First
Prev
Next
Last
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
–
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
–
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
/
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
/
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
ANNO·​TRICESIMO·​DIE·​CENTESIMO·​SECVNDO·​VITÆ·​POVYA

I just realized that today’s propaganda makes people categorized as cat person or dog person, nerd girl or punky girl or whatever, and while that is profiles playing, it basically is shaping identical graphs as commodified people. You can buy off the shelf a music lover, drummer, and DevOps friend and trust you don’t need to get to know them better like how you start first in the morning at your job…

I’m at the █████████'s office and what I hear is the horrific state of Iran. People here talk about layoffs and layoffs and layoffs and that is quite sad.

@mcluhan's Wave Quotes, Just Like Mine!

I’ve been reading Counterblast (Maestro McLuhan & Harley Parker) today, and I found Maestro McLuhan has this wavey quotes portion in his book, 60 years before. I had the exact same quotes in the The Hyper-Message . Is it a coincidence or is graph similarity?

WhyitisbetterforEveryoneTohaveOnlyOnePartnerAndOptimizeForThatInTheGraphLogic?
Why it is better for Everyone To have Only One Partner And Optimize For That In The Graph Logic?

In the past I always found the idea of people learning to date to be very inefficient; My reasoning back then was largely different. I always thought that it requires years of practice to find one partner that one has to live with for the rest of their lives. Isn’t this stupid to acquire a skill that is only about doing one thing and then throwing the whole skill away? Yes that is and so I never thought it is a good idea. But recently that has changed and changed dramatically as I have realized something else that is elusive:

Imagine you are a normal person with your own very specific graph. You are only going to need one partner who is equally sharing a graph near your graph. People who get you richly. Now that reason alone is why you should not give up and compromise on your graph. This is looking simple but let me talk about the other scenario. Imagine you are looking at a womanizer. They are optimizing for everyone to like them. If you are doing this; then you are simply not doing any graph transfer at all, you are only trying to find the very optimum cliché. [This is where I am beginning to think that perhaps the idea that my work explains everything and therefore nothing. I am beginning to doubt my reasoning in here]. So let me explain it better: You have two modes of Sub-Graph Transfer . To peers with specific graphs, to group shared intersection of graphs. Say you wish to befriend one specific person. Doing such means [ writing after 14 hours of interrupts.] you are caring about the maximum compatibility. The good news is that there are so many people in this world and therefore you have a high chance of finding such a person. But then imagine you wish to find ten people for that matter. You have to opt out for a graph that more than one person may have. Doing so makes you drop the specific nodes and look for the bigger shareable “neighborhoods” of the graphs. This effectively means one thing: Finding people on more shallow terms. The better you want that relationship to be; the more you must sacrifice on that relationship being unique. [ what did I just write?]

Day's Context
Open Books