Writing today started out with a bit of writing to finish up “The Lindahl Letter” for this week. My Saturday writing schedule happened, but the output was not exactly enough to finish up the content for this Friday and have it ready to post. Generally my writing plan for “The Lindahl Letter” was twofold. First, I had planned to work ahead and have the posts ready to go a few weeks or maybe months in advance. Second, my fall back position for the writing plan was to spend the first waking hours of every Saturday morning creating the post for the upcoming Friday. That plan gave me a few days of recovery if for some reason the post was incomplete, terrible, or writing was blocked for some reason. Today was one of those days where I had to pick up a post and clean it up on a Sunday morning. 

Working ahead started to break down a little bit when the content was revised to be more than just a brief or extended passage of prose related to machine learning to include sections that were more real time in their context. Sections for “links and thoughts” and of course the “top 5 tweets of the week” are certainly more related to what happened since the last post vs. the opening content that could be inspired from any point of the machine learning journey. Based on the statistics from the Substack some people seem to like the links and click them while an ever increasing bulk of people don’t really return data related to clicks anymore. That is a problem that is occurring more broadly in the world of advertising. 

My Twitter feed was a blaze with this hot take this morning, “A certain amount of buzz is resonating from the topics of #TimeCrystal and #Metaverse right now… sooner or later a wellspring of academic originated scientific discussion will circle back to cover these things in paper form endlessly…” I’m not sure it was entirely pithy, but it was where my thoughts circled this morning between those to very buzzword driven ideas of the moment. It is entirely possible that time crystals will prove to be truly interesting if they end up requiring a rewrite of the rules of physics. The weight of that last sentence in terms of historical context was pretty heavy. I’m not sure just reading it that it is clear. It is probably a shortcoming in the effectiveness of my prose. Please consider this extra bit of rambling after the original claim for additional context.