Floppy PNG

I use the Deno linter. While I find it beneficial in my code to differentiate const and let, it can be turned off fairly easily. https://docs.deno.com/lint/rules/prefer-const/

yeah yeah this is your politics

Serious here. New AI idea (that is probably already being used). If you want to communicate with somebody about an idea, current culture has been hijacked via many methods, some likely bad agents, some simply due to complicated systems. Each subculture has a set of memes that guides their shared cultural cognition in absence of ontological and epistemological grounding. What you need to do is understand the memes and tailor them towards the audience of your message. AI could scan the memes. It has the capability. If I wanted to float a new idea on Nostr, I would scrape agorism.dev/meme and pin the idea within a set and gently tweak it towards my message that is injected hundreds of times with image/text meme format. Think of rocking a car back and forth trying to get it out of the mud. I could also write whitepapers where the ontology of the nodes are a given within a subculture. This solves a big problem, as our culture is crippled as far as node and relation meaning (ontology) and source backing/provenance . It is likely best case as far as getting across points at current complexity. The deep dive across nodes and relations from scratch is a non-starter at current cognitive bandwidth. Now... this might have *always* been the case. Outliers like Ada Lovelace and Charles Peirce are some good examples of exceptions, with everybody else *thinking* they are growing knowledge, but are really just saying "I know that node!" "I know that relation!" in the complex web of life across many domains that we are part of. The big question, though, is at this complexity, what could/should be communicated? Within the current algo that runs most interactions, it is towards a goal of <pick your existing meme model>. Memes form an echo chamber with steel walls and no exit for most.

I started singing "hot dog in a thermos, I know, I know, it's serious" in my head when I saw this.

I simply looked at your points on the thread and saw a match with the paper as far as how we think about progress. Examples from our thread: ---------------- "where in any given situation somebody might opt for a lazy easy way to solve a problem, piling on technical debt and complications which is a centralizing force as long as it doesnt kill the thing just yet" "its maybe a bit od "epimetheus" vs. "prometheus", where one just does and thinks/learns later but at least makes some visible progress quickly, while the other wants to think it through upfront but takes forever until anything can happen at all. now i just think a bit of both or whatever is one's tendency is okay, but we need actually do something at some point and cant wait forever and then learn and reflect again ... or we need to stop and think to revise at some point and cant be doing forever without ever reflecting at all. So both models are just slightly different versions of a cyclic execution model anyway. The point is, whether one wants to leverage in order to optimize towards centralization and power consolidation or not. ...and this is where motivations to keep thins complicated ON PURPUSE might enter the picture " --------------------- I get it that there are other topics in our thread, like power, complexity, and centralization. I just wanted to see if your ideas around progress were in line with the article, and responded with the paper directly against a comment with that very keyword.