[FRIAM] Schwill Rock?

[uǝlƃ ☤>$]

Ha! Well, I wouldn't fault Pandora for playing that tune on my Swill station. But I'd thumbs down it. So, perhaps I'm a hypocrite.

My point about pointing was that there are scopes of similarity, some tightly focused on the sign, some tightly focused on the referent, some (Korzybski?) tightly focused on the interpreter. My guess is that there are algorithms used in Pandora (and FAcebook) that target all 3 and their compositions. That stack of algorithms can, then, list <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angle_of_list>, either within that basis or within derived structures.

And from that compositional perspective, no science is absurd (or not absurd) in light of aesthetics, nor vice versa. It all depends on what you target with your algorithm stack ... if you're purposeful enough to actually target something ... instead of staring at all the fingers.

On 10/12/21 10:35 AM, Jon Zingale wrote:
> Wow, Tijuana Cartel, now that's what my morning has been missing. So
> are the similarity algorithms actually different or simply different
> datasets? I get why similarity seems like a good idea at first, but
> clearly, now that the boat is moving... or maybe said a different way,
> "You have your whole life to write the first album and 6 months to
> write the second".
> 
> I guess my assertion is that what looked fine for all kinds of science
> doing is clearly absurd in the cold light of aesthetics.
> 
> ps. Is Andrew WK scwilly?
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WccfbPQNMbg&ab_channel=AndrewWKVEVO
> 
> [𝄢] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4jbZ6bRf6A&list=PLamWgSlEr7V9d1DjCDtsT_vnptJ9DGqw4&ab_channel=VBViBeZ
> 


-- 
"Better to be slapped with the truth than kissed with a lie."
☤>$ uǝlƃ