oes not become formed and solid until it's observed or measured. And I'll accept that there's somebody who says that's not true, but that's my interpretation. I'm going with it for now.

Now under that interpretation, the more people there are in the world, there are more people seeing stuff and measuring stuff. So you would need more solid stuff in the world because there are more people who are experiencing it. And the comment was that if you build a huge telescope, let's say a Hubble telescope, and you can peer further and further into the infinity, that the simulation that we live in has to process harder to create all this new stuff that's being seen. And when you take it to seeing all of space with a telescope, you might be seeing things too fast for the processor to catch up. And you might be seeing some glitches and they're processing because we're trying to chunk too much data at the same time.

Now what would that look like? Well one would be code reuse. Like this: the system would try to become more efficient to find workarounds around its constraints. So it might say all right, I'm going to make a lot of these people the same people because a lot of the NPCs don't need full lives and histories. They don't need to be full people. So you just make them a little more restricted than before. So they just say the same thing on social media. I've been tagging people as NPCs on Twitter if they say the most obvious thing you can say in this situation. And I think that's one way you'd save space. You can make your NPCs never have a creative thought. You just give them all the same three ideas.

So if you say NPCs, you know what are you going to say about that Dilbert cartoonist guy? Well we're all going to say we think he's the Garfield guy. It saves a lot of processing because there's no thinking. It's not creative. It's not new. And they just all say the same thing. So if you see a lot of coincidences, a lot of repeated NPC activity, maybe the processor is getting overloaded. Maybe. But watch out for those big telescopes crashing the simulation.

I didn't write down whose tweet it was who said that. That wasn't my original thought. I wish I'd written it down.

All right, here's this story. It's called "When Wokeness Gets Too Complicated." So there was a tweet by the Twitter account The Women's March. And this is a statement that they tweeted. The Women's March tweeted, "Your feminism has to be intersectional or it isn't feminism." They emphasize it with capitals and spaces. "Or it isn't feminism." So your feminism has to be intersectional to be good feminism.

But there was some disagreement on that by somebody who's on the same team but disagrees with that framing. So a Twitter account called Claire Shrug tweeted back and said, "As a Black feminist who considers intersectionality a core guiding principle, I am begging you stop deploying it as a buzzword to problematize feminist politics which center women. You undermine Black feminist struggle and alienate many who'd support the vision Crenshaw outlined."

I don't know who Crenshaw is. Not the Crenshaw in Congress. Did anybody understand that? Did you know what any of that meant?

Now here's the interesti