A discussion on how to make the destination of the fragments in The Anarchiving Game visible on the website. The result can be checked by selecting "From" or "To" in the selector on the navbar of the webapp.
Audio in PT-BR, English transcription below:
[...] it got antsy, got the ants. Because, you see, there are about 12 organizations, between 12 and 20, okay? Once it's up and running, I'm counting on people adopting the fragmentary logic. Which is easy, as easy as posting on Instagram. Gradually, this will be populated with this logic of to and from. As it gets fuller, it will be possible to see a bit of the certain influence some organizations have over others.
So, I think the idea of a beam, which is more diffuse than a line for this to and from case, I think it works. But I don't understand the problem you mentioned, like, let's assume, a tiny organization that only made one fragment... Yes, and the beams that reach this tiny organization that only made one will be represented by a tiny line. You get it? While whenever something reaches this large one, it will get a... This here is only a connection that is being expressed by this gigantic beam, like this. And for this one here also just one, but it is expressed by a very thin line.
Yes, but it's kind of disproportionate and somewhat fails to express this expressiveness. We have these two concepts here: the beam and the one too many. And one more which is expressiveness. In this case, the organization is just one person, they only made one fragment. And this one fragment, it's referring to organization A, which is the organization that generated many fragments for others or for itself.
And then, if this line here, this fragment here is from organization E to organization A, all good. This principle you mentioned, that one goes to many, it goes to all. But then, but you cannot regulate this, sorry, you cannot regulate this force of expressiveness with a third variable.
What force of expressiveness? Like, this force of expressiveness here from this fragment to this organization, it is small because it's only one, right? Depends. Because if this one here is you, you're the recipient, it looks small, because it looks like a line. But if this sends to here, it's a beam the size of the number of fragments.
So, let me just conclude the reasoning. There's a low expressiveness of this fragment here because it is a fragment from organization E to organization A. In the logic you defined, this fragment here, it will connect with all of these here. But then my proposal is, if it's not the case for this expressiveness to be apparent with a luminance index.
Yeah, like, it will be connected with all of them here, but the brightness of this beam, it will be one because it is a too many, but it's just one for all these others. Unlike, for example, from organization A to organization B, where there are several fragments here, let's suppose, there are 10 fragments where 7 go here and 3 go there. Hmm, right? And then, if 3 go there, here is brightness 3, here is brightness 7. It's a way to express the force field with light. Hmm, yes.
And at the same time, keeping all these connectors. So, let's assume, if each of these fragments here, it will send 10 lines to each of the other fragments there from the other, and it will have a brightness of 7. But the brightness, it will come from the junction in our eye, is, from this different amount or will it be an intrinsic characteristic of the line? The line will be, you see, or it will be an effect of the junction of lines, it will be an effect of the junction of lines with different opacity, equal opacities. Equal opacities, but when they overlap, yes, they will, for example, this organization here, it is super influential and is communicating many fragments to this one here, it will have an opacity, a lightness, is, greater than this one here to this one here.
And we would work with only one color. It's just that it won't be lightness and it also won't be opacity, it will be complexity, it will be entanglement. But this can't be expressed with opacity, it's going to be different, you see? Because they have a direction, this line isn't diffuse, even if it's with a blur of 5, it's not a wafting smoke, it's something that emerges from a place well.
Things in a three-dimensional plane, vectors need to have a to and a from, there must be a path. If you want to put a lot of randomness in the middle, but it's not randomness, it's a very precise thing I'm proposing. But you understand what I told you that these lines that will not be opacity, opacity is a name, a summary of the effect of this complex tangle in your eye, it's not like this can rotate, something about rotating and changing dimensions, you gain the 3D effect, these lines they will be revealing. I think it's going to be interesting, let's see what if it doesn't clash with the result of something.
This is going to make sense, you know, it's not the sense that's most important. It is, maybe the tangle becomes so bizarre that it ends up being more noise than sense, you understand? I understand, but I imagine that in this one-to-many connection there will be an important expressive sense, unlike the selection by events. Selection by events will simply group the events that will be there, events.
Yes, this visualization is more extravagant different from all. Yes, the others are more like a sort, a sorting, a grouping, group by, but not in a linear list, it is spatial. And beyond spatial, it is three-dimensional, like year, such year, such year, 5 years right, 2019, 2024, 5. Little dots there, here will be a big group, there will be a small group. But I think this here would bring a flair that's not just visual flair, it's not just a spell, but it is a is an ability to see. I think this will be the most fun, most beautiful chart, right, it is.
It's just that I have, I worry a bit, well but that's another issue, okay. And I propose that you are an organization, right too. You and I, we are very much a studio. And then, I was going to propose you make a fragment with this audio of us debating the sphere thing. But the from of this is Uint Studio to the Sphere. Can be, makes sense. Uint Studio is an organization, it is. You're organized now.
I've always dreamed of being an organization, it's my dream. We are a tribe, we are tribe, Uint Studio is a pack of a… of a jaguatílope. It's late already, one more moment, in Portuguese itself, in Portuguese itself, learn our language. And maybe this drawing too, you see…
0x5c6d
Audio in PT-BR, English transcription below:
[...] it got antsy, got the ants. Because, you see, there are about 12 organizations, between 12 and 20, okay? Once it's up and running, I'm counting on people adopting the fragmentary logic. Which is easy, as easy as posting on Instagram. Gradually, this will be populated with this logic of to and from. As it gets fuller, it will be possible to see a bit of the certain influence some organizations have over others.
So, I think the idea of a beam, which is more diffuse than a line for this to and from case, I think it works. But I don't understand the problem you mentioned, like, let's assume, a tiny organization that only made one fragment... Yes, and the beams that reach this tiny organization that only made one will be represented by a tiny line. You get it? While whenever something reaches this large one, it will get a... This here is only a connection that is being expressed by this gigantic beam, like this. And for this one here also just one, but it is expressed by a very thin line.
Yes, but it's kind of disproportionate and somewhat fails to express this expressiveness. We have these two concepts here: the beam and the one too many. And one more which is expressiveness. In this case, the organization is just one person, they only made one fragment. And this one fragment, it's referring to organization A, which is the organization that generated many fragments for others or for itself.
And then, if this line here, this fragment here is from organization E to organization A, all good. This principle you mentioned, that one goes to many, it goes to all. But then, but you cannot regulate this, sorry, you cannot regulate this force of expressiveness with a third variable.
What force of expressiveness? Like, this force of expressiveness here from this fragment to this organization, it is small because it's only one, right? Depends. Because if this one here is you, you're the recipient, it looks small, because it looks like a line. But if this sends to here, it's a beam the size of the number of fragments.
So, let me just conclude the reasoning. There's a low expressiveness of this fragment here because it is a fragment from organization E to organization A. In the logic you defined, this fragment here, it will connect with all of these here. But then my proposal is, if it's not the case for this expressiveness to be apparent with a luminance index.
Yeah, like, it will be connected with all of them here, but the brightness of this beam, it will be one because it is a too many, but it's just one for all these others. Unlike, for example, from organization A to organization B, where there are several fragments here, let's suppose, there are 10 fragments where 7 go here and 3 go there. Hmm, right? And then, if 3 go there, here is brightness 3, here is brightness 7. It's a way to express the force field with light. Hmm, yes.
And at the same time, keeping all these connectors. So, let's assume, if each of these fragments here, it will send 10 lines to each of the other fragments there from the other, and it will have a brightness of 7. But the brightness, it will come from the junction in our eye, is, from this different amount or will it be an intrinsic characteristic of the line? The line will be, you see, or it will be an effect of the junction of lines, it will be an effect of the junction of lines with different opacity, equal opacities. Equal opacities, but when they overlap, yes, they will, for example, this organization here, it is super influential and is communicating many fragments to this one here, it will have an opacity, a lightness, is, greater than this one here to this one here.
And we would work with only one color. It's just that it won't be lightness and it also won't be opacity, it will be complexity, it will be entanglement. But this can't be expressed with opacity, it's going to be different, you see? Because they have a direction, this line isn't diffuse, even if it's with a blur of 5, it's not a wafting smoke, it's something that emerges from a place well.
Things in a three-dimensional plane, vectors need to have a to and a from, there must be a path. If you want to put a lot of randomness in the middle, but it's not randomness, it's a very precise thing I'm proposing. But you understand what I told you that these lines that will not be opacity, opacity is a name, a summary of the effect of this complex tangle in your eye, it's not like this can rotate, something about rotating and changing dimensions, you gain the 3D effect, these lines they will be revealing. I think it's going to be interesting, let's see what if it doesn't clash with the result of something.
This is going to make sense, you know, it's not the sense that's most important. It is, maybe the tangle becomes so bizarre that it ends up being more noise than sense, you understand? I understand, but I imagine that in this one-to-many connection there will be an important expressive sense, unlike the selection by events. Selection by events will simply group the events that will be there, events.
Yes, this visualization is more extravagant different from all. Yes, the others are more like a sort, a sorting, a grouping, group by, but not in a linear list, it is spatial. And beyond spatial, it is three-dimensional, like year, such year, such year, 5 years right, 2019, 2024, 5. Little dots there, here will be a big group, there will be a small group. But I think this here would bring a flair that's not just visual flair, it's not just a spell, but it is a is an ability to see. I think this will be the most fun, most beautiful chart, right, it is.
It's just that I have, I worry a bit, well but that's another issue, okay. And I propose that you are an organization, right too. You and I, we are very much a studio. And then, I was going to propose you make a fragment with this audio of us debating the sphere thing. But the from of this is Uint Studio to the Sphere. Can be, makes sense. Uint Studio is an organization, it is. You're organized now.
I've always dreamed of being an organization, it's my dream. We are a tribe, we are tribe, Uint Studio is a pack of a… of a jaguatílope. It's late already, one more moment, in Portuguese itself, in Portuguese itself, learn our language. And maybe this drawing too, you see…