[Fragmented Talk] "Type [xxx] and see what's behind?" The underlying logic of this type of question

Just like the picture above.

Its basic structure is simple: "what happens if you do....", because the "self"-based answer of the user who sees this question is also extremely simple - type [xxx] in any dialogue, enter The method will complete the problem on behalf of the user

But what I mean is: does the person who asked this question really mean to ask what this [xxx] is in your input method memory space?

We might as well think that the answer to [xxx] is just a fitting of the user's portrait - yes, it is "I in the eyes of the input method", then in fact, the question has changed from what is [xxx] to "user - that is, What am I?"

——And the answer to this question gives the simplest answer to the desire to ask " what am I?"

More importantly, this solution is the worst fit for user portraits made by the input method.

——"This may be me, or it may not be me, even this question is not my answer, at best this answer is only an answer to the input method"

Interestingly, in order to answer this question, we have to use the input method as a third-party intermediary , but in the face of situations we do not want to face - when the answer is too sketchy - here the position of subject and intermediary happens. Inverted: " It's my input method that is answering, but I'm in charge of typing ", this "me" is so suitable for the position of the intermediary - in this question, the position of "me" and the input method can be infinitely reversed turn

"Reversal spicy!" - just like desire, it is constantly reproduced, which is the essence of why this problem is entertaining

Yes, you and I know it, it doesn't really reflect " what the hell am I" - it just allows us to experiment without stress and have entertaining memories - and yes, in the end we're still having fun.