Hello guys, On 2019-06-10 13:14, Sam Hartman wrote: > I really like the term toxic candy. > In two words it explains both that the model is appealing and > problematic.
So let's keep this name :-) > If there are subdivisions of toxic candy that we decide are free, we > should come back and revisit and perhaps narrow toxic candy to the > problematic cases. Various recent comments remind me of many details, mentioned or not mentioned, that I have overlooked. So I'm going to refactor the whole document and make it much deeper and more complete. This will be a big update and will take some time.
