> I kind of fear my analogy of two different dimensions breaks down here because I'm left wondering what things would have a low "toolness" score ...
Maybe expressing it as a complex number would help, eg. toolness + i(toyness)
In polar form a low angle would indicate a high "toolness to toyness" ratio.
Re:The Myth of Commoditized Excellence
by Rainymood on Thursday October 03, 2019 @08:59AM
(#21146440)
The (real, complex) plane is equivalent to (toyness, toolness) although it is an interesting idea indeed to express it in polar coordinates hah
The plastic toy car—it doesn't have any use beyond its toyness. It can't get you anywhere, or cut things into neat shapes.
"Toolness" is, at least to a large extent, a synonym for "(practical) utility".
Re:The Myth of Commoditized Excellence
by Rainymood on Thursday October 03, 2019 @09:02AM
(#21146453)
Indeed, I think "toolness" should be replaced by "impact" or "effectiveness".
Code, for example, can be played with but can also deliver significant impact to a large group of people.
A toy car, as another example, can be played with but delivers value to only one person at once (well, depending on how you use it).
A nuclear reactor is something that would have a very low "toyness" score, i.e. you wouldn't "play" with it.
A plastic toy car would have a very high "toyness" score, as it is literally designed to play with (by kids).
I kind of fear my analogy of two different dimensions breaks down here because I'm left wondering what things would have a low "toolness" score ...