In other words, you take the #xtt’s “SNI”, treat it like the words in a big Venn diagram, and then fill it in mentally, using
1, what you think you know
2, what you think I think I know
3, what your mental model of me expects I would say in the context of this SNI
-
Show this thread
-
Then, you participate in the
#xtt based on if: 1, you think you need amplifying information to bridge an inferential distance; 2, you have A/I you think merits inclusion but you project isn’t yet; 3, you want to contest something you think is suggested by the SNI and your models1 reply 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
Further codification of the process exists in my mind but is too amorphous and likely broken to flesh out yet, probably. Okay, preamble for the very first
#xtt v.0.1, done. SNI for the original QT to follow1 reply 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
#xtt_sni lexemes: power grid internet comms devices/things/machines (“shit”) reliance humans QT* EMP* cost security hackers nation-states TLAs false flags solar storms resilience fragility antifragility insurrection existential risk Musk ventures solar roof Powerwall Starlink1 reply 0 retweets 1 likeShow this thread -
* = reference to pulling in the QT OP thread and treating it as a lexeme I have also cheated and arranged the lexemes pseudo-temporally, kind of like… in the order they might come up as the thread progressed. Kind of. I can’t decide if XTT can/should become strictly atemporal?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
Definitely participate if only at a meta-level to tell me whether this information density is too much to be the only jumping-off point. Were you able to piece together anything remotely resembling a topic progression? Subtopics? How’d it go? If you got lost, did Google help?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
JJ 「cιtιƶεɳƒιvε」 🏴☠️ Retweeted JJ 「cιtιƶεɳƒιvε」 🏴☠️
Simpler example: here’s what is effectively an XTT-style reply using only a single lexeme. This shorthand is already pervasive in twitter discourse, so hopefully that helps explain the concepthttps://twitter.com/ctzn5/status/988458356452061184?s=21 …
JJ 「cιtιƶεɳƒιvε」 🏴☠️ added,
2 replies 0 retweets 1 likeShow this thread -
so, on the XTT metathread side: let's talk memes, lexemes, and millennials (or really, gen Z if you make that distinction)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
First, let me give you one of my favorite quotes. For one thing, because it's funny, tech-centric, and will feel familiar:pic.twitter.com/9bLgvakkZC
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likesShow this thread -
Babbage, of course, was the inventor of the computer, before anyone knew that was a thing. Phrased that way because his was mechanical. Another thing that Babbage did, long before it was a thing, was the single-lexeme quote-tweet reply.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likesShow this thread
Babbage's difference engine 1822 Cartwright's power loom 1789 pipe organs of many kinds, far earlier imo it was Ada Lovelace who made the real transformative breakthrough. she invented software.
-
-
Replying to @danlistensto
a joke in XTT form about IP in general / Leibniz vs Newton / maybe also the Baader-Meinhof Effect ["you think X was bad?" style setup], guess how many people's bios claim they invented the computer!
0 replies 1 retweet 1 likeThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.