9/ If there are no complicated branchings and twists and turns to the story it's a pet rock. Test: it's a wikipedia 1-pager.
Conversation
Replying to
10/ Go read Wikipedia page on pet rocks. Unlike more interesting stories, it won't suck you down big bunnytrail en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pet_Rock
1
1
1
Replying to
11/ We're left with distinguishing tulip manias and the real deal. Here the test is equally simple: learning never gets seriously difficult
1
1
4
Replying to
13/ It is impossible to read just 1 tvtropes page. They're like chips. You'll invariably read 5-10 min, and the reading is NEVER difficult
1
1
4
Replying to
14/ Information/stories about tulip mania type things are like this: the going never gets hard, ever. You can endlessly explore fun trails
3
7
Replying to
15/ Whereas for "real deal" topic, you will invariably run into a difficulty wall where you realize you have to do hard thinking to proceed
1
1
10
Replying to
16/ This is why I think blockchain stuff is the real deal, with a there there. I run into difficult terrain in every direction when I read.
4
5
20
Replying to
17/ Why does depth/difficulty matter? The presence of learning depth is necessary and sufficient for self-sustained generativity
1
1
9
Replying to
18/ When a subject lacks depth, creating appearance of generative variety is hard work. Tvtropes is primarily a huge pile of data/examples
1
1
6
Replying to
20/ Real deal things though, tend to have a sort of "physics engine" at the core you can learn about if you are willing to do non-grunt work
2
12
Show replies
