Doing business with Halifax banking online or over the phone is one thing, but when it comes to a face to face services, they seem to of lost the plot with soft skills and common sense. The following occurred between late 2007 to early 2008.

For many months I was living off an overdraft; not exactly the cheapest way to live and certainly not recommended for the faint hearted. It was my choice to do so as I was using the loan to make money elsewhere. As long as monthly interest charges were met, Halifax kept my overdraft perpetual, in fact, they even raised my upper limit. I’m sure this is a common situation; banks love the extra charges they can make for lending money, until a “credit crunch” looms.

Suddenly, in the latter half of 2007 Halifax warned they were going to cut my overdraft by approximately 50%. It was very short notice even though they had previously raised my upper limit on borrowing. Why did they do it, was it solely down to a re-assessment of credit risks? - I doubt it, I almost never exceeded my borrowing limits. My theory is, they gambled I would not make payments if they called 50% of the overdraft, thus I would be subjected to late payment fees. Banks like to test the limits of borrowers to maximise interest charges and the odd late payment fee is good too. It all works great for them so long the money keeps coming in.

I wasn’t happy with them, to me it was a dirty trick; on the one hand they were encouraging me to borrow more by raising my limits and then suddenly trying to wipe me out. Fortunately, I wasn’t on overdraft to meet living expenses, the money was working elsewhere. I sold some assets and paid off my overdraft in full. In one sense I suffered a lose as I had less money working for me. On the other hand, my mind was freed of burden a little as I had one debt less. I’ve stayed in credit since and you can be sure I will never borrow from them again. Strange how they never followed through by lowering my overdraft like they said.

A few months ago I went to a Halifax branch to pay some cash into my account. Anyone can pay money into an account so long as they have the correct details. For convenience, I handed over my debit card which has my account details embossed on it. The lady paid the cash into my account and then noticed I had not signed the back of my card. I explained, I never signed my card as pretty much everyone in the UK has switched to using Chip and PIN terminals. The cashier took issue with this, things escalated and the manager was finally called out.

The deciding issue should of been obvious; I was paying cash INTO an account and to do so there is no requirement for me to be the account holder. If I had wrote down my account details on a piece of paper, they would of accepted it without question. Additionally, I highlighted the fact that Halifax does not provide Chip and PIN terminals inside their own branches yet they require all of their customers to use them where they are available, which is pretty much everywhere.

The bank had no way to prove the card belonged to me so they retained it. They claimed, I could of found the card and put a signature on the back. They admitted they would of accepted my transaction with any signature. Oh I see, good idea, then the crook could carry out their evil deed of paying money in, great!

In their opinion, they were ensuring the security of the original card holder who might of lost their card. So, I showed them photo ID and I offered to type my PIN, if only they could supply a terminal. But it wasn’t good enough, apparently I could of found that too. Finally, I snatched the card off them and walked out. They cancelled my card and subsequent transactions. I was issued with a new card and had to run around updating my details for bills etc. Stubbornness is a bad human trait.

I’m all for alert cashiers but common sense tells me that paying money into an account, when anyone can do so, is not an act of suspicious behaviour.

After a while I ventured to the same Halifax branch again. I had £10 of coins which I wanted changed into a bank note; 10 x 50 pence and the rest in 20s, 10s and 5s. The cashier said she could only do so if I had an account with them. So I told her I had an account and produced a piece of paper with my account details. Then she said it was too many coins to pay in.

“Oh” I said, “so what’s the minimum I can pay into my account?”

“£1” she replied.

So I gave her £1 in coins to which she said, “You’re not doing that 10 times”.

“What? Why not?” She continued to refuse the money so I had no choice and asked for the manager. It was a different manager from my previous experience.

To me, if I want to buy food I go to the supermarket, if I want to deal with money I go to the bank. So, dear manager, what is wrong with my money? “It’s too much” he said, “if you want to pay it in you will have to queue 10 times”.

Okaaaay. So I paid £1 into my account and queued a second time. At my second visit to the counter I asked, “so what is the maximum I can pay in coins?”

“Sir, you made a deal to queue 10 times.” The manager comes out and confirms, the maximum allowed in coins is also £1.

So I queued. 10 receipts, 10 smiles, 10 thank yous, “anything else sir?” Yes, I was there a long time. Can’t help wondering what they would say if I had too many £10 notes.

What is wrong here? Does common sense have any place here? Different people, same attitude and it feels like the problem is systemic. I lodged official complaints and their responses were denial of anything wrong.

Good customer care is all about people and doing that little extra. You won’t get anywhere by alienating your customers or business partners, bad names stick. Let people expect less and get more. You have to love you’re work and you have to take a genuine interest in all the people you do business with.

I have a terrible habit of allowing myself to believe in the goodness of people. Then, from time to time, something happens and proves me wrong. I spend some time regaining confidence in others only to be brought back to earth with a thud and so the circle continues.

I was in my teens and living in Luton, a college town 40 Km from London. One warm evening I was walking home from town, listening to music on my personal stereo. Suddenly a group of 4 or 5 youths surrounded me and wanting the contents of my pockets. One sharply ripped off my necklace while another threatened to “tuck me up”, with a knife maybe? I was visibly scared and I was lucky to be let go unharmed, minus all my possessions of course.

I forcefully threw down my cola, angry at myself for allowing the situation to occur. I promised myself I would endeavour to never again put myself in a similar situation. The first thing I learnt was to never shut yourself off from your environment; in my case, by wearing headphones I had impaired my ability to hear. More importantly, the headphones had projected an image of vulnerability. This idea of projected image is very important, to become street wise it is essential you learn to portray yourself as alert and confident. Don’t be shy to examine your environment and make eye contact with people at an early stage; they must see your awareness and confidence regardless of how intimidating their external appearance.

Keep to well lit and well travelled roads and move with confidence. If you are attacked, absolutely never allow your attacker to drag or threaten you to another location, you must scream and kick to attract attention. Once an attacker has you in their preferred location your life is in danger, this is going to be their comfort zone, they have planned this in advance.

I can tell you from direct experience, the inadequacies of the English justice system are almost beyond words. It is somewhat bizarre to of spent five years defending myself against significant criminal allegations inside a civil court. Eventually I lost my case due to seismic errors and outright lies and prejudice. No charges were brought against me yet I am explicitly prohibited from talking about my case; a story for another day.

During my five year ordeal, a strange story was unwinding in parallel. My neighbour, a single mother, was being visited by her violent ex-boyfriend. Living upstairs from her, I was aware of much of their activity. They would frequently argue and the guy was clearly abusive, both emotionally and physically. I learnt he had previously been to prison though this fact never prevented me calling the police several times when his behaviour became unbearable. He would pound on her back door until she let him in, then he was extremely abusive, calling her a whore and slapping her. Once he was strangling her, knocking her head against a wall, I could hear her gagging whilst he incessantly shouted at her, repeating himself like a madman.

The contrast with my own experiences was striking; I have never been violent yet I was constrained by a judge.. and there was this crazy fuck beating on his ex-girlfriend, seemingly with impunity. In both cases, the common denominator was control; a judge thirsty to extract revenge on me and this guy never able to simply walk away. Control is an ugly trait, recognise it and respond to it fast.

I’ve received and sent many parcels, from the Americas to south east Asia and from my perspective, government run postal services have widespread corruption. Mail fraud sometimes receives showcase sentences yet overall I would say this is one of the most prevalent crimes of our times. The temptation is too great, gifts and money literally flowing into their hands then miraculously disappearing into a void.

I have a variety of experiences with missing post, one in particular comes to mind. I was once foolish to send cash in the post, naively thinking I was clever enough to disguise it’s contents. I worked very hard to hide it’s contents yet all the recipient got was a torn and empty package. The thief never cared for how hard it was for me to gain the money and they never cared how the money was going to be used. I may of been stupid sending cash in the post but why can’t I? Parcels are personal possessions with personal stories; it could of been something towards a life saving operation or simply a gift to make someone smile when they really need it, so where’s the respect?

The lesson is obvious, simply never send cash in the post and pay the extra for a registered “signed for” service. It shouldn’t be this way, after all, it amounts to protection money from their own misdeeds.

Similar to the postal scams and arguably more intrusive are malicious hackers, and “social engineers”. They vary from the curious and petty thief to organised international crime; virus writers and identity thefts, all the way up to blackmail and extortion rackets. At any one time, due to complexity and human error, there are many thousands of exposed computers worldwide being remotely coordinated and controlled without their owners knowledge. Hackers make extensive use of these exposed computer armies (“botnets”) to carry tools and viruses, providing leverage and a layer of anonymity.

I have had contact with many people who have had money raided from accounts and money scammed from “virtual beggars”. If people truly understood the scale of attempted hacks made to each and every net connected computer, they would respond fiercely. ISPs could do a lot more to fight this but while we’re waiting for them to catch up there are a few things you can do, you are not immune:

1. You can make your computer significantly more secure by avoiding Microsoft products entirely. If you want to beat the numbers, either buy a Mac or install another operating system such as linux, I can not stress this enough.

2. Keep your wits about you and never give money to your online “friends”. There is no “dying brother” or whatever sad story they give. The real world has real organisations to help people in such situations.

3. Keep important data, finance etc on removable media such as flash drives.

4. When it comes to passwords, do not choose dates, names or anything remotely guessable. Do not use natural language in your passwords and do not try to be clever, for example a password of “password”.. To choose a good password, take the first letter of every word in a sentence e.g. “My name is Serena and I like chocolate” becomes “MniSailc”. Choose obscurity over cleverness and take some time to learn more about Internet safety.

A few months ago a guy came to fix my boiler. Within two minutes he returned to his car and found someone had stolen his satellite navigation unit. I was surprised, I live in a very residential area away from main connecting roads, we therefore speculated it was someone local and a bit of an opportunist. A couple of months later I was to experience more criminal activity, this time on my own property.

I used to lock my bicycle against a tree in my back garden. You couldn’t see the bike from the street, access is down the side of the house and behind a gated fence. Luckily I was home, when I heard the single click of a cycle pedal I glanced out of my side window and saw someone by my bike! I had to act fast, there was simply not enough time to call the police. I grabbed a small wooden club and ran to my front door, intentionally making lots of noise, jangling my keys etc. From my front door I could not see this guy, he was behind the gate. It wasn’t safe to approach him as you never quite know what someone will do when they’re cornered so I waited a little, gave him the chance to make the first move, after about a minute he vaulted over the garden fence. In British law this would be considered a “measured response”.

My bike was okay though he managed to cut halfway through the cable. Of course, I keep the bike indoors now, on my stairs as I have nowhere else to keep it. Why should this be so? - it’s my garden.

I informed the police only to be told it’s low priority, I got the impression it would of been low priority even if it had been stolen. I later discovered a neighbour had her bike stolen from her garden, she now keeps a folding bike indoors.

In this instance I was lucky, I could of discarded the noise as something else. The lessons here is, be vigilant and don’t become complacent about security.

So far I’ve been fortunate to escape injury but, of course, not everyone is so lucky, two recent stories exemplify this; In one recent news article, a man was set upon and murdered when he approached a group of people vandalising his property. In another news story, a man was being charged with manslaughter after confronting a burglar who allegedly jumped from his window - or pushed - is that a disproportionate response or executing your right to protect yourself on your own property?

What really concerns me is how fast serious crimes rise from the flames of low level “anti-social behaviour”; one day it’s vandalism, tomorrow knives and guns. What do bike thieves do next? What do postal thieves do next? What do abusive control freaks do next? The police tell me it’s all about priority; is that admission of failure to deal with the root causes? Is it surprising people are increasingly feeling criminals are operating with impunity? Is it time to fight back?

Respect.

A guy goes into a shop and buys his favourite newspaper, however, he also has to buy The Wall Street Journal as it’s a legal requirement. Is it conceivable? Here in the UK this same concept applies to television; we can buy subscriptions to cable, Internet or satellite television so long as we pay the BBC first.

The BBC is primarily funded by a television licence. Actually, a more accurate term might be “media licence” as it is not dependent on the ownership of a television. Any household which receives near live television broadcasts must obtain a licence, this includes for example, television over the Internet or on a mobile phone. Reception of television broadcasts without a licence is a criminal offence. Successful prosecutions result in a fine of up to £1000 (approx. €1470 or US$1990). Persistent offenders are sent to prison.

Currently (2007), the price of a television licence is £135.50 per year (approx. €199 or US$268). Unfortunately, this fee has a negative effect on low income families as they may not be able to subsequently afford additional broadcast services such as cable.

At a different level, broadcasters are fighting two major battles. First there is falling revenue from advertising as the leisure habits of people change and diversify. Secondly, broadcasters are subject to higher scrutiny and standards than their Internet counterparts. For UK broadcasters the television licence is their third battleground as licence money significantly interference with free market forces. Simply put, commercial broadcasters are forced to compete with an organisation which does not have to ask their “customers” for financial support. To help blur the line, a small percentage of the licence fee is given to commercial broadcasters.

The TV licence has existed for more than 70 years and this goes some way to explain why it is seemingly tolerated. However, avoiding mutiny is not easy so the BBC outsources most of its payment collection through a publicly traded company called Capita (FTSE:CPI). Capita allocates approximately 2000 staff, many of which are given the grand title of “Enforcement Officer”, which are sent out to investigate and interview all those without a valid licence. Capita are known for their bullish approach, often seeking entry into an household to determine if there is illegal television reception. If entry to a household is blocked and there are reasonable grounds of said offence, an applications for a search warrant is made. Bonuses are paid for catching licence evaders which has lead in several cases of forged confessions. Capita is also known for entrapment, where they send letters “signed for” in order to obtain people’s names and signatures.

Beyond this, Capita capture and cross reference information from various sources, some of these include:

• Customer names and addresses are passed from retailers for every appliance sold with a built-in television tuner. This includes the sales of computers and mobile phones where appropriate.

• Access to government records such as the Criminal Records Bureau and Department of Work and Pensions.

• Regular updates of the Postal Address File from the Post Office.

Not buying a licence leads to many letters which, under any other circumstance, would be construed as harassment. They can not be avoided as letters are typically marked with a mix of surname and / or “The Occupier”; a convenient method of circumventing rules of the Mail Preference Service. This also leads to many personal visits to your home until you prove your innocence, despite this being a matter of criminal law. If you continue to live without television, even if you have proved your innocence, they will usually be back within six months (officially two years).

All of this comes at a cost. The fact is, millions of pounds are diverted from the BBC to chase unlicensed households. The net result of all this is a highly contrasted perception between those who buy a licence and those who do not.

Capita administer many other public services such as Congestion Charging. For this they have access to the DVLA database (Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency). Various scenarios have been tabled such as wheel-clamping television licence dodgers.

Finally, the terms of the licence are very broad and there is almost no guidance on how to identify content requiring a licence. With so much content available online, how do we identify channels, videos and websites requiring a licence?

It all started with the Broadcasting Receiving Licence in 1922 to protect national security. The idea was to create a register of people capable of monitoring naval movements and radiotelegraph messages. It was later extended to television reception to which the BBC was given exclusive rights.

With the arrival of the transistor radio, the government bowed to the impracticality of enforcing the radio part of its licence and thus the radio part of the licence was dropped. When colour television appeared, a supplementary fee was levied. This two tier licence fee still stands today; one licence for black and white reception, another for colour reception.

Over the years, as new technologies emerged, the licence gradually morphed and extended its reach far beyond its original purpose. When the video recorder came out a licence was required as it contained a television tuner. Additionally, a colour licence was required for a video recorder even if a black and white television was used for viewing. In modern times, equivalent attempts have been made where the use of cable set-top boxes are attached to black and white televisions, their justification the same; a colour signal is present even if your view is black and white.

The black and white licence continues to mar licensing, for example, a legally blind person receives a 50% discount off a colour licence yet a black and white licence is even cheaper.

Today, money from the licence fee powers BBC Internet, radio and television services, all free of advertising within the UK. Whilst minority programming such as Welsh language programmes are present, the BBC has increasingly found itself competing for audience attention.

Frequency allocation is disproportionately weighted in favour of the BBC, often leading to stronger signals than their commercial adversaries. Invariably, people in nearby countries such as Ireland, northern France, Belgium and the Netherlands are able to receive these broadcasts for free.

While the BBC within the UK contains no external advertising, they do hold commercial interests throughout the world. For example, they sell books, CDs and they sell advertising on services such as BBC America and BBC World. Significantly, their programming includes content generated from the licence fee.

There are two arguments often cited in favour of the television licence:

• Commercial independence allows for the production of more diverse, educative and innovative programming.

• Higher quality and more accessible programming compared to commercial rivals. In addition, this higher quality programming challenges commercial channels to do better.

Generally, these arguments assume advertising is the only viable alternative. In practical terms, the BBC could be funded in a variety of ways including cooperatives, subscriptions, public access, underwriting and so on.

When it comes to media consumption, how important is your freedom of choice? In any other industry the television licence would be considered anti-competitive and a nuisance; holding a dominant position and market manipulating. It would be tempting to conclude it could be fought head on. Yet the path-of-least-resistance might be to simply switch off. Really, try it, break your routine. Here’s a challenge - list five things you and your family could be doing instead of watching television, here are some ideas - karaoke, dance, gym, swimming, skating, cycling, fishing, tennis, camping, kayaking, photography and the list goes on!

If you make one change, it might change ones life.

• TV Licensing, official UK site
• BBC Resistance, an anti-TV licence campaign
• A fair representation of one person’s letters from TV Licensing.

In today’s modern society, our real life activities, expressions and thoughts are increasingly captured electronically. In our public life we publish photos, videos, bookmarks, calendars and blogs. In our private life we interact with doctors, teachers and traders. We write personal diaries and treasure photos of our family. However life unfolds, a collective “digital fingerprint” is created which carries an immense and unique insight into who we are.

How we are remembered and understood goes significantly beyond our digital fingerprint, it is more than an autobiography, synergy is at play. Information about us can be connected, inferred and mapped. Imagine how much information can be captured, say, over 20 years. Or how our opinions change over time. Such depth is surely more than a finite number of pages in a book, it is more than sequential.

And then we die and all is lost.

It is ironic how information technology has transformed our lives and made family research easier, yet it’s a sad truth to say, our loved ones die and often their passwords to a valuable digital vault are lost forever. Think. Do your loved ones know where and how to retrieve your photos? Do you have a personal diary locked away? How about the websites you enjoy or your personal thoughts on many subjects? To your future generations it’s a lost heirloom, something which could give them immense insight and a sense of belonging. There is a solution but first a little history.

In 1950 Alan Turing introduced a concept which became known as the Turing Test; a challenge to determine if an entity is human. In modern times this is more relevant than ever as we battle against computer programs attempting to mass create service accounts and identities. Then in 1966 Joseph Weizenbaum wrote a computer program called Eliza. Eliza challenged the Turing Test by posing as a psychologist. Although very simple in modern terms, Eliza was partially successful in convincing users a real person was remotely chatting to them.

Consider where we are now. Google didn’t simply popularise search engines, they made Artificial Intelligence sexy; the ability to second-guess a user’s query and return quality results with a little inspiration thrown in. No Turing Test needed, yet how long before the search box becomes a conversation? Now take this technology and plug it into someones entire digital life. Take a lifetime of diaries, notes and presentations. Take their emails and photos, their education and health, their voice and opinions. Now join-the-dots and imagine an artificial intelligence mining and responding to your questions. Get answers to questions which were never asked. Have a conversation with their virtual DNA. Resurrect the virtual dead.

Within 10 years a new breed of service will emerge allowing people to create biographic legacies. These services will take their lead from current vanity services such as blogs and photo sharing. They will allow us to recreate and explore endearing spirits of our loved ones. Crucially, these services will differ in their legal status, privacy and security; effectively becoming extensions of a legal will. Eventually, these services will allow us to collate and store information from many sources including banks, doctors, schools, cameras, diaries and so on. Despite the apparent contradiction, anonymity may also be a feature for some of these services.

Why will these biographic services emerge? Consider some of the challenges an individual might face to build a biographic legacy:

• How, what and where to store information safely.
• Finding the time to build their biography / will.
• Guidance or inspiration e.g. check lists and prompts.
• Technical assistance e.g. how to sign / date stamp their work.
• Unwinding the full potential e.g. a contextual search which understands the links between separately stored pieces of information.

As you can see, a fast, simple and inspirational solution is needed. My vision is a personal, private, secure and legally executed documentation system. This system would encapsulate a range of tools for the creation and update of a biography and will. The biographical tools would, of course, include storage space for photos, videos etc.

Over time, the user would build up the knowledge base. For example, when the user signs in they could be prompted for their thoughts on a current event or asked open and closed questions; what are their thoughts on abortion? - how do they get to work? - are they feeling optimistic? Nice touches could include, for example, a talking clock using a client’s voice.

This living biography is a natural progression of the will, a valuable resource to a person’s heritage, safely and securely managed within a legal framework.

Every generation brings along at least one family member keen to discover their ancestors, these people are naturally curious and would be inclined to use such services. However, given the success for online services such as blogging, photo sharing etc, I would suggest this type of product opens the door to a much wider audience. A service with a potentially low churn and significantly long term client retention. Remember this is a service which, depending on the model adopted, can deliver services to all family members long after they have passed away. There are also significant opportunities to sell related services such as census records and certificates.

Q. What’s to stop someone independently collecting and documenting their family history?

A. Piece of mind, knowing your research and writings are safe with the very people who will eventually pass your work onto loved ones.

Q. So this would be a hosted service?

A. I think this is primarily a hosted service, however, I think an offline version could easily be offered too. An offline version would appeal to those on a budget or those with concerns for privacy.

Q. Someone could create a blog and leave their passwords etc in a will.

A. Most online services provide no guarantee of backups and there are no clear paths to ownership and execution of someones wishes to inheritance.

Q. This is not the sole territory of a legal firm.

A. True and the business model adopted is open to analysis. As a business you may choose to collaborate with existing services or build in-house. Keep in mind, there is significant opportunity for cross-selling.

Philosophy and science has always tried to explain the world around us. The grand theories of everything have been a moving target; first it was earth, wind, fire, water and emptiness, these days it’s multiple universes and “strings”.

First, a broad description about a concept for multiple universes, the multiverse. In the multiverse there are unlimited copies of our world. Each copy has slightly different paths and every possibility exists. In one universe you are reading this article from the comfort of your home, in another universe your life took a different path and you are reading this on a beautiful beach.

The multiverse concept can be extended. I believe, while there is an unlimited number of universes, every universe is connected like the bones of a body. In other words, the events in one universe can affect the paths of neighbouring universes, similar to the bones in your fingers moving the bones in your arm. This also means any given universe is very similar to it’s immediately surrounding universes. For example, in one universe you are reading this in a sitting position, in an adjacent universe your posture is a little different, for example laying down. A consequence of this connectedness is your ability to affect and be affected by events. If, for example, you receive good fortune, your adjacent universes would also benefit from good fortune to a greater or lesser degree.

Sometimes, when an outside event affect us, it leads to fate. Which is more true? - “sometimes, somethings are meant to happen” or “sometimes, somethings are not meant to happen”. The answer is the latter, it tells you how close you are to your adjacent universes, often you are only a few seconds away. For example, say you plan to leave the house by 8am. First you oversleep and then you can’t find a clean shirt, two seemingly unconnected events within your control. Truth is, if you had bought an alarm clock and washed a shirt the night before you would still not leave the house by 8am.

It is important to note, when an event does not occur it can only be for one of two reasons; either the event is too early (without obstruction) or a separate event must occur first. Keep in mind, this event does not have to be in our current universe, as previously said, a prior event may be carried out in a neighbouring universe. For example, good fortune might spill over into our current universe which subsequently leads us to a beautiful beach. It is this sequential nature which contributes to our perception of time.

Despite the above explanation, not all paths in our life are fated, there are at least two other possibilities; events may occur which do not change any paths in adjacent universes, and events between neighbouring universes maybe be intentionally coordinated. By harnessing all of the above, we could achieve a version of “time travel”, more accurately, it would be a shift to a different version of history.

History, perception of time and sequential events. What are they? Why do we believe events are moving forward or we even have a history? Is it memory which gives us history? - Are you sure?

As we grow older we learn and gain memories. In theory, we started with a relatively blank genetic memory from which our memories develop. Doesn’t it seem kind of odd we got something from nothing? Our only explanation is the universe simply existed before we were born. Well, we can equally suggest time is moving backwards. Our memory is not growing of the things which happened, it is growing from a list of inventions. It is best described by the “where?” game children play; “where did the computer come from?” - from the shop.. “where did they get it from? - from a distributor… “where did they get it from?” and so on, all the way down to explaining mineral mining, if you ever get this far! You see, for every experience you create an explanation or a blank to be filled, it gives you the sense of cohesion and reality, I call it the theory of invention. The older we get, the more we learn, the more we invent.

The theory of invention also leads to instantaneous creation. This is where events seemingly occur from nothing. Take an empty box, be 100% sure it is absolutely empty. Close the box and wait. When you open the box a fly is inside. How did it get in? Already you have thought of reasons why; maybe there’s a hole in the box, or it crept in just before we closed the box. The interesting part is, when we have crossed out every possible reason, we ultimately determine we are looking in the wrong box… that’s right, we introduce (“invent”) other paths to solve the problem of cohesion.

To shift to a different version of history, we must ask how the concept of invention relates to the events of one universe seeping into it’s neighbours. Then we must ask, do we really want to do it?