Glad to find you on Bluesky :-) I hope you're doing wonderfully!

There is continuity in the turtle interest--I wrote an essay in senior year about Marianne Moore: www.listsofnote.com/p/utopian-tu...

My latest rabbit related interest is hare snails as an icon illustrating "festina lente"

Omg! Related rad variant I saw in the airport, is a kids' suitcase with a scooter attached. Maybe the general lesson is they should start making adult versions of kids suitcases

We have more on how the administration is gutting food safety programs and making foodborne illnesses more likely on our explainer: unbreaking.org/issues/food-...

2. w is a big wrong: consider a set W' = W-{w} \cup {w*}. By inductive hypothesis, it could not be that W', which is of size n+1, fixed any wrongs. But since big wrongs are always wrong, committing w could not fix W' and again n+2 wrongs do not make n+1 rights.

Qed

1. w is a little wrong: there are at least 2 little wrongs in W (since w was maximally wrong). Combining them into one macro-wrong m, let W' = W - {w, w'} \cup {w*}. |W'|=n so by i.h., m does not fix it. But as W' and m = W and w* then w* could not fix W either, so n+2 wrongs don't fix n+1 wrongs.

suppose that n+1 wrongs does not ever fix n wrongs. consider any set of n+1 wrongs W and any additional n+2th wrong w*. Order W by wrongness and pick max w\in W. It is well known there is a threshold of wrongness at which a wrong graduates from a "little" to a "big" wrong. So consider two cases: