[FRIAM] Graal VM

[uǝlƃ ☣]

Re: the *need* to reduce -- This post comes to mind:

Richard Dawkins Claims Eugenics Works. He’s Wrong.
https://skepchick.org/2020/02/richard-dawkins-claims-eugenics-works-hes-wrong/
> You can’t get a lot of attention by talking about them 280 characters at a time on Twitter. 

Even though she's using reduction to point out that over-reducers like Dawkins use the tool for Evil, other over-reducers like Bernie Sanders, use over-reduction for Good. But tools can be used for Good or Evil. That they're used for one or the other does not refute the *need* for them. Sometimes things *must* be over-reduced in order to make some decision and to avoid the implicit decision of making no decision.

But your larger point is well-taken. Sometimes, the full swath of (high dimensional) exploratory search is more appropriate than low-dimensional reducing collectivism of exploitation. But when and how do we force the system into an anarchist mode of exploration?

On 2/20/20 10:07 AM, Steven A Smith wrote:
> What *of* a more
> sophisticated dimensional analysis (as Marcus put the name on it) of our
> sociopolitics?   Are we really (individually and collectively) that dumb
> that we can only think (or at least argue) in one dimension?  Or is it
> in the best interest of "the powers that be" that we remain confined to
> that (over)simplification of "life, the universe and everything"?
> 
> Trump has tumbled the Republican party off-axis in a certain way and
> seems to have found another somewhat stable mode which paradoxically may
> have actually created the conditions for Bernie (and Elizabeth to a
> lesser extent) to tumble the Democrats into yet-another stable spin.  
> Or to extend the metaphor, has he just "tumbled our gyros" in a way that
> will never recover?   Maybe it is time to quit watching the artificial
> horizon (polling, punditry, ???), look out the window and recover "by
> the seat of our pants"?

-- 
☣ uǝlƃ