(05-28-2016, 06:59 PM)maxx55 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-28-2016, 06:48 PM)K-Train Wrote: [ -> ] (05-28-2016, 06:36 PM)chaosvrgn Wrote: [ -> ]Collective answer from forum members: "B-b-b-but what about muh d*ck???"
lol, everyone's assuming that the models were predicting an aura that would just melt panties off. just as likely that the models are saying that your body would burn out trying to produce the aura.
i'm on stage 4 of my second AM6 run. yesterday, I messed up the playlist on my phone and ended up running s3 and s4 back-to-back all day. that night, my head felt like it was going to explode, I was up all night twisting and turning in bed, and I was experiencing the most ridiculous, undirected rage at EVERYTHING. lesson learned, follow the freaking directions.
i for one, wouldn't run an unsafe version of 5.5g tech.
Shannon stated the models were pointing to AOSI being "TOO EFFECTIVE". So yeah the forum members (myself included) started thinking with our d!cks but when a subliminal's primary goal is to produce an aura of sexiness and attract people and the creator says it works to well...shit. Man I don't care, that statement combined with years and years of cartoons and watching Love Potion #9 several times does something to you. 
Yeah that's what happened. If Shannon didn't say it worked "too well" and just said that the models said the current script was "unsafe" then it wouldn't have gotten as much attention probably.
I presumed that you guys would get it that "too well" means "too much of a good thing", which is to say, "not a good thing".
When you get a headache, taking a couple aspirin is a Good Thing ™. But take a handful and it will do
the same thing but it will work TOO WELL. You went pas the peak of the bell curve and passed the sweet spot into dangerous territory.
I was ale to add familiarity, comfort and positive sexual tension and make it work better with them.
(05-28-2016, 06:09 PM)Shannon Wrote: [ -> ]You guys don't get it. Releasing a dangerous subliminal to ANYONE puts my entire business at risk. Especially if someone "shares" it. (Piracy being such an unpleasant word and all.) Not saying that it would be shared, but in today's world, I can't afford to and will not risk my business because you want to play with something that has been flagged as dangerous.
I'd be glad to let you burn yourself if you wanted to be foolish, if it wasn't just as likely to burn me.
Safe, effective, useful. Always.
To be fair, my curiosity was more along the lines of what "too effective" and "danger zones" meant for subs in general. I was also thinking of examples for things like BASE and AYP type subs.
If your original models for BASE had been found to be too effective or dangerous, in what way would they have reflected that? Become a businessman who pursues success at any cost (potentially unethical)?? Or even for AYP subs, would that mean too effectively creating an ideal relationship? What would that even mean?
That's why i was asking what being "too effective" meant for these subs. But i get now that you're using predictive models which likely just give you general indicators of limits and errors. They're not going to tell you precisely what is going to happen at x time if y happens.
That's also why i was baffled when you mentioned early models that you threw out being too effective for AOSI. It didn't make sense to me that an aura could be made too effective. But it also doesn't work like that, and I now see that I wasn't thinking in the right terms.
(05-28-2016, 07:19 PM)heavysm Wrote: [ -> ] (05-28-2016, 06:09 PM)Shannon Wrote: [ -> ]You guys don't get it. Releasing a dangerous subliminal to ANYONE puts my entire business at risk. Especially if someone "shares" it. (Piracy being such an unpleasant word and all.) Not saying that it would be shared, but in today's world, I can't afford to and will not risk my business because you want to play with something that has been flagged as dangerous.
I'd be glad to let you burn yourself if you wanted to be foolish, if it wasn't just as likely to burn me.
Safe, effective, useful. Always.
To be fair, my curiosity was more along the lines of what "too effective" and "danger zones" meant for subs in general. I was also thinking of examples for things like BASE and AYP type subs.
If your original models for BASE had been found to be too effective or dangerous, in what way would they have reflected that? Become a businessman who pursues success at any cost (potentially unethical)?? Or even for AYP subs, would that mean too effectively creating an ideal relationship? What would that even mean?
That's why i was asking what being "too effective" meant for these subs. But i get now that you're using predictive models which likely just give you general indicators of limits and errors. They're not going to tell you precisely what is going to happen at x time if y happens.
That's also why i was baffled when you mentioned early models that you threw out being too effective for AOSI. It didn't make sense to me that an aura could be made too effective. But it also doesn't work like that, and I now see that I wasn't thinking in the right terms.
5.5G and up require special safety limiters. This technology is too powerful to handle without them.
But even with your personal running-the-sub-safely covered, the power levels can also push you past the optimal result and into the "Twilight Zone" of unpredictable, deleterious and/or dangerous results. Too much sexual irresistibility might result in stalking, rape, and other such things. We don't want that.
5G is not powerful enough to produce "too effective" or dangerous. This has not been an issue before 5.5/6G. Now I have the capacity to actually go past my target goal. If I was to build it in 6G and not use caution due something that deserves it, it could result in unscrupulous business practices at the least, for example. "Profit at any cost."
The predictive models can be as specific as I want them to be, but that requires a lot of time. If in a long term ping, my primary key for query produces a negative result, nothing else matters. The primary query key is designed to show me all factors at once from a conglomerate viewpoint. Any negative result is therefore unacceptable and will be rejected, regardless of how negative, because it includes consideration of a number of factors, including how well the program works, profits resulting, safety results, and so forth.
If I wanted to I could get very detailed with it, but again, that takes a very long time to do and maintain accuracy. Since the more generalized approach works just as accurately and takes a fraction of the time, I only consider moderate to strongly positive results.
Hopefully that makes more sense.
Secondary manifestation scripting optimized.
(05-28-2016, 08:07 AM)heavysm Wrote: [ -> ] (05-28-2016, 07:47 AM)spiritman Wrote: [ -> ]Yeah I don't think that is a good idea to do 4 subs like that. By doing that, you are scrambling and scattering your brain into different directions. Plus, if you go through with it, don't expect to see any real significant results because you are using too many subs in a short time period.
Shannon recommended similar to someone else. It was something like E 2, AM6, then SM where the duration of listening to E 2 is entirely up to the user. He would be listening to the AM6 refresher stage 7 for 1 month in this case, which is entirely feasible.
That was me, and an extremely unusual case due to my personal issues.
Most will get far better returns doing things the normal way.
Have to stop working, too tired to keep going. But the script looks like it's about ready to build. I'll give it another once over in the morning to make sure, and then build time.
Almost forgot. Ben, please prepare the page for this on the back end.
Hi, Shannon!
You've mentioned these tests you run, use a long term view to arrive at conclusions.
Most people run multis for 192 days, or single stages for usually much less time than that admittedly.
How long are your models going for to arrive at claims they could be dangerous, or that they work etc. and are good for sale? 384 days using a single stage? Maybe an hour number is what you use, say like 10,000 hours listened?
Just trying to line up what you feel is long term listening, in order to get the result desired in programs.
Ok making it, is it type B/D?
