Please include some abstract or your own opinion of why the linked article is worth reading; otherwise, people either ignore the links, or see the title, say to themselves something like "Tetration is the operation defined by Knuth, extending exponentiation, and I already know how it's defined" and scroll onwards without reading.
Please include some abstract or your own opinion of why the linked article is worth reading; otherwise, people either ignore the links, or see the title, say to themselves something like "Tetration is the operation defined by Knuth, extending exponentiation, and I already know how it's defined" and scroll onwards without reading.
My external rule is like your internal rule for sharing; simplical:
a link without a filter is just another open pipe to the sea, unless it’s a neologism.
A common mistake is thinking a title does the work.
A reader sees “Tetration,” runs a quick internal check—
Knuth, arrows, fine—and scrolls on.
Curiosity satisfied without ever opening the hatch.
Tower? Rich!
What matters is the valve.
The abstract cosmos MUST signal a different manifold entirely, nay?
Not what it’s called, but what pressure it creates. Where am I going with this ? Enriched ?
Are we reshaping it visually? Shapely? Enriching!
Bending it into a strange real-world constraint? Functional !
The hook lives in the delta between recognition and surprise.
Without that gap, just adding salt to the feed.
A link is a promise of flow.
Don’t gesture at the ocean—
tell me why this water tastes different. Comment more and blowup!
Thanks ! #1412968