zhte415

A fine question.

I feel this quote

> “The app right now is really just the first building block in a much larger vision for how we want the social web to work,” Graber said.

Highlights a difference in ontological approach.

I just asked my rabbits this question for you. Do they count as who?

They continued chomping down celery tops and coriander.

One of them likes to watch planes. It sits on its hutch in the afternoon watching planes from a local airport fly away, more interested in them on days when the wind's blowing such that when nearby they're taking off rather than days when the wind means they're approaching. The other one doesn't care for planes, but stamps whenever a wasp's nearby. This second one also likes to observe, then crush with a front paw, any ants it comes across or that come across it.

Remarkably human behaviour, though I know not what they think. Is it curiosity. Is it fear? Is something in-built and there is no 'thinking'? And what of us? Do we really comprehend? An Area51 alien is to me as a flying celery-rabbit on a magical boat with radish tops for wings is perhaps to these rabbits, if they've ever thought to imagine. They do seem to dream. That is, it's completely within bounds of their known reality. As outlandish as the very real, lived, imaginations of a schizophrenic delusion may be, and my observing it based on my 'norms', it's still somewhat based on the individual's experience, or imagination, of their reality, their experiences.

Perhaps there are aliens. Perhaps they exist in differing dimensions. Perhaps they exist as stars blinking to one another, perhaps they exist in my underpants or in fact are my underpants, what do I know, we are all in our (bounded?, there is always a bound...) existence, as Spinoza pointed out, of "Substance, its attributes, and modes".

Your post reminds me of three things -

The nature of what's being learnt. Some things require a continuity - to understand B, prior A is needed (or helps, to understand faster).

The method of learning. Book/theory-based, or practical? For either, what's the nature of scaffolding (self, or via resources) to help leap the chasm? If testing one's self, what's the complexity and can that complexity be broken down into simpler (or more discrete) parts, (perhaps testing working better in smaller parts)? Perhaps A isn't fully (or at all) required to 'know' B, depending on how it's learnt. Which goes on to -

The nature of the learner (at that point for that task). Someone that's looking to solve a task, somewhat surface, or someone that's interested and will go deeper into edge cases or approach with greater curiosity?

[I'm skipping the nature of the learning/knowledge, since 'resolving DNS' is a pretty externally verifiable result. However it might be fruitful to consider the nature of the learning is not only 'resolving DNS', and even if 'resolving DNS' fails, learning always happens (intended/unintended, positive/negative, a can of worms there).]

You point out that 'easy' and 'hard' are motivators that might have unexpected, or the reverse, effects vs. intended, depending on the reader. When putting it into those 3 parts, perhaps this shows the usefulness of framing.

Heads-up: You might want to email dang as your account seems to be shadow-banned. Your recent comments of the last couple of hours show as [dead] (logout and see).

Continued innovation in financialisaction.

Walls represent, indeed are, non revenue generating assets with recurring operational costs. It makes sense to release tied-up capital by selling them off, then leasing back. The operators of the walls can reduce costs by operating walls at quantities that afford economies of scale, provide innovation as mentioned in the article through perhaps providing spaces to artists, or even radical wall transformation perhaps by installing and partially replacing with solar and battery packs, neighbourhood social facilities, and more.

The owner of the wall benefits from core property revenue stream plus innovative applications. The prior title owner benefits from lower cost compared to direct management, free capital not tied up in the wall, and from innovation provided by the wall operator. Win win.

When thinking at scale, it's incredible that walls are so late to financial innovation.

Aluminium's also more expensive than steel but experiences sufficiently less breakage to justify the price.

> the question of whether historic emissions somehow entitle a country to future emissions

As a national of a developed country, I am entitled to make more greenhouse emissions than the poor.

As a national of a highly developed country, I refuse to, or otherwise fail to, make the changes to achieve 'different growth' that I demand of significantly poorer countries seeking to up their living standards, because these changes threaten my quality of life.