Jump to content

Ontology:Q770: Difference between revisions

From Philosophical Research
copy or update fake Item from Q777
 
combinations
Line 16: Line 16:
{{HueRoster|EP=P5| -- }}  <!-- en: superset of -->
{{HueRoster|EP=P5| -- }}  <!-- en: superset of -->
{{HueRoster|EP=P147| -- }}  <!-- en: local Lexeme -->
{{HueRoster|EP=P147| -- }}  <!-- en: local Lexeme -->
{{HueClaim|P=[[User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand|prototype]] notes| the usually non-fictional motif of sorting through a lot of people to hit the jackpot and find the right people. this motif is inherent in most "job interview advice", as well as some "relationship advice", "product marketing advice", and rants against "social media". however, it also comes up in other unexpected places, like looking through a lot of books on a particular topic to find a book which is considered good or useful for some purpose. most people consider people-gambling perfectly normal. (as much as that totally baffles me.) this is often missed in critiques of "social media" as uniquely bad — if everything in life involves gambling on groups of people like some kind of poker deck, why wouldn't it be obvious for videos or microblog posts to work that way? people-gambling + ?? {{=}} Carl Sagan's professors. people-gambling + kaiju {{=}} Pokémon. people-gambling + Difference makes you useful {{=}} Wackytown fallacy. }}
{{HueClaim|P=[[User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand|prototype]] notes| the usually non-fictional motif of sorting through a lot of people to hit the jackpot and find the right people. this motif is inherent in most "job interview advice", as well as some "relationship advice", "product marketing advice", and rants against "social media". however, it also comes up in other unexpected places, like looking through a lot of books on a particular topic to find a book which is considered good or useful for some purpose. most people consider people-gambling perfectly normal. (as much as that totally baffles me.) this is often missed in critiques of "social media" as uniquely bad — if everything in life involves gambling on groups of people like some kind of poker deck, why wouldn't it be obvious for videos or microblog posts to work that way? }}
</dl>
</dl>


Line 28: Line 28:


<dl class="wikitable hue data_wavebuild three">   
<dl class="wikitable hue data_wavebuild three">   
{{WaveBuildNone| -- | -- | -- }}  <!-- en: WITH  ??  PRODUCES  ?? -->
{{WaveBuild| {{E:Q770}} | ?? | Carl Sagan's professors }}  <!-- en: WITH  ??  PRODUCES  ?? -->
{{WaveBuild| {{E:Q770}} | kaiju | <cite>Pokémon</cite> }}  <!-- en: WITH  ??  PRODUCES  ?? -->
{{WaveBuild| {{E:Q770}} | Difference makes you useful | Wackytown fallacy }}  <!-- en: WITH  ??  PRODUCES  ?? -->
{{WaveBuild| {{E:Q770}} | interest-based subpopulation | online social platform }}  <!-- en: WITH  ??  PRODUCES  ?? -->
</dl>
</dl>



Revision as of 20:41, 4 August 2025

  1. pronounced S–617 pronounced [S] people-gambling 1-1-1

Core characteristics

item type
S 1-1-1
pronounced [P] label [string] (L)
pronounced S–617 pronounced [S] people-gambling 1-1-1
E:people-gambling
pronounced [P] alias (en) [string]
--
QID references [Item] 1-1-1
[S] social event horizon (C) 1-1-1
sub-case of [Item]
--
case of [Item]
--
super-case of [Item]
--
associated Term [Lexeme]
--
prototype notes
the usually non-fictional motif of sorting through a lot of people to hit the jackpot and find the right people. this motif is inherent in most "job interview advice", as well as some "relationship advice", "product marketing advice", and rants against "social media". however, it also comes up in other unexpected places, like looking through a lot of books on a particular topic to find a book which is considered good or useful for some purpose. most people consider people-gambling perfectly normal. (as much as that totally baffles me.) this is often missed in critiques of "social media" as uniquely bad — if everything in life involves gambling on groups of people like some kind of poker deck, why wouldn't it be obvious for videos or microblog posts to work that way?

Components

model combines claims
--

Wavebuilder combinations

pronounced [P] pronounced Wavebuilder: forms result [Item]
Carl Sagan's professors
along with [Item]
pronounced S–617 pronounced [S] people-gambling 1-1-1
forming from [Item]
pronounced S–617 pronounced [S] people-gambling 1-1-1
 ??
Carl Sagan's professors
pronounced [P] pronounced Wavebuilder: forms result [Item]
Pokémon
along with [Item]
pronounced S–617 pronounced [S] people-gambling 1-1-1
forming from [Item]
pronounced S–617 pronounced [S] people-gambling 1-1-1
kaiju
Pokémon
pronounced [P] pronounced Wavebuilder: forms result [Item]
Wackytown fallacy
along with [Item]
pronounced S–617 pronounced [S] people-gambling 1-1-1
forming from [Item]
pronounced S–617 pronounced [S] people-gambling 1-1-1
Difference makes you useful
Wackytown fallacy
pronounced [P] pronounced Wavebuilder: forms result [Item]
online social platform
along with [Item]
pronounced S–617 pronounced [S] people-gambling 1-1-1
forming from [Item]
pronounced S–617 pronounced [S] people-gambling 1-1-1
interest-based subpopulation
online social platform

Wavebuilder characterizations

Usage notes