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 =
[1]
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: [2]
http://sifferent.com/ == that
speaks more to my 'answer to boolean logic' than math but
similar 'cause of their relationship. ==
References
Visible links
1.
https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FEnder%2527s_Game&h=GAQFYToAJ
2.
http://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fsifferent.com%2F&h=lAQGziVIX
