Cryptogrammar calls itself ruler and points at everyone who says something else as crypto (minus grammar). Cryptoempathy?
I learned how to use computers from corporations which speak crypto emotions and tie my hands and words to their terms (then call it an original band-aid).
Where are the psychotchnologists? What would empathy do? What would counting do? What would logging do? What would errors do? What would error logging do? What would record-keeping do?
Mental health professionals saved my life. Do you have any experience with professional help? Are you comfortable repeating what you said here, but with a counselor / psychologist?
Maybe feel a little bit of pride, because you are emotionally aware of dangers of causing harm to yourself and or others, and care enough to ask for help.
Help to share and solve your emotional state, is exactly what you need to ask for, so I feel glad you asked HN as a comfortable place to start.
Psychotechnological (r)evolution, showing real human potential and portends.
One vote has more meaning.
Sharing raw feelings is a good sign, and language evolving, to really represent our system and society of mind and machinery, of emotionally diverse voting interest indication, with little technical difficulty.
People can harm your life. Abuse runs wild off-grid, and wherever technology walls and kills us evilly, equally human beings do something suffering by having no tools to fight back.
Tech is anti-harm and or technodeadly gun. Lack / control in context means fighting to give programming our lives more than a technical meaning.
If we want psychotechnological tools bridging heart and online, we need to find time to talk more than power and paranoia, and add more mentally healthy methods to our programming commits.
Commitments to giving technology a meaning as a lifeline, begins with supporting deeper programming, deprogramming technicality and nuance left out by profit.
Deprogramming psychotechnological tools sciencing ideas of power for people who hurt, is real.
A major technical problem, life's reality problem..
Tooling real life guns v. life aware tools, together, finds us interconnecting unit-tests with reality-tests with reality-cared..
Psychotechnological tools can care to remember and understand, as well as dominate and aggress, so is it maybe about balancing complex emotions - with complex problems - with complex technical gears?
Wearing Glass can be caring as well as wearing Glass can be baring.
So real as I fear technology, I fear people without technical senses, so I feel we need equally care.
Maybe technology can be more sensitive .. so maybe people can be more sensitive?
Repeating reality is (is lost..) that programming has a real life cost equally important to every type of pain. Whether counting greater, technical, systemic, organizational and or proprietary pains, sometimes our lives are counted by asking people to pay with pain.
Framed negative and or positive, equally real, paying programming and paying with programming et al, still has real life opportunity cost and real life opportunity lost.
Inkscape interface does most everything I need, except I miss Photoshop's 'Layer Effects' workflow, which makes designing and organizing filters less messy.
Most annoying is we have technology to show information better.
We could show our original titles next to officiated, moderated, adworded language.
We could give first words and ad words equal life.
Do we have any more senseful, mindful technology that might represent title variations as diverse as real life?
Is our loved accessibility only for special interests? Why can't technology show common ground, without hiring and firing info like we are out of space, in a world we can use real psychotechnology to truly fit more people, more info, and more views.
Likewise Quora represents as community-powered self-moderation but deletes and censors by closed, secret committee vs. first giving real representation to what users really said... like I ask http://www.quora.com/Editing-Questions-on-Quora/Could-showin... and elsewhere.
If it is annoying admins to show more/less words based on eachothers diverse contexts, maybe let people who want to see moderated words see it so. Too, let us all otherwise real life readers see what people really submitted as their first words, first.
No guaranteed, faithful audit trail is given by Google Docs. Logs are lost by Google because of (1) deleterious forced upgrades (2) forced space optimization (3) no downloadable backups preventing loss.
1. Revisions Deleted by Upgrade: Google Docs' last official upgrade did not save, nor migrate, old Revision History to their new version, resulting in total data loss and no alternative. http://productforums.google.com/d/topic/docs/Tsd-E-bzsh8
3. No Downloadable-Publishable Revision History: Contrasting Google Docs' promise to share our work, only you and people who can edit your document are able to view Revision History, making real public transparency/accountability/downloadability difficult if not impossible.
Google is known for their likeable Data Liberation Policy. but it severely misinforms people who do not know Revision History is not faithfully backed up.
I welcome Google to commit to never losing anything you share and write, and optionally allow others equal transparency to see everything we save (or tried...) and share.
So if Google Docs' deleterious behavior continues, people will continue to be disappointed if their archived data is unpredictably, untrackably, so very loseable.
Landmark personal and societal rights to social structures and databases is interesting psychotechnologically, in our real world where data rights, personal rights and property rights are so important.