I did. It was misleading how the author did it, starting off one way and then swapping completely to an opposite conclusion. I’d have preferred it more mixed together so people wouldn’t be misled by its beginning parts.

I did. It was misleading how the author did it, starting off one way and then swapping completely to an opposite conclusion. I’d have preferred it more mixed together so people wouldn’t be misled by its beginning parts.

The subject was well covered but as a consumer publication, I’d have preferred a little more clarity at the start and a little less clickbaity.

Then again, this *is* the dominant writing style now and I suppose I could see how it would encourage debate: those who read the beginning get their support, and those who read to the end get their support, all in the same article.

Still, I prefer articles written where any reader can end up understanding the author’s point even if they’d only read a little… but that’s not the style now.

It’s got a “did you REALLY read this?” checker built into it, yeah. It’s me really: I like clarity better than “gotchas”. But I suppose it’s a sneaky way to force people to actually read rather than skim. But ppl will still skim and bad opinions will continue to spread by authors using this style. That’s my beef with it. But it’s not going anywhere, so I just have to eat it.

I like that there is presentation of both sides but it can lead to a false sense of balanced objectivity. Then again, what am I expecting here? Impossible things.

I guess the style is: a) Title and first half of article supports the opposition. b) ending is “yeah, but”, supporting their position.

====

Now THAT’S almost a complement sandwich you did there, but more suitable for an online debate format. Diplomatic yet with a clear elucidation of your conclusion which is firm political stance and a declaration of intent to further activism.

Now that I’ve done that, I will say that, while I have not changed my preferences, I can see the value in the article style and retract my initial distaste of it. It has value. Full stop.

===

You have my blessings to use this writing style.

===
our admirable ability to admit the value of this style, and more broadly the value of an opposing view, is one I strive to emulate. And best of all, this ability is clearly not born of a mere desire to appease, but a deeper rational value system. On top of that, you manage to hold firm to your own stylistic tendencies while seeing the strength of others, where a different man might only appreciate techniques he makes use of.

—–

I strive to expand without losing myself in the process and that you did not take the easy bait (the “I’m going to let you do the thing”) shows that you are not merely toying with diplomacy while actually being a black and white debater, but that you actually _do_ appreciate the value of respecting difference of opinion and the mutual striving towards betterment of self, an admirable quest and perhaps the only thing that may end up saving us all.

===
yeah, from a linear perspective of course it’s slow work to re-integrate into the main timestream, because the effort must be coordinated across multiple time-frames, some of which are in the “future” from this one. Plus it’s so hard to predict any action’s effect on the timeline of this pocket universe, because we’ve managed to paint ourselves into such a highly improbable corner of phase-space… even the local maxima of probability in this pocket are near global minima in the main timestream; the simulations developed in the main timestream do poorly so far out on the tails of the probability distributions. Plus the entropy is ridiculously high in this timeframe, and we can only reduce it locally but not globally… unless we break the Second Law of Thermodynamics by reversing the entropic arrow of time in the pocket and back-propagating a whole lot of information, which is risky. And the minds in this pocket are so underdeveloped, we can’t even explain the problem to people because they won’t understand! Ah the life of a TT.
====

That I understood everything you said and that this is taking place on my FB page in the context of a conversation I’m participating in is a remarkable treat for me.

I wish I could describe the mental visuals as I read through and pictured each part of this process that you described, yet I also know I don’t have to. I might not have access to whatever visual metaphors your mind may choose in compressing these concepts into human brain sized lines, dots, movements on graphics and different pressures, but I know that there’s something similar.

Thank you for that. I always wanted to draw/animate for this reason: To share these visuals in some form. I don’t have the skill set and make do with word metaphors mostly.

Thank you for that.

—-

I’d risk the back propagation. There may be a way to accomplish it slowly, using gravity as a throttling mechanism but I don’t know what you would use for entropy reversal. There’s Block Transfer Computations but I don’t know how to work those and I don’t know if Logopolis is still available.

===

 

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


− seven = 1

Leave a Reply