<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"><channel><title>Peter's Blog</title><link>https://blog.peter-l.in/</link><description>Recent content on Peter's Blog</description><generator>Hugo</generator><language>en-us</language><lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Jun 2026 15:39:46 -0400</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://blog.peter-l.in/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>Knowns and Unknowns</title><link>https://blog.peter-l.in/posts/knowns-and-unknowns/</link><pubDate>Tue, 09 Jun 2026 15:39:46 -0400</pubDate><guid>https://blog.peter-l.in/posts/knowns-and-unknowns/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;I&amp;rsquo;ve been thinking about knowns and unknowns ever since my first exposure to the concept of an unknown unknown, but this is the first time I&amp;rsquo;ve put those thoughts to writing. The number of kinds of knowns and unknowns, like all binaries, increases twofold per level of &lt;a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaknowledge"&gt;meta-knowledge&lt;/a&gt; (knowledge about your knowledge). If you are at all familiar with &lt;a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bit"&gt;bits&lt;/a&gt; (binary digits) then this idea should hopefully click right away. In this piece I&amp;rsquo;ll explore in detail the meaning of knowns and unknowns at the first and second levels of meta-knowledge. Then I&amp;rsquo;ll try to convince you that from the third level onwards, there is no useful distinction from the second level.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item><item><title>About</title><link>https://blog.peter-l.in/about/</link><pubDate>Tue, 09 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://blog.peter-l.in/about/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;Hello! I&amp;rsquo;m setting up my Hugo blog. This is my about page!
update&lt;/p&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>