I just found that “groundplane -antenna” showed me #3 in google.

Why “groundplane”? Because the physics of antenna allow that system to discriminate best when working against a base reference.

What’s the antidote to “glut”? Well … how about subjective salience?

Correct me here, but “Data is information that matters”, no?

And how do dullards and pedants judge what matters to people? Poorly.
What about plods, fakes, and phoneys? Worse.

How does my cognitive schema in-form the encyclopedia I’m experiencing via the web? Likely, not at all, except as yet another user case that ends in my being just a bit more dumbed down.

Discourse. Discussion as though persons matter.

Or, from another direction (“mandala theory” always in mind): _glasperlenspiel_.

The all inclusive nature of “encyclopedia” … that, surely, is abused, debased, and demeaned when thought of as 2-dimensional. So how many, then?
Back when SGI was a player I toyed with 3. *shrug* Fun … tedious … futile.

Feed-back/feed-forward … re-entrant … manifold. DITA is kludge, fit only for computing machines, not nearly up to the task of making semantic web worthy of human consciousness.

But call me Cassandra: I’m bound not to have any credibility at all. Paradigmatically disruptive, ehh whot?
*grin*

–bentrem