I realize text files can be processed by utilities for working with text files. And text files can be read by humans without any tools, and in that sense are rather universal.

I wonder what I'm missing.

I'd go so far as to think an OS that had a database at its core, or perhaps a persistent lisp would be even more programmable and legible.

Maybe better tools for dealing with structured data would help this?

If I really squint my eyes and dream I see a government with event-sourced, auditable and reproducible architecture.

I don't think a lack of hardware and software technology is what is lacking, but rather a vision, a dream, a call to action and corresponding courage to act while facing down an invisible enemy that can only been seen by its effects on the world.

Thank you for articulating it clearly. It inspires me to take a step back from building, and consider what I'm building and why.

I was thinking if you used the identical old hardware, you'd get something close enough.

Personally I prefer to watch analog with an all analog signal chain, but am still curious what would happen if you tried this.

Possibly a 3D printed rig with a semi-transparent mirror + some crowdsourcing and this could really work.

It's in my backlog.

If I squint my eyes and imagine really hard, I can see living off the land, supported by small fusion reactors powering powerful AGI computer clusters, highly advanced 3D printers capable of producing all the physical support structure of life.

AGI + Power + Magic 3D printing and maybe one can live "off the land" with "civilization and all of human knowledge" hiding inside this portable tech stack.

Will you define "frontier living" so I can better see the lack of space ?

My "try harder" was with regard to doing exactly what I had just had an emotional reaction to and criticized.

I guess I have a hard time viewing this as anything but intentional emotional manipulation.

To me it's basic grammar.

The sentence structure is approximately:

X is Y.

I consider this a statement of fact, or perhaps en equivalence relation. This is what was labeling a pronouncement from God.

(The idea that how your audience receives the communication is their problem and not yours) < X

is

(entirely why

some engineers are shit communicators and seem lost when facing the realities of human culture and politics.) < Y

Parsing it more carefully, the word "some" is leaving a hole for a lot of ambiguity that I did not see earlier.

So more careful reading reveals it as

X entirely explains property (are shit communicators) for a subset of the entities designated as engineers.

Even with these qualifies it is stating X is Y, rather than "In my experience X is Y."

I know in school I was taught to write this way. I find it confusing, and reveals something interesting about the person saying these words.

However maybe the real problem is I don't actually know what the words mean.

Perhaps I need to interpret it as the following:

In OPs view of the world, X is Y is true.

Perhaps that is what you're calling a "communication style", with a lot not being said explicitly.

Thank you for your comments, I am going to contemplate.

Edit: I just read my original comment and it is full of X is Y statements. I guess I'm full of shit. I'll try harder next time!

I completely agree.

> The inability to empathize with others and make meaningful predictions about how their emotions will affect communications is specifically a lack of emotional maturity.

I completely agree.

> Case in point. You had an emotional reaction to the parent comment, and you responded with an attempt to shame the communication style rather than address the factual content of the communication.

Yes I did. I am still curious how OP expects that to be received.

> Your emotions dictated your response here, not the facts, and your response was emotional in content as much as factual. Hyperbole is specifically an appeal to emotion.

I think I agree here too. What do you mean?

Also when you state an absolute like the word of God, how do you expect it to be received?

The article seems to imply to me: form relationships where direct truth is welcomed while acknowledging that people do have emotions.

Facts can be true and the feelings can be strong at the sam time. Attaching emotions to facts intentionally is intentionally adding a non-factual dimension to the conversation.

If you consider emotions as facts, and are communicating with me, I prefer if you express them as directly and honestly as possible so they can be included in the discussion.

Intentionally not expressing emotions clearly while using them to communicate is inherently without integrity. Specifically the words are not aligned with the emotions. The lack of integrity is structural (as opposed to some ambiguous moral ideal.)