faun @faun@merveilles.town

Half-assed Composting is Worse than Landfills!
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/k2eRE37Bun9TQBNnB/lazy-compost-is-worse-than-landfill

(The author, jkaufman generally posts pretty good btw)

I guess this is mainly a paralysing thing to say, so I'll try to add some advice...

We will never have consulted enough people. We will never stop finding radical new ways of knowing. We will never be able to easily distinguish cranks from fresh geniuses, just as surely as some ideas are difficult to assess, so will be methods.

Decent people will always disagree.

We might expect academia or the internet to bring about this ultimate pooling of knowledge, but it wont happen. We're better at knowing things now than we ever were, but there's also more to know.

Mostly in technology.

The crypto scene is a very gross example of this; There are more social technology proposals there than anyone can evaluate. One group can't evaluate the work of another. An outsider has no hope.

I suppose this is related to the assumed belief that ultimate, final truth is attainable. That, eventually, we will get to just stop being wrong about things forever on.

The connection is; in each case we are undergoing this project to *approach* something (truth, or agreement, or moral perfection), and we can all agree that approaching that thing is good, but we must avoid becoming confused and thinking that the thing we're approaching exists, or could ever be reached.

Most people seem to assume that there is a big respectable group of people who've pooled all of the important information together and know most of the things that there are important to know, but that has never been true, and it still isn't.

Civics isn't just a matter of identifying the good people and listening to them. Those people don't exist. There is no center.

I guess I'll have to put the thing behind all of them, just in case *I* make a mistake and one of the supposedly unsolvable ones turns out to be solvable. If this happens, I will, of course, claim that it was my intention for there to be exactly two correct paths.

Considering hiding an easter egg behind a type of marked gate lock that is known to be unsolvable 99% of the time.

One of the things I'm looking forward to in crycog is putting the player in situations where most of the puzzles are known to be unsolvable, and they have to convince themselves of this.

The player must develop the character to be able to seek solutions in spaces where there might not be any, and then also to be extremely careful before accepting any impossibility proofs they come up with just in case they trick themselves into entering a cynicism trap.

"Mathgoth"?

The Fair Rain are the most beautiful manifestation of folk that exists, afaik https://soundcloud.com/folk-radio-uk/the-fair-rain-the-banks-of-tahiti #theStudio

The old Tapu Te Ranga. A Wellington urban Marae built by its community from reclaimed wood.
Recently lost.
Not I, nor Devine, nor Kirsten Dirksen will ever meet it, but perhaps the new one will have just as great a spirit?

#PodcastRec https://www.rnz.co.nz/programmes/hekakanoahau

Thinking about it.. does anyone want to make a redditlike with me? I bet they'd let us use Dark for that. Bet it would be fun.

Dark seems like it might be the programming environment I've been wanting to build for a long time. After hearing this interview, I have a lot of faith in the project.
https://futureofcoding.org/episodes/043

Whenever I approach the code I get this overwhelming "What am I doing any more" feeling.

I don't think I can do it. I don't think I can make a game that teaches, with great craft, something that's almost quantifier logic but instead is obfuscated, ugly and useless. I think it has to just be real quantifier logic.

Manies and existentials will always be assumed to be distinct from each other. Universal variables will always be distinct from each other but NOT distinct from manies and existentials 💩💩💩

I'm pretty sure this is going to feel natural and logical most of the time, but when it starts to really matter in puzzles I think some people might pass out

Redoing crycog's formula testing so that there don't need to be symbols for quantifiers and.. the quantification is going to be so fucked up. When I start messing with it in puzzles it's going to destroy so many minds.

Spoiler: Initially, any universalish variables will be the outer scope, then "manys" (distinct, counted), then the innermost will be existentials (just one).

Additionally;