Hacker News Reader

> I kind of fear my analogy of two different dimensions breaks down here because I'm left wondering what things would have a low "toolness" score ...

Maybe expressing it as a complex number would help, eg. toolness + i(toyness)

In polar form a low angle would indicate a high "toolness to toyness" ratio.

The (real, complex) plane is equivalent to (toyness, toolness) although it is an interesting idea indeed to express it in polar coordinates hah

The plastic toy car—it doesn't have any use beyond its toyness. It can't get you anywhere, or cut things into neat shapes.

"Toolness" is, at least to a large extent, a synonym for "(practical) utility".

Indeed, I think "toolness" should be replaced by "impact" or "effectiveness".

Code, for example, can be played with but can also deliver significant impact to a large group of people.

A toy car, as another example, can be played with but delivers value to only one person at once (well, depending on how you use it).

> I kind of fear my analogy of two different dimensions breaks down here because I'm left wondering what things would have a low "toolness" score ...

Haute couture fashion?