
Reality has a surprising amount of detail (2017) - tosh
http://johnsalvatier.org/blog/2017/reality-has-a-surprising-amount-of-detail
======
combatentropy
This is why I think people should still learn their job through hands-on
apprenticeship, as opposed to a lot of book-learning in the classroom. In fact
I think people do still learn their jobs that way. It's just delayed by
several years of book-learning that has little return on investment. When you
finally land your job, your first few months are when you really start
learning enough to become useful.

Disclaimer: I am biased. I am biased toward book learning! In school I made
A's and loved book learning.

Clarification: I think book learning is useful. It's just that the order is
wrong. Nothing I read in a book sticks until I have tried my hand at it for a
few weeks. But an experienced programmer (or plumber for that matter) would
probably get even better after reading a few good books.

~~~
feanaro
> Nothing I read in a book sticks until I have tried my hand at it for a few
> weeks.

I don't think this is universal, though. Book reading is very natural for me
and sticks immediately. In fact, I often find that things I've read today and
not understood become magically clear a few days later.

~~~
zionic
I'm the complete opposite. I'm convinced my brain has some kind of overly
aggressive internal garbage collection. Knowledge/tools that I haven't derived
utility/benefit from get purged. I will say that something I've book-learned
in the past can be re-learned more rapidly if I run into that problem in the
future, but it's grossly inefficient and of little benefit.

~~~
ErikAugust
I have found this to be true, but I think the key to absorbing things is to
figure out how to associate it with benefit/utility.

------
bertr4nd
I notice this effect all the time when cooking, and the maddening part is how
hard it can be to even figure out the right details.

Like, the best sausages I ever cooked were at a barbecue in park, on a random
public grill with no particular attention to the heat (I think the sausages
caught fire briefly), and yet they were _amazing_. Juicy and delicious, with
just the right amount of char on the outside. Over my home grill, with careful
regulation of the grill temperature and a pro quality instant read
thermometer, I’ve never quite managed to do better than “pretty good.”

(I highly suspect one of the details is “undercook your sausages” which is
easier to do when you’re blissfully ignorant of the actual temperature.)

~~~
chubot
Hm this reminds me of reading Salt Fat Acid Heat, and the buttermilk chicken
recipe, which has only 3 ingredients (chicken, buttermilk, salt).

She says you have to orient the chicken a specific way in the oven because the
corners of the oven are the hottest and the different parts of the chicken
will cook evenly that way (?) Not quite sure since I didn't try it. But my
friend made it and it was fantastic.

So the way I look at it (without much experience) is that a thermometer
measures one dimension, while a chicken is a 3D thing. And an expert chef
noticed that enough to put the detail in her recipe. i.e. "reality is
complicated".

Not sure if that's the problem with sausages (since they're not that 3D) but
there's a reason that specific foods are cooked in specific ovens. i.e. why do
people obsess over pizza ovens and import them from Italy? Why is clay pot
cooking different than metal pot cooking, etc.?

Because temperature / heat aren't just one-dimensional. She says that good
cooks look at the food and not at the thermometer. They're looking for signs
in the food which stay constant across environments rather than measuring one
aspect of the environment.

tl;dr Samin Nosrat rejects the use of a thermometer because it doesn't measure
enough reality to cook well.

------
hn_throwaway_99
I agree a lot with this author, but after being in software for a long time,
it still feels like one of the unique problems of software is _we keep
changing the details_. I imagine constructing stairs is largely the same as it
was 50 years ago. Most web development pretty much does the same thing as it
did 20 years ago, but almost all the details have changed. So as a programmer
it gets frustrating having to learn all nearly completely new details but the
outcome isn't really _that_ substantially similar than it was when I first
learned Java servlet dev.

TBH, I'm not arguing so much against this evolution of software (it seems like
the over-complication of web dev has been discussed as nauseum on HN), but
more that just from a personal perspective I have less patience for figuring
out a new way to take stuff from a database and display it in a browser
window.

~~~
joshspankit
I agree a lot with both of you, and add that after seeing things through the
lens of software I went back and started looking at the details of people
building things and found that for some reason unknown to me, even those
professions are constantly changing. New materials, companies vying to be the
“one true solution”, governments changing codes for various reasons.. I
wouldn’t be surprised if building a basic staircase was more than 50%
different than 50 years ago.

~~~
pmichaud
I think it sort of depends on what you count as different, but I think you're
basically right. Power tools alone have made a big difference.

Still, I think stairs are conceptually almost identical, including in the
internal details, in a way that software really isn't. Maybe the rise/run is a
slight different ratio or the stringer is an incidentally different material,
or the saw has a battery instead of elbow grease, but it's fundamentally
similar.

~~~
nicoburns
Isn't programming all fundementally similar too? Ok, there are a few patterns
you need to learn (functional, OOP, etc), and domain specific stuff. But
that's also true of physical construction. Knowing how to build stairs is only
going to get you so far if you want to build a wardrobe, and probably won't
help much at all if you want to build a brick wall.

~~~
kragen
No, the programming that is fundamentally similar is carried out by a compiler
or by parameterizing a subroutine. What's left over for the humans is the
novel part.

------
ALittleLight
I had a similar experience while visiting my parents recently. Sitting at the
kitchen table my mom mentioned they had a small weed problem, and my initial
reaction was "No, your yard is fine" because I hadn't noticed any weeds.

After saying that though, I went and walked around their yard and noticed many
details I never had before. There were multiple broadleaf weeds including
different phases of dandelion and some weeds I couldn't name. There were
patches of bare ground and areas where the grass was unusually thick. I saw
different kinds of sprinklers and also startled a rabbit while I was walking
around.

I was struck, while investigating the lawn, by how before I looked at it, it
existed only as a simple object in my mind "Parent's lawn". On closer
inspection it has an immense amount of detail.

~~~
phyzome
This also probably implies that they are the only ones who notice the
"problem" with their lawn. :-)

------
amasad
I really like the essay but I think there is a form of Stockholm syndrome
playing out especially with the following statements:

> using a Haskell package for the first time, and being frustrated by how many
> annoying snags there were > If you’re a programmer, you might think that the
> fiddliness of programming is a special feature of programming, but really
> it’s that everything is fiddly, but you only notice the fiddliness when
> you’re new, and in programming you do new things more often.

I think programmers think that the suckiness of their tools is a fact of the
universe, when it's just that they don't know there's a better way.

At Repl.it, we built `upm` (Universal Package Manager) to make using packages
a breeze with no fiddling. Ever since I started doing most of my scripting on
Repl.it I almost never "fiddle" to get a package or a feature of the language
to work.

upm goes as far as to guess your dependencies when you import them and will
install and generate the spec and lock files. It's a truly magical experience.
More here: [https://repl.it/site/blog/upm](https://repl.it/site/blog/upm)

And we try to do a similar thing with every potential programming workflow.
Can you make it "just work"? I think we can, for most things.

~~~
ehnto
I agree that we can build better tools. I think what is missing in software is
wholistic developer tooling and longevity of that tooling, such that we can
invest in mastering them. UPM is a great example of a step in the right
direction I think.

When you go into a carpentry workshop, there are hundreds of tools, all
designed to work on wood, and a carpenter will know the majority of their
tools quite well. They can invest in a tool knowing they can re-use that
knowledge for the rest of their career.

When I inherit a software project, it can often have two, three, even four
different language ecosystems involved with hundreds of libraries and tools as
dependencies. In software we have to accept that we will be surrounded by
dozens of tools we need to work with but will never have time to fully master.

Most people I meet are only proficient in many of their tools enough to get
the job done and no more. Soon enough the status quo will change and the
software industry will happily drop thousands of man-hours of learning right
into bin.

The finer points of library X, framework Y, or tool Z are almost ephemeral.
Even a company's core software product could just be thrown away and re-
written in the new-hotness at the behest of a PM meeting, often losing nuanced
domain knowledge in the process.

~~~
dc443
I have personally stumbled upon this paradigm (value craftsmanship on tools
that will have a relevant shelf life), and I credit my ongoing satisfaction
with my career to this, at least in part.

Without getting into details and specifics, something I highly enjoy doing,
I'm referring to things like Vim, tmux, unix utilities and software, various
Linux administration knowledge. Various electronics concepts. I now
consciously and deeply evaluate a potential skill to learn based on how likely
it is going to improve my life in the long term.

------
crazygringo
There's an entire book about this, well-known to many artists, "Drawing on the
Right Side of the Brain". [1]

One of the exercises is to draw a tree. Then to go outside and look at a real
tree, and draw what you see.

The two could not be more different.

Many artists will talk about when they "learned to see". Which means:
understanding that reality isn't the simplicity of what our brain constructs,
but rather the seemingly infinite detail of what is actually out there.

It changes the entire way you look at the world.

[1] [https://www.amazon.com/Drawing-Right-Side-Brain-
Definitive/d...](https://www.amazon.com/Drawing-Right-Side-Brain-
Definitive/dp/1585429201)

~~~
FartyMcFarter
A relevant quora answer: [https://www.quora.com/Art-teachers-often-say-draw-
what-you-s...](https://www.quora.com/Art-teachers-often-say-draw-what-you-see-
not-what-you-think-you-see-What-does-that-mean/answer/Alice-Vits)

------
ssivark
This is basically the reason why our current approaches to AI are so woefully
inadequate, that they don’t even deserve the name “AI”. The manifestation of
this in AI, as first discussed in the 80s, is called the “frame problem”.

This is basically the problem with “big” data i.e. more comprehensive data
(more columns) rather than more examples (more rows) — it’s difficult to
winnow out the relevant features from the irrelevant.

The current belief is that _good priors_ are super important to have any hope
of doing that reasonably well — but how to get those good priors is anybody’s
guess.

~~~
ganzuul
Embodied intelligence seems to break this mold, in principle. I believe the
principle to get good priors is called reinforcement learning, and that
currently the problem you describe is called inductive bias. Or maybe I'm just
pushing your goalposts to something I can talk about...

There are some really brave ideas being kicked around among the researchers
who focus on their passion of AI, as opposed to those who post ever higher
benchmark scores. They don't optimize their algorithms because they feel the
algo should be serviceable out of the box. Cool stuff _is_ happening.

~~~
ssivark
Embodied intelligence, Inductive bias, etc are the right words but we rarely
know how to build them into our models in all but the simplest problems :-)
Eg: Our reinforcement learning models are largely stupid and without any great
inductive biases. That’s why it takes a crazy amount of training and reward
tweaking to even do anything simple.

> _There are some really brave ideas being kicked around among the researchers
> who focus on their passion of AI, as opposed to those who post ever higher
> benchmark scores. They don 't optimize their algorithms because they feel
> the algo should be serviceable out of the box. Cool stuff is happening._

Where do I find out more about this? :-)

~~~
ganzuul
Tensor networks come from quantum physics but are finding use in ML research.

The papers on Neural Turing Machines, and Neural Tangent Kernels, which is
related to Gaussian Processes, are getting a lot of citations. There is work
on making these kernels composable.

There are some papers combining some of these approaches but not yet all of
them, that I have seen.

If I have understood correctly:

TN in the context of ML seems to be a pre-optimization step which lets you
deal with inductive bias.

The NTM learns to use its own memory through an attention mechanism.

The NTK builds compressed representations which should be of great interest to
anyone needing interpretable models.

Gaussian Processes are a very different perspective on ML which lets you talk
about composition of probability distributions.

It seems to me that these components could be assembled into an ML algo
capable of general intelligence (not 'strong AI' IMO) given a curriculum and
enough compute. It wouldn't compete with the smartest humans but at least it
should make for useful robots, because of the cost of training.

------
jasode
A related concept: _tacit knowledge_ :

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacit_knowledge](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacit_knowledge)

~~~
roywiggins
Which is why attempts to "document all human knowledge" or whatever are always
doomed to fail. We don't even know what we know. Yeah, people can print out
Wikipedia and store it in diamond or whatever, but that's not what human
knowledge really is.

------
stickfigure
What a great read! But the staircase example seems overwrought.

Reality often doesn't need to be that precise. If you're a few degrees off in
your angle, it won't matter. The floor and/or walls are probably not perfectly
flat and may not even be perpendicular. Stairs will work anyway.

This angle problem has been solved in tooling. You set the (<$100) chop saw
for 30° (or whatever), mark the length of the board, and cut. It takes
seconds, no tracing required. Trig is a great solution, especially given the
"close enough" tolerances of wood.

If you need precision, work with metal.

~~~
hinkley
Notching angles into boards is the reason framing squares exist. I've learned
and forgotten this three times in my life, the last not so long ago.

Stairs are for human legs, and they care about the rise, the run, and the
depth of the stair (tread). And all those can be done with a framing square.
Angles are incidental to this (google around and you'll see a lot of stringers
being cut with a circular saw).

A 3/5 ratio is 31°. You slap down the square, you measure 3 inches on one arm
and 5 on the other, and you mark it with a pencil.

Random dude answering question on the internet:

> In US construction stair pitch (angle) is expressed as a ratio between rise
> and run (vertical and horizontal distances).

> For commercial construction the minimum ratio is 7:11 but 6:12 is often used
> (these are expressed as rise and run in inches which is why it’s 6:12 and
> not 1:2)

~~~
ncmncm
Maximum ratio. In the ("whole") rest of the world it is probably 15:30 to
17:26.

Crappy tooling, and crappy software in general, is our legacy from Microsoft.
Before Microsoft, people had expectations that software would work right. It
didn't always, but it was a big deal when it didn't. Microsoft, single-
handedly, got people used to rolling their eyes and rebooting, and not
demanding a refund, partly by never ever refunding anything. It worked for
them, and here we are.

The avoidance of detail, enabling its occasional rediscovery today, is equally
new. People took pride in attention to detail, and demanded it. Watch any
detective movie from the 30s or 40s and you get a glimpse of how attention to
detail was respected.

------
Andrew_nenakhov
As someone who had constructed a stair once, I fully support the author. Any
activity has lots of small and non-obvious details, which stop you from doing
anything right when you stumble in then, and which seem easy and trivial in
the hindsight. I guess, that's why it is called "know-how".

------
MH15
I remember the last time this article was posted. It's one of my favorite
pieces to be posted on this site, thanks for reposting it!

~~~
incompatible
I see that this is at least the 8th time it has been submitted, but only one
other led to any discussion:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16184255](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16184255)

------
galfarragem
FWIW, the stairs drawn are still over simplified. Top step is unusable and
dangereous. As an architect I would never accept it.

------
omneity
Related essay:

[http://blog.omarkama.li/the-market-decides-your-project-
scop...](http://blog.omarkama.li/the-market-decides-your-project-scope/)

~~~
cookie_monsta
Given the subject matter I had to smile at the way the author bungled the
detail within the first sentence:

> "A while ago, I read this amazing piece about building a ladder."

~~~
ncmncm
Hint: a staircase is the same thing as a ladder, just nailed down. On ships
they call staircases ladders.

 _Mind blown_

~~~
cookie_monsta
> Mind blown

Totally. TIL that I can call my blanket a tent and everybody will know what
I'm talking about, being that it's the same thing, just nailed down.

------
JacksonGariety
When I first read the title, I understood it more philosophically. As in––why
is most of outer space just endless, indistinguishable dust, while here on
Earth there's just so much _stuff_! There's nothing simple about reality at
all. It's boundlessly complex and intricate for apparently no reason at all.
It seems intuitively simpler that less "stuff" should exist. Another way of
putting it: even if a supreme being did create the universe, why would it go
to so much trouble to make sure that dust gradually accumulates on the top of
my refrigerator?

EDIT: Going a step further, what's really weird is just how different human
beings are from everything else. Compare a McDonald's bathroom stall to the
surface of the moon. How can these things coexist? They don't go together.
It's like a giant accident. Like someone spilled pink nail polish on the Mona
Lisa.

~~~
dc443
I find the refrigerator and McDonald's bathroom stall both to be a fairly
straightforward metaphysical deduction from the generation of life on this
planet and its consequent blossoming of civilization. Both of those things are
byproducts that support the functional needs of humans which are the ultimate
result of evolutionary dynamics in carbon based life forms found on the
planet.

These things which are crazy complex (which you did not pick particularly
complex examples of, better examples might be quantum computers or nuclear
reactors, but that's ok) are a natural result of the process that evolution
kicked off (this is the accident that you refer to) that allowed people to be
a thing, which, when they do their thing results in astounding advancements
that necessitate complex designs to fulfill their function. I personally don't
believe there needs to be a better reason to explain why we have
refrigerators, mcdonald's bathroom stalls, quantum computers, and nuclear
reactors other than "because we can". That is to say, once humans became
capable of inventing those things, it was inevitable that they would
proliferate.

~~~
JacksonGariety
The nuclear reactor is a very good example of the bizarre contrast between
human achievements and the natural world from which we evolved. Thank you :)

I see your point about the inevitability of humanity's technical achievements.
But I can draw attention to my point further by suggesting the following
hypothesis: it seems intuitive that something very complex cannot be derived
from something very simple. Nonetheless, the smooth, dense simplicity of the
big bang has, through a process that is empirically observable, unfolded into
this incredibly complex microcosm on Earth. That there is a scientific
explanation is not really debatable: we know that the complexity of the tree
is stored in the seed as genes. The simplicity is only apparent. So, if we
wish to explain the development of the universe as we have explained the
development of trees, animals, etc. then we will have to be able to identify
some kind of code that contains the potential for infinity complexity; a code
that was housed in the smooth, dense big bang and thereafter dictated the
procedural unfolding of reality from gas to stars and eventually nuclear
reactors. All of this is to say that our intuitive idea that complexity cannot
be derived from simplicity is actually, in a weird way, contradicted by
biology, and that this "weirdness" applies not just to biological phenomena
but physical ones as well so that new things seem to arise out of nowhere,
when in fact they were stored in an imperceptible, condensed form that
unfolded itself out of itself.

------
nuccy
I personally completely agree with all the thoughts exposed in the post.
Though mostly I was intrigued by the figure labeled "Some important details
for colonizing the universe.": [http://johnsalvatier.org/assets/colonizing-
the-universe.png](http://johnsalvatier.org/assets/colonizing-the-universe.png)
Unfortunately author used it just as an illustration without giving any
details. The dust and heating related constraints are self explanatory, what
surprised me most was the slowdown fission/fusion curves. Since everything
else on the plot seems to make sense I presume they just depict that whatever
amount of fuel you take with you the amount of extracted energy will decrease
following such a path as you accelerate closer to c.

------
pontifier
I've often thought that truly ambitious projects need a certain amount of
ignorance to succeed. People who can see all this detail tend to be more
conservative with their plans because those details give them pause, and limit
the scale of what they attempt.

The optimistic newcomer will bite off much more than they can chew, but
sometimes they succeed.

"If I knew how much work this would be, I never would have started" is
sometimes felt at the end of successful projects.

------
boatzart
I dove headfirst into rebuilding an engine recently with basically zero
practical experience. The amount of possible detail in the project is mind
boggling. What's even more amazing though is that I'm able to just keep on
chugging through the problems as they come up. I occasionally have bouts of
vertigo as I stare into some abyss of minutiae, but then I just shrug my
shoulders, wrench on some more bolts and keep going.

------
j7ake
This also explains why most PhD theses are only a tiny advance towards the
problem. At the frontier you have no idea which details matter and, worse,
details arise where you didn’t know even mattered.

The good scientists have an intuition for problems where the hairy details and
solvable and they are good at solving. Part of research is to develop this
intuition.

------
AnimalMuppet
I think this is an argument against the "we live in a simulator" idea - the
amount of detail is just too much.

~~~
earenndil
FWIW I think that simulation theory is fairly obviously bunk, but that's not
really an argument. We have no frame of reference for the nature of the
simulator, including its constraints and the level of detail it can manage.

~~~
selestify
Why do you think it’s “obviously bunk”?

~~~
earenndil
It's a horrible abuse of probability, which is not unlike saying that 0*∞ =
100%.

Not to say that we can't possibly be living in a simulation, but rather that
the only way that can be shown, or even evidenced, is through concrete
evidence. Thought experiment is insufficient evidence.

------
Gatsky
This becomes apparent any time I try to 3D print something that will interact
with an existing structure.

~~~
benhurmarcel
For this I like to use foam tape as in interface.

------
codekilla
If you think reality has a lot of detail, ‘unreality’ will blow your mind.
(I’m referring to Hilbert space.)

~~~
mapcars
There is no such thing as "unreality". What you talking about is just a
concept inside our mind which itself is inside reality. We can create any
number of concepts but they all are limited by the limitation of our
perception.

The reality, in turn, exists independently and does blow your mind every
moment given that you are not lowering your attention by deciding what is
important and what is not. Children know this perfectly well and can be
engaged and mind-blown at every little thing until society forces its rules
which in turn develops a layer called personality or ego and after some time
only that becomes real. This is where one disconnects from the magic and mind-
blowingness of reality, and as a result dissatisfaction, depression and all
sorts of mental problems start appearing.

But paying indiscriminate attention to everything can bring back the initial
raw perception with all it's joy and wonders and is something they found out
in the East, including hinduism and buddhism practices.

------
_bxg1
I think a better way to put it is, "People like programmers are prone to
underestimating the amount of detail in things". "Amount of surprising detail"
is relative to the assumed amount of detail.

------
mistermann
I was hoping this article was going to pivot into mindfulness/psychology or
something more abstract like that.

> Another way to see that noticing the right details is hard, is that
> _different people end up noticing different details_. My brother and I once
> built a set of stairs for the garage with my dad, and we ran into the
> problem of determining where to cut the long boards so they lie at the
> correct angle. After struggling with the problem for a while (and I do mean
> struggling, a 16’ long board is heavy), we got to arguing. I remembered from
> trig that we could figure out angle so I wanted to go dig up my textbook and
> think about it. My dad said, ‘no, no, no, let’s just trace it’, insisting
> that we could figure out how to do it.

"...different people end up noticing different details"

If this can happen with something as relatively simple as building stairs,
might it also happen in more complicated scenarios like interpersonal or
inter-cultural/national relations, politics, etc?

> _I kept arguing because I thought I was right. I felt really annoyed with
> him and he was annoyed with me_. In retrospect, I think I saw the
> fundamental difficulty in what we were doing _and I don’t think he
> appreciated it_ (look at the stairs picture and see if you can figure it
> out), _he just heard_ ‘let’s draw some diagrams and compute the angle’ and
> didn’t think that was the solution, and _if he had appreciated the thing
> that I saw I think he would have been more open_ to drawing some diagrams.
> _But at the same time_ , he also understood that diagrams and math don’t
> account for the shape of the wood, _which I did not appreciate_. If we _had
> been able to get these points across, we could have come to consensus_.
> Drawing a diagram was probably a good idea, but computing the angle was
> probably not. _Instead we stayed annoyed at each other for the next 3
> hours_.

Considering the amount of detail in the world, it shouldn't be too surprising
that two people can look at the same thing and see dramatically different
things. Often the two parties can realize how the collaboration went off the
rails _after the fact_. But what happens the next time such a scenario arises
- can they recognize in realtime that the same thing is happening again, and
consciously step in and prevent another derailing of collaboration?

In my experience, not only is the answer usually no, but even if one of the
parties does happen to be aware enough at the moment, and points out the
"obvious" fact of what is happening again, _just like last time_ , the
conflict will still not resolve, almost as if there is something occurring at
the neurological level that prevents it.

> Before you’ve noticed important details they are, of course, basically
> invisible. It’s hard to put your attention on them because you don’t even
> know what you’re looking for. But after you see them they quickly become so
> integrated into your intuitive models of the world that they become
> essentially transparent. Do you remember the insights that were crucial in
> learning to ride a bike or drive? How about the details and insights you
> have that led you to be good at the things you’re good at?

While some skills (riding a bike, playing tennis, etc) can easily be
integrated such that one can conduct them with extreme skill completely
intuitively, others (interpersonal communication) seem highly resistant to the
same level of integration.

It seems common for people to say "So what?" when this phenomenon is pointed
out, likely because it's so obvious _when being discussed in the abstract
sense_. But the "so what" is that: in practice, in realtime, this prior
knowledge seems near impossible to be intuitively accessed. And not only that,
it often seems like it is near ~inaccessible to the conscious mind - if it is
pointed out, acknowledgement of a current manifestation of the phenomenon will
be refused, typically via anger or silence.

~~~
otabdeveloper2
'Interpersonal communication' is not a skill. It is a weasel word for when you
don't want to say 'social status' for whatever reason.

~~~
mistermann
This doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever. Of course, I don't understand
what you mean, but I think there's tremendous unrealized value in arguing over
_seemingly_ minor thins such as this, so if you're willing to elaborate, I'm
more than willing to consider your ideas.

------
dsalzman
This essay has a taste of “Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance”. Really
enjoyable and authentic style.

~~~
severine
Yeah, seems like the last post, does the author write elsewhere?

------
pier25
> If you wish to not get stuck, seek to perceive what you have not yet
> perceived.

Amen to that.

