next

spawn >

Why it is difficult to introduce anything serious about world saving

  • Responsibility : if you clicked ‘continue fast’ instead, you would have arrived at the Gamification#1 page immediately.
  • The pages with # on the right are designed to function as buffer
  • Currently here is only one loop, and one external example, if you checked all buffers, (G1 and G2) you can continue below

< spawn [what was/is G1?]

This was gamification.

— why?

I tried to show how this page should like / behave at the past part about its introduction. Because if somebody has a tendency to be easily hyped or manipulated this topic can pose a risk to their health. A plan which covers many areas of topics and which also contains direct speech and motivation (and call for action) will activate many areas in a brain. That eases psychotic episodes to be triggered, adhd to increase and so on. I make this type of breaks in my ‘logical work’ to allow anyone to ‘get out’ at any time they would need to (but maybe dont yet know that they should ; while not posing as someone who would be able to judge what you can and want to consider. I integrate gamification to most of my work to be able to slow down the xd4 concept. Because if you are still following the thought from above with a clear mind • you’ll be able to infer why a fast or viral spread of a thing as we described would pose a threat to 1. whether this will work at all and 2. whether it will increase its risk to be unhealthy in its influence on human beings though it could have prevented it with a different choice of words, images, sounds, responsivity, etc..

Anyone who is mostly logically driven might expect an immediate call to action or clear line of action right away. It is expected to find simplicity that will allow evaluation about trustability of this content fast and easy. But simplicity poses risk and hence I am very glad you stood with me through this gamificiation nevertheless.

The previous G1 variant might be described as such: Counting slews as points in situations where a user is insecure or irricated (possibly joining a risk group) is simple but allows a complex thing. It can be modeled as an indirect score for a user’s mental state, situation, and reactivity. To what degree the publisher of any plan to literally save the world would have to anticipate that, that all content is perceived dynamically and the lyrical self can mood – coupling the value to independent variables (timers, other users, etc) to allow everyone a personal impression and experience. And at the same time allow them ways to abort what they are working/thinking on.

If used without care, information about complex collaborative action could be very effective to alter someones state of mind. It needs options for beings to get distraction and disengage from thinking about it at all – and right now it is very exhaustive to implement such protection measures for me as much as for you. For you as you most likely belong to those who would not have a problem with thinking about complex topics. — because those who are stable and can bear with such complex topics might just left and I have to risk them as audience/target group. But for me it is impossible not to think of at least as much possibilities I can consider. The knowledge that those who I would try to reject from this content might be the only ones remaining interest is a difficulty which I can face only with cooperation. Almost all of my work has been made by me alone so far.

Bach to world saving

Back to world saving.

  • It would have to be so complex that it would be almost indistinguishable from something that is completely incomprehensible
  • It would present itself so that it is fun or interesting (and informative) to interact with it – independent of whether it claimed to be a plan to save the world before, during or at the end of your encounter with it
  • It would either require a team of hundreds of active and organized beings or ultimately turn out to be either
    • Not a plan how the world can be saved literally
    • A plan and goal which are actually about something else (most suspicion might be profit, esoterics, logically inconsistent)
    • The in-development rendering of a plan that is too complex that it could have been build by an entire team of experts before 2020 (due to discussion- and decision – complexity, topic diversity, interest and prioritization deviations and conflicts)
      • or something that claims to be the latter and was yet created – as it is based on more then 7 years of intense and continuous study and research about the complexity of the entire world by an isolated and severly confined team with x members which were identically rigorous and consistently motivated to cooperative on this abstract and complex research area with unified priorities and sufficient means to advance their development, understanding and actualization (synchronization) with cutting edge global activities (such as links listed on 2028.world/save).
  • xd4 = [x=1]
  • In the near future here will be explained a similar type of system which serves another kind of buffering

there is some logic example scifu at meta-buff but its not useful yet

Imagine a plan that is capable to (literally) save the world – and you live in a time frame where you could actually encounter it at its very earliest stage – with a layout how to start world-saving, starting at the very Now of your current present [x of July 2020 with x<10].

Go (back) to top layer