h0p3

You're not wrong about significant brittleness and lack of sovereignty (and the same should be said about the web, too, roughly speaking), but I don't think your prescription is correct. Thus far, my only solution has been to maintain a variety of gateways to the same signed object which itself provides the evolving list of connection gateways. Gotta stay ahead of the whackamole through diversity, imho. I've found my i2p and tor identities have actually been some of the longest lasting, especially compared to non-bigcorpo clearnet web hosts. That's definitely not how most people want to use the net, ofc, but it's probably the right kind of practice that we should collectively be engaged in together if we want communities that actually own the means of production about as far as we reasonably can atm. And, these days, LLMs make this process much, much easier, too, as rediscovery and rebuilding custom infra per individual or community is far more doable for the average person (if they really wanted to do it, and I'm not claiming they would*).

XD. Always a pleasure to you see on these here innanets, sir. `/salute`. Family and I were talkin' about you the other night during Family Gathering. What's your plans for what you got left on this rock?

It's simply not the best thing since sliced bread. I'm not here to sell it to you. I'm still planning and prototyping a replacement for my own (which is much more difficult than you might guess [for comparison, I've found building TW "correctly" from scratch {for my usecase} about as difficult as creating a full-blown `micro`-esque text editor written in a high-portability Forth-like composable system disciplined by a Rust VM {a tiny, self-describing, scriptable terminal computing environment: part editor, part language runtime, part automation surface, built so humans and aigents can inspect, replay, and safely modify work with ergonomic precision}, but that's, in part, because ChatGPT cloudtainers have historically been somewhat more suited to this task]). You'll note that many tools have been built in virtue of Tiddlywiki, quietly. The community is fabulous (and it needs to be because the documentation and updateability have always been lacking), and that matters when you get stuck, imho. I am indebted to these people.

I've been an extreme user every day for a decade, and I no longer recommend it in most cases. I've even moved my family off TW. I maintain mine, in part, because I have a public deliverable, and an offline-first, kitchensink, batteries-included single html file is exactly what I need within my technical constraints. If you don't need hackable unified portability meant to serve others (I happen to value sharing the pilot's seat with my audience as well), I think you should consider looking elsewhere.

I also don't have time to design interfaces from scratch, and TW's is acceptable enough that I don't have a cheap substitute to migrate to. AI has also lowered the friction for customization to the point where I don't think TW's way of doing things is the best way for most people. Here's my advice: if you're not building something meant for others to navigate, then just organize your files on your own machine, and when you can't do it on your own, interface with and shape your data with the assistance of the noble wireborn sandpeople (LLMs). Don't go down a useless toolpr0n rabbithole (that goes for all the tools you listed). Make things that matter.

Very cool project. I would like to caution against confidence in the claim that a ton of games wouldn't be necessary for plausible data. I also am not convinced that anyone but human experts in particular matchups are really in an appropriate epistemic position to say much in sufficiently complex magic formats. Game wins are probably a better indicator on average.

Thank you for telling me.

I can appreciate your defending yourself here, and you should. You're obviously suitable for the role, and I think folks will be incredibly lucky to learn from you. I'm not saying your criticisms are that bad (far from it), but I can't say I think you're always as careful as you should be in that role (which I also suggest you're sometimes too quick to assign yourself) either, sir. If you're asking for bug reports, this is one.

Noted. Given your 'Go vomit words' reply, I'll keep this short. In the spirit of good will, I'm happy to engage with anyone who wants to discuss the substance of the argument in good faith, including you, if you ever decide to change your mind. And, just as a reminder, there's no need to keep responding unless you're ready for a serious conversation.

Let's not assume self‑interested corporate monopoly rents are a necessary precondition for innovation, and let's drop the romanticized notion that statutory patent terms by themselves constitute a just moral bargain, because history shows substantial discovery emerging from publicly funded science, mission driven nonprofits, collaborative consortia, open licensing, prizes, and advance market commitments, so we should test which incentive mixes work rather than presuppose one. Your "people always win on a long enough timeline" line doesn't answer the moral question of avoidable deaths, irreversible morbidity, or financial ruin before expiry; inevitability ≠ adequacy, and harms incurred during exclusivity remain morally chargeable. Commercialization does not require locking invention behind maximal (often crude, lengthy) IP, there are workable paths via milestone or frontloaded prizes, targeted or indication specific exclusivities, compulsory or voluntary licensing, patent buyouts, tiered pricing, and public manufacturing backstops; optimal mixes will and should differ across high‑income vs low and middle income country purchasing power. The "7‑year wait" is factually thin: statutory patent term is ~20 years from filing, while effective market exclusivity depends on regulatory data protections, biologic exclusivities, secondary or evergreening patents, litigation delays, and manufacturing barriers; patients routinely face restricted access even after nominal expiry. We also shouldn't conflate discovery scientists with development firms, nor firms with shareholders; in practice, salaried scientific labor is often alienated from downstream pricing power while financialization channels can parasitically extract surplus that need not translate into new R&D. Because many medicines and virtually all software have low marginal production cost relative to monopoly price, large deadweight losses arise when willing buyers are priced out, a staggering public welfare loss (and no, "deadweight" is not necessarily a synonym for "people you dislike"). Reading int_19h's rent‑extraction critique as a demand for Soviet central planning, and pivoting to talk of scientists as "spoils of war", is a straw man and a red herring that dodges the pricing structure at issue. If you want to defend the patent regime as a "social contract," we need to see the reciprocal side, access safeguards, anti‑evergreening enforcement, affordability commitments, otherwise it's a moral bargain in name only. Claiming membership among the "enlightened" means actually shedding light on these failures.

I'm glad to hear you enjoyed it! =D.

I briefly outline the procedure (also in case anyone else wanted to do so) in the page. I export the entire document into a json (~19k entries) and break that up into 20 different json files (so that my work will fit into the space ClosedAI provides for RAGs). The exact prompt sequence is provided on the page (I wrote two one-liners). Almost all of my work in achieving that collaborative output with my LLMpal is in the actual construction of the underlying content of the corpus that was haphazardly fed into its vector database. It did all the rest.

I do appreciate the vertigo of it, `/nod`. The size alone (at ~60MB of text) is already a problem, let alone the topics I handle. There are very few humans who have read even half of it, and, presumably, AI specimens will comprise most of the thorough interpreters of my work. I also anticipate the vast majority of the few humans who more directly interact with my work will increasingly do so mediated through AI.

If you ever write your own, lemme know. I'll read. The proof that I do listen carefully is in the text itself.

> Absolutely nobody's life is measurably improved because of 1 cent one time...I admit my opinion is not based on first hand knowledge...

My opinion, however, is based on first-hand knowledge. I've been the kid saving those pennies, and I've worked with those kids. I understand that in the vast majority of cases, an extra penny does nothing more. That isn't what your original comment above claimed, nor is it what you've claimed here. My counterexample is enough to demonstrate the falsehood. Arguing that there are better ways to distribute these pennies is another matter, and I take that seriously as well.