My bicycle has been Ruby on Rails for over 10 years and i think it is hard to beat. most all of the underlying framework is easily inspectable and changeable to suit needs, while still providing sharp knives that one could use to cut themselves if not careful.

But I think this push for "stimulating curiosity" is academic wank. That's not what bicycles of the mind are for - they're tools for building, not naval gazing. It sounds like Mu was built more for ego or prestige than to actually do anything meaningful.

Show me Mu as a bike I want to ride - not as a philosophical introspection on why Mu is in some way superior. Reading this PDF it's clearly more ideal than practical. And while it may be "see through" it's shape, interfaces, interactions and surface area are convoluted and poorly presented.

Maybe I am wrong to expect humanities out of this, but humans are who have to use this stuff/ride these bikes.