10,000 Matching Annotations
  1. Apr 2021
    1. Other physicists and mathematicians at the turn of the century came close to arriving at what is currently known as spacetime. Einstein himself noted, that with so many people unraveling separate pieces of the puzzle, "the special theory of relativity, if we regard its development in retrospect, was ripe for discovery in 1905."

      Interesting. This acts as evidence for the hypothesis that environments/conditions are powerful forcing functions.

      It also acts as evidence against the argument of the "lone genius".

    1. Internet From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to navigation Jump to search Global system of connected computer networks This article is about the worldwide computer network. For the global system of pages accessed via URLs, see World Wide Web.

      "connected computer networks"

      "global system"

      "URLs"

    1. Social media From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to navigation Jump to search Internet services for sharing personal information and ideas Social media are interactive digitally mediated technologies that facilitate the creation or sharing/exchange of information, ideas, career interests, and other forms of expression via virtual communities and networks.[1][2] While challenges to the definition of social media arise due to the broad variety of stand-alone and built-in social-media services currently available, there are some common features:[2] Social media are interactive Web 2.0 Internet-based applications.[2][3]

      Interactive Digitally Mediated technologies that facilitate creation or sharing/exchange of information

    1. Digital economy refers to an economy that is based on digital computing technologies, although we increasingly perceive this as conducting business through markets based on the internet and the World Wide Web.[1] The digital economy is also referred to as the Internet Economy, New Economy, or Web Economy. Increasingly, the digital economy is intertwined with the traditional economy, making a clear delineation harder. It results from billions of everyday online connections among people, businesses, devices, data, and processes. It is based on the interconnectedness of people, organizations, and machines that results from the Internet, mobile technology and the internet of things

      "digital" economy is focused on markets on the Internet and the world wide web.

      Online connections among people

      Internet, Mobile Technology, Internet of things

    1. Virtual communities are used for a variety of social and professional groups; interaction between community members vary from personal to purely formal. For example, an email distribution list could serve as a personal means of communicating with family and friends, and also formally to coordinate with coworkers.

      the purpose for some "digital" forms of texts and communities

    2. A virtual community is a social network of individuals who connect through specific social media, potentially crossing geographical and political boundaries in order to pursue mutual interests or goals. Some of the most pervasive virtual communities are online communities operating under social networking services.

      relation of social network

      social media and online communities

    1. It generally refers at least to the cultures of virtual communities,

      "Virtual" as in another word for intangible medium physically that exist on a different plane (online)

    1. Blessed Anna Maria Taigi (1769–1837) is the most known seer of the Three Days of Darkness and describes the event in this way:

      This is sourced to a website that sells blessed candles. https://www.virgosacrata.com/three-days-of-darkness.html They in turn source it to a book "The prophets and our Times" from 1941 by Gerald Culleston. It in turn gives as its sources

      Providence-Sligo: Life of Ven. Anna Maria Taigi Thompson : Life of Ven. Anna Maria Taigi

      https://archive.org/stream/TheProphetsAndOurTimes/TheProphetsAndOurTimes_djvu.txt

    1. 哲学家、哈佛大学教授诺齐克(Nozick,1938—2002)写过一本书,叫《反省的人生》。他在其中谈到,苏格拉底“未经反省的人生不值得活”的说法也许有些苛刻,但是,对人生的反省虽然可能不会助人成功,给人以一种冲过终点的感觉,却能让人成熟、让生活充实,还很有可能产生一种定向或调整的作用。这种反省,就像自己创作一幅自画像,而不是自拍一幅“快照”。自画一幅油画像不可能在短时间内完成,它需要不断审视,不断修改,最后它不仅成为一个艺术品,还成为一种自己对自己的深刻认识。

    1. A bodhisattva vow ritual text attributed to Nāgārjuna, of the second-third century CE, states the vow as follows: "Just as the past tathāgata arhat samyaksambuddhas, when engaging in the behavior of a bodhisattva, generated the aspiration to unsurpassed complete enlightenment so that all beings be liberated, all beings be freed, all beings be relieved, all beings attain complete nirvana, all beings be placed in omniscient wisdom, in the same way, I whose name is so-and-so, from this time forward, generate the aspiration to unsurpassed complete enlightenment so that all beings be liberated, all beings be freed, all beings be relieved, all beings attain complete nirvana, all beings be placed in omniscient wisdom."[31]

      bodhisattva vow

  2. Mar 2021
    1. An event space, which is a set of events F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} F

      可以把omega看作是可能宇宙集合,事件看作是一个propostion。

    1. In the Camerer, Loewenstein and Weber's article, it is mentioned that the setting closest in structure to the market experiments done would be underwriting, a task in which well-informed experts price goods that are sold to a less-informed public. Investment bankers value securities, experts taste cheese, store buyers observe jewelry being modeled, and theater owners see movies before they are released. They then sell those goods to a less-informed public. If they suffer from the curse of knowledge, high-quality goods will be overpriced and low-quality goods underpriced relative to optimal, profit-maximizing prices; prices will reflect characteristics (e.g., quality) that are unobservable to uninformed buyers ("you get what you pay for").[5] The curse of knowledge has a paradoxical effect in these settings. By making better-informed agents think that their knowledge is shared by others, the curse helps alleviate the inefficiencies that result from information asymmetries (a better informed party having an advantage in a bargaining situation), bringing outcomes closer to complete information. In such settings, the curse on individuals may actually improve social welfare.

      How might one exploit this effect to more proactively improve and promote social welfare?

    2. Such research drew from Baruch Fischhoff's work in 1975 surrounding hindsight bias, a cognitive bias that knowing the outcome of a certain event makes it seem more predictable than may actually be true.[5] Research conducted by Fischhoff revealed that participants did not know that their outcome knowledge affected their responses, and, if they did know, they could still not ignore or defeat the effects of the bias.
    3. This curse of knowledge also explains the danger behind thinking about student learning based on what appears best to faculty members, as opposed to what has been verified with students.

      Are there other axes or criteria that might be used other than these two? One seems better than the other, but what appears best to teachers is potentially better than nothing. (Though in cases it could be so bad that nothing may be preferable to a teacher's viewpoint.)

    1. The hypothesis, being insecure, needs to have practical implications leading at least to mental tests and, in science, lending themselves to scientific tests.

      Exactly. The hypothesis is kind of an abstract thing to predict from. It's the predictions that you test, not the hypothesis directly. If the hypothesis lets you make predictions that turn out true with testing, then the hypothesis is more-or-less confirmed. If its predictions turn out inaccurate, then the hypothesis is falsified.

    1. This tendency is known as the “actor-observer effect”. What this means is that people often attribute their own behavior to situational causes, while observers attribute the actor's behavior to the personality or disposition of the actor. For example, an actor's common reason to be late is due to the situational reason, traffic. Observers’ lack of contextual knowledge about the traffic, i.e. common ground, leads to them attributing the lateness due to ignorance or laziness on the actor's part. This tendency towards dispositional attribution is especially magnified when the stakes are higher and the situation is more complex. When observers are relatively calm, the tendency towards dispositional attribution is less strong.[25]

      [[actor-observer effect]]

    2. It comprises the collection of "mutual knowledge, mutual beliefs, and mutual assumptions" that is essential for communication between two people.

      I've seen a few people with websites that have a grouping of some of their past posts to help orient new readers into their way of thinking and understanding to help provide common grounding for new readers.

      Colin Walker is an example that has had one in the past, but it looks like the move from WordPress to his new system, the original link to that data is gone now. His page was called "required" and an archived version of his example(s) can be found archived here: https://web.archive.org/web/2020*/https://colinwalker.blog/required/

    1. Jesus is the Christ, whose coming as the Messiah was prophesied in the Hebrew Bible, called the Old Testament in Christianity

      couldn't this be a coincidence?

    1. the interweaving of opposites – and implies the process of an object being moulded into unity.

      interweawing of opposites

      object moulded into unity

    1. Nevertheless, co-hyponyms are not necessarily incompatible in all senses. A queen and mother are both hyponyms of woman but there is nothing preventing the queen from being a mother.

      not necessarily incompatible in all senses.

      so is this only a concern/possibility when the word in question is a polyseme?

      but there is nothing preventing the queen from being a mother

      The meaning of the "incompatibility" relation seems really ambiguous. What does that mean precisely?

      And how would we know for sure if an incompatibility (such as a peach is not a plum) or lack of incompatibility (a queen can be a mother and a mother can be a queen) is a sufficient condition to cause it to be or not be a co-hyponym?

      Oh. I guess it says

      Co-hyponyms are often but not always related to one another by the relation of incompatibility.

      so it actually can't ever be used to prove or disprove (sufficient/necessary condition) that something is a co-hyponym. So that observation, while interesting, is not helpful in a practical / deterministic way...

    2. It consists of two relations; the first one being exemplified in "An X is a Y" (simple hyponymy) while the second relation is "An X is a kind/type of Y". The second relation is said to be more discriminating and can be classified more specifically under the concept of taxonomy.

      So I think what this saying, rather indirectly (from the other direction), if I'm understanding correctly, is that the relationships that can be inferred from looking at a taxonomy are ambiguous, because a taxonomy includes 2 kinds of relationships, but encodes them in the same way (conflates them together as if they were both hyponyms--er, well, this is saying that the are both kinds of hyponyms):

      • "An X is a Y" (simple hyponymy)
      • "An X is a kind/type of Y".

      Actually, I may have read it wrong / misunderstood it... While it's not ruling out that simple hyponymy may sometimes be used in a taxonomy, it is be saying that the "second relation" is "more specifically under the concept of taxonomy" ... which is not really clear, but seems to mean that it is more appropriate / better for use as a criterion in a taxonomy.


      Okay, so define "simple hyponymy" and name the other kind of hyponymy that is referenced here.

    1. The Taylor series of a real or complex-valued function f (x) that is infinitely differentiable at a real or complex number a is the power series f ( a ) + f ′ ( a ) 1 ! ( x − a ) + f ″ ( a ) 2 ! ( x − a ) 2 + f ‴ ( a ) 3 ! ( x − a ) 3 + ⋯ , {\displaystyle f(a)+{\frac {f'(a)}{1!}}(x-a)+{\frac {f''(a)}{2!}}(x-a)^{2}+{\frac {f'''(a)}{3!}}(x-a)^{3}+\cdots ,}

      What's the connection between a series and the function?

      -- because of the phrase: "the Taylor series of a ... function "

    1. Windshield phenomenon

      This windscreen evidence is very controversial. It may tell us something, but if so it is probably about the impact of roads on insects. Manu Sanders, who did her PhD on edge effects such as roads on insects has found only one published study on the insect abundance.

      People often claim the ‘windscreen phenomenon’ is established evidence and proven fact. But a search of academic journal databases returns only one published study that has used car windscreens to measure changes in local insect abundance. In that study, Anders Møller compared insect abundance (although it’s not clear from the Methods if he actually measured density) with breeding rates of insectivorous birds in an agricultural landscape in Denmark. Data was collected in the same way at the same location for 20 years, which is very impressive, and analysis showed an 80% decline in insects across the period. She says that it is a good study, especially the parallel declines in birds and their insect foods. But it is only one location and one environmental context. She continues: This tells us about insect splatter on car windscreens in that location, not the world. There are more than 21 million km of roads across the world. Generally roads have negative effects on insect abundance. There are a lot more studies measuring broader-scale effects of roads on insects. But, as with all ecological questions, there is never one single factor influencing a dataset. A recent review found only 50 studies that had investigated the ecological impact of roads on insects (the review was published in 2015 and there have been a few more studies published since then). Overall the authors found generally negative effects on insect abundance and diversity. They also found there are lots of factors within the broader ‘road – insect’ interaction that affect results. For example, during my PhD, we investigated edge effects on wild insect pollinators in almond orchards (the edge was a two-lane low-traffic road between monoculture almond orchards and native mallee woodland). The road wasn’t a barrier, but we found that the edge effect varied across time as the floral resource pulse of the orchards on one side peaked and declined. First, it depends mainly on the verges. Nowadays we trim the verges of roads much more and this impacts on the numbers of insects on the roads.

      See The windscreen phenomenon: anecdata is not scientific evidence

      Also she mentions bug deflectors. You can get these to attach to a car to reduce the insect splatter.

      https://www.carid.com/articles/age-old-debate-do-bug-deflectors-work.html

    1. Taxonomies are often represented as is-a hierarchies where each level is more specific (in mathematical language "a subset of") the level above it. For example, a basic biology taxonomy would have concepts such as mammal, which is a subset of animal, and dogs and cats, which are subsets of mammal. This kind of taxonomy is called an is-a model because the specific objects are considered as instances of a concept. For example, Fido is-an instance of the concept dog and Fluffy is-a cat.
    2. In the simple biology example, dog is a hypernym and Fido is one of its hyponyms. A word can be both a hyponym and a hypernym. For example, dog is a hyponym of mammal and also a hypernym of Fido.

      I wish they hadn't used tokens/objects in this example. Wouldn't it be just as clear or clearer if they had stuck to only comparing types/classes?

      It may be okay to mix them like that in some contexts, but in other cases it seems like this would be suffering from ignoring/conflating/[better word?] the Type–token distinction.

      Does linguistics just not make the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type%E2%80%93token_distinction ?

      This statement seems to reinforce that idea:

      words that are examples of categories are hyponyms

      because an example of a category/class/type could be either a sub-class or an instance of that category/class/type, right?

    1. Not to be confused with tree (graph theory), a specific type of mathematical object.

      Confusing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_(data_structure) says

      Not to be confused with tree (graph theory) "Tree (graph theory)"), a specific type of mathematical object. but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_(graph_theory) redirects to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_structure and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_structure is in category Trees (data structures) So is one a subtype/hyponym of the other ... or what?? How are they related? Skimming the articles a bit, esp. the first paragraph which clearly states as much ( :) ), I believe the answer is: a tree (data structure) is an implementation (in a programming language) of / or a "type that simulates" a hierarchical tree structure. a tree (data structure) is the computer science analogue/dual to tree structure in mathematics

    1. (Not answered on this stub article)

      What, precisely, is the distinction/difference between a semantic class and a semantic field? At the very least, you would say that they are themselves both very much within the same semantic field.

      So, is a semantic class distinct from a semantic field in that semantic class is a more well-defined/clear-cut semantic field? And a semantic field is a more fluid, nebulous, not well-defined field (in the same sense as a magnetic field, which has no distinct boundary whatsoever, only a decay as you move further away from its source) ("semantic fields are constantly flowing into each other")?

      If so, could you even say that a semantic class is a kind of (hyponym) of semantic field?

      Maybe I should pose this question on a semantics forum.

    1. Property types (e.g. "height in metres" or "thorny") are often understood ontologically as concepts. Property instances (e.g. height = 1.74) are sometimes understood as measured values, and sometimes understood as sensations or observations of reality.
    2. The words type, concept, property, quality, feature and attribute (all used in describing things) tend to be used with different verbs. E.g. Suppose a rose bush is defined as a plant that is "thorny", "flowering" and "bushy". You might say a rose bush instantiates these three types, or embodies these three concepts, or exhibits these three properties, or possesses these three qualities, features or attributes.
    1. Title: "goal the use case is trying to satisfy"[23]:101 Main Success Scenario: numbered list of steps[23]:101 Step: "a simple statement of the interaction between the actor and a system"[23]:101 Extensions: separately numbered lists, one per Extension[23]:101 Extension: "a condition that results in different interactions from .. the main success scenario". An extension from main step 3 is numbered 3a, etc.

      Not sure why I find this example so interesting.

      Probably because it is a human-readable outline that uses machine-readable (programming language source code) constructs, namely loops/iteration.

      The format in which this is written in, then, is itself a kind of (high-level, human-oriented) programming language.

      Example:

      • numbered list of steps [introduces/names the loop/iterator/enumeration being done]
        • Step: "a simple statement of the interaction between the actor and a system" [defines the inner part of the loop that gets "executed" once per iteration]
    1. Categorization is the human ability and activity of recognizing shared features or similarities between the elements of the experience of the world (such as objects, events, or ideas), organizing and classifying experience by associating them to a more abstract group (that is, a category, class, or type),[1][2] on the basis of their traits, features, similarities or other criteria.
    1. semantic domain or semantic field

      What, then, is the difference between a semantic domain and a semantic field? The way they are used here, it's almost as if they are listing them in order to emphasis that they are synonyms ... but I'm not sure.

      From the later examples of basketball (https://hyp.is/ynKbXI1BEeuEheME3sLYrQ/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_domain) and coffee shop, however, I am pretty certain that semantic domain is quite different from (broader than) semantic field.

    2. For instance English has a domain ‘Rain’, which includes words such as rain, drizzle, downpour, raindrop, puddle.

      "rain" seems more like a semantic field — a group of very related or nearly synonymous words — than a semantic field.

      Esp. when you consider the later example of basketball (https://hyp.is/ynKbXI1BEeuEheME3sLYrQ/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_domain) and coffee shop, which are more like the sense of "field" that means (academic/scientific/etc.) discipline.

    3. For instance, in basketball there are many words that are specific to the sport. Free throw, court, half court, three pointer, and point guard are all terms that are specific to the sport of basketball. These words make very little sense when used outside of the semantic domain of basketball.

      But this example seems so different than the first example they gave, "rain", which seems more like a semantic field — a group of very related or nearly synonymous words.

    1. For example, in the Dyirbal language, the morpheme balam marks each entity in its noun class with the semantic property of edibility,[8] and Burmese encodes the semantic property for the ability to cut or pierce. Encoding the functional property for transportation, housing, and speech are also attested in world languages.
    2. Basic semantic properties include being meaningful or meaningless – for example, whether a given word is part of a language's lexicon with a generally understood meaning

      The "for example" being where it is, is confusing, and I believe should be left out.

      I think this would have been better written as:

      Basic semantic properties include, for example, being meaningful or meaningless (that is, whether a given word is part of a language's lexicon with a generally understood meaning); polysemy, ..

    3. those aspects of a linguistic unit, such as a morpheme, word, or sentence,

      Speaking of ambiguity...

      Are the examples in the list "such as a morpheme, word, or sentence" examples of

      • aspects of a linguistic unit or of:
      • linguistic units themselves ?

      Unless you are already fairly familiar with those terms -- in particular, linguistic unit -- it may not be clear.

      I believe these are given as examples of "linguistic unit", in order to clarify what we mean by "linguistic unit" — perhaps (ironically) precisely because many people would be unfamiliar with that expression/term.

    1. How is the phrase

      including the production of meaning used in this article, yet the word "semantics" does not appear even once?

      At least https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meaning_(semiotics) ("semantics" appears exactly 1 time in that article) has a link to the article on semantics.

      Seems like a missed opportunity to answer what to me is a very first immediate question that I wonder (and now I wonder if it really is a FAQ or if it's just me who wonders): how is semiotics different from semantics?

      But I guess https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiotics is a better place to look for that answer, and it answers that when it says:

      he defined semiotics as grouped into three branches:

      1. Semantics: deals with the formal properties and interrelation of signs and symbols, without regard to meaning.
      2. Syntactics/syntax: deals with the formal structures of signs, particularly the relation between signs and the objects to which they apply (i.e. signs to their designata, and the objects that they may or do denote).
      3. Pragmatics: deals with the biotic aspects of semiosis, including all the psychological, biological, and sociological phenomena that occur in the functioning of signs. Pragmatics is concerned with the relation between the sign system and sign-using agents or interpreters (i.e., the human or animal users).
    2. any form of activity, conduct, or process that involves signs, including the production of meaning. A sign is anything that communicates a meaning, that is not the sign itself, to the interpreter of the sign. The meaning can be intentional such as a word uttered with a specific meaning, or unintentional, such as a symptom being a sign of a particular medical condition. Signs can communicate through any of the senses, visual, auditory, tactile, olfactory, or taste.
    1. Internet addiction disorder

      Internet addiction disorder (IAD), also known as problematic internet use or pathological internet use, is generally defined as problematic, compulsive use of the internet, that results in significant impairment in an individual's function in various life domains over a prolonged period of time. Young people are at particular risk of developing internet addiction disorder.

    1. Social media and psychology

      Social media began in the form of generalized online communities. These online communities formed on websites like Geocities.com in 1994, Theglobe.com in 1995, and Tripod.com in 1995.[1] Many of these early communities focused on social interaction by bringing people together through the use of chat rooms. The chat rooms encouraged users to share personal information, ideas, or even personal web pages. Later the social networking community Classmates took a different approach by simply having people link to each other by using their personal email addresses. By the late 1990s, social networking websites began to develop more advanced features to help users find and manage friends.[2] These newer generation of social networking websites began to flourish with the emergence of SixDegrees.com in 1997, Makeoutclub in 2000, Hub Culture in 2002, and Friendster in 2002.[3] However, the first profitable mass social networking website was the South Korean service, Cyworld.[4] Cyworld initially launched as a blog-based website in 1999 and social networking features were added to the website in 2001. Other social networking websites emerged like Myspace in 2002, LinkedIn in 2003, and Bebo in 2005. In 2009, the social networking website Facebook (launched in 2004) became the largest social networking website in the world.[5] Active users of Facebook increased from just a million in 2004 to over 750 million by the year 2011. Making internet-based social networking both a cultural and financial phenomenon.

    1. Studies of great ape behavior show that they are good at cooperating in situations where there is no potential of deception, but behave egotistically in situations where there are motives for deception, suggesting that their "lack of cooperativeness" is not a lack of a cognitive ability at all, but rather a necessary adaptation to a society full of deception.[citation needed] This suggests that human cooperativeness began when proto-humans began to successfully avoid competition, which is also supported by the fact that the oldest evidence of care for the long-term sick and disabled are from shortly after the first emigration of hominins out of Africa about 1.8 million years ago

      successfully avoiding competition was key to humans doing super well vs the egotistical, competitive, & deceiving ways of apes

      being able to cooperate and get around deception/defection was key to humans doing so well

      .. and you can see how we evolved white sclera so others can better follow our gaze, hence work with us

      wow! (ape sclera is dark)

    1. His life and legacy of scientific and political achievement, and his status as one of America's most influential Founding Fathers, have seen Franklin honored more than two centuries after his death on the fifty-cent piece, the $100 bill, warships, and the names of many towns, counties, educational institutions, and corporations, as well as numerous cultural references and with a portrait in the Oval Office.

      Very true, he is someone that future generations will still learn about. He will still influence others just like MLK, Malcom X and others that changed America.

    2. He initially owned and dealt in slaves but, by the late 1750s, he began arguing against slavery, became an abolitionist, and promoted education and the integration of blacks in American Society.

      I was not aware of this before. Quite interesting, some people do change for the better. I am glad to see he began arguing against slavery.

    3. He was promoted to deputy postmaster-general for the British colonies on August 10, 1753,[10] having been Philadelphia postmaster for many years, and this enabled him to set up the first national communications network.

      All this must of really made him stand out beyond anyone around his age. I'm sure he was looked up to by others. It takes a lot of responsibility and determination..

    4. Franklin became a successful newspaper editor and printer in Philadelphia, the leading city in the colonies, publishing the Pennsylvania Gazette at the age of 23.[7] He became wealthy publishing this and Poor Richard's Almanack, which he authored under the pseudonym "Richard Saunders".[

      Crazy to think you can become successful being a newspaper editor. I always figured that type of job would be not worth it as I thought you wouldn't make much money off of it. But good for him!

    5. Franklin earned the title of "The First American" for his early and indefatigable campaigning for colonial unity,

      Never knew this, also the word "indefatigable is new to me as well.

    6. A polymath, he was a leading writer, printer, political philosopher, politician, Freemason, postmaster, scientist, inventor, humorist, civic activist, statesman, and diplomat.

      This man did everything! Well not exactly, but very impressive.