2 ms·
Interesting, I've never heard Type IV before. I've always heard the more succinct definition: Type I -- fun now, fun later, Type II -- not fun now, fun later, T
by cshimmin 5y ago
Interesting, I've never heard Type IV before. I've always heard the more succinct definition: Type I -- fun now, fun later, Type II -- not fun now, fun later, Type III -- not fun now, not fun ever. But now that you mention it, the fun classification is obviously just a 2x2 truth table:
fun now?
+------------+------------+
| Y | N |
+-----+------------+------------+
fun | Y | Type I | Type II |
|-----+------------+------------+
later? | N | Type IV | Type III |
+-----+------------+------------+
- at_a_remove 5y agoClearly, we have to switch the Y/N, both in rows and columns, then start our numbering scheme a bit earlier. Type Null fun is not fun: not now, not later. This puts something as being fun now and later at Type III, which sounds just like a lot of fun, and so it is; Type I and II Funs would be mixed bags. You could even say that Type I + Type II = Type III.