(if we wish to fully determine yon Kraft we'll need to minimize or maximize)
Okay my bad at innuendoing the context/env/extra quantifiers, but I think you get what I'm driving at (even if I don't, not really?)
But I guess this here is great starting point for collaborative firmware debugging.
EDIT: also, I think G (JWvG, not "not F not") is using schaffen in the sense of https://de.wiktionary.org/wiki/schaffen#Verb,_unregelmäßig , but it is amusing to think of it in the ugs. sense of https://de.wiktionary.org/wiki/schaffen#Verb,_regelmäßig , where Woland is constrained by the ergodic incompressible nature of the "good" to schlep his portion of it from place to place*, no matter what he will.
* compare BAWR's "what is work? Work is of two kinds..."
you probably realized that I was using the jseliger goodbye threads to set an example. We can probably try to analyze the efficacy of my actions in the future, or at least improve the tactics..
[Tried to play the sovereign while the cats (mods) were away (or, narcissistically, "deciding on the exception" -- as in Carl Schmitt's cliche)]
...looks like I "succeeded", whatever that means (improve odds for rna cancer vaccines to become Grothendieck's dream? Manifested a study of mischievous tactics? But once we conceive of the good --while engaging in bad faith tactics -- the scheme fails??)
[OTOH I got paid 0 points net, so does that mean I moved neutrinos in the Russell dichotomy]
Granted, "we" need to work on our temporal logic..
But I do see an interesting mod, in
E(K. G(K `will` mischief in the past) ∧ G(K `manage` good in the future)),
Like you (I) maybe intended to mean, how much mischief, in what sign and proportion in relation to ___?
Or should we go with
E(K. G(K `use` bad faith tactics in the past ) ∧ G(K `do` a modicum of good in the future)),
Or quantum voodoo. the wavefunction has support almost only in the bad faith subspace, but somehow collapses only in the "good". This almost works because bad faith -> good might involve "just" a "relativistic" frameshift
