[FRIAM] A public letter to Nick, cc: any that write here

[uǝlƃ ↙↙↙]

Yes, except, *like a* broken record, what I'm saying is all about scoping. The trade-offs I'm talking about are (mostly) understood well when we switch from ℝ⁴ to (irregular) graphs. The games of the playground come with some implicit rules (light cones, at least). The games on the net *may* have implicit rules. But those rules are at least less intuitive, if not entirely obscure.


On 2/15/21 12:42 PM, jon zingale wrote:
> Glen, I love this analogy. As a kid, we had a version of "hack ball" in
> almost anything we did. To some extent, it was exactly the loosely defined
> and chaotic character of the play that shouldered the work of seduction.
> Children intuitively know that *hack ball* between others can be *play* for
> them too, the medium is the invitation, the affordance of which is almost
> gifted to them by their own inability to be neurotically formal. Your
> comment takes me back to elementary school playground games, games where at
> times the entire playground was engaged and whose rules could only be
> locally defined. Is it that you are suggesting a trade-off?


-- 
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ