84 Matching Annotations
  1. Oct 2020
    1. When giving negative feedback, teachers can use the positive sandwich approach—starting and ending with a positive comment

      Compare and contrast to what Claude Steele calls the "Tom Ostrom strategy" - framing feedback in terms of "I have high standards; here is my feedback; I believe you can reach my high standards by taking this feedback."

    1. But presenting a library author as a "snake oil" merchant and those who show enthusiasm for that library as fools for falling "hook, line and sinker" for his lies is pretty insulting and not particularly constructive.
    1. ‘I stood like one Thunderstruck, or as if I had seen an Apparition.’ If that isn’t as much as to say: ‘Expect the sudden appearance of Mr. Franklin Blake’–there’s no meaning in the English language!” said Betteredge, closing the book with a bang, and getting one of his hands free at last to take the hand which I offered him.

      This is hysterical. I love how Betteredge takes obtuse passages of Crusoe as gospel--full of premonitions, and spiritual wisdom. Betteredge's Christianess may be questionable, but certainly not his Crusoeness. I love Collins use of pop culture in critiquing popular modes of religious thinking.

  2. Sep 2020
    1. This absolute self-dependence is a great virtue in a man. In a woman it has a serious drawback of morally separating her from the mass of her sex, and so exposing her to misconstruction by the general opinion.

      So much of the sexism portrayed by the narrators seems so on the nose, and inverted by the actions of the women in the novel. Rachel is strong, assertive, and segacious. Lady Verinder, kept her agency, and did not bend under the scrutiny of Mr. Cuff, Penelope was right about Rachel's feelings for Franklin, whereas Betteredge was none the wiser. And Rosanna, though tragically, also maintained her agency. I wonder if this was Collins's intent, is he making a critique?

    2. There, again, lay the illuminated manuscript on a table. Mr. Luker’s attention was absorbed, as Mr. Godfrey’s attention had been absorbed, by this beautiful work of Indian art. He too was aroused from his studies by a tawny naked arm round his throat, by a bandage over his eyes, and by a gag in his mouth.

      It's rewarding to see the Indians use the characters own Orientalism as a trap. Especially in the midst of what is possibly the most racist bit of narration yet. I wonder if Collins meant this as a sly critique of Orientalism, I also wonder if the frequent use of 'Christian' in place of kind, or decent (or good, etc.), wasn't so on the nose, as to be satirical. Especially, in a story, which by it's very nature, makes us curious to the true nature of its characters.

  3. Aug 2020
  4. Jul 2020
    1. So when Avdi took to air some of those grievances on Twitter, the natural thing happened that always happens when you feel your work is attacked: The core contributor group got defensive! That’s a mischaracterization! Where are the completed bug reports!? You know the drill, if you’ve ever worked on something, poured your heart into it, and then seen it criticized online. There’s that immediate, knee-jerk reaction of a sting. But it doesn’t have to sting.
  5. Jun 2020
  6. May 2020
    1. It’s so much easier to be a critic than a celebrator. Always remember there is a human being on the other end of every exchange and behind every cultural artifact being critiqued.
    1. I hasten to add that my own liking for this movie, as with Lucy, has nothing to do with academic enlightenment and is strictly and exclusively a matter of fun (without scare quotes, and speaking in terms of both erotics and aesthetics, at least insofar as anyone can separate these two forms of sexiness).

      I love how Rosenbaum categorizes aesthetics as a form of sexiness. Yes.

    1. assessed prospectively in men and women smokers before and then day-by-day

      No control group? This study tells me literally nothing. It just demonstrates that the effects of tobacco are not the same as nicotine. That was already obvious.

    1. Analyses linking Pentecostalism to the pursuit of personal gain through the breakdown of social relationships are problematic on at least two fronts. First, the vast majority of these studies are based largely, if not exclusively, on sermons and interviews with church leaders. While these are certainly an important part of any anthropological discussion of Pentecostal ritual life, in the absence of a robust ethnographic engagement with those who spend their time listening to these messages, it is impossible to determine the extent to which believers are putting their leaders' words into practice (see Engelke 2010).

      The author also harshly criticizes non-ethnographic qualitative studies solely based on sermons and interviews that try to argue for a individualizing, socially corrosive prosperity Pentecostalism without data that actually documents sociality.

  7. Apr 2020
    1. The pattern of Hollywood is to balance the independent woman with the female stereotype so that the net sum of progressivism remains zero.

      Compare the line of reasoning in this essay with Bordwell's observation that Hollywood movies strive to present the perfect balance between left and right, so as to upset no one, to flatter everyone, and to sell tickets.

  8. Mar 2020
    1. I enjoy dissent and debate among commenters, and criticism of my views is also always welcome; you are even free to call me an assclown, a dupe, a partisan ignoramus — whatever you like, as long as you don't insult other commenters.
    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.
  9. Jan 2020
    1. compared gene drives to the atomic bomb and accused researchers of using malaria as a Trojan horse to cover up the development of agricultural gene drives for corporate profit
    2. Their financial interest in the intellectual property and their regulatory interest in making sure these products were able to come to market got conflated with the science, so nobody was willing to trust the kind of research they were doing. The end result was that all G.M.O. research got tainted.”

      This speaks volumes of keeping regulatory bodies highly circumspect of lobbyists from the regulated organizations especially when they are near monopolistic.

    3. the technology was controlled primarily by the global agricultural giant Monsanto
    1. In contrast, both blue and red lights affected cortisol levels

      No control group? Being awake for 27 hours will do that. They need to use either no light and/or sleeping subjects as controls..So far I've only read the abstract, so it's possible that they address this further down.

  10. Nov 2019
    1. fiber

      There are two additional types of meals that will be needed to clarify this issue. That is, one with a high-fat high-fiber meal, and another with a low-fiber high-carbohydrate meal. Nonetheless, one could argue that, in practice, carbohydrates correlate with fiber.

  11. Apr 2019
  12. Mar 2019
  13. Sep 2018
    1. Perpetual progress is a strong statement of the transhumanist commitment to seek “more intelligence, wisdom, and effectiveness, an open-ended lifespan, and the removal of political, cultural, biological, and psychological limits to continuing development. Perpetually overcoming constraints on our progress and possibilities as individuals, as organizations, and as a species. Growing in healthy directions without bound.”

      The author further identify the true meaning of transhumanism as it is now focusing more of a mesh making all humans quite uniform, taking away culture and amplifying the idea of the collective being a single organism. The authors are more so repeating themselves as it is similar to previous points. The repetition may be there to reinforce the claim of the collective being a single organism. It is rather interesting that it diverse from promoting individualism where people gets to have their own culture and political ideologies, the author is effectively saying that humans should not have a mind of their own but interlinked with others to move within a direction with efficiency.

  14. Aug 2018
  15. Jun 2018
    1. Aldous Huxley warned of a world in which we’d arrange sexual intercourse as we make dates for coffee, with the same politeness and obligation. That now seems like an impossibly beautiful idyll.

      It struck me as a beautiful idyll when I read Brave New World. At the time, I was probably in my late teens, a sex child at his peak.

  16. Sep 2017
    1. More recently, some feminist criticism has turned away from describing female subjectivity as normatively governed by a will to resist. In looking to describe modes of female subjectivity outside a subversion/complicity duality and identify how women attached significance to inhabiting norms, as Charlotte Lucas did, this critical approach broadens our understanding of the multiple forms that subjectivity and agency take in the early novel.

      Interesting, especially since the majority of the article seemed to do what recent feminist criticism "has turned away against"

  17. Mar 2017
    1. the multilayered nature of interaction and language use, in all their complexity and as a network of interdependencies among all the elements in the setting, not only at the social level, but also at the physical and symbolic level

      Does this map to literary theory in any way?...

    1. Man kann es aber auch schade finden, dass in "PussyTerror TV" der rote Haltungsfaden fehlt.

      Sobald also Kebekus über Sachen herzieht, die Rützel nicht gut findet, fehlt Kebekus der rote Faden. Was erdreistet sich diese Kebekus eigentlich, ihren eigenen Humor zu haben, anstatt komplett auf Mainstream-Propaganda-Linie einzuschwenken? Frau Rützel, ihr Verständnis von Meinungsvielfalt ist wirklich bemerkenswert!

  18. Feb 2017
    1. How can we distinguish among the amusing eccentrics, the honestly misguided, the avaricious litigants, and the serious skeptics questioning a premature consensus?

      "True criticism is a liberal and humane art. It is the offspring of good sense and refined taste. It aims at acquiring a just discernment of the real merit of authors." - Blair

    1. when tion, which, without their aid, might have passed every one erects himself into a judge, and when unobserved; and which, though of a delicate na-we can hardly mingle in polite society without ture, frequently exert a powerful influence on bearing some share in such discussions;

      This sounds a lot like current complaints of the interwebs, particularly social media. Everyone's a critic!

    2. But this is the criticism of pedants only. True criticism is a lib-eral and humane art.

      This is still a complaint I hear a lot regarding academia--that we have fallen into criticism as a mode of deconstruction and not of information-gathering or improvement. I have always found that it sounds a little like an old man muttering "in my day, we weren't so negative about the canon!" and then being super angry and offended when you tell him his novel is pretty racist. I can take the point that criticism should not be solely destructive to the point of belittling otherwise valuable texts for the attention one gets for criticizing the popular, but it seems suspicious to say "criticism should only do this thing that I* want it to do!"

      *This mental image might exist because I have found that it is mostly older (white) male academics who don't like their students criticizing the canon. That's just my personal experience, though.

  19. Jan 2017
    1. No, I will not release this on F-Droid. I actually looked into it and ended up wasting quite a bit of time jumping through the hoops of their submission process before realizing it was blocked by a conflict of interest. It's not for lack of trying.Pale Moon may meet the requirements of Open Source distribution through it, but F-Droid doesn't meet the requirements of proper developer control over my own product to distribute through them. F-Droid is simply not for Pale Moon since:I cannot sign my own packages (all developers there have to allow F-Droid to sign their software and publish it with F-Droid's signature)I cannot control the build environment used to build the binaries (they build the program on their server)I cannot test the binaries before releaseIf there is a problem with the binaries (either by accident or on purpose), it will immediately reflect on me while it would be F-Droid's fault. This puts F-Droid in a position of power over software developers that I am not comfortable with (nor should any other app developer be).They don't accept pre-built APKs (with the single exception of MozCo's builds of Mozilla Firefox, because, well, I guess they are in some sort of agreement there - who knows why they have this one very notable exception...).F-Droid operators are also not happy about the prerequisites for building Pale Moon since it has a lot of dependencies and is very complex to build. I can't go and redesign the build requirements just to satisfy their needs for building on their side (which I don't want to begin with)At least some of the operators there seem to think MPL or FOSS = Public Domain... They are explicitly forbidden to build Pale Moon with official name and branding from source, as a result.More details in the pull request discussion: https://gitlab.com/fdroid/fdroiddata/merge_requests/260
  20. Dec 2016
    1. Responding to criticism:

      • Acknowledge each point.
      • Explain how you agree, and what you intend to do to improve, or
      • explain why you object to that point.

      They might give you additional useful opinions. They might not respond at all. If you get a response that is antagonistic, it's time to let it drop.

    2. A good critic who pans your work should be doing it as a service to your potential audience while giving you honest feedback that you can use to improve (or move on to something else).

      Sometimes the problem isn’t with what you’re doing but how it is perceived by others, and even here the critic can show you how to tune your message so what people hear is what you intend to say.

  21. Oct 2016
    1. Had this model failed to identify a bug, we could subsequently haveenriched the sketched specifications.

      This works backwards, saying, well, we know there's a bug, and we will change the sketched spec until MOLLY is able to find one...

  22. Jul 2016
    1. p. 6

      Retrieval methods designed for small databases decline rapidly in effectiveness as collections grow...

      This is an interesting point that is missed in the Distant reading controversies: its all very well to say that you prefer close reading, but close reading doesn't scale--or rather the methodologies used to decide what to close read were developed when big data didn't exist. How to you combine that when you can read everything. I.e. You close read Dickins because he's what survived the 19th C as being worth reading. But now, if we could recover everything from the 19th C how do you justify methodologically not looking more widely?

  23. Jun 2016
    1. No Bias, No Merit: The Case against Blind Submission

      Fish, Stanley. 1988. “Guest Column: No Bias, No Merit: The Case against Blind Submission.” PMLA 103 (5): 739–48. http://www.jstor.org/stable/462513.

      An interesting essay in the context I'm reading it (alongside Foucault's What is an author in preparation for a discussion of scientific authorship.

      Among the interesting things about it are the way it encapsulates a distinction between the humanities and sciences in method (though Fish doesn't see it and it comes back to bite him in the Sokol affair). What Frye thinks is important because he is an author-function in Foucault's terms, I.e. a discourse initiator to whom we return for new insight.

      Fish cites Peters and Ceci 1982 on peer review, and sides with those who argue that ethos should count in review of science as well.

      Also interesting for an illustration of how much the field changed, from new criticism in the 1970s (when the first draft was written) until "now" i.e. 1989 when political criticism is the norm.

    2. But perhaps the greatest change is the one that renders the key opposition of the essay-between the timeless realm of literature and the pressures and exigencies of politics-inaccurate as a description of the assumptions prevailing in the profession. There are of course those who still believe that literature is defined by its independence of social and political contexts (a "concrete universal" in Wimsatt's terms), but today the most influential and up-to-date voices are those that proclaim exactly the reverse and ar- gue that the thesis of literary autonomy is itself a political one, part and parcel of an effort by the con- servative forces in society to protect traditional values from oppositional discourse. Rather than reflecting, as Ransom would have it, an "order of existence" purer than that which one finds in "actual life," lit- erature in this new (historicist) vision directly and vigorously "participates in historical processes and in the political management of reality" (Howard 25). Moreover, as Louis Montrose observes, if litera- ture is reconceived as a social rather than a merely aesthetic practice, literary criticism, in order to be true to its object, must be rearticulated as a social practice too and no longer be regarded as a merely academic or professional exercise (11-12

      How much literary criticism changed between 1979, 1982, and 1988! From ontological wholes to politicised

    3. Everyone is aware of that risk, although it is usually not acknowledged with the explicitness that one finds in the opening sentence of Raymond Waddington's essay on books 11 and 12 of Paradise Lost. "Few of us today," Waddington writes, "could risk echoing C. S. Lewis's condemnation of the concluding books of Paradise Lost as an 'untransmuted lump of futurity"' (9). The nature of the risk that Wad- dington is about not to take is made clear in the very next sentence, where we learn that a generation of critics has been busily demonstrating the subtlety and complexity of these books and establishing the fact that they are the product of a controlled poetic design. What this means is that the kind of thing that one can now say about them is constrained in advance, for, given the present state of the art, the critic who is concerned with maintaining his or her professional credentials is obliged to say something that makes them better. Indeed, the safest thing the critic can say (and Waddington proceeds in this es- say to say it) is that, while there is now a general recognition of the excellence of these books, it is still the case that they are faulted for some deficiency that is in fact, if properly understood, a virtue. Of course, this rule (actually a rule of thumb) does not hold across the board. When Waddington observes that "few of us today could risk," he is acknowledging, ever so obliquely, that there are some of us who could. Who are they, and how did they achieve their special status? Well, obviously C. S. Lewis was once one (although it may not have been a risk for him, and if it wasn't why wasn't it?), and if he had not already died in 1972, when Waddington was writing, presumably he could have been one again. That is, Lewis's status as an authority on Renaissance literature was such that he could offer readings with- out courting the risk facing others who might go against the professional grain, the risk of not being listened to, of remaining unpublished, of being unattended to, the risk of producing something that was by definition-a definition derived from prevailing institutional conditions-without me

      on the necessity of discovering virtue in literary work as a professional convention of our discipline.

      This is a really interesting and useful passage for my first year lectures

  24. screen.oxfordjournals.org screen.oxfordjournals.org
    1. verningthis function is the belief that there must be - at a particular levelof an author's thought, of his conscious or unconscious desire — apoint where contradictions are resolved, where the incompatibleelements can be shown to relate to one another or to cohere arounda fundamental and originating contradiction. Fin

      This is not true (in theory) of scientific authorship. We don't judge the coherence of the oeuvre.

      Again it conflict with Fish's view of literary criticism

    2. In literary criticism, for example, the traditional methods fordefining an author - or, rather, for determining the configurationof the author from existing texts - derive in large part from thoseused in the Christian tradition to authenticate (or to reject) theparticular texts in its possession. Modern criticism, in its desireto 'recover' the author from a work, employs devices stronglyreminiscent of Christian exegesis w

      Relationship of literary criticism to exegesis

    3. as been under-stood that the task of criticism is not to re-establish the ties betweenan author and his work or to reconstitute an author's thought andexperience through his works and, further, that criticism shouldconcern itself with the structures of a work, its architectonic forms,which are studied for their intrinsic and internal relationships. Y

      Thinking of new criticism here

  25. Mar 2016
    1. End-to-end encryption is coming shortly to clients for both 1:1 and group chats to protect user data stored on servers, using the Olm cryptographic ratchet implementation.

      This would also answer another point of criticism for the redecentralize interview.

  26. Jan 2016
    1. Meanwhile, in almost exactly the same decades that the Internet arose and eventually evolved social computing, literary scholarship followed similar principles of decentralization to evolve cultural criticism.7

      Wow. This is the most interesting statement that I've read in a while. Wish I could pin an annotation...

      Really helps me justify my career arc, turning from literary criticism as a career to software "development."

  27. Nov 2015
    1. RAJ: Paul, you are who you are, what you are, and where you are at this very moment. You cannot do more than you can do. Do not waste your time in self-criticism or self-doubt. As you shall see, it is totally unnecessary. There has been no requirement for you to be something that you are not able to be. What you have needed to learn in order to fulfill your place has been accomplished. You have done well.

      You cannot do more than you can do. Do not waste your time in self-criticism. There has been no requirement for yo to be something that you are not.

      Here is another of Paul's mistaken beliefs - that he has failed to meet requirements. We all do this.

  28. Oct 2015
    1. You must learn to flow. You must learn that you are not self-directed in the sense of being a puppet with no strings attached, three-dimensionally speaking. From this standpoint, you will always seem to be a puppet with strings attached, and you will not have hold of the controls. From the standpoint of being as Conscious Being, as Fourth-dimensional Man, the concept of strings and controls is irrelevant. I point this out because, after having a wonderful, productive period of meditation, you spontaneously, immediately and without questioning, were criticizing yourself because you did not do exactly what I had told you to do. The fact is that there is no justifiable reason to be found for self-criticism. Watch for this in your experience, and don’t continue in this habit.

      Paul is criticizing himself and sabotaging the success of his immediately prior meditation success.

      This is common behavior on the journey of awakening and Raj suggests that he stops doing it.

    1. No joke is funny unless you see the point of it, and sometimes a point has to be explained.

      Sounds logical, in the abstract. But the explanation is often known to “kill the joke”, to decrease the humour potential. In some cases, it transforms the explainee into the butt of a new joke. Something similar has been said about hermeneutics and æsthetics. The explanation itself may be a new form of art, but it runs the risk of first destroying the original creation.

  29. Aug 2015
  30. Feb 2015
  31. Feb 2014
    1. U.S. property policy remains largely fixed in its establishe d mindset of defending intellectual property rights for their own sake, instead of as a means to encourage innovation.
  32. Sep 2013
    1. but that those discourses are better and more profitable which denounce our present mistakes than those which praise our past deeds, and those which counsel us what we ought to do than those which recount ancient history