12 Matching Annotations
  1. Jun 2024
    1. what's the point what am i g to get out of this it's the same question actually

      for - question - How to respond when asked what's the point or what's in it for me? - adjacency - what's the point? - what's in it for me? - human attention - progress traps

      question - How to respond when asked what's the point or what's in it for me? - When these questions pop up, - it can be a good opportunity to engage the other in deeper dialogue to reveal deeper complexity

      adjacency - between - questions - what's in it for me? - what's the point? - human attention - progress trap - complexity - emptiness - adjacency relationship - These questions come up a lot - and they indicate a normative human tendency: - When we focus attention on what we consider salient in our dynamic, constructed salience landscape - at the same time it defocuses our attention from the rest of the field the salient feature occurs within - In this sense, overemphasize on these questions could reveal a dependency on oversimplification - of the complexity inherent all every life situation - Remember that emptiness, with its pillars of - intertwingledness and - change - pervades everything, everywhere and everytime - and such continuous oversimplification is tantamount to - ignoring the empty nature of reality and - leads to progress traps

  2. Apr 2024
    1. I got no actual help from my long Verizon Support chat session and I kept asking if there is a block list they use that they could check (or a whitelist I could be added to...but fat chance) my IP for, since that is clearly what the error is calling out, but they never acknowledged that particular part of my questions, just ignored it.
  3. Mar 2024
    1. Take a moment to pick up the objects around you. Use them as you normally would, and sense their tactile response — their texture, pliability, temperature; their distribution of weight; their edges, curves, and ridges; how they respond in your hand as you use them.

      How objects respond

      References

      Victor, B. (2011). A brief rant on the future of interaction design. Tomado de https://worrydream.com/ABriefRantOnTheFutureOfInteractionDesign/

  4. Dec 2023
    1. Leon Huang  · nsoSrdopteftuam473i91ctittu09521cgu781mlfhct5i61g2c61l37699t  · Shared with Public最近衝著Banjamin van Rooji,去買了《行為失控》這本書;剛剛讀了第一章,我發現翻譯才是真的失控。低劣而錯誤百出。我講的並不是單純翻譯風格疑似中國化的問題,而是原文所使用的字彙,語意,句法,乃至寫作巧思,在翻譯版當中錯漏誤譯,巧思盡失。我舉幾個例子吧。1. 第一章的標題,"A Tale of Two Codes" 顯然原作者在致敬Dickens的名著《雙城記》A Tale of Two Cities. 這不用花太多腦力也沒什麼高深的文學素養。了解這個基本不過的文學典故,翻譯成「雙『碼』記」,不失原意之外,同時也呼應本書同時指涉legal code,也就是「法典」,正是一種「法律編碼」,以及behavioral code--行為準則,也是一種「行為編碼」。正是雙『碼』記。為什麼能翻成「兩個密碼的故事」?然後,全文的"legal code"硬要翻成法律密碼,"behavioral code"硬要翻成行為密碼,到底是有多少秘密?編碼、符碼、組碼...各式各樣的詞彙組合,都有可能呈現作者原意。到底跟密碼(cryptography)有什麼一定要扯上的關係?2. 「在這一切之中,律師扮演著重要的角色。律師身為立法者...」(第22頁))這種荒腔走板的翻譯,顯然是以為"lawyer"一詞就是律師,而不知道lawyer一詞根本上很常泛指「法律人」。這一整段的譯文內容,不要說句意通順了,連中文的意思都令人難以理解。3. 「我們的法律傾向由公共意見形成的政治過程。」(第23頁)誰能告訴我這句中文在講什麼?我看不懂。這才第一章。被我標示為錯誤或中文字句但無法以中文理解的字詞,已經多不勝數。我不理解為什麼一本橫跨法律與行為科學專業,在美國頗受好評的著作,這麼大一家出版社的中文版可以把它搞砸成這樣。譯者跟責任編輯不覺得要對讀者負責嗎?編輯自己不懂的,不用找專業審訂嗎?還是覺得法律相關的書反正大家都看不懂,無所謂?

      A Tale of Two Codes我會翻《雙典記》 code 法典 encode 編成法典

      姑且不談code該怎麼翻,如原po律師指出,作者明顯泛稱的laywer一詞,譯者顯然帶著一種死腦筋,硬相信自己幾十年的淺度學習記憶,lawyer一定就是「律師」不能有他義,於是翻出令人好笑的意思。例如,犯了原文 lawyers ACT AS judges...翻成「律師的舉止有如法官」,連act as意思是「擔任、充當」如此清晰,都會變成「舉止有如」,這句意思是「法律人擔任法官(時)...」。

      「最終形成公共意見」,「形成」應作「形塑」(影響、左右),原文是shape,不是form、make up。

      「法律傾向...政治過程」那個病句真的令人納悶,編輯根本睡著了,原文有一個字漏翻。

  5. Mar 2020
    1. I've been meaning to remind readers that I do read the comments. Some time ago, one disappointed commenter mused that others' reflections seemed to go (as I recall) "into a void," because I remained silent to each. Perhaps I was ignoring readers' remarks? I assure you that is not the case. I read them all — although on this site, for some reason, "all" means somewhat sparse — and I find them nearly all remarkable in their perceptiveness. I especially welcome, and enjoy, intelligent disagreement. I choose not to respond, however, only because of my editorial philosophy, which holds that the comment section is, rightfully, for commenters — and commenters alone. I've already had my say, and it seems to me rather rude to take another whack in reply. Whenever I'm so substantively shaky or incoherent as to make my case unpersuasively the first time around, I figure I should live with the consequences. And whenever I find criticism flawed, I figure readers — perceptive as they are — will see the flaw as well, therefore there's no need for me to rub it in. So, I beg you not to take my silence personally.
  6. Mar 2018
    1. I want to suggest that undergraduate students do not care about digital humanities

      I find it interesting that the author chooses to make this claim. As a student at the University of Oregon, I disagree with this sentiment. Before enrolling in my first digital humanities class, I had never even heard of the term "digital humanities". I have found, through discussions with my peers, many students find the concept of digital humanities to be intriguing, new and even exciting.

    2. To brag that our humanities (or our liberal arts) are digital is to proclaim that we’ve met a base requirement for modern communication. It would be like your bank crowing that you can check your account online. Of course you can. At this point, you would only notice if you couldn’t.

      While this is true, I don't think it is unimpressive to introduce digital humanities. While most undergraduate students are immersed in the digital world, English and humanities classes in schools have always focused on analog practices. Bringing together the familiar digital world into the dry, (oftentimes boring) world of academia is a good way to bridge the gap for students.

    3. The idea that our students must have innate technological skills because they’ve grown up in a computer-saturated world is equal, to my mind, with assuming all drivers must be excellent mechanics or auto designers because they’ve spent so much time behind the wheel or, perhaps more germanely, to assuming all students must be innately gifted writers because they’ve grown up around books and paper.

      A valid point, however I think students that have grown up with lots of interaction with digital platforms are more likely to easily integrate digital humanities into their lives. For me, taking notes on my laptop is much more efficient than handwriting notes. I attribute this to my high school's use of iPads for notetaking and textbook access. I became skilled in taking notes digitally and still being able to absorb the information. In contrast, my mother could never take digital notes and feel as though she was absorbing the information. This is because she has not had the practice and training to do so because she grew up handwriting notes.

    4. “Texts, Maps, Networks” a more productive and stimulating class than its immediate predecessor, “Doing Digital Humanities.”

      From a student's perspective, I agree that naming specific software or platforms within class titles is helpful for students to image what that class has to offer when picking courses to take.

    5. relatively isolated liberal arts college and the second a medium-sized research university

      Coming from personal experience (having attended a small, liberal arts college for the first two years of college & just recently transferring to a large research university), I understand how with bigger universities it can be extremely challenging to implement new curriculum. These difficulties can arise from funding, qualified faculty, board of trustees, traditional administration, etc.

    6. digital humanities”—had just been declared “the first ‘next big thing’ in a long time” by William Pannapacker in his Chronicle of Higher Education column.

      It is interesting to me that Digital Humanities is such a new subject. I think the fact that DH is still so new (as compared to other subjects, like English) makes it that much more complicated to implement in schools.

  7. Aug 2015