. Rain is not your expertise. Maybe those are rain scientists arguing over when a drizzle may be called a rain. Your personal opinion is not relevant. Your reporting is.
December 8, 2025 at 12:44 PM
Because an argument like that, is a STORY of interest. How did these people get in that controversy, is your domain, your expertise. Rain is not your expertise. Maybe those are rain scientists arguing over when a drizzle may be called a rain. Your personal opinion is not relevant. Your reporting is.
If two sides are arguing if it is raining outside, it is your job to refrain from looking outside the window at first, but to collect information about the controversy. Who is saying it is raining, who is saying not, is it one individual (maybe who is blind/deaf) or are there a number of people.
December 8, 2025 at 12:44 PM
If two sides are arguing if it is raining outside, it is your job to refrain from looking outside the window at first, but to collect information about the controversy. Who is saying it is raining, who is saying not, is it one individual (maybe who is blind/deaf) or are there a number of people.
So, who decides? That's not important to journalists. You need to know one thing "Anne Applebaum does not decide science." You need the humility to know you do not have the knowledge or expertise for that.
As a reporter, it is not your job/expertise to decide on science, but to report on it.
As a reporter, it is not your job/expertise to decide on science, but to report on it.
December 8, 2025 at 12:44 PM
So, who decides? That's not important to journalists. You need to know one thing "Anne Applebaum does not decide science." You need the humility to know you do not have the knowledge or expertise for that.
As a reporter, it is not your job/expertise to decide on science, but to report on it.
As a reporter, it is not your job/expertise to decide on science, but to report on it.
Growing up from childhood again.
This phenomenon, might be the "Twice Born" thing from spirituality. It may be that the waking up of the non-dominant hemisphere and the resulting whole brain integration, leaves strong spiritual level traces. Traditions carry the memory.
This phenomenon, might be the "Twice Born" thing from spirituality. It may be that the waking up of the non-dominant hemisphere and the resulting whole brain integration, leaves strong spiritual level traces. Traditions carry the memory.
December 8, 2025 at 12:17 PM
Growing up from childhood again.
This phenomenon, might be the "Twice Born" thing from spirituality. It may be that the waking up of the non-dominant hemisphere and the resulting whole brain integration, leaves strong spiritual level traces. Traditions carry the memory.
This phenomenon, might be the "Twice Born" thing from spirituality. It may be that the waking up of the non-dominant hemisphere and the resulting whole brain integration, leaves strong spiritual level traces. Traditions carry the memory.
Mine aren't completely gone, but I do recall a VERY different level of intensity. As you age, the intensity goes away.
The second childhood, I think, has to do with left-brain, right-brain stuff. One of the brain hemispheres, originally much weaker in me, strongly non-dominant, is waking up.
The second childhood, I think, has to do with left-brain, right-brain stuff. One of the brain hemispheres, originally much weaker in me, strongly non-dominant, is waking up.
December 8, 2025 at 12:17 PM
Mine aren't completely gone, but I do recall a VERY different level of intensity. As you age, the intensity goes away.
The second childhood, I think, has to do with left-brain, right-brain stuff. One of the brain hemispheres, originally much weaker in me, strongly non-dominant, is waking up.
The second childhood, I think, has to do with left-brain, right-brain stuff. One of the brain hemispheres, originally much weaker in me, strongly non-dominant, is waking up.
I have to say that with Old Age, as hormones settle down, I am able to view these issues more rationally.
Though another theory I have is that I am having a second childhood, due to complex medical history. In any case, in childhood you aren't thinking with your hormones, you don't have them.
Though another theory I have is that I am having a second childhood, due to complex medical history. In any case, in childhood you aren't thinking with your hormones, you don't have them.
December 8, 2025 at 12:12 PM
I have to say that with Old Age, as hormones settle down, I am able to view these issues more rationally.
Though another theory I have is that I am having a second childhood, due to complex medical history. In any case, in childhood you aren't thinking with your hormones, you don't have them.
Though another theory I have is that I am having a second childhood, due to complex medical history. In any case, in childhood you aren't thinking with your hormones, you don't have them.
Secrecy is the issue. It means the West cannot admit that there CAN be a difference between forced and voluntary cases.
The West forces itself to be blind on the issue, unable to differentiate heinous behaviors, unable to protect the victims.
The West forces itself to be blind on the issue, unable to differentiate heinous behaviors, unable to protect the victims.
December 8, 2025 at 12:11 PM
Secrecy is the issue. It means the West cannot admit that there CAN be a difference between forced and voluntary cases.
The West forces itself to be blind on the issue, unable to differentiate heinous behaviors, unable to protect the victims.
The West forces itself to be blind on the issue, unable to differentiate heinous behaviors, unable to protect the victims.