Julia, however, seemed unable to mention the Party, and especially the Inner Party, without using the kind of words that you saw chalked up in dripping alley-ways. He did not dislike it. It was merely one symptom of her revolt against the Party and all its ways, and somehow it seemed natural and healthy, like the sneeze of a horse that smells bad hay.

Whilst I realize the artsy fartsy types get a raging chodo over their goofy PSD based layout asshattery

"The Analytical Language of John Wilkins" (Spanish: "El idioma analítico de John Wilkins") is a short essay by Argentine writer Jorge Luis Borges originally published in Otras Inquisiciones (1937–1952).[1][2] It is a critique of the English natural philosopher and writer John Wilkins's proposal for a universal language and of the representational capacity of language generally. In it, Borges imagines a bizarre and whimsical (and fictional) Chinese taxonomy later quoted by Michel Foucault, David Byrne, and others.

He is particularly known for An Essay towards a Real Character and a Philosophical Language (1668) in which, amongst other things, he proposed a universal language and an integrated system of measurement, similar to the metric system.

In many computing contexts, "TTY" has become the name for any text terminal, such as an external console device, a user dialing into the system on a modem on a serial port device, a printing or graphical computer terminal on a computer's serial port or the RS-232 port on a USB-to-RS-232 converter attached to a computer's USB port, or even a terminal emulator application in the window system using a pseudoterminal device.

Hérigone’s only published work of any consequence is the Cursus mathematicus, a six-volume compendium of elementary and intermediate mathematics in French and Latin. Although there is little substantive originality in the Cursus, it shows an extensive knowledge and understanding of contemporary mathematics. Its striking feature is the introduction of a complete system of mathematical and logical notation, very much in line with the seventeenth-century preoccupation with universal languages.

In fact, I'm only here because it seems like something one would 'expect' ruby already to do.

The problem is not just the displeasure you experience trying to wade through the syntax. It’s what lies beyond the words – what they tell us both about humanitarians and, ultimately, the current state of humanitarian aid.

Model theory recognizes and is intimately concerned with a duality: it examines semantical elements (meaning and truth) by means of syntactical elements (formulas and proofs) of a corresponding language

Originally he had used the terms usage scenarios and usage case – the latter a direct translation of his Swedish term användningsfall – but found that neither of these terms sounded natural in English, and eventually he settled on use case.

It's not really about avoiding that association; in many situations only one or the other is correct and you can't substitute willy-nilly

When bullshit is legitimized and codified, itspreads more easily and is likely to be moreinfluential. This in turn fosters the future produc-tion of more bullshit.

The first three steps in the C.R.A.P. framework areused to understand the nature of workplace bullshitand how to identify and deal with it. Building on thisknowledge, the final step in the framework outlineshow to prevent the creation and spread of work-place bullshit in the first place. In the long term,this step may be of the greatest benefit in dealingwith workplace bullshit. Effective prevention willminimize the need for, and costs associated with,recognizing and acting against workplace bullshit.

the debased term of REST

It's a pet peeve, but I wish that people would stop describing their HTTP RPC APIs using the term "REST".

more recent use treats the term as mainly condemnatory

JavaScript needs to fly from its comfy nest, and learn to survive on its own, on equal terms with other languages and run-times. It’s time to grow up, kid.

If JavaScript were detached from the client and server platforms, the pressure of being a monoculture would be lifted — the next iteration of the JavaScript language or run-time would no longer have to please every developer in the world, but instead could focus on pleasing a much smaller audience of developers who love JavaScript and thrive with it, while enabling others to move to alternative languages or run-times.

This is not a physical phenomenon: the software does not actually decay, but rather suffers from a lack of being responsive and updated with respect to the changing environment in which it resides.

I think that over time the distinction is lost. My math teacher, 35 years ago stated "formulas are used in chemistry, in math we have equations". To this day, the word 'formula' in math seems wrong, but I'd accept it's used commonly.

Tamika and Malia employed their critical Black Girls’ Literacies (Muhammad & Haddix, 2016) to question the power dynamics involved in traveling; rather than attempting to enact linguistic privilege as English-speaking Americans, Tamika and Malia acknowledged that they would be visitors in other countries, and they desired to use the communicative practices of the local people

Voicing is the act of employees speaking up toconfront what they consider to be bullshit. Em-ployees may ask to see evidence that supports thesuspected bullshit. They may themselves providebullshit-challenging evidence along with alterna-tive statements, and when doing so should becognizant that simple and coherent bullshit willtend to be more appealing than intricate andcomplex truths. Employees may also voice bylaughing at and mocking bullshit. This is a way to“informally show up its emptiness without havingto risk a full-frontal face-off with powerful bullshitartists” (Spicer, 2017, p. 167).

When employees correctly conclude that a state-ment is bullshit, they may react in a number ofdifferent ways. To illustrate these reactions, wedraw onHirschman’s (1970)exit,voice,loyaltyframework, which he initially formulated to illus-trate how employees react to organizations indecline or when the sky was falling. Scholars lateraddedneglect(Farrell, 1983; Withey & Cooper,1989) and successfully applied the framework tohelp understand employees’ responses to negativeworkplace experiences (Rusbult, Farrell, Rogers, &Mainous, 1988; Turnley & Feldman, 1999). Weapply this framework here to employees’ reactionsto bullshit.When employees act by exiting, they are tryingto escape from the bullshit and the bullshitter.This can involve quitting the organization orseeking a transfer to a different unit of the orga-nization so as to avoid the influence of the bull-shitter. Exiting is a likely reaction when employeesare so appalled by the bullshit that they cannotstay with the organization or unit, or when theyare already disillusioned, and the bullshit (possiblythe latest bout in a stream of bullshit) is the laststraw. For exiting to happen, employee dissatis-faction with the situation must rise to such a levelthat the disadvantages of remaining and facingbullshit in the workplace are greater than thedisadvantages of leaving. Or alternatively, thepersonal costs of leaving should be low enoughrelative to the costs of the two other responses inwhich workers remain and either contest thebullshit (i.e., voice) or disengage from the work-place bullshit (i.e., neglect).

When faced with ‘jargonese,’ often people assumethat they are missing something, or they confusevagueness for profundity. The rule holds however,that if it is not possible to understand what thewords in a statement mean, then it is reasonableto suspect the statement to be bullshit.

The cornerstone to recognising bullshit isknowing how it masquerades. This involves recog-nizing how colleagues go about framing statements(in written, spoken, or graphical form) that arewithout regard for the truth. Typically, suchstatements are abstract and general in nature andcome across as the opposite of plain English. Thestatements will lack details, sources, and logic,and they will be full of logical disconnects andgaps. Furthermore, if a statement is riddled withmeaningless language, acronyms, buzzwords, andjargon, then it is likely to be bullshit.

Third, the audience is more likely to find thebullshit appealing if they also find it credible. Akey to credibility is the identity of the personcommunicating the bullshit.

Remember that bullshitters, unre-stricted by truth, have more freedom to frametheir statements. They are at liberty to deviseappealing bullshit with three significant charac-teristics. First, the bullshit may offer personalbenefits to the audience. For example, if a scien-tist in a research and development (R&D) depart-ment hears some bullshit from their boss thatsuggests the company is about to double the R&Dbudget, the scientist is likely to find this bullshitappealing. In addition, some employees may alsorelish or need workplace bullshit so as to flourish intheir jobs. They view bullshit as a necessary aspectof organizational life. Trendy jargon, flaky logic,and shallow arguments can be so appealing tosome that they provide them with direction andenergy.

Furthermore, abullshitter’s statements may never have beenintended to be believed or even to garner muchattention. They are intended to misrepresent bybeing appealing or convincing, or by distracting,exhausting, or disengaging colleagues, so thatagendas can be pursued with little or no resis-tance. This lack of awareness of the true nature ofworkplace bullshit is one of the reasons why thereis such an abundance of it (Fredal, 2011).

The bullshitter makes adecision to further that agenda through commu-nicative acts and decides on a message and amedium that will help them to achieve thatagenda. Crucially, while doing so, they disregardthe truth, in the sense that they are not concernedwith the truth, inaccuracy, or falseness of theirmessage but only in its efficaciousness in promot-ing the desired agenda

when we engagein work, we must distinguish between this type ofsocial bullshit, which can be harmless or evenhelpful to the organization (because it can enablethe development of normal interpersonal re-lationships), and other types of bullshit that canhave damaging impacts on the organization.

the more often colleagues at work are asked tocomment on matters about which they know littleor nothing, the more bullshit there is

Bullshit has become socommonplace that it is suggested that businesscommunications are dominated bytruthiness(inwhich the validity of something is based on how itfeels),post-factlanguage (taking a position thatignores facts), andecho chambers(where positive-feedback loops create cravings for and fuel thespread of bullshit

Marketing bullshit(a.k.a. puffery)Exaggerated or false claims by marketersthat amplify the features and performanceof a product or service (Chakraborty &Harbaugh, 2014).In 2000, a court ruled that ads from the PapaJohn’s pizza company stating “Betteringredients. Better Pizza” could not beverified as fact and should be deemedpuffery

Jargon bullshit Words or expressions used by a particularprofession or group to make something seemlegitimate and enticing, while also muddlinglanguage and thinking (Poole, 2013; Spicer,2017).

found that using only the Pascal-provided control structures, the correct solution was given by only 20% of the subjects, while no subject wrote incorrect code for this problem if allowed to write a return from the middle of a loop.

Another solution is using the Safe Navigation Operator &. introduced in Ruby 2.3 which is a bit better because this is a language feature rather than an opinionated runtime environment pollution

Each of the programming language generations aims to provide a higher level of abstraction of the internal computer hardware details, making the language more programmer-friendly, powerful, and versatile.

Most C++ template idioms will carry over to D without alteration, but D adds some additional functionality

In programming language design, a first-class citizen (also type, object, entity, or value) in a given programming language is an entity which supports all the operations generally available to other entities. These operations typically include being passed as an argument, returned from a function, modified, and assigned to a variable.

which have recently become umbrella terms referring to any piece of quickly-consumed comedic or relatable content

The Chicago Manual of Style and the Associated Press (AP) both revised their formerly capitalized stylization of the word to lowercase "internet" in 2016.[3] The New York Times, which followed suit in adopting the lowercase style, said that such a change is common practice when "newly coined or unfamiliar terms" become part of the lexicon.

The spelling "internet" has become often used, as the word almost always refers to the global network; the generic sense of the word has become rare in non-technical writings.

We think that, although Ruby is a great language for the backend, the view should be written in languages designed for that purpose, HTML and JavaScript.

We assume that the people who are in the bestposition to accurately assess the degree of bullshit in their organizations arethe people who work there; therefore, we set out to develop a reliable andvalid scale to measure employees’ perceptions of the extent to which bullshitexists in their organizations. Next, we turn to how we developed theOrganizational Bullshit Perception Scale (OBPS).

Applying the logic of Petrocelli (2018), leaders will be driven to bull-shit when the social and professional expectations to have an opinion are high,and when they expect to get away with it. These two conditions are subject tohow (un)knowledgeable their audience is. Similarly, if leaders exhibit high levelsof overconfidence, and believe they are popular amongst their peers, this willmake them likely to engage in more bullshit-related behavior (Jerrim et al.,2019).

McCarthy et al. (2020) refer to a number of bullshit expressionssuch as “blue-sky thinking” or “out-of-the-box thinking”, which are often usedas vague buzzwords with minimal substance. This vagueness serves the interestsof bullshitters, because communication targets are less likely to ask questionswhen they find it difficult to understand what has been said (McCarthy et al.,2020).

ll respondents assessed their overallperceived bullshit in their organization on a simple 4-point scale ranging from 1indicating ‘there is no bullshit in our organization’, through 2 indicating ‘there isa little bullshit in our organization’, through 3 indicating ‘there is some bullshitin our organization’ to 4 indicating ‘there is a lot of bullshit in our organization’.The overall perceived bullshit in the organization was regressed on the threeperceived bullshit scale factors. The R2value of 0.36 indicates convergencebetween the OBPS and the overall bullshit perception measure, withregardfor truthandthe bossbeing significant predictors of the overall bullshitperception.

The second dimension,the boss, confirms that employees believe that theirsuperiors are key players in the dissemination of bullshit. Bullshit aims only toserve an immediate end – whether to puff up one’s reputation or to advancetheir point of view or argument (Gibson, 2011). Further, employees are likely tohave to take action based on any bullshit communicated by their bosses. As aresult, employees are likely to be acutely aware when their superiors use bullshitto advance their own self-interests.

The final dimension,bullshit language,considers some of the commonly usedtypes of language employed by bullshitters, namely the excessive use of acro-nyms and jargon. The finding that employees perceive that the excessive use ofsuch language is a form of bullshit confirms that they are not oblivious to its usein the workplace. They may share the opinion of McCarthy et al. (2020, p. 258),who argued that “if a statement is riddled with meaningless language, acronyms,buzzwords, and jargon, then it is likely to be bullshit.” It is possible that theexcessive use of acronyms and jargon may occur to employees as an exclusion-ary mechanism in the workplace, whereby those unfamiliar with the terminologymay not be able to meaningfully contribute to the conversation or voice theirconcerns.

Workplaces are awash with many forms of bullshit that manifest in manydifferent ways, including misrepresentation, where leaders make statementswithout knowing the facts; meaningless job titles (Graeber, 2018); fake andshallow company slogans (e.g. Lee et al., 2020); and workplace puffery suchas resum
e padding (Grover, 2005). Under some circumstances, organizationalbullshit, usually referred to as “banter”, “badinage” or “joshing” can be harm-less, often creative, and even contribute to a congenial atmosphere in an orga-nization. Organizational bullshit may even have a positive effect when leadersarticulate inspiring futuristic, but largely uncertain visions, that are meant toinspire others to act (Christensen et al., 2019). On the other hand, other scholarshave outlined a number of detrimental effects of bullshit. McCarthy et al.(2020), while acknowledging there can be positive effects of organizational bull-shit, also caution that it can result in lower job satisfaction among the organ-ization’s members, increased distrust in leadership, a reduction in productivity,and ultimately a negative impact on overall performance (McCarthy et al.,2020)

As bullshitters don’t care what the truth is, this affordsthem freedom to say whatever it takes to further their agenda (McCarthy et al.,2020). This freedom from truth and evidence can mean that bullshit is some-times misperceived as something profound (Pennycook et al., 2015) or, alterna-tively, viewed as an empty claim (Spicer, 2020)

Drawing on Frankfurt (2009), McCarthy et al. (2020, p. 254) define workplacebullshit as “as taking place when colleagues make statements at work with noregard for the truth”.

Additional testing of pipeline portability is currently being conducted as a part of the Global Alliance for Genomics and Health (GA4GH) workflow portability challenge

Progressivism

men

republic

Like many of us, I talk to myself out loud, though I’m a little unusual in that I often do it in public spaces. Whenever I want to figure out an issue, develop an idea or memorise a text, I turn to this odd work routine. While it’s definitely earned me a reputation in my neighbourhood, it’s also improved my thinking and speaking skills immensely. Speaking out loud is not only a medium of communication, but a technology of thinking: it encourages the formation and processing of thoughts.

I saw him and was astounded. 33I loved him as a woman, 34falling upon him in embrace. 35I took him and made him 36my brother.” 37The mother of Gilgamish she that knows all things 38[said unto Gilgamish:—] ................................... [213] COL. II 1that he may join with thee in endeavor.” 2(Thus) Gilgamish solves (his) dream. 3Enkidu sitting before the hierodule

A direct, “you seem” statement might work with your own kid, but for an adult, it might feel like labeling, which can trigger defensiveness or an emotional shutdown. The goal is to encourage the other person to open up about how they’re doing by showing you care, so frame your observation in a way that won’t make them feel judged or misinterpreted.Instead, couch your observation with softer, curiosity-driven language. Mia Rosenberg, a therapist and the owner of Upsider Therapy, recommends the “I’ve noticed that” and “I’m wondering” formula. For example, you could say, “I’ve noticed that you’re quieter lately; I’m wondering if you’re stressed?”

Many linguists believe that the natural language a person speaks affects how they think. Does the same concept apply to computer languages?

In the case of email, it can be argued that the widespread use of the unhyphenated spelling has made this compound noun an exception to the rule. It might also be said that closed (unhyphenated) spelling is simply the direction English is evolving, but good luck arguing that “tshirt” is a good way to write “t-shirt.”

With Lotus Notes, I can combine a hierarchically organized outline view of the documents, with full text searching, hypertext links and traditiona l relational database like reports (for example, a sorted view of items to do).

Warning: Many native English speakers find who versus whom difficult and frequently get it wrong. This is also due to the fact that it is falling out of fashion and is often seen as archaic.

Before the publication of the ‘Gang of Four’ book that popularised software patterns [4], Richard Gabriel described Christopher Alexander’s patterns in 1993 as a basis for reusable object‐oriented software in the following way:Habitabilityisthecharacteristicofsourcecodethatenablesprogrammers,coders,bug­fixers,andpeoplecomingtothecodelaterinitslifetounderstanditsconstructionandintentionsandtochangeitcomfortablyandconfidently.

Connected to this are Andy Matuschak’s comments about contextual backlinks bootstrapping new concepts before explicit definitions come into play.

Easily updated pages: don’t worry about precisely naming something at first. Let the meaning emerge over time and easily change it (propagating through all references).

Cognitive Overhead (aka Cognitive Load): often the task of specifying formalism is extraneous to the primary task, or is just plain annoying to do.

The basic intuition is described well by the Shipman & Marshall paper: users enter information in a mostly informal fashion, and then formalize only later in the task when appropriate formalisms become clear and also (more) immediately useful.

It’s important to notice something about these examples of synthesis representations: they go quite a bit further than simply grouping or associating things (though that is an important start). They have some kind of formal semantic structure (otherwise known as formality) that specifies what entities exist, and what kinds of relations exist between the entities. This formal structure isn’t just for show: it’s what enables the kind of synthesis that really powers significant knowledge work! Formal structures unlock powerful forms of reasoning like conceptual combination, analogy, and causal reasoning.

Systems which display backlinks to a node permit a new behavior: you can define a new node extensionally (rather than intensionally) by simply linking to it from many other nodes—even before it has any content.

But I always thought that if Svelte will change its syntax to something new, it will more look like ES6 Template Literals

Btw, I also personally like Dust-syntax: https://github.com/linkedin/dustjs/wiki/Dust-Tutorial

In agent-oriented programming the antonym is depender, though in general usage the common term dependent is used instead. There is no common language equivalent for dependee', however – other metaphors are used instead, such as parent/child. The circumlocutions “A depends on B” and “B is depended on by A” are much more common in general use than “A is the depender, B is the ' dependee ”.

In the software industry we use "dependency" to refer to the relationship between two objects. We say "looking for dependents" for relationships to dependent things and "looking for dependencies" for relationships to prerequisite things, so it gets that connotation, but the literal meaning is the relationship itself, not the object. Finding a better word is exactly the point of the question

fact, Woices, iSpeech and Voki can be used for the post-listening stage. You may decide, for example, to have your learners create their own Voki as a response. T

iSpeech can be used with computers or with tablets and smart phones through the mobile apps. Voki allows you, or your students, to generate fun listening activities through the creation of avatars to represent you, a fictitious character, or your students.

burst open the sideboard

One of the primary tasks of engineers is to minimize complexity. JSX changes such a fundamental part (syntax and semantics of the language) that the complexity bubbles up to everything it touches. Pretty much every pipeline tool I've had to work with has become far more complex than necessary because of JSX. It affects AST parsers, it affects linters, it affects code coverage, it affects build systems. That tons and tons of additional code that I now need to wade through and mentally parse and ignore whenever I need to debug or want to contribute to a library that adds JSX support.

hyperscript is much simpler to refactor and DRY up your code than with JSX, because, being vanilla javascript, its easier to work with variable assignment, loops and conditionals.

Why not just use that instead of inventing a syntax that's not part of ECMAScript?

servant

I know that it is the matter of taste and a debatable thing, I find JSX and regular javascript flow operators a lot more readable than any sort of {#blocks} and directives.

Yes, you cannot fully express a modern app through templates without sacrificing flexibility and code reusability.

Because templates are not Turing-complete, and if they were, they would require vDOM.

Language, using a schema, provides a system of abstraction enabling one to model something. Language is context sensitive & composable. With the Language tool, we craft systems of illusion, intelligence, & life.

that does not mean that I am advocating the other extreme–i.e., a templating language that allows a lot of logic. I find such templating languages, especially those that allow the host programming languages to be used inside the template, to be hard to read, hard to maintain, and simply a bad choice.

Hooks embrace JavaScript closures and avoid introducing React-specific APIs where JavaScript already provides a solution.

Solid supports templating in 3 forms JSX, Tagged Template Literals, and Solid's HyperScript variant.

formal<---------------|--X------------->informal

Templates are prone to unnoticed runtime errors, are hard to test, and are not easy to restructure or decompose.

In contrast, Javascript-made templates can be organised into components with nicely decomposed and DRY code that is more reusable and testable.

In contrast, React apps shun templates and require the developer to create their DOM in Javascript, typically aided with JSX.

I am Social Secretary

Links are just <a> elements, rather than framework-specific <Link> components. That means, for example, that this link right here, despite being inside a blob of markdown, works with the router as you'd expect

Why would someone add their pronouns to their signature line?