Here is a copy of the #glyph poster that was found within the vaults of the #Recursion anomoly in Austin, TX.


Here is a copy of the  #glyph   poster that was found within the vaults of the  #Recursion   anomoly in Austin, TX.  Thanks to glyphologist, Jon Harmon who passed this along to me.

Comments

  1. Tim Kujat (SetFirePhoenix)March 10, 2014 at 8:43 AM

    I find it very interesting that some of the glyphs are used for more than one meaning.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Albert Mikaelyan (Tahvok)March 10, 2014 at 9:03 AM

    Tim Kujat I'm not sure it means something significant. I think it just shows us that it's actually a language, with which you can speak.

    Take the word "you" in English for example - It references to many people as well as to only one person, unlike in many other languages.
    You can see something similar done here with the word "You" and Your", there might be not much of a difference in this words, only when you translate it to your (English) language - it makes difference in a whole sentence, but perhaps not in the language of Shapers?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Jason Stephens (JST3P)March 10, 2014 at 9:27 AM

    Still leaving glyphs found in the scanner undefined. Resistance and struggle are the same glyph on this poster, but the pseudo-resistance glyph in the scanner doesn't appear here.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Melissa L.March 10, 2014 at 10:06 AM

    Stein Lightman Ben Ostrowsky

    ReplyDelete
  5. moonfleetMarch 10, 2014 at 1:43 PM

    Nice!
    I still wonder why there's no Ingress stuff in ThinkGeek!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Tim Kujat (SetFirePhoenix)March 10, 2014 at 1:47 PM

    Albert Mikaelyan that's the thought I was eluding to. I had noticed during glyph hacks that glyphs were used for different context and thought that was pretty interesting when compared to the English language. Now all we need are pronunciations of each glyph and we could speak it :)

    ReplyDelete
  7. Michelle EMarch 10, 2014 at 1:59 PM

    Shut up and take my money!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Sherrie PuiMarch 10, 2014 at 8:46 PM

    Got printable version? =P

    ReplyDelete
  9. Jason Stephens (JST3P)March 10, 2014 at 8:55 PM

    moonfleet Because ThinkGeek will only produce things they can legitimately license from the IP holder and sell a enough of to justify the up-front investment. I don't think (speculation here) that Niantic/Google is at all interested in licensing their stuff out nor is ThinkGeek interested in such a narrow niche market (that part I'm sure of, speaking as a marketer with a relationship with ThinkGeek.)

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

so, general question.

so, general question... we know that ADA passed the "turing test", we also have many studies showing how the turing test can actually be gamed by very complex programming and in fact you can write programs to create the allusion of AI for many (the chinese room thought experiment).  At what point are we certain that she began acting on her own and has not been following a program and orders by someone else.  Are we certain that those orders that she delivered for Jarvis and others and even the Katalena pre Zurich encounters, were not done on the orders of some programming.  NOt to call ADA a gun, but how certain are we she is not?  How can we prove, beyond doubt, that she is truly a separate entity working on her own and not some other programming? I would like to call for the evidence and proof that ADA is a complete entity. That she is not following someone else's computer orders, that she has a consciousness (or not). http://niantic.schlarp.com/_media/investigation:cha...
Read more

Dear investigators, I have some questions for you.

Image
Dear investigators, I have some questions for you. What brings you here? What is it that you are investigating? Something in particular? Everything in general? Or are you merely following the story while making clever remarks from the side? And what are your results? What did you discover so far? Also, what methods are you employing, generally speaking? I am not looking for collective answers, but individual ones.
Read more