That's a very disappointing response, Anon. I agree with the general premise that some a clock is some kind of encoding mechanism. Possibly just a "future proves past" device. I agree that Q wants us to work on it.
However, if you're working on it, it behooves you to make your work intelligible to the rest of us. What are your underlying premises? What is your mode of operation? What are your algorithms? I seriously doubt Q intended this to be some art project.
Don't for sorry for me, Anon. It's your failure to teach, not our failure to understand. But, do please continue with your artsy-fartsy clock project. I'll be on the lookout for real work.
Q answered no, BaffleBrain0. No matter how contorted your thinking. You make the rules, you decide what to use, the chances approach 100%.
I would love to do Real Work on the Q-clock, but my attention is elsewhere. My main complaint with OP is his inability to express the process by which he is working.
May you have revelatory dreams, Anon. I do believe that clues can come that way. It's mostly an associational process.
>>4530245 (pb)
Does applying this EO rise to the level of an ex post facto law? (Noting that EO's are not LAWS - that is, passed by Congress.)