A long-standing issue with this work, which I've also discussed in real life with a few people of opposite opinion :-), is whether or not adopting physics-like terminology is a good idea. After all, the nature of software does not have to match the nature of matter. So while on one side using terms like gravity, compression, and up to a point even entanglement can be helpful to provide a frame of reference and also leverage some basic knowledge shared between all the technical-scientific disciplines, on the other these analogies always break when you expect an exact 1:1 match (I can easily provide examples). This is one of the factors behind the harsh critiques that this work has occasionally attracted.

Alternatives (feel free to suggest more):

- use a new, made up terminology; would be interesting to use the paper on compressive strength as an exercise / test bed.

latest ringtones
- reframe as much as possible in term of math. I'm not very fond of this idea. A mathematical model is useful and would be welcome at some point, but I want to support intuition and exploration and generally speaking I think that a proper language of forces and properties would be better suited than just a projection into discrete math.

- or ?

As this work is moving forward, I'm really interested in exploring / discussing alternatives before committing too much time / energy in the current direction.

zedge ringtones and

popular ringtones