Let’s say one deconstructed a neural net with substitutions from a library of functions (fit on the basis of input/output mappings), and that after a series of substitutions and application of rewrite rules, there was no neural net left. Further suppose the resulting recomposition was as readable as a program by a good software engineer. If one can do this the dichotomy seems artificial. However, I claim the neural net representation is not ideal for reasoning about what the program will do without running it. It will be obvious when generality arises from (in effect) a big case statement rather than from a compact functional form in the code representation.
> On Oct 8, 2021, at 7:32 AM, uǝlƃ ☤>$ <[email protected]> wrote: > > I *think* I disagree. But I'm not sure. The distinction between: > > • in-the-moment, go-with-the-flow, compiled/parallel/chunked > > versus > > • articulated, delineated, de-compiled, serialized, persnickety, academic, > rational > > processing isn't really a crushing of Zaphod Beeblebrox in light of the Total > View. It's more like a mode change. It was only crushing to Zaphod because he > was incapable of thinking of the larger whole of which he was only a small > part. I don't know much about wu wei or the dao. But it always struck me that > what I have understood is about that context switching ... the *navigation* > across the frames, from Copernican to Ptolemaic and back ... from making tea > simply because you need a kick to making tea as a religious experience ... > and back. > > So there seem to be 2 different traditions. The "progressive" one, which only > follows the one direction (from banal to enlightened). And the "pragmatic" > one, which facilitates the navigation of the map, both forward and inverse. I > think you're lamenting the former, which leads us into fantasy land. But the > latter is almost a brute fact for anyone who experiences "Flow" of some kind, > from running to magic mushrooms to getting caught up in seemingly endless > algebra only to be yelled at by mom to take out the garbage. > > I often think there's a similarity between True Believers who think their > model of some thing "makes so much sense". Like when I listen to Chiara > Marletto talk about constuctor theory. I can't shake the feeling that she's > similar to many Christians I've argued with. (Not the banal kind on the > street. But the Jesuits I've met and some of the Protestant "biblical > scholars" I've met.) It just feels too "progressive" ... pushing only toward > the one-way, forward map, from banal to ecstasy. > > The objective isn't really apotheosis. It's the cycle. To both rise *and* > fall, if not periodically, then at least sporadically. I feel like I'm > discussing a philosophy of engineering, where you not only expect your > constructs to collapse sometimes, you almost *want* it ... It's hard to > describe how satisfying that smell of a burnt IC chip is, when you've bent > that circuit beyond its capabilities. > > > >> On 10/8/21 2:26 AM, David Eric Smith wrote: >> It’s an interesting assertion, Dave, and I understand that you are both >> serious and informed in making it. >> >> I don’t know, and there is a thing I struggle with in responding to some of >> this literature that straddles what I might call (making up a term on the >> spot) the “Copernican threshold”. (Hat tip to Carl Woese’s “Darwinian >> threshold”, though not meant to connect to it in any detail.) >> >> Your characterization of Arjuna’s dilemma in the note on wu wei was probably >> the most helpful I have seen, in expressing what the writers believed to be >> the point in a language that uses modern frames (together with words like >> “factors” that I recognize are references to certain Sanskrit terms of art). >> >> >> As I read it, though, language like “a perfect knowledge of all factors >> affecting an action” rings to me as the kind of hyperbolic framing that >> characterizes the era of epic literature. >> >> There seems to be a human habit of yearning for god that I would >> characterize — and _every one_ of its adherents will say I am totally wrong >> in this — as saying “no, you are not just one person in one body in one >> lifetime with limits to what you can be and can have; actually you are the >> whole universe, with unlimited power and knowledge and time and extent, and >> your desires or wants are not really limited.” In short form: no, baby, you >> didn’t have to grow up and realize that life has disappointments; you can >> still be a creature of pure will and desire. (That last way of putting it >> is trollish, and I understand that it totally leaves out the considerable >> elaboration behind these literatures in terms of a dev-psych gloss, so I >> don’t mean the trolling to be too categorical.) >> >> I imagine that the age of epic literature comes out of the indulgence of >> this yearning. Everything is, quite literally, “bigger than life”. It >> tries to have significance by exaggeration. So whether it is Mahabharata >> and Ramayana, the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Eddas, the Three Kingdoms romance >> and Journey to the West, there are these big, bold-colored characters, >> supernaturals, of the kind that we retain in comic books (and which I am >> sure were inspired by epic literature). >> >> But somewhere, I think in Jane Smiley’s introduction to her volume of the >> Icelandic Sagas, a thing is written that has had a very strong formative >> effect on my understanding of things. It is: that the innovation we >> associate with the Modern Novel was a letting-go of the heroic stance in >> favor of the scope and scale of the literal-human experience. Smiley makes >> this point because she says that the Sagas deserve to be recognized as among >> the earliest precursors to the Modern Novel, well in advance of the landmark >> works that are usually credited with stages in its establishment: Quixote or >> some works by Kafka. >> >> That to me brings a ton of things into focus. It says that even cultures, >> in their literary tastes, eventually get tired of the superlatives. They >> realize that these bold-colored figures, which try for significance by >> pushing boundaries of extremity, are ultimately somewhat boring, and that >> there is much more interest to be found in literature that looks closely at >> ordinary things. Like I once read that young people get all enamored of the >> romantic composers, but they realize that those don’t hold up well to >> repeated listening, and then they come back to Bach which seems to be almost >> inexhaustible, even though and in part because it is such a composition of >> measure and balance. >> >> Because I am the way I am, I then imprint it on all sorts of other things: >> the transition from the epic to the modern novel seems to me the literary >> peer to what happened in science in the various Copernican revolutions, both >> the original one for planetary orbits, but also relativity with respect to >> observational frames and the abandonment of the aether, and in quantum >> mechanics with respect to the assumption that states are a kind of thing >> fixed by observables. These have in common that each removes an >> unconditioned privileged frame and replaces it with a situated one. And of >> course Darwin for biology (with his various companions and antecedents). We >> could talk about Nietzche’s concern that without god, people would sink into >> nihilism, which I believe got picked up by the existentialists later. >> >> And of course, we could take the entire anthology of the agriculture people >> like Aldo Leopold, Wendell Berry, and Wes Jackson, arguing that a >> large-scale agriculture is a blunt instrument because it generates >> homogeneous responses to heterogeneous problems. A part of that literature >> argues that agriculture and culture are windows on the same phenomenon, >> which rightly has a complexity not appreciated from the outside, because it >> needs to adapt and solve problems in many dimensions that are particular to >> each region. >> >> >> So, sorry for that long preamble, which is not directly to your point, but >> is a declaration of context on my side: >> >> I read the assertions about how humans should not learn that limits are a a >> part of what is real and therefore something to be more clearly seen, but >> rather see that limits are an illusion which can be transcended by various >> occult (sense of hidden in shadow) revelations to awareness, and my whole >> impulse is to read them as just an indulgence of the heroic frame from the >> epic era, and a kind of rejection of Copernican transitions, or indeed of a >> Copernican threshold. Attentiveness to Copernican transitions seems to me >> like one of the resources achieved in the transition to modernity, because >> it could be worked into a philosophy and culture of restraint that we badly >> need. The very occultness of the heroic transitions, which is always their >> first line of presentation (The Dao that can be told is not the Dao), >> strikes me as placing the evaluation of whether they are just the indulgence >> of the epic frame beyond any criteria for serious questioning. If you are a >> devotee, you >> will Know it is True, and if you aren’t, your criteria of knowledge don’t >> matter anyway because they are all lost in illusion. It just all feels like >> the religious frame for domination that I recoil from. >> >> It would be good to bring these questions into some kind of normal frame for >> evaluation, because of course to be less bored, to have more options, or >> just to see something really new, would be great. >> >> Eric >> >> >> >> >> >>>> On Oct 8, 2021, at 2:48 AM, Prof David West <[email protected] >>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> David Eric Smith wrote: >>> >>> /"I cannot juggle hundreds of variables, and produce a result that would >>> fail _any_ test for randomness. I can conceive that maybe there are people >>> smart enough to do that, but cannot imagine any-wise what it would feel >>> like to be one of them."/ >>> >>> But . . . . every human being does exactly that, all the time, more or >>> less effortlessly — certainly below the threshold of "conscious" awareness. >>> Billions of variables, including certain cell receptors "detecting" and >>> responding to quantum effects (like changes in spin induced by magnetic >>> fields). >>> >>> Some Asian philosophies (Jnana Yoga, Tibetan Tantra) and most of the >>> Alchemical literature can be read as efforts to "decompile" this ability, >>> make it conscious, and apply it in "ordinary reality." >>> >>> davew >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 6, 2021, at 9:28 AM, David Eric Smith wrote: >>>> Gilding the lily, since I don’t disagree with anything that has >>>> specifically been said. >>>> >>>> I have felt like, somewhere between the deliberate distortion of Emerson >>>> that reads “consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds” >>>> (Fun ref see >>>> https://www.lawfareblog.com/foolish-consistency-hobgoblin-little-minds-metadata-stay >>>> >>>> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.lawfareblog.com%2ffoolish-consistency-hobgoblin-little-minds-metadata-stay&c=E,1,eDi2-qPUJiCHaxBuHu6hEtsX5zACULC0rSwdyjZWlqtz3g9dMx-Srjv0GOmSBli_E0wTCeTWHgyMkctCMC8qnJcRvftKmEVeHpB2eVddlwJ2NA,,&typo=1> >>>> ) >>>> and what Scott Aaronson might call “the blankfaces of consistency”, >>>> there should be a sort of Herb Simon Watchmaker’s consistency. The >>>> ability to check a form for consistency — even if I am alert that the >>>> system within which I am checking might be subject to overruling or >>>> revision — allows me to get past one thing and go to the next. To clip >>>> together a sub-component of the watch and set it on the shelf, while >>>> assembling other sub-components, or to take the sub-components and >>>> assemble them relative to each other without having to constantly actively >>>> maintain the innards of each. >>>> >>>> To somebody with my innate limitations, that seems among the most valuable >>>> things in the world. >>>> >>>> DaveW wrote this fabulous paean to never calling anything done, some >>>> months ago. I can’t resurrect the text, and on my best living day could >>>> not compose its equal, but the gist was that sciences in which one arrives >>>> at conclusions are the pastimes of trivial minds. Real Men do >>>> anthropology, where nothing is ever closed. In a lovely rant on what a >>>> day in the life of a Real Man is like, a sentence contained a clause I am >>>> pretty sure I do have verbatim: “ . . . , juggling hundreds of variables, >>>> . . . “. >>>> >>>> I cannot juggle hundreds of variables, and produce a result that would >>>> fail _any_ test for randomness. I can conceive that maybe there are >>>> people smart enough to do that, but cannot imagine any-wise what it would >>>> feel like to be one of them. >>>> >>>> It seems it must be possible in this sense to cling to consistency like a >>>> life-raft, yet not elevate it to aa religious icon. After all, life rafts >>>> only keep you alive, and in the big sweep of things, that isn’t _all_ that >>>> important. >>>> >>>> Eric >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Oct 5, 2021, at 11:56 AM, uǝlƃ ☤>$ <[email protected] >>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Yeah, I'm perfectly aligned with the freak among freaks sentiment, though >>>>> I'd argue we *do* live in that world, we just deny it with our false >>>>> beliefs. "The problem with communication is the illusion that it exists." >>>>> >>>>> But the more important part of the argument surrounds whether >>>>> consistency, itself, is a matter of degree or kind. The analog world is >>>>> full of graded [in]consistency. You see it a lot with artifacts resulting >>>>> from welding, baking, brewing, etc. ... I even saw it often with the >>>>> level 3 drafting at lockheed. Any inconsistencies resulting from our >>>>> designs, the effete knowledge engineers, were *easily* overcome by the >>>>> gritty on-the-ground engineers ... like smoothing out burrs or gluing >>>>> together pieces that don't quite fit. >>>>> >>>>> In the special case of refined, crisply expressed propositions of digital >>>>> computation, inconsistency finding becomes a (perhaps the) powerful tool. >>>>> Debugging a serial program relies on it fundamentally. But it's softened >>>>> a bit in parallel algorithms. Inconsistency is broken up into multiple, >>>>> yet still crisp, types (race conditions, deadlocks, etc.). As approach >>>>> "the real world" and move away from digital computation, it seems, to my >>>>> ignorant eye, that [in]consistency softens more and more. Whether that >>>>> softening takes the form of a countable set of types or something denser, >>>>> I don't know. But it definitely takes on a different form. >>>>> >>>>> Discussions like Frank and EricS are having about the stability of a >>>>> limit point (never mind the ontological status of that point) get at this >>>>> nicely. If you change the frame entirely (e.g. move to position-momentum) >>>>> and the "inconsistency" of the singularities *moves* (or disappears >>>>> entirely), then a focus on consistency is not as powerful of a tool. The >>>>> focus becomes one of which frame expresses the target domain "less >>>>> inconsistently" ... aka with fewer exceptions to the rule. >>>>> >>>>> Yes, I know I've completely abused the word and its normal meaning. >>>>> >>>>> On 10/4/21 12:03 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: >>>>>> I agree with some of that. I mentioned the dependently typed >>>>>> programming language as one technology to know when I am being >>>>>> inconsistent. It doesn't mean I stop everything to resolve the >>>>>> inconsistency, but I might point the headlights in some other direction >>>>>> to avoid the inconsistency (breadth first search instead of depth >>>>>> first). Inconsistency finding is a tool, and preferably a >>>>>> semi-automated one. >>>>>> >>>>>> I'd rather have the option of being a depth first searcher and not worry >>>>>> about shelter and food and health care. I'm not talented enough to be >>>>>> among the small number of people that can survive (adequately) doing >>>>>> that sort of thing. I think I wouldn't even like it in general, even >>>>>> if I were. I don't like being the person that says something is >>>>>> irrelevant because everything is irrelevant. I'd like to be a freak >>>>>> among billions of freaks that all admire the accomplishments of other >>>>>> freaks. This is not the world we live in, though. >>>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: Friam <[email protected] >>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> On Behalf Of u?l? ?>$ >>>>>> Sent: Monday, October 4, 2021 10:16 AM >>>>>> To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>>>>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Newborn Heart Rate >>>>>> >>>>>> OK. But academia is in serious trouble, not least exhibited by the rise >>>>>> of populism and anti-intellectual distrust of those who might be >>>>>> attracted to depth-first search. >>>>>> >>>>>> Another story: At the last salon, an entomologist asked me "Why do you >>>>>> know so much philosophy?" My guess is he was actually trying to politely >>>>>> criticize my incessant concept-dropping, referring to oblique >>>>>> discussions that only occur amongst such depth-first people. The answer >>>>>> is I don't know any philosophy. I'm the worst kind of tourist, trampling >>>>>> endangered species while snapping selfies on my iPhone. >>>>>> >>>>>> But the deeper answer is that we don't need the academy anymore. What we >>>>>> need are social safety nets that facilitate the diverse exploration of >>>>>> the information field splayed out before us. If an unemployed >>>>>> snowboarder wants to do the work to propose a new theory of everything, >>>>>> so be it. I'm willing to sacrifice some of my income to help that >>>>>> happen, even if, or perhaps because it may eventually be found >>>>>> contradictory to some other ToE somewhere. But a consistency hobgoblin >>>>>> would nip that nonsense in the bud at the first hint of contradiction >>>>>> ... like a blankface academic advisor in some Physics department at some >>>>>> elitist institution. >>>>>> >>>>>> A focus on consistency is nothing more than subculture gatekeeping >>>>>> <https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Gatekeeping >>>>>> <https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Gatekeeping>>. >>>>>> >>>>>> On 10/4/21 10:01 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: >>>>>>> In some depth first search one might find a sub-problem that was >>>>>>> uncrackable. If it is one of 100 problems to solve, it is dumb to get >>>>>>> hung-up on it, especially if it is of no practical significance. But >>>>>>> it is a problem that will attract a certain kind of (autistic) academic >>>>>>> attention as well. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> "Better to be slapped with the truth than kissed with a lie." >>>>> ☤>$ uǝlƃ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - . >>>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>>>> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam >>>>> <http://bit.ly/virtualfriam> >>>>> un/subscribe >>>>> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,7f2mPq52aCiNP-NOFihSaR-cg_kz1iAkDMpygFlJfkcSgmEZmEFic7x62k1cZn98hMplDRUf7uz95gbzVN3rKoTgwWmKH46EfJ8sTtv1&typo=1 >>>>> >>>>> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,7f2mPq52aCiNP-NOFihSaR-cg_kz1iAkDMpygFlJfkcSgmEZmEFic7x62k1cZn98hMplDRUf7uz95gbzVN3rKoTgwWmKH46EfJ8sTtv1&typo=1> >>>>> FRIAM-COMIC >>>>> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,MomHJhYAIbAGPpxMBmUS3Ni9pCKbgGErtd46zkPFkQf2j-muY5IANU5y7QJpsNrH0lQXfle6j44F-jxs5eeUUX6KitPZlGLQZUQcy9q1NaaVMA4,&typo=1 >>>>> >>>>> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,MomHJhYAIbAGPpxMBmUS3Ni9pCKbgGErtd46zkPFkQf2j-muY5IANU5y7QJpsNrH0lQXfle6j44F-jxs5eeUUX6KitPZlGLQZUQcy9q1NaaVMA4,&typo=1> >>>>> archives: >>>>> 5/2017 thru present >>>>> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fpipermail%2ffriam_redfish.com%2f&c=E,1,dwZL0XPERidEln6ak4dQwZ2pi8qaqBY_64JWdl_o-CrDSu2V8E0Dy9QaTmHOrVvw3bOxdJwbiUjVsjDceZnYl0NwzUPoDwlOoVOuncTMoNHFBg,,&typo=1 >>>>> >>>>> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fpipermail%2ffriam_redfish.com%2f&c=E,1,dwZL0XPERidEln6ak4dQwZ2pi8qaqBY_64JWdl_o-CrDSu2V8E0Dy9QaTmHOrVvw3bOxdJwbiUjVsjDceZnYl0NwzUPoDwlOoVOuncTMoNHFBg,,&typo=1> >>>>> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ >>>>> <http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/> >>>> >>>> .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - . >>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>>> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam >>>> <http://bit.ly/virtualfriam> >>>> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >>>> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,XufyiUxp--ST5iB93qvWo0nAyFkxCAZ5PUqALr97V3taTMIKYtjTNYZcIC6TfXGL6wvb2GZKWlexwkUNR_ZEWYkyZK4G3Xk1scJr-PT_DLH6SH-Oy18WQlmtjSI,&typo=1> >>>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >>>> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,ZL1vm39n6Qsa8WTV0E4Mv2IXGtSvloAQZteMzlVS9dAqKSmuW1qKcU76V87vaRBbNxQw2leebmocTGFVGaEYNxG0rHIdddxG95Y1bORUep4,&typo=1> >>>> archives: >>>> 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ >>>> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fpipermail%2ffriam_redfish.com%2f&c=E,1,pUxvnqqTi91I4q8L9TZeytpo-JpWre04JYF3vPyXv99faBGavRkusqJl42FdfaaDb0fWw_zld6RXg0TA7EmkUMNBY7gcmfRTH-rzGfAsHFd1dT8IBbRq&typo=1> >>>> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ >>>> <http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/> >>>> >>> >>> >>> .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - . >>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam >>> <http://bit.ly/virtualfriam> >>> un/subscribe >>> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,WVyn1pjemhXMljSxsP-NbfGWi8iN_BUv_Z4hqB3Vl41lDJUZ98VqVryH7EocvbPSzseqL9UvYmxYJINYpi88Lo1HHe0bV1662RJmPuiUAeE4IJ8aHvPA&typo=1 >>> >>> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,WVyn1pjemhXMljSxsP-NbfGWi8iN_BUv_Z4hqB3Vl41lDJUZ98VqVryH7EocvbPSzseqL9UvYmxYJINYpi88Lo1HHe0bV1662RJmPuiUAeE4IJ8aHvPA&typo=1> >>> FRIAM-COMIC >>> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,UCVcwucRl-MWHRfIP7nauFwcGCxfuIjWgVbgvSvufR4Sq2RrPQlyafs4oenxra2AHOQR14zFcDJBrQ5FTrjqJVy-zca1HSWjPLZ0Ns8E5r7yikK8_tw,&typo=1 >>> >>> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,UCVcwucRl-MWHRfIP7nauFwcGCxfuIjWgVbgvSvufR4Sq2RrPQlyafs4oenxra2AHOQR14zFcDJBrQ5FTrjqJVy-zca1HSWjPLZ0Ns8E5r7yikK8_tw,&typo=1> >>> archives: >>> 5/2017 thru present >>> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fpipermail%2ffriam_redfish.com%2f&c=E,1,fX3Jg6L0BnlyxP-XCja6RUFHr4iWXjfjKLX0m6mqtUQN6QPWVKMb_16chPBE5Ij_0C5Z4ecbZRRoiK-mG8udHbCgsuGI1ChNGEKw6tkK&typo=1 >>> >>> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fpipermail%2ffriam_redfish.com%2f&c=E,1,fX3Jg6L0BnlyxP-XCja6RUFHr4iWXjfjKLX0m6mqtUQN6QPWVKMb_16chPBE5Ij_0C5Z4ecbZRRoiK-mG8udHbCgsuGI1ChNGEKw6tkK&typo=1> >>> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ >>> <http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/> >> >> >> >> .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - . >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam >> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >> archives: >> 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ >> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ >> > > -- > "Better to be slapped with the truth than kissed with a lie." > ☤>$ uǝlƃ > > .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: > 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ > 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
