We’re friends online yet never saw each other face to face. Both friends and strangers.

My take has a few facets:
We’re friends online yet never saw each other face to face. Both friends and strangers.
Another facet: We have common understandings, which makes us not entirely strange to each other, therefore no strange, stranger, strangest scale at all.
There was a third facet but I forgot.

==

You made a profound statement that needed no additions or subtractions from me. It stands as it is. Don’s needed an addition to his subtraction for a sense of potential completion, which is why I responded as I did.

==

Ah. Well, I blame the English language. The whole “you” thing really is ambiguous and leads to communication failure frequently.

==

I like being the 0.0001% relevant. The 99+% irrelevant avenues can broaden and expand around the relevant and circling back, rejoining the relevant with just a little bit more discussion, keeping a topic from being too linear and binary.

==

We could but utility can usually be mapped out with a little effort.

==

ok: it has something to do with the Hamming distance and the signal to noise ratio: perhaps the efficiency vs effectiveness dichotomy?

==

Ah! Answer: +-0

=

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ender%27s_Game I read this as a boy in the library stacks after school one day when it was in the New Book’s section. Between that and War Games, I could see the power of gamifying things and their dangers too.

But yes, I think it’s interesting.

=

So, is it possible to calculate morality? y(n)e(o)s.

==

I spent the $3 on a domain once to express a similar notion:
http://sifferent.com/

==

that speaks more to my ‘answer to boolean logic’ than math but similar ’cause of their relationship.

==

 

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.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


+ 1 = five

Leave a Reply