feedbot: http://trilema.com/2020/jojo-rabbit/ << Trilema -- Jojo Rabbit
diana_coman: hm, did feedbot hiccup on trilemas?
diana_coman: jfw - out of curiosity really, what happened in the end with that present article of two days ago?
sonofawitch: 2020-06-23 22:34:01 (#ossasepia) jfw: I'll work on getting there but the present article can make do without it.
diana_coman: by now I admit I find this seemingly very common process quite fascinating - it's more like the undoing of things than their doing, as they all seem to start with everything in place and then gradually fade away until there's either nothing to be seen or (in the best cases, I suppose) it all morphed into something else, sometime else, somewhere else, huh.
diana_coman: it's like the very anchoring in concrete hurts and repels, there's just no keeping to it.
whaack: diana_coman: I'm starting off today summarizing your work that's published on your blog from Jan - July, I want to make sure that is an exercise you actually recommend rather than one you suggest as a form of rhetoric to give a scope of the disparity between productivity.
diana_coman: whaack - do you consider the trouble/lack of productivity on that irc project was due to being "busy" with the other tasks you listed there?
diana_coman: (aka making your computer and so on)
whaack: diana_coman: no, it was most likely orthogonal problems that slowed down everything that I was "bussied with"
diana_coman: so then don't use that "bussied with" pretense at all, it's not helping you
diana_coman: re exercise, only you can tell really - does actually seeing concrete disparity work for you as motivation to improve?
whaack: diana_coman: I think it may serve as motiviation, in any case it's interesting reading through so I wouldn't mind the exercise.
diana_coman: so then why do you need any confirmation/whatever, if you want to do it then...do it
diana_coman: if you don't want to do it, then...don't do it
diana_coman: understand that there's no external gain to it either way, ie either you gain from *doing it* (hence, whether I recommend it or not, whether it comes with any stamps of approval or not) or you do not gain anything worth the time, by definition.
whaack: diana_coman: I don't understand that last point. I gather that doing what you want is the right way to go about things but want must == need.
diana_coman: whaack - so, do you need it then? lolz
diana_coman: whaack - was you earlier question a way of asking me whether I think you *need* that exercise?
diana_coman: your*
whaack: diana_coman: yes
whaack: diana_coman: and lol, i guess i should s/want/need throughout my head
diana_coman: well then, the answer is not very helpful: I don't know if you need it or not and I can't know it because it depends what you make out of it; IF you do it properly and use it to motivate yourself, it will be useful; if not, it won't; and sure, there are other ways to motivate yourself that might work, but I don't have the sort of control needed to ensure that you do exactly what it means so that
diana_coman: it works.
diana_coman: based on previous experience, I can tell you upfront that you certainly can make it useless, as well as you can make it useful; is that any help?
whaack: diana_coman: Yes I think so. I'll play it safe by doing a summary of 3 months instead of 6.
diana_coman: do set some timeframe too, so it doesn't end up some month-long project or something; arguably the time is more important than how long you cover; in the end set some time for it and then cover as much as it fits or until it stops being interesting since that would normally mean you are not gaining anything further from it.
whaack: diana_coman: okay I'll come up with the timeframe and go as far as I can within the window instead then.
diana_coman: I'm even curious what you end up with.
jfw: diana_coman: not sure, it wasn't even supposed to be a challenging article or anything. I sat down a couple times, "just need to write this already", ended up doing anything else.
jfw: do you mean the 'seemingly very common process' in regards to me or something more general?
jfw: some kinda repulsion to anchoring, could be
diana_coman: jfw - no, not just you, hence the "very common" exactly.
diana_coman: repulsion to reality more than the anchoring itself, lol.
jfw: ah. and for the most part reality doesn't even seem that bad
diana_coman: normally the "ended up doing anything else" would point to some issue/trouble with either what remains doing (e.g. something unclear/don't know how to handle this) or with some perceived result/outcome (what if...)
diana_coman: but well, the normal doesn't really run into this with *such frequency* so ...
diana_coman: oh, it clearly has nothing to do with bad/good, no
diana_coman: at most, at a guess, with constraints/limits really
diana_coman: in other words, with lack of experience with it/practice at it.
diana_coman: or with "finality" of it; basically for as long as it isn't finished/published/whatever, it doesn't yet exist, hence ...anything can be/goes, the lie to self that points out only advantages and no drawbacks ever can live and thrive.
diana_coman: perhaps even just another facet of not being quite fully comfortable with negative numbers, heh.
jfw: ha, negative numbers aren't real! when did anyone ever see a negative number of apples?
diana_coman: when they got stolen!
diana_coman: lol
diana_coman: tbh looking all the way back, the ~only time when I recall that sort of difficulty-in-doing-much-at-all, it was the unavoidable result of actually trying to cater to and fit (probably more than anyone else ever expected, too) a ton of conflicting stupid from outside really.
diana_coman: because blockage of the stalling type in the end is quite that: won't make an explicit choice because of some conflicting constraints that are not sorted out themselves.
jfw: I suppose then one needs to figure out what those constraints are?
diana_coman: in other unsurprising empirical results, it turns out that Google claims to "not found" anything for "fashionable hopefuls" even when asked specifically to search on ossasepia.com ; the search box on my blog unsurprisingly finds it.
diana_coman: jfw - one needs to figure out why are they avoiding doing whatever it is.
diana_coman: and you know, esp when this sort of avoidance happens so frequently, it's kind of mind boggling just how it's still such an "unknown" really, dunno
diana_coman: note though that if anything, it seems to only grow, ie the more it's paid attention to/gets its way, the more it seems to ...extend really; at least this is how it looks from here (and again, no, not at all just you).
diana_coman: whatever it is, it's apparently very scary or something.
diana_coman: (sure, it might be faster and easier to just do it and let it figure itself out but apparently that's too difficult too).
diana_coman: jfw - getting back specifically to your v-article and factoring in what I know of you otherwise, that specific one might simply be a case of perfectionism again ie despite your analytical decision that you don't need the full definition and thorough understanding of the v-elephant, the less-analytical-but-much-more-powerful-at-stalling part does consider it needs exactly that before moving it any
diana_coman: further.
jfw: haha, yes I think so; indeed found myself "need to reread the log / trilemas"
diana_coman: heh, so there, basically not all of you got or paid any attention to that memo that present article can make do without it, cut out some of the internal bureaucracy or something!
sonofawitch: 2020-06-23 22:34:01 (#ossasepia) jfw: I'll work on getting there but the present article can make do without it.
jfw: I'll put out a memo on it.
jfw: ty.