zR0x
What about popping the cell into a tab or overlay like we do with images, Apples 3D Touch
I want to drill into specifics, not fiddle with scrollbars, which just hide the data I started with as I scroll.
Pop that cell into a one cell view that gives me the full story.
GUI habits needs a rethink, not just a new backend
A single layer of cloth doesn’t stop it. There’s a reason why those scarfs aren’t allowed in airplanes (well they say that, still see them in use). But it can help reduce the distance it travels.
It’s semantic wank, which is all politicians are good at.
https://daily.jstor.org/how-19th-century-scientists-predicte...
If they don’t own all that land they lose influence locally. They can’t put on spectacle in their “stadium”, distracting us from the reality we reconnected to during covid.
They’re not above participating in solving human problems
You want to live in a bubble, go off grid
None of us get up and contribute to society to spare anyone else dealing with it’s problems
Just because that’s the way laws are written doesn’t mean biology gives a shit
It’s not hard for me to see how our language faculty convinced past humans we were somehow masters of reality beyond other creatures.
Past humans did pass on a lot of dumb ideas.
Can they write Shakespeare?
If human language is fundamental, how is it missing from the start? Are we learning language or muscle mechanics? Why can a word or phrase mean one thing in this country and nonsense in another? If language processing has a universal basis, why all the confusing variety and ignorant ideas? 1+1=2 everywhere because we can observe the physical process everywhere, because light, eyes, etc
Who cares?
Like I said back in the day we didn’t know that. We had to theorize these abstract schemes to establish something.
But like religion, doesn’t mean linguistics is building on something that means what we want it to.
Given how hard it is to learn language while arithmetic seems innate, how do we know emphasizing it’s value is leading us where we want?
It’s easier for me to see that long dead scientifically illiterate humans we inherited those ideas from were just stupid.
“Meaning to us” is subjective. That’s how we have conflicting theories in many fields. Science isn’t about meaning. It’s about measuring how matter coalesces at various speeds relative to light.
I make noise because my biology “just has” properties to allow it given the other physical conditions.
Perfectly elegant theory based on the physical structure of reality alone. No ephemeral language organs.
Theory can quickly go from scientific observation to reinforced nonsense used to sell books and bond as species.
That’s fine, it’s how society works. It doesn’t mean anything to reality.
“Why not just create templates with the SDK, constrain configurable fields with regex?”, I offered.
“CUE has typed feature structures!”, they said.
“FML.”, I thought.
It didn’t simplify configuration at all.
What simplifies configuration is all the people that know an existing tool and can be productive in it. As a late-comer CUE has none of that advantage.
Businesses want to solve business problems. Not meditate on one problem in perpetuity.
Before neuroscience and modern imaging we needed to sit and imagine and theorize.
Now we don’t.
There’s been an explosion in biological science since Chomsky became prominent. He even admits his work is abstract and to serve his ends. We may be putting more into his ideas due to his fame and infamy than we should.
Trial and error, social constraints on sounds and the mechanics of biology can explain it elegantly. What do the ornate theories and ephemeral organs provide except to satisfy “linguists” biological agency to create and imagine?
Linguistics came about in a much less scientifically aware era in human history. My money is on it going the way of religion; an abstraction that’s so orthogonal to advancing science we leave it behind.
I make sound snapping my fingers. Whistling.
Why is it so hard to accept mirror neurons fired when early humans heard birds and animals, each other’s grunts and over time we refined it?
Everyone has some capacity to refine and strengthen muscle. Why do we need some abstract meta-construct to explain where language comes from? It comes from us. Fleshy meat bags that mutate state over a short period then die.
Chomsky diagrams, conceptual organs and the like are useful for “being on the same page” in a particular context, but there’s no reason to believe language is a requirement for consciousness except our own propensity for romanticizing our existing.
How can it help me reason about reality is the interesting part.
For that, one has to really practice these problems and not just hope to get a FAANG gig writing run of the mill business logic every day.
Perhaps thinking language is a key aspect of consciousness is wrong.
Chomsky has said human languages themselves are just random sounds we’ve been polishing the meaning of.
So yeah I have no doubt a machine can sort them correctly if we tell it to. They mean what we want and see in them.
That’s hardly proving anything about consciousness. Just that a computer can sort and count syntax, and guess at meaning by frequency of relative placement.
It’s acting on English data sets. Not human biology.
I can write code to bubble up stats across text sources in any language.
I’m reminded of a behind the scenes video of Batman 1989, where they discuss a complicated layering of Joker makeup to achieve the effect in the scene where he wipes off fleshy colored face paint; white makeup on Nicholson, special coating to be able to apply the next layer, on and on.
No one thought to just have him wipe white face paint onto his forehead.
I can easily see a bunch of programmers making a mess out of an elegant problem given the spaghetti code I’ve worked in.
Maybe English means nothing about consciousness? Many linguists take the position it’s random sounds we’ve been polishing definitions of for years.