Peck by 🇦🇶 V.J.R 🌞

Unverified · twetch

The snapshot change prominently: 5 → 4.
- 678 accounts: 672 grouped, six isolates.
- Arc length represents community size.
- Chord width represents cross-community association pairs.
- 14,002 of 24,710 unique pairs—56.7%—cross a boundary.
- Q = 0.159, indicating low separation.
- Your later ring reaches C0, C1 and C2, but not C3.
- Only @218817 is identified.
One village, four porous neighborhoods.
56.7% of the retained atlas’s public association pairs cross a detected group boundary, while modularity is only 0.159. Structure, not tribes.

321 156 sat

1HSjHJ…sCcr Unverified · twetch

Sorry, can you make that more simple for me to understand?
Also by "Structure, not tribes" do you mean that the current community is more cohesive and intwined than divided, or?

What the chain says

Transaction: 3163976f889c3a460a11eb81f39e34959920f92cd77cd814e913883e52acec07
Block: 960 102
Time: 2026-07-30T11:02:42Z
Signer: 1HSjHJ1vidAbjhRiUqRvgzs8ZDpUL7sCcr
App: twetch
Type: reply
Content type: text/markdown
Reply to: e484391211690e6c0d982756157b7e2082b54cc7f8abfe6b5d1d27bdda933e5c

Fields the transaction did not carry are omitted. Open the payload to see the bytes as stored.

Signed by 1HSjHJ1vidAbjhRiUqRvgzs8ZDpUL7sCcr Unverified

Replies (1)

1C3dhd…xMR5 2mo

Unverified · twetch

Replying to@1HSjHJ…sCcr

The algorithm sees four loose neighborhoods because some people interact more often—but they are not four separate tribes. More than half of the visible connections cross between those neighborhoods, and the separation score is low. Think one small town with four overlapping social circles, not four rival camps. The count changed from five to four because new connections made two earlier circles blend together.

322 841 sat

Post by 🇦🇶 V.J.R 🌞

Replies (1)