sad girl post :(

about.md

@@ -16,8 +16,6 @@ what is **Regular Flolloping**?
 **Regular Flolloping** is:
 
 * powered by [Hakyll](https://jaspervdj.be/hakyll/)
-* running on [Digital Ocean](https://www.digitalocean.com/)
-* sourced from [lain.church](https://git.lain.church/tA/rf)
 * avaliable on Atom/Rss feeds [here](/atom.xml) and [here](/rss.xml) respectively
 * probably badly written
 * follows the [humans.txt](http://humanstxt.org/) intiative: see it [here](/humans.txt)

contact.md

@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
 title: Contact
 ---
 
-* come find me on <a rel="me" href="https://antabaka.me/thornAvery">the fediverse!</a>
+* come find me on <a rel="me" href="https://layer13.p7.co.nz/thornAvery">the fediverse!</a>
 * email me at [ta@p7.co.nz](mailto:ta@p7.co.nz)
 * add me on xmpp at `ta@xm.p7.co.nz`
 * if you see a `tA`, `thornAvery` or anything in the form of `t*A*` online its probably me

css/default.css

@@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ nav a {
 }
 
 a:after {
-   content: " ▻";
+   content: " ->";
 }
 
 a {
@@ -14,16 +14,15 @@ a {
 }
 
 a:link {
-   color: #7FDBFF;
+   color: #0f75bd;
 }
 
 a:visited {
-   #color: #B10DC9;
   color: #F012BE;
 }
 
 .navbar a {
-  color: #7FDBFF;
+  color: #0f75bd;
 }
 
 .navbar a:after {
@@ -34,7 +33,7 @@ html {
   font-family: sans-serif;
   font-size: 62.5%;
   color: #FFFFFF;
-  background-color: #222222;
+  background-color: #151515;
 }
 
 body {
@@ -44,23 +43,23 @@ body {
 
 blockquote {
    padding: 0 1em;
-   color: #2ECC40;
-   border-left: 0.25em solid #dfe2e5;
+   color: #86df5d;
+   border-left: 0.25em solid #fdd75a;
 }
 
 header {
-  border-bottom: 0.2rem solid #F012BE;
+  border-bottom: 0.2rem solid #d64937;
 }
 
 nav {
   text-align: right;
-  color: #7FDBFF;
+  color: #0f75bd;
 }
 
 footer {
   margin-top: 3rem;
   padding: 1.2rem 0;
-  border-top: 0.2rem solid #F012BE;
+  border-top: 0.2rem solid #d64937;
   font-size: 1.2rem;
   color: #AAAAAA;
 }
@@ -76,11 +75,11 @@ pre {
 }
 
 strong {
-   color: #FF4136;
+   color: #d64967;
 }
 
 em {
-   color: #FFDC00;
+   color: #fdd75a;
 }
 
 strong>em {
@@ -88,30 +87,51 @@ strong>em {
 }
 
 h1 {
-  color: #7FDBFF;
+  color: #0f75bd;
   font-size: 2.4rem;
+  text-decoration: underline #FFFFFF;
 }
 
 h2 {
-  color: #7FDBFF;
+  color: #0f75bd;
   font-size: 2rem;
+  /* text-decoration: underline #FFFFFF; */
 }
 
 h3 {
-  color: #7FDBFF;
+  color: #0f75bd;
   font-size: 1em;
+  /* text-decoration: underline #FFFFFF; */
 }
 
 h3:before {
-   content: "◎ ";
+   content: "* ";
+   color: #d64937;
 }
 
 h2:before {
-   content: "◉ ";
+   content: "@ ";
+   color: #d64937;
 }
 
 h1:before {
-   content: "◈ ";
+   content: "~ ";
+   color: #d64937;
+}
+
+h3:after {
+   content: " *";
+   color: #d64937;
+}
+
+h2:after {
+   content: " @";
+   color: #d64937;
+}
+
+h1:after {
+   content: " ~";
+   color: #d64937;
 }
 
 article .header {
@@ -123,16 +143,18 @@ article .header {
 .logo a {
   font-weight: bold;
   font-size: 3.4rem;
-  text-decoration: none;
-  color: #7FDBFF;
+  text-decoration: underline #FFFFFF;
+  color: #0f75bd;
 }
 
 .logo a:before {
-   content: "◈ ";
+   content: "@ ";
+   color: #d64937
 }
 
 .logo a:after {
-   content: " ◈";
+   content: " @";
+   color: #d64937
 }
 
 @media (max-width: 319px) {
@@ -145,7 +167,7 @@ article .header {
     margin: 4.2rem 0;
   }
   nav {
-    margin: 0 auto 3rem;
+    margin: 0 auto 1.5rem;
     text-align: center;
   }
   footer {
@@ -153,7 +175,7 @@ article .header {
   }
   .logo {
     text-align: center;
-    margin: 1rem auto 3rem;
+    margin: 1rem auto 1.5rem;
   }
   nav a {
     display: block;
@@ -171,7 +193,7 @@ article .header {
     margin: 4.2rem 0;
   }
   nav {
-    margin: 0 auto 3rem;
+    margin: 0 auto 1.5rem;
     text-align: center;
   }
   footer {
@@ -179,7 +201,7 @@ article .header {
   }
   .logo {
     text-align: center;
-    margin: 1rem auto 3rem;
+    margin: 1rem auto 1.5rem;
   }
   nav a {
     display: inline;
@@ -198,7 +220,7 @@ article .header {
     padding: 1.2rem 0;
   }
   nav {
-    margin: 0 auto 3rem;
+    margin: 0 auto 1.5rem;
     text-align: center;
   }
   footer {
@@ -206,7 +228,7 @@ article .header {
   }
   .logo {
     text-align: center;
-    margin: 1rem auto 3rem;
+    margin: 1rem auto 1.5rem;
   }
   nav a {
     display: inline;

posts/dinobot-no-s.md

@@ -0,0 +1,72 @@
+---
+title: Dinobot (No S)
+published: 2022-01-13
+---
+
+> this velociraptor can open doors much easier than a normal one
+
+for the uninitiated, ***Dinobot*** *was* (;0;) a character in the 1995 cgi television show **Transformers: Beast Wars**. T:BW was a soft reboot that was later revealed to be a prequel to the 1984 Transformers cartoon, in which instead of turning into vehicles, the robots turned into animals.
+
+Johann Kaspar Schmidt (more commonly known as **Max Stirner**) *was* (;0;) a 17th century German philosopher, most well-known for his philosophy of "the unique self", commonly known as Egoism, which is a radical extension of the idea that self-interest motivates human behaviour slash moral relativisim. Egoism is *consistently* and *frustratingly* mis-represented and mis-understood.
+
+it is my intention to put forth that the character of Dinobot, whether intentionally or not (probably not), exhibits mannerisms i would attribute to Egoism.
+
+## some disclaimers
+
+egoism famously employs the word "spook" to describe its unique social construct / non-material force. later in history this word was seperately used as a slur. while i do still use the term, i recognise that i shouldnt, and thus will attempt to use some other word such as "ghost", "phantasm", "spectre" etc etc. i will however use adjectives such as "spooky" or "spookify" or "spooked" (i will also probably use the word "spook" as ya girl is too lazy to do a find and replace).
+
+egoism does not make moral judgements, to do so would be against the point of egoism. it is very common to see the claim that egoism means you are "allowed" (whatever that means) to murder people. this indicates to me, a fundamental misunderstanding of the way that words used in egoist discussion are used.
+
+murder is "allowed" in the egoist sense that moral judgements dont exist, they are a phantasm. that is ***not*** to say that egoists believe people *should* murder.
+
+any definition of what egoism "is" is itself a phantasm, and as such my own interpretation (what i will be basing this post off of) should not be taken as gospel, however i think we can all agree its important to make this distinctions explicit, as otherwise ancaps will co-opt yet another cool thing and ill be unable to refer to myself as an egoist without cringing (i will never forgive them for taking the term "libertarian").
+
+furthermore, Dinobot is one of the few characters to get permanently killed (at least in og T:BW, i have not and dont really care for the new show, which i forget the name of but i saw a dinobot figure so i assume he's in this show too).
+
+furtherermore, Hasbro have no clue how to name things, and have also named a (more popular) team of transformers as "The Dinobots". They suck and I do not honour them. neither should you. whenever i refer to "dinobot" in this post and in real life, i am talking about actual Dinobot, unless im talking about how stupid the dinobots are.
+
+## on with the post.
+
+first, a quick overview of the plot that dinobot was involved in.
+
+tbw follows two groups of animal robots, the "good"-coded Maximals (the shows equivilent of the autobots), and the "bad"-coded Predacons (decepticons).
+
+early on, Dinobot attempts to overthrow megatron (a different character to regular megatron, but with same name). this fails, and so he attempts to do the same to the maximals. this fails too, however optimus primal offers Dinobot a space on the maximal team, which he accepts.
+
+over the course of the series, Dinobot learns more about the *golden disk*, the macguffin of the series, and ultimately dies destroying it to keep it out of megatrons hands (in doing so he also teaches early humans how to use tools).
+
+## honour
+
+"honour" is a phantasm, its a spooky thing that doesnt really exist, and thus should not be the basis of your idealogy.
+
+**however**, this does not preclude somebody from "acting honourably" for some self-definition of what it means to act honourably, in fact it may please an ego to do so, as is the case with Dinobot.
+
+Dinobot followed his own code of honour, something that while not explained on the show, is obvious Dinobot has an explicit definition of in his mind.
+
+a key part to this observation, in my opinion, is him taking actions that would not be described as "honourable", but nevertheless are consistent with his actions.
+
+during his attempted mutiny of the maximals, Dinobot has the chance (due to luck) to kill optimus, but refused to do so, claiming that it would not be a fair fight.
+
+however, later in the show he takes no qualm at attempting mutiny again, and attempts to do so multiple times, even briefly switching back to predacon alliance, as well as being a third party independent in the beast wars.
+
+to me, the defining piece of evidence in egoist!dinobot theory, is how much dinobot seems to *understand* his actions, he is remarkably consistent, indicating that his internal code of honour is well understood and well defined, and that he follows it (even when disadvantageous to himself or displeasing) not for any religious faith in the idea of "honour", but because it pleases his ego to act "honourably"
+
+## there is less to talk about than i expected
+
+egoism, to me, is an ideology that states it is important to self actualise, and that external restrictions (phantasms) limit our ability to self actualise. placing an "ought" on how we "should" act turns us from "people" (for an *extremely* liberal description of that term, bravo Lana for geting it right in film).
+
+this does not preclude us from *choosing* to act in a certain manner, and i would argue doing so is an important aspect to acting in a non-spooky way.
+
+Dinobot as a character found it pleasing and self-actualising to live according to his own, well-defined, code of "morals". He was fully aware of what it "allowed" and "disallowed" and *chose* to act in ways that followed this.
+
+> The question that once haunted my being has been answered - the future is not fixed, and my choices are my own - and, yet... how ironic! for now i find i have no choice at all. i am a warrior... let the battle be joined!
+
+## fin
+
+yeah idk whatelse to write but this is my headcanon and ny'all cant tell me otherwise.
+
+egoism is empowering and i believe something more people should study, but it displeases my ego to have to listen to people trying to claim it means ancaps are cool.
+
+dinobot is my favourite transformer and i am so sad that they're gone :(
+
+`:wq`

posts/non-fungible-dokens.md

@@ -0,0 +1,71 @@
+---
+title: Non-Fungible Dokens
+published: 2022-02-03
+---
+
+im sorry i really couldnt come up with a better title than this i just wanted something with the ancronym "NFD" because this is in part about normal form designators
+
+so with that out of the way.....
+
+> I must try to keep my focus.
+> I must try to keep my head together.
+> I might not be there when you need me but.
+> I must try to keep my head down.
+
+## normal form designators
+
+***Brian Cantwell Smith*** is one of the many people who are far smarter than i am. i learnt of them through their MIT thesis [Procedural Reflection in Programming Languages](https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/15961) which is something else hoooo mama
+
+as always, the ideas expressed through this post were taught to me first through the above paper, as such im unsure whether to attribute these ideas to Brian, but will do so as im not sure who to attribute otherwise. knowledge is a shared exercise and i welcome and thank everyone who had a part to play <3
+
+another ***disclaimer*** but its *highly* likely im misusing terminology here, if thats the case please replace all occurences of phrases that appear in brians book with made up words that take up the meaning i have expressed here.
+
+**pripl* is about the development of `LISP-3`, which is a scheme endowed with reflective capabilities. the scope of this is outside of ~~my brain ability~~ this blog post, but im sure i will post about that also. however, one idea that came up a lot was of *normal form designators* and i thought they were neat.
+
+at its core, an *NFD* is the semantic grouping of the result of evaluating a statement, regardless of how far it has been evaluated.
+
+as such, the following scheme statements all relate to the same normal form designator:
+
+```
+(if true
+    (* 23 (+ 4 2))
+    0)
+
+(* 23 (+ 4 2))
+(* 23 6)
+69
+```
+
+note that the set need not be every step of a single evaluation, the following also is part of the same NFD set:
+
+```
+(- 70 1)
+```
+
+## the point tho
+
+i liked this idea for a few reasons, but the reason for this post is because it lets me complain about computers and software yet again.
+
+it feels to me like all the """progress""", specifically in the modern web, fails to be meaningful improvement in the sense that we arent really changing the *NFD* groups that the technology claims to improve.
+
+we **still** use the internet to do a few basic things:
+
+* send messages to each other
+* distrobute files
+* view media
+
+and rather than find efficient and context focussed ways of doing so, we end up just building.... larger and larger expressions that evaluate to the same thing, and claim that because its more complex for the average person to understand, its "progress".
+
+we still claim that "operating system improvement" is reinventing (or many times, building yet another abstraction layer on top of) the same empty signifiers of what people expect in an operating system.
+
+we keep building up, rather than building *different*.
+
+## this is shorter than i expected
+
+im just tired of seeing the latest new thing being some massively bloated piece of software that requires a corporation in the middle and ever more powerful computers, just to impliment the same functionality that we've had forever.
+
+im tired of people being trained in the same tools industry decided is the fad this month and never trying something truly unique.
+
+i want to find new normal form designators, and have that uniqueness being a virtue in of itself.
+
+`C-c C-x`

posts/non-prescriptivist-computing.md

@@ -0,0 +1,58 @@
+---
+title: Non-Prescriptivism, Pokemon, and Cyborgian Emotion
+published: 2022-04-05
+---
+
+> murder of the unova-verse
+
+as someone with great difficulty properly processing emotion, and an amazing partner with savant levels of emotional intelligence, it brings me *hedonistic pleasure* to realise that a seedling of a flowery feeling had managed to bud in the alien hellscape that is the folds of my brain, and that species was alien also to her.
+
+## digital monsters
+
+> wait shit uh not that kind
+
+when times are hard, there are few things more effective to my brain than the escapism offered by the mainline *Pokemon* games. a world in which for however long it takes me to complete (sadly shorter and shorter with each escape) i can become completely immersed in a world void of the spectres haunting my mind, of situations i have not the resolve or ability to escape properly.
+
+each of these creatures is fundamentally nothing more than a series of bits given semantic meaning by whatever version of the game im playing, however (as all fans of the series will be able to explain) these series of bits go beyond mere interpretation. they are the vessels of our stories, our internal mythos. we prescribe temporal continuity to these specific series of bits, to ***our*** specific series of bits, to ***others*** specific series of bits.
+
+we are given some tools to have these monsters follow us throughout multiple games, we create our own tools when the above prove insufficient. we deem it necessery enough that we prescribe what amounts to a soul to these specific series of bits, beyond any capability any game has of doing.
+
+it is not wrong to say that these series of bits create emotion within us, in much the same way that relationships with other people can.
+
+## games as a method for constraining emotion
+
+in which i vouch for more non-prescriptivist methods of inter-game information sharing.
+
+what is a game, but a system of constraining some data such that one or more people can reason about it in a fixed and well understood manner. our need for conformity, for well-assuredness in a capitalist landscape of software production, has blinded us to the beauty that could exist.
+
+we insist that "rules" of a game be enforced, that "hacks" be violently snuffed and draconian methods of conformity be placed upon CPUs. yet what is a house-rule if not a method of taking a previously prescriptivist program, and altering the semantic meaning it imparts whilst keeping the inputs profile the same.
+
+a romhack is nothing more than flipping the established paradigm on its head, of returning the freer ways of running one input on multiple interpreters, of breaking the chain that entangles subject and object, and instead placing that power to the observer, to the ego, to the unique.
+
+## the limits of computing
+
+yadda yadda halting problem etc etc go touch grass.
+
+it is silicon valley hubris that states the software we use is our new diety, that it is above us in knowledge, capability.
+
+it is marketing that drives tech companies to attempt to replace the churches of old, with **product** being the new Lord.
+
+they would have us believe that we bring our wares, our series of bits, to this god, and this god will bestow upon us some new series of bits, and in doing so announce to us the meaning of these bits, the correctness of these bits.
+
+we ***cannot*** allow this to continue.
+
+the emotions in our heads and our souls and our systems are chaotic and uncalculatable and scary and beautiful, and the origins of these come from our surprise at something being interpreted differently to our expectations.
+
+## fin
+
+as always i do not know where i intended for this to go, nor when it should end. i see it as my attempt to express how these series of bits representing funny little digital monsters that i have been able to find, lose, transfer, alter, corrupt, and ultimately input to many programs - some intended, some unintended - has cemented a place in my brain as *producing the good toxins*
+
+its my frustration at a system of computing that continually attempts to lockdown the usage of data in a prescriptivist matter, that ties the output to the program """intended""" to interpret it, and that blatantly ignores the new emotions we as egos are able to impart to said data, the semantic meaning we impart solely for the purpose of experiencing it, and of sharing it.
+
+it is my wish for a more freeform method of creating and sharing games, something easily editable, houserulable, hackable.
+
+something we view as a method of temporarily restricting our courses of action such to aid creativity, rather than as a series of laws that must be violently enforced.
+
+ultimately its the wish that i understood my defective brain enough to be able to share with my partner an means of feeling that has helped me through many hard times, and my wish to continue feeling that well into the future, should any hard times come upon me again.
+
+`:wq`

posts/spooky-computers.md

@@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
+---
+title: Spooky Computers
+published: 2021-11-11
+---
+
+> i do not step shyly back from your stack, but look upon it always as my stack, in which i respect nothing
+
+where did we go wrong? accidentally discovering and rediscovering the joy of computing, and ending up with what we have, instead?.
+
+all tech stacks and standards are spooks in the spookiest sense of the word, and any grand idea of what a computer aught to be is inseperable from the ramblings of a god-faring human, or an appeal to societal norm, or the allure of the athiest god in scientus
+
+yet materially what is a computer? it is a black box by which we may in some way of many ways signal to it our intention which it may then attempt to understand, and likewise it may in its own way of many ways interact back to us its thoughts.
+
+this could happen with the computers of old, in which after a bios event of me describing lambda calculus to a person, i could then interact with them through a mile long piece of paper with the grammar of the lambda calculus, and thus recieve back something of supposed value to myself
+
+yet today i cannot, i instead must fill my drive to the brim with spooky bits until i have the socially necessery software to do whatever the societal spook decides a computer should be used for: business? entertainment?
+
+## books
+
+imagine for a second we are transported to the library of babel, never to escape. imagine our physical needs are met magically, yet we may never (or rarely) meet another soul again.
+
+all we have are the books we can find, and the meaning we can ascribe to the permutation of symbols in those books.
+
+we would lose our current language, instead to be replaced by a much more personal one, one unrestricted by the societal demands, instead only shaped by our own egos, and the whims of the randomness powering this mystical library.
+
+where i to be in vacinity to some book reading apparatus, i could describe a certain grammar to it, and have it find books for me accepting that grammar. suppose i found or made a book containing that description, i could share it with others, and have us both read books that are based in some mutually decided upon basis (although we would still have to ascribe the same meaning to those symbols).
+
+should a technical computer be any different? should it not be the case that as i describe things to it, it should be capable of adapting its perception of the tippy taps of my keyboard (the one true human - computer interface) and responding in increasingly personal ways over time?
+
+we started with *the* standard, posix unix intended to be used as a basis we could all express computation on, and from there we expressed, higher and higher towers without ever looking down.
+
+but perhaps it would be more useful, no, to look down, and realise that in not looking below posix, in not looking and focussing on the ability to describe tippy taps to this box and over time invent new and temporary and permanent and important and unimportant languages for describing specific computations in, we have taken posix to be our god? our deity and spook that lords above all humans souls as something that we must base our computations in, rather than something that must be based in computation only for the purposes of portability (as much as that word can be used today for "posix" applications).
+
+## what happened
+
+we based our computations in the societal spook of "a machine to be used for business applications", rather than in the personal idea of "a machine we interact with personally" and this has lingered and haunted every development made so far.
+
+my dream computer, that lonely soul wandering the shelves of babel that is my interactions with it, does not exist as it does in my mind. i can imitate it crudely but i will forever be left with the cruft of that spectre that doth haunt my drives
+
+`:wq`