Swap published columns for 24 entries from random.md

Retract the seven published columns into drafts/ and promote the 24 per-date
entries split out of Notes/random.md. Bodies are verbatim; titles, subjects
and slugs are new.

Make publication a matter of location. Notes/Notes.11tydata.js gives anything
under Notes/ permalink: false unless tagged `column`; drafts/drafts.11tydata.js
renders drafts at their real permalink under `yarn dev` and excludes them from
collections entirely in a build, so no template can surface one. Publishing is
now `git mv drafts/<file> columns/`, and moving it back retracts it.

Untagged notes were previously rendered into _site/ and deployed — including
Notes/random.md, which was live at /Notes/random/.

Notes/Notes.11tydata.js

@@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
+// Notes are private. Nothing under Notes/ is written to the site unless it is
+// tagged `column` — the same marker .eleventy.js uses to define a column,
+// which is what lets a column be authored here (do-people-think, how-to-write,
+// systems) while the raw notes beside it stay unpublished.
+//
+// permalink: false processes the file but writes no output, so an untagged
+// note has no URL at all rather than an unlinked-but-reachable one.
+
+const isColumn = (data) => (data.tags || []).includes("column");
+
+module.exports = {
+  eleventyComputed: {
+    permalink: (data) => (isColumn(data) ? data.permalink : false),
+    eleventyExcludeFromCollections: (data) => !isColumn(data),
+  },
+};

Notes/do-people-think.md

@@ -1,82 +0,0 @@
----
-title: Do ~~Machines~~ People Think?
-date: 2026-04-02
-layout: column.njk
-tags: [column, philosophy]
-permalink: /columns/2026/do-people-think/
----
-
-## Rough Notes
-- Thinking:
-    - Can we flip this around, and define it by reduction? What isn't thinking?
-        1. Reaction
-        2. Reflex
-        3. Conditioned behavior
-    - But what part of thinking isn't grounded in some conditioned behavior? Some reflex triggered by a problem to solve?
-    - But thinking seems to involve "modeling," and for our purposes, we mean a mental model.
-    - This mental model gets tested, calibrated, exercised.
-        - So how is this different than a program?
-    - Digital vs. Analog?
-    - Inputs, the decisions, are much fuzzier for organic mental models (and thinking)
-    - Computers are (seemingly) deterministic
-        - But, if we shed this assumption, what happens to our distinction?
-    - If computers can "approximate" the fuzziness with digital values...
-        - same question, what happens to our distinction?
-    - Thinking as a survival skill
-        - Thinking as communication
-        - Socialization
-        - Connecting with neighbors and "vibing."
-        - Thinking as an emergent behavior, among a pool of people
-        - Maybe the mob mentality is the purest expression of thought.
-            - Without self, or ego.
-    - What does it map to, in the scheme of things?
-        - I keep thinking about connections
-        - And how stifling it is to exist in isolation
-        - But to become ingrained in something
-        - And to connect with the people, the pieces
-        - To have an exchange, that's the essence of thinking
-    - Some kind of transformation, born from the coordination and interaction of many players
-    - Bottling it within youself, just as senses, impressions without a voice, with no expression or transformation
-    - We form groups, we organize, and we process together. That's thinking
-
-
-## Quotes
-> "[he thinks] that the idealistic creations of his mind... also represent reality." - Claude Bernard
-
-> "Much thinking is done in completely personal, idiosyncratic terms, so much so that how it is done is incommunicable." - Gerald Weinberg
-
-
-## Questions
-
-- Who is Claude Bernard?
-    - Famous French Physiologist (1813-78).
-
-- How would I define "thinking?"
-
-- Is "thinking" in isolation really thinking? Or, is thinking in a social / anthropological sense a connector?
-
-- Do machines Think?
-    - Yes
-        - True thought has structure, a sequence, clear logical steps.
-        - It is neither random nor unpredictable. It follows clear, irrefutable logic.
-        - Anything else is noise
-    - No
-        - Machines are bound by rules. They can only follow a pre-programmed sequence of steps
-        - The sequence may have rich variety, but lacks in originality.
-        - Thinking is about novelty. Making leaps of intuition and instinct.
-        - If we can pave the way between with logic or reasoning, that's nice, but not essential.
-    - I reject this approach as flawed, lacking both nuance and merit.
-        - Total aside: the point shouldn't be to subscribe absolutely to one side or the other, and claim it the undeniable truth.
-        - These are devices, anchor points around which we can scaffold our reasoning, and draw tighter bounds around the concept being examined.
-        - They themselves are not to be confused with the subject at hand.
-            - by extension, we won't say that one or the other, both or neither are the thing itself.
-            - Like confusing the map for the terrain.
-                - these are navigational aids
-    - So probably not a single definition of thinking
-        - there's the intuitive kind, that machines might struggle with
-        - There's the expansive, logical kind, machines are better suited for.
-
-
-## Links
-[1] - Hamming, R. (1997). The art of doing science and engineering: Learning to learn. CRC. <https://archive.org/details/artofdoingscienc0000rich>
-[2] - Weinberg, Gerald M. An Introduction to General Systems Thinking. Wiley, 1975. Internet Archive, <https://archive.org/details/introductiontoge00gera>.

Notes/how-to-write.md

@@ -1,36 +0,0 @@
----
-title: How To Write
-date: 2026-04-06
-layout: column.njk
-tags: [column, writing]
-permalink: /columns/2026/how-to-write/
----
-
-## Prompt
-- The kernel of an idea
-- It's generally recommended to plant a seed first
-    - something you can return to over time
-    - reference other ideas you come across
-    - develop and refine
-
-## Questions
-- Questions give structure to your work
-- Even implicit ones - the unsaid queries that motivate the composition of the piece
-    - what's included, and when?
-    - as important: what's left out?
-    - make everything a deliberate choice
-- Why write, if not to test an idea against your own specific qualities? To see if there's a reaction, some expansiveness or contraction.
-- They provide the substrate to thought, and the nourishment, encouraging the frontier to expand
-
-## Rough Notes
-- The heap
-- The outlet for stream of consciousness thinking
-    - See what associations bubble up to the surface
-    - See what resonates, what clusters, the affinities that form
-- The warmup
-
-## Quotes
-- For the sake of having an opinion, I say it's better to rearticulate someone's idea in your own words, to digest it with your own acuity, than to simply reexpress the idea as a quote.
-- Other than stating something factually: at such a time, such a thing was said
-- Refernce it, so motivated readers can connect with more writing that may expand on the idea.
-- But don't just repeat the statement verbatim. Connect with the idea, exppress it in your own way for your own audience. Make it available.

Notes/systems.md

@@ -1,40 +0,0 @@
----
-title: systems
-date: 2026-04-06
-layout: column.njk
-tags: [column, philosophy]
-permalink: /columns/2026/systems/
----
-
-## Rough Notes
-- [Reichenbach](https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2025/entries/reichenbach/)
-> "The greatest empiricist of the 20th century!"
-- [Boulding?](asdf) - Spaceship Earth, General Systems Theory
-- Meta-laws, generalizations, that leap from one discipline to another.
-- We group a body of knowledge together under an umbrella of a domain, and in that box, the roots of connection may grow, but we miss the cross-cutting relationships that may have been realized, had we not kept knowledge as a house plant, bundled in a box.
-- Teaching the truth vs. teaching a model. Do we confuse the latter for the former, or is it misrepresented from the get-go?
-
-
-## Questions
-- Have we kneecapped ourselves through rigid classification, and artificial specialization?
-- Are these contradictions? Discuss:
-    - The Composition Law:
-        > The whole is more than the sum of its parts.
-    - The Decomposition Law:
-        > The part is more than a fraction of the whole
-    - Are they? If the "part" were less than the fraction of the whole, how could the whole possibly be more than the sum of its parts?
-    - But then, all the parts together must be greater than the whole
-    - But the whole is greater than the sum of all parts...
-    - I say it's flawed to distinguish whole and part. The arithmetic doesn't work out because they're necessarily interconnected.
-
-
-## Quotes
-> The power of reason must be sought \
-> not in the rules that reason dictates to our imagination, \
-> but in the ability to free ourselves \
-> from any kind of rules to which we have been conditioned \
-> through experience and tradition
-- Reichenbach
-
-## ToDo
-- Max Planck Scientific Autobiography