upstand

It so happens that Microsoft and Google's relationship may shed light on Microsoft, in so far as there is similarity. For, Google is two. It is not just one feature, provided well. It is an attempt for the many to strike the few, for their share, without doing harm. Its like we have been given an extra cloak to put off the fighting. Yet some countries are outlawing it. And those who value its search, its service, and guidance, must update their opinions about the residents of those countries. How can they do it justly, I ask, if the questions they ask come from the keywords they searched. Its almost as though if we share a source we can judge one another. But given different sources, there can be no judging. Though we only will ever acknowledge ours. I don't know what people who don't use Google do instead of what I do. Since I don't know anything about it, I don't accept that there is a plurality of sources, so I continue to judge, as if we shared a source.

Sources of knowledge are not like sources of food. Well they are if you suppose that knowledge brings food. Because if I caused that, then its source is like mine. But suppose that is true in the same way that the sum of the squares of the lengths of two edges of a triangle is the square of the length of the remaining edge is true. The Pythagorean Theorem is true in the same way that sources of knowledge are sources of food. This latter doesn't capture what it is to bring food. Knowledge is quantified over a different time range than food, but the one is given by the other; meaning that some knowledge is required to provide any food, but some specific type of knowledge brings food, rather than gather it in an unspecified location.

Sources are known. So suppose the pythagorean theorem is true as knowledge begets food. Or does it come from the same parent? Either way, the sources are the same. But of course knowledge begets food implies that the source of knowledge is a source of food. Is that all knowledge is? Whose food? Otherwise, same parents means same source.  In the first case we have transitivity and then we get same domain.

On the source of food. The sources are varied, but share that characteristic that has already been mentioned, of having the same source as knowledge. Is this true or not? It's something like--I don't know, what is food? What isn't food? There is another judgement to be made about the amount of food; another for its quality. But how is the sourcing of water, then, in particular? Bottles, taps, points, springs, wells, fruit, the kiss, air... And what of the sourcing of food, is it not more varied? It hardly less varied than is life, being that all sources of life can be sources of food. It is so hard to say that we can eat things that have lived. When I try, I also say, by accident, that we can be a convenience as to acquire food--transitively, again. Certainly the likelihood of eating one another is isn't equally elevated.

But is it true that all food has lived? We must wander what is food and what came before it? And that is admitting that everything is partly food and partly not food. For what would we excrete if there was only food? There is, therefore, a question of waste. And time, there is a delayed exchanged in some questions of food.

At first we say that if the net effect is more food than waste, then it is food. But with time in the picture, we cannot ever determine the net effect. So we being to talk of net changes to the net supply over time. How does knowledge fare here? Knowledge has a measure in the food it provides. Food in the experience it produces. And is there not some similarity: the knowledge that brings food and the experience of eating that food must sort of coexist to be considered so. This is a way for Google users to acknowledge those who don't. It can only be considered a source of knowledge if there is knowledge that comes from somewhere else corroborates it.

Knowledge begets food by providing the means of its attainment and the judgment of what can be attained. A substance is more food if engenders less waste: food is food if it brings about more food.  users of Google will have to do when faced with acknowledging people who don't use Google. So knowledged is judged by the food it brings about. But what is the determining factor of the criterion for knowledge. If everything is some part food, then everything is some part knowledge. It is a sort of terrible self perpetuation. But the general idea of growth is helpful at least. It gives one some hope.

Affecting a plurality--in this case, of search engines--multiplies numbers but doesn't change the size. It is sort of dryly growth. A living being divides itself into two equal parts, which are forever equal, except at any given time are unequal. Is the Pythagorean Theorem true like this? I think so: when we are given two different sides and take the sum of their squares, then the square of the third side is equal. Yet any time we consider this, we are considering different representations, which are unequal. How can two things be equal if they are not represented in the same way? Surely your manner of representation is one of your characteristics.