I read the first half. Seems like the moral of the story is: High level thinking is more powerful than low level thinking.
Does this apply to Leo? Software in general? It seems like from a low level to a high level we have: - Lines of code - Code structures (functions, classes, etc.) - The program's overall design - The programmers which designed the program - The society which produces those programmers - The forces that shape society Let's say that making changes on each level produces 10 times more impact. So changing Leo's overall design would have 100x more impact then changing a single line of code. And making the programmers who produce Leo smarter would have 100x more impact than changing the design. I suppose the reason we focus on improving say, Leo's design rather the society produced and shaped Edward K. Ream, is that it becomes more and more difficult to understand systems as they reach higher and higher levels of complexity. On Nov 11, 1:35 pm, "Edward K. Ream" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Here is a paper I'm reading. Highly recommended > > http://www.sustainabilityinstitute.org/pubs/Leverage_Points.pdf > > Meadows worked on the famous world3 (limits to growth) computer model: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World3 > > Imo, present events are confirming the (alarming) predictions of that > model and disconfirming the criticisms of the model. It's time for > the world to wake up and start thinking about complex systems > properly. > > Edward --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leo-editor" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
