Piero Bosio Social Web Site Personale

@futurebird ... so clearly ant crime is the FAR more dire concern. Nobody's watching them! Who KNOWS what they're capable of getting up to!

@futurebird Look I'm just saying, there's s clear difference between them, "cat burgler" is in our culture and vocabulary a STOCK PHRASE.

@Elizafox It's worryingly common to conflate an active empathy of "recognize need and therefore take action",
with a passive empathy(?) of "recognize personhood and situation and therefore need",
and to frame not doing the one as implying not doing the other or to discuss the cost and impact of doing the other as if it's the one,

and those aren't symmetric directions but I think they're related in structure and I think (less confidently) they're related in practicing either makes it easier to go both ways and I think they both scare me.

@futurebird ... also tho, are the cards oriented.

Because if □□▣ can alternatively be ▣□□, I haven't tried it out but I'm pretty sure that changes things.

@futurebird You're connecting it to your digits definitely gave me a lot, I don't know if I'd have had a first thought without it.

▷ : only ever occurs on the right side in "▷", has something to its left otherwise. So numbers go right-to-left and "▷" is 0.

□ : is the only thing that's on the right of a three-symbol sequence. So since there's only one symbol in that position, it's a 1.

That said, I think there are TWO equivent orders. You could have either removed 1 card, or added up to 7 cards, or added 9 to... maybe 38, I think, and made it unambiguous, but what was given was ambiguous:

▷
□

▣
■

□▷
□□

□▣
□■

▣▷
▣□

▣▣
▣■

■▷
■□

■▣
■■

□▷▷
□▷□

□▷▣
□▷■

□□▷
□□□

□□▣
□□■

--

The remaining symbols are "▣" and "■", and they occur entirely symmetrically. So we can use the shapes themselves to judge --

either it goes ▷, □, ▣, ■ -- filling more of the square each time,

or else it goes ▷, □, ■, ▣ -- where □+■=▣ because ▣ is "a filled square ■ in an outline □".

@glyph (I guess maybe pushing back on the "technical innovations" bit of it might be a bit of a path towards building back the utopianism you're trying to move away from -- in the "the ideas are powerfulstrong" way or in a "it wasn't a utopian setting but such-and-such was an objective-universal Better Way To Act" or stuff like that --

but hopefully it can coherently be kept down to a "social innovations, like technical innovations, also shape experiences and capabilities granted, and are worth putting into history on equal footing". Like, I think the social innovations weren't any more utopian than the technical ones -- just that, in that context, they were also conferring power in certain ways in their own right.
And if trying to build back that power to try to build a similar experience for the next generation, we should also look around for social innovations in addition to technical innovations, as blocks that might be able to confer things to the people/communities.)

@glyph Hmm.

I, while agreeing with most of this (and getting good thoughts from all of it regardless), think I disagree pretty strongly (and hopefully generatively?) with a small detail of how you expressed it:

I think possibly more than "... a few technical innovations briefly conferred ...", it was "... a few SOCIAL innovations* happened to develop/were inadvertantly allowed to locally-flourish, that briefly (in the societal niche they happened to grow with around a few technical innovations) conferred ..."

(* not to say social innovations as in definitely-entirely-novel or unprecedented or not-elsewhere or whatever, just, new-to-those-people-at-that-time. new-in-that-context.)