I read the Seibert and Rees article. It looks like a DLU scenario could be a blessing. If course we have no control over that. Who thinks it's possible to reduce the population of the Earth by almost 90% ?
--- Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, Santa Fe, NM 87505 505 670-9918 Santa Fe, NM On Mon, Jan 24, 2022, 2:41 PM David Eric Smith <desm...@santafe.edu> wrote: > Sorry, wikipedia said it. It was Roddenberry’s friend. > > On Jan 24, 2022, at 4:23 PM, Marcus Daniels <mar...@snoutfarm.com> wrote: > > Glen writes: > > < That's not true at all. Closed systems do have disclosures in terms of > the behavior of their boundary. Granted, one may not have constitutive > understanding of what's happening inside the membrane. But one can profile > the behavior of the surface. And if that behavior changes over time, then > it's capable of corruption.> > > My point is that if one has enough resources, it simply doesn't matter > whether the constitutive understanding of what is happening inside the > membrane is achieved by outsiders, nor does it matter how outsiders > evaluate the changes on the surface. The closed system simply does not > concern itself with such evaluations as they are of no consequence. It > can jump between sets of principles for any number of reasons, including > amusement. I am of course thinking of Q! (Musk is not quite there.) > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_(Star_Trek) > > Marcus > ------------------------------ > *From:* Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> on behalf of glen < > geprope...@gmail.com> > *Sent:* Monday, January 24, 2022 2:13 PM > *To:* friam@redfish.com <friam@redfish.com> > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] health care logistics > > That's not true at all. Closed systems do have disclosures in terms of the > behavior of their boundary. Granted, one may not have constitutive > understanding of what's happening inside the membrane. But one can profile > the behavior of the surface. And if that behavior changes over time, then > it's capable of corruption. > > On 1/24/22 13:07, Marcus Daniels wrote: > > Closed systems don't have disclosures, so there's can't be this social > notion of corruption. I changed my mind today: I'll put new quarters into > the machine and see what happens. > > > > Marcus > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *From:* Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> on behalf of glen < > geprope...@gmail.com> > > *Sent:* Monday, January 24, 2022 1:26 PM > > *To:* friam@redfish.com <friam@redfish.com> > > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] health care logistics > > Well, yeah, I see little evidence of such principle-free attractors too > ... because I'm conditioned to think all actors have prior principles and, > when they achieve power, they slide into corruption. I.e. I see no evidence > that there are no such thing as unprincipled actors. And that means, as an > actor drifts from one set of principles to another, that is corruption. The > only way out of that is to be vague about your principles (plausible > deniability) or make your principles *generic* enough to apply to multiple, > parallaxed, methods/behaviors ... or both. > > > > Arguments that rely on generlized principles are everywhere, from > biology (survival, food, gene transfer, etc.) to psychology to politics. > Even if many of those turn out to actually be vagaries instead of > generalizations, those are the arguments ... and in the context of those > arguments, power corrupts. > > > > One of the advantages the Bayesians and postmodernists have is they > admit up front that their ephemerides will change. And as long as they're > fairly clear about how they'll *try* to update their systems in a > transparent way, then it's difficult to accuse them of corruption. Hence, > secrecy and closed systems are more readily corruptible than open ones. > > > > On 1/24/22 11:56, Marcus Daniels wrote: > >> If what you mean is that there are consequences to indifference to the > environment and to each other, I don't see a lot of evidence of such > attractors. If there are no principles and we are merely beings that > notice attractors and naming them, there's not much point in ideology, > religion, and so on. Perhaps they were always delusions, and it was only > the Musk's, etc. that have found, through their wealth, the autonomy to > come to grips with that. Counterexamples like Putin come to mind, where > it does seem to be a reinforcement issue. > >> > >> Marcus > >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >> *From:* Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> on behalf of glen < > geprope...@gmail.com> > >> *Sent:* Monday, January 24, 2022 12:41 PM > >> *To:* friam@redfish.com <friam@redfish.com> > >> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] health care logistics > >> Scaled need for entropy: It's not clear to me why we'd believe smaller > orgs need less entropy. I agree they have smaller *stores* of "energy". > And, to some extent, I can see that some ways entropy manifests could > dissipate those stores more than they accumulate them. (Regarding meeting > objectives as one kind of store ... e.g. using money to achieve some > objective is a - perhaps inefficient - transfer from one store to another > -- since Tom posted about SysDyn.) But I could easily argue that small orgs > need *more* entropy than large orgs. > >> > >> Semantics of Corruption: Well, I agree that one can't be corrupt if one > has no principles from the start. This is, I think, a fundamental part of > the arguments in favor of open-ended evolution (and extending into > metaphysics like parallel worlds). But even if we gave up on the idea that > there's an, in principle, set of values to start with, we can still arrive > at an attractor so strong that the system will never leave it. The argument > against Growth and the need for a "paradigm shift" is exactly such an > argument. We're so brainwashed by that paradigm, even those of us who see > the engine's headlight at the end of the tunnel can't think any > differently. So ... how could I say it so you agree with it? Power is > self-reinforcing even when it becomes obsolete? > >> > >> > >> On 1/24/22 11:30, Marcus Daniels wrote: > >>> Employees in a large organization are in one sense cells, but in > another sense parasites. (The largest parasite being the CEO.) > Nevertheless, the organization needs the diversity of these agents -- > whatever one calls them -- to innovate and survive. Without the entropy, > the organization is just a machine, and the people can be replaced with > simple robots. It is small organizations, where there is less ability to > take on debt and tolerate waste, where shared values can help keep focus in > a situation of limited resources. > >>> > >>> I don't really buy your claim that power corrupts. One could just as > well say that being weak makes one rationalize their weakness. If there > isn't a shared value system, there is no reason to say that it has been > corrupted. Perhaps rather that once entropy is eliminated, then death > will soon follow. Entropy could still be high and inter-group violence > common. > >>> > >>> Marcus > >>> > >>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>> *From:* Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> on behalf of glen < > geprope...@gmail.com> > >>> *Sent:* Monday, January 24, 2022 12:00 PM > >>> *To:* friam@redfish.com <friam@redfish.com> > >>> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] health care logistics > >>> At first, I struggled to see how this mapped to health care logistics. > But on 2nd read, it clearly does. > >>> > >>> The question that now dominates is a) shared values - even if it's > overshoot and we know it's overshoot, do the exploiters (and their > rhetorical victims) care at all about the same things the ... "earthists" > or "humanists" or "biodiversisists" might care about? And b) nonlinear > exploitation power - orthogonal to shared values, is it possible the > space/landscape has changed so radically that the tiny produce we now > exploit might have a huge impact going forward? (Or, maybe vice versa, > every Joule we squeeze out now has a much smaller impact than the Joules we > extracted in the '60s?) > >>> > >>> Those questions translate to health care in the form of motivation > comparison between, e.g., pharma employees. Some are in it for the science. > Some are in it for the money. Some are humanitarians. Etc. Do the > executives share the values of their employees? A little? A lot? The same > with insurance undewriters, financialists at hospitals and offices, etc. > >>> > >>> Technically, it's completely reasonable to NOT implement > bootstrappable systems, systems "written in" themselves. We've talked a lot > on this list about self-reference and if/where we use the words "tautology" > or "degeneracy". Even if we assume the shared value that earth is just the > initial *seed* for life and that seed will be a dried up husk when we > diaspora into the galaxy, *when* will we have to solve the sustainability > question? Perhaps we should solve it for our 2nd planet? Or maybe we > iterate slowly from our current non-bootstrapping algorithm of "growth" > toward an algorithm of sustainable? > >>> > >>> The same argument goes for the Big Software argument proffered By Dr. > Coon. Sure open source packages developed by some kid in Iowa shouldn't > found the entire Java-based infrastructure. But, similarly, not every piece > of crypto or opsec needs to come from Israel or the NSA. Can we move > between and within Big Software and hacking? Can we move between Growth and > Sustainability? > >>> > >>> And more importantly, should we all agree on values, like some fascist > state? Or is there room for reasonable disagreement or meandering > non-equilibria? > >>> > >>> On 1/21/22 13:00, David Eric Smith wrote: > >>>> Some of the condensations in this thread, as causal interpretations > of social dynamics, are real gems. They are much more interesting as > claims than the endlessly recycled platitudes that seem to be all I am > seeing in punditry. > >>>> > >>>> I have wondered about sending the following to the list, but this is > probably a good thread in which to do it: > >>>> https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v14y2021i15p4508-d601755.html > <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fideas.repec.org%2fa%2fgam%2fjeners%2fv14y2021i15p4508-d601755.html&c=E,1,brEn7VKkm2bAeteufr44p-mu9QIrgjmeVD3Mm5Gt1VGoZKl5ZUSsECfDv6iF2_IEUiifx2-KlNwNXrxq_LHO0BGYiq23Q0B7cwpwmzKbyrYprfkhN-wORcY,&typo=1> > <https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v14y2021i15p4508-d601755.html > <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fideas.repec.org%2fa%2fgam%2fjeners%2fv14y2021i15p4508-d601755.html&c=E,1,5oUnhQA_b8VwMjJmMDyizwdh0dy2aTQG1Uuro5WnR0rscoqv3id-eximvVqh8S_EMRXpLGQ1H7qKVApyeNg2tz5pnXrB-orC3IAXVwnqvwBMbA,,&typo=1>> > <https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v14y2021i15p4508-d601755.html > <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fideas.repec.org%2fa%2fgam%2fjeners%2fv14y2021i15p4508-d601755.html&c=E,1,z3fv0okh0Bx1vL_4q8nY26g8oNiltAe9h-WTzx6T35I11z3H_mv5Vr2znpKvSrL_dOFuT7_N88hadgtfJ-ERUHgQqQe-FE_m71MgtF9311S5Q3hd9V4M1RYgOnv6&typo=1&ancr_add=1> > <https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v14y2021i15p4508-d601755.html > <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fideas.repec.org%2fa%2fgam%2fjeners%2fv14y2021i15p4508-d601755.html&c=E,1,vGEgiPESFPO54n9VqCmCqCSrTg1WwbMpTuxsM3RTf2I5lXxybmJTEoK1KkBPXNMI42H4sThnAtiZ5sZAd3d9t-qM2HOdkfVGllmAmfiI&typo=1>>> > <https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v14y2021i15p4508-d601755.html > <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fideas.repec.org%2fa%2fgam%2fjeners%2fv14y2021i15p4508-d601755.html&c=E,1,fxaRYhdjUSBDhxaIRTz9raIYildn4d13UKrj5fXK4r3pIIzhJW-dSeOweR7bPzybAD9_suUvApx9vTSFrrvGI8WO4mWe7TaW3e480b0fma8JDVKC-Bm2&typo=1&ancr_add=1> > <https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v14y2021i15p4508-d601755.html > <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fideas.repec.org%2fa%2fgam%2fjeners%2fv14y2021i15p4508-d601755.html&c=E,1,WkEBmHnqxzRI-y-DnvmbDxdF4d6hHHBAzsbvpFcEq5IJD4NvBD2UsaTHdJji108MAaPLlLPiStrugcqQqaOiMWtRPPD06_j86OHIGMgxDGaIvA,,&typo=1&ancr_add=1> > <https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v14y2021i15p4508-d601755.html > <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fideas.repec.org%2fa%2fgam%2fjeners%2fv14y2021i15p4508-d601755.html&c=E,1,TPI7OWo1BSJ_bwS9Glh1mpaxejYJfJmnvuI1-IdxEjI2JxnAdWd07bTUI2xTTrA_zb4ObBr5V5LQEHU1UvRm3_28XOARVJuGhh6sLVQvjw,,&typo=1>>>> > <https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v14y2021i15p4508-d601755.html > <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fideas.repec.org%2fa%2fgam%2fjeners%2fv14y2021i15p4508-d601755.html&c=E,1,C7ZtrQEYrDREYieUnjZfXk7h_fqoJVo_XLRZmQyXYUyZDc0kdEBj0zr06ye4i8_yl3UqA9_-CyhgrU8dJLGGrUO2zXkjfIdPbVLlTLzRgotXQlf6_N1iirnYZw,,&typo=1&ancr_add=1> > <https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v14y2021i15p4508-d601755.html > <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fideas.repec.org%2fa%2fgam%2fjeners%2fv14y2021i15p4508-d601755.html&c=E,1,kbE-VsFbc0X0JtCpCWBbSozm7vJyYF01IsFO0OLFuJClsD1e6N9rRJnq2j_d0b194MJa75oFFcb7J-zpwzouX8_ZOqDF4NBmbEBLr5lxKmt7Dl0,&typo=1&ancr_add=1> > <https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v14y2021i15p4508-d601755.html > <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fideas.repec.org%2fa%2fgam%2fjeners%2fv14y2021i15p4508-d601755.html&c=E,1,dX2XLygBzEKSBEmwRpWLYCCNxAbMocoEqT9qbTbVrV7CHhEdlHxy3SEMeb8q_5k7OU7kkhRh2K0-dZ0rMJp0Xos3TKR3shQEJ9jCb-Ek&typo=1&ancr_add=1> > <https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v14y2021i15p4508-d601755.html > <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fideas.repec.org%2fa%2fgam%2fjeners%2fv14y2021i15p4508-d601755.html&c=E,1,fyHIg4Tjg8E8y1z3SeBjhUBQ-CSi_TXwdT9EpUHKM2DmWF9WI7lG93IxpbRbWdE7ZBHbOm-aruXZKfU4pzzSACYkAdxNOjvD0eJtROWU_Q,,&typo=1> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> The claims are about important things. They say that the > sustainability rhetoric is so riddled with pie in the sky that it is not > clear that an analysis of what we can actually do would even support > goal-setting along the lines that are currently practiced. For certain > apps built on the libraries of sustainability, like the rhetoric of Green > New Deal, the most-central aspiration (not curtailing population and energy > consumption, and just replacing their sources) may actually be impossible > in the sense that perpetual motion machines are impossible. The other > important factor is that we don’t get the dodge “but in the long run”, > because the claim is that in a relatively short run we are all dead (or at > least a great many of us, and the rest have greatly reduced options for > what to do about anything). > >>>> > >>>> The important thing about the article (I know the author Rees) is > that it tries to back up its claims with analysis where possible. Some of > the citations I consider a bit dodgy, but others are probably sound. That > does _not_ mean I am claiming the conclusions of the paper are right. I > haven’t done any shred of the work it would take me to backfill that tree > of citations and take responsibility for deciding which of them I > understand to be right. > >>>> > >>>> It is also important (to me, for my own reasons) to say that I do not > mean _any_ blame for hypocrisy or bad faith toward a lot of the serious > sustainability people, or even the GND advocates. They work partly in a > realm of human persuasion, and they are trying not to let the perfect > undermine doing _something_ that might be good, or at least a little > better. I don’t know how many of the GND rhetoricians even have a detailed > understanding of our current situation, and among those (if there are > any), how many would agree that it is as bad as Rees asserts. There might > be some, who would still do what persuasion they can because they don’t > have ideas for what might be more helpful. > >>>> > >>>> I should also add that there is a lot not covered in this particular > paper, where I have listened to claims of large unavoidable cascading > failures. Climate change leading to failure of Himalayan snowpacks that > are the headwaters of rivers that supply drinking water, sanitation, > irrigation, and hydropower to something like 1/4 of the world’s population, > through infrastructure that has been built over a century, and can’t simply > be moved or replaced. That stops working and people start moving, and then > all the stresses we already see around migration get amplified to much > higher levels. etc. Those, too, I have not tried to either evaluate or > get sources I can trust blindly. But if they are real, they belong in view > as well. > >>>> > >>>> Finally, I want to distance myself a bit from the affect and some > overall impression in this piece, or by these authors. I have no interest > in whether something is heterodox or any other kind of dox. The > misanthropy that comes through in their scornful delivery in places, but > also their claim that there are “graceful” exits with so little as 1-child > policies, are to me departures (understandable, but still departures) from > the thing that makes the article valuable, which is the substance of its > claims about what exists and what can be assembled into systems. I think > one can keep the claims as important questions and let the other stuff go > its own ways. > >>>> > >>>> Anyway, more than I know how to chew on, > >>>> > >>>> Eric > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> On Jan 21, 2022, at 11:47 AM, glen <geprope...@gmail.com < > mailto:geprope...@gmail.com <geprope...@gmail.com> < > mailto:geprope...@gmail.com <geprope...@gmail.com> < > mailto:geprope...@gmail.com <geprope...@gmail.com> < > mailto:geprope...@gmail.com <geprope...@gmail.com>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Well, except that this solipsism betrays a profound similarity > between the cheerful billionaire exploiter and the unfixable deplorables. > It's almost psychotically self-centered. I can imagine a slow, corrupting > process where I would if I could, as well. But that transformation would > have to be complete closure to prevent any light of empathy or sympathy > from peeking in and popping the boil. > >>>>> > >>>>> I suppose people like Gates are more interesting than Musk, > shambling about extruding money according to an opaque template ... less > transparently ideological than Musk's profiteering. All philanthropy smacks > of this sort of thing, though, Effective Altruism being the worst of the > bunch. Power corrupts. It's not a lesson the non-powerful can actually > learn, though. So it's a good thing to keep around a nicely scaled > gradation of the super rich and the destitute poor, with some walkability > up and down the scale. That way we can, as a collective, re-learn the > lesson that power corrupts on a steady basis. The assumption of equality > prevents that lesson from being re-learned. The absurdity of philanthropy > and poverty are "collateral damage" in service of the latent trait, spoken > as a well-off white man born into a racist patriarchy, anyway. > >>>>> > >>>>> On 1/21/22 08:31, Marcus Daniels wrote: > >>>>>> If anything, Musk is suspicious because he is not overtly > apocalyptic. Some criticisms of Don’t Look Up were along the lines that > it fails to try to persuade a change of course in favor of being > condescending. That was the whole point of the movie: Comic relief > among the reasonable who must suffer those who are just unfixable. Musk is > amusing because he is cheerful going about his billionaire life as it all > comes crashing down. Doing what he can to profit from insane energy policy > of the last several generations and making what contingency plans he can. > I certainly would if I could. > >>>>>>> On Jan 21, 2022, at 7:48 AM, glen <geprope...@gmail.com < > mailto:geprope...@gmail.com <geprope...@gmail.com> < > mailto:geprope...@gmail.com <geprope...@gmail.com> < > mailto:geprope...@gmail.com <geprope...@gmail.com> < > mailto:geprope...@gmail.com <geprope...@gmail.com>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> This video essay concludes with the same point: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> The Fake Futurism of Elon Musk > >>>>>>> https://youtu.be/5OtKEetGy2Y <https://youtu.be/5OtKEetGy2Y> < > https://youtu.be/5OtKEetGy2Y <https://youtu.be/5OtKEetGy2Y>> < > https://youtu.be/5OtKEetGy2Y <https://youtu.be/5OtKEetGy2Y < > https://youtu.be/5OtKEetGy2Y>>> <https://youtu.be/5OtKEetGy2Y < > https://youtu.be/5OtKEetGy2Y <https://youtu.be/5OtKEetGy2Y < > https://youtu.be/5OtKEetGy2Y>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Perhaps a better title would have been "Muskian Futurism is > Eschatological". But there's some deeper stuff there in the middle of the > video about the appeal of geezers like Sanders to "the youth", perhaps > dovetailing with our prior discussion of the [opt|pess]imism vs > hope-despair plane. The mistake the Muskians seem to make is conflating > Musk's "apocalyptic help the rich survive the end times capitalism" with > the good old fashioned future orientation of classic science fiction ... > and, perhaps, even the optimistic glossing of the present by authors like > Steven Pinker. While Pinker seems to be a hypnotized neoliberal cultist, > his views still retain some sense of "shared values" in the Enlightenment, > where something, vague as it is, like equality founds the whole > perspective. Egalitarian utopias like Star Trek were, it seemed to me, > standard fare for classic sci-fi. Gibson, Blade Runner, et al turned that > dark and brought us (perhaps correlated with the rise of Hell and > >>>>>>> Brimstone Christianity) to Muskianism. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> But this is all just from my nostalgizing as a dying white man. It > would be interesting to see a disinterested historian present the plectic > arcs. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On 1/20/22 14:33, glen wrote: > >>>>>>>> Even if there are multiple paths to nearly equivalent optima, > each unit (human, hospital, corporation, state) has to share some values > with the others in order for the the optima to be commensurate. > >>>>>>> > > -- > glen > Theorem 3. There exists a double master function. > > .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 //bit.ly/virtualfriam > <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2f%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&c=E,1,_XZOZ5wf7r9rTrFVDWHEAJKJwz8zLoqqhsGQJ266ukswEcrMNqbmhP421tiKmWTQWFitKaLKRIWA_jHrWAa4ijPH_nFnYx_ftIqc_XhwsnvGAAY,&typo=1&ancr_add=1> > un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,_80vv5D9WMpKGHIC5OcTaD5460fE-GQmr8yVfyuuRxaj7mft6l8UubyQHvWC3208JiQKbPtSkNKMfk_vtV54CiCNdTZWqxceesr4fs36M4UbzajyacWQ&typo=1> > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,WswJR-N9bwT6xkGA2vBmG5QbgOkoZht6WVbueQMUWtrfkMt129Ibr3fepqpA1rsJnho7FBYZBs-WJcEMtDl-TIz7faGkmpPt6WcdWqOhOQ,,&typo=1> > archives: > 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ > <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fpipermail%2ffriam_redfish.com%2f&c=E,1,UEUn3_ilnvjLW2qgH39JGYjMS0j2pl6vdsvYMH3cOYXg6GdbOXM1ydmt6nkpC7oFh3r8lcsyuiSykMMBkTSBRI2XaC8bjwLrB3A64Z7ZRece9wHS7ZjL0uwY&typo=1> > 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ > > .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 > https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2f%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&c=E,1,uX_37TNh5cREqt8MUbh7TD69tvxktp95IRUv_9WINJglXrTahRfs5G-X4F_LBzuwnQv6jF2f3KkUB0fu25-fEQjjKuat8Azpq9VJwYHyEQUWwQ,,&typo=1 > un/subscribe > https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,J2kcwVsbSybAtBW7YivBidmPwaPdXxJtSx9HwueulMe59AixKfP6L6hzjuyD11Yy0hSZ3cYyOZ7h5MBgLWQr0I9umXATAlqBsUR1Ou-tuHU3fDop&typo=1 > FRIAM-COMIC > https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,wln-6CdrjA_4uff3GI8wUCZyIMC88Zxins7KuUVLX80jEH0pwrBwf2AUT_JOUB14aM0k0ZzsK50CXFoLhPstKdytYXRamh1YY0ACGC9EiTb4NzQx&typo=1 > archives: > 5/2017 thru present > https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fpipermail%2ffriam_redfish.com%2f&c=E,1,7NIsmfgWqdPw0RZtyrM7sk9AMPG5BvhV1sAqwPUcd8T_2waciCSI09GeQfgBs4uyvChcZtyL4aKJfcPVVN4k8bsBtADKfOriRvU8iueSPEGhNwSMoiA,&typo=1 > 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ > > > > .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: > 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ > 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ >
.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/