37 Matching Annotations
  1. Feb 2021
    1. 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.

      The higher up, hierarchically speaking, that a person is, the more likely people are to swallow their claims without evidence of truth.

      Hierarchy does not relate to credibility.

  2. Dec 2020
    1. Treemaps are a visualization method for hierarchies based on enclosure rather than connection [JS91]. Treemaps make it easy to spot outliers (for example, the few large files that are using up most of the space on a disk) as opposed to parent-child structure.

      Treemaps visualize enclosure rather than connection. This makes them good visualizations to spot outliers (e.g. large files on a disk) but not for understanding parent-child relationships.

    1. CHOICE:Maximize choice, addressing how privilege, power, and historic relationships impact both perceptions about and ability to act upon choice.COLLABORATION: Honor transparency and self-determination, and seek to minimize the impact of the inherent power differential while maximizing collaboration and sharing responsibility for making meaningful decisions.

      Lot of rich stuff here - "maximize choice" implies that there is a defined bound; it's not mere anarchy. The "power differential" (between student and teacher) is "inherent"; this is not a call for pure equality of status.

    1. Romans did a much more thorough job assimilating the peoples they conquered. Non-Romans could and did become citizens, even from very early times.
    2. he armies of Republican Rome were strongly rooted in the Italian peasantry. Rome's political reach was broader than comparable Greek states and military service obligations extended farther down the social scale.
    3. Greek women (with the very glaring exception of Sparta) were generally sequestered
  3. Nov 2020
    1. Interaction with stable storage in the modern world isgenerally mediated by systems that fall roughly into oneof two categories: a filesystem or a database. Databasesassume as much as they can about the structure of thedata they store. The type of any given piece of datais known (e.g., an integer, an identifier, text, etc.), andthe relationships between data are well defined. Thedatabase is the all-knowing and exclusive arbiter of ac-cess to data.Unfortunately, if the user of the data wants more di-rect control over the data, a database is ill-suited. At thesame time, it is unwieldy to interact directly with stablestorage, so something light-weight in between a databaseand raw storage is needed. Filesystems have traditionallyplayed this role. They present a simple container abstrac-tion for data (a file) that is opaque to the system, and theyallow a simple organizational structure for those contain-ers (a hierarchical directory structure)

      Databases and filesystems are both systems which mediate the interaction between user and stable storage.

      Often, the implicit aim of a database is to capture as much as they can about the structure of the data they store. The database is the all-knowing and exclusive arbiter of access to data.

      If a user wants direct access to the data, a database isn't the right choice, but interacting directly with stable storage is too involved.

      A Filesystem is a lightweight (container) abstraction in between a database and raw storage. Filesystems are opaque to the system (i.e. visible only to the user) and allow for a simple, hierarchical organizational structure of directories.

    1. I've spent the last 3.5 years building a platform for "information applications". The key observation which prompted this was that hierarchical file systems didn't work well for organising information within an organisation.However, hierarchy itself is still incredibly valuable. People think in terms of hierarchies - it's just that they think in terms of multiple hierarchies and an item will almost always belong in more than one place in those hierarchies.If you allow users to describe items in the way which makes sense to them, and then search and browse by any of the terms they've used, then you've eliminated almost all the frustrations of a file system. In my experience of working with people building complex information applications, you need: * deep hierarchy for classifying things * shallow hierarchy for noting relationships (eg "parent company") * multi-values for every single field * controlled values (in our case by linking to other items wherever possible) Unfortunately, none of this stuff is done well by existing database systems. Which was annoying, because I had to write an object store.

      Impressed by this comment. It foreshadows what Roam would become:

      • People think in terms of items belonging to multiple hierarchies
      • If you allow users to describe items in a way that makes sense to them and allow them to search and browse by any of the terms they've used, you've solved many of the problems of existing file systems

      What you need to build a complex information system is:

      • Deep hierarchies for classifying things (overlapping hierarchies should be possible)
      • Shallow hierarchies for noting relationships (Roam does this with a flat structure)
      • Multi-values for every single field
      • Controlled values (e.g. linking to other items when possible)
    1. The human mind does not work that way. It operates by association. With one item in its grasp, it snaps instantly to the next that is suggested by the association of thoughts, in accordance with some intricate web of trails carried by the cells of the brain. It has other characteristics, of course; trails that are not frequently followed are prone to fade, items are not fully permanent, memory is transitory. Yet the speed of action, the intricacy of trails, the detail of mental pictures, is awe-inspiring beyond all else in nature.

      The human mind doesn't work according to the file-cabinet metaphor — it operates by association.

      "With one items in its gras, it snaps instantly to the next that is suggested by the association of thoughts, in accordance with some intricate web of trails carried by the cells of the brain."

    1. With most mind mapping software something at the bottom of one branch cannot be elegantly linked to something that is categorized in a distant branch unless your mind map is really small. So “mind maps” essentially have the same linear limitation that your computer filing system does.

      Mind mapping runs into the same problem because it is also a hierarchy.

    2. Almost all interfaces today, with the exception of TheBrain visual user interface, are limited to organizing information into hierarchies, where a piece of information can only be categorized into one place. For simple applications this is fine, but for users engaging in more complex business processes, it is simply inadequate. A document will have a variety of different issues or people associated with it – with hierarchies one cannot show all these relationships without multiple copies of the information.

      Shelley Hayduk also identifies the issue that most information management software uses a file cabinet metaphor (i.e. hierarchy). This has the limitation that a piece of information can only be categorized in one place. For more complex things, this is inadequate.

    1. 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).

      What Lotus Notes allowed you to do is to combine a hierarchical organized overview, achieved through an outliner, with search, hyperlinks and relational-database-like reports. Lotus Notes also allowed you to organized different document formats (Word, emails, etc.)

    1. Self-Actualization Self-actualization refers to feeling fulfilled, or feeling that we are living up to our potential. One unique feature of self-actualization is that it looks different for everyone. For one person, self-actualization might involve helping others; for another person, it might involve achievements in an artistic or creative field. Essentially, self-actualization means feeling that we are doing what we believe we are meant to do. According to Maslow, achieving self-actualization is relatively rare, and his examples of famous self-actualized individuals include Abraham Lincoln, Albert Einstein, and Mother Teresa.

      [[self-actualization]] - this can fit in with [[[Intrinsic Motivation]] - the feeling of "living up-to your potential" can also align with [[motivation]] and [[Perceived abilities]]

    1. The most recognized theory of intrinsic motivation was first based on people’s needs and drives. Hunger, thirst, and sex are biological needs that we’re driven to pursue in order to live and be healthy.

      these examples of [[intrinsic motivation]] line up with the [[Physiological needs]] in [[Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs]]

  4. Oct 2020
  5. Sep 2020
    1. It was a direct encouragement to her reckless way of talking, and her insolent reference to me.

      Wow. Miss Clack hates Rachel this much to the degree that does not align with her "very" Christian ways. Perhaps her malicious thoughts towards Rachel are projections of how she feels between their class difference, even if they are cousins.

  6. Aug 2020
  7. Jun 2020
  8. May 2020
  9. Jan 2020
  10. Nov 2019
    1. nized in gradations of inferiority and superiority. This hierarchic princi-ple in turn was the basis for a stress on duties rather than rights, on theevident assumption that if everyone did his duty everyone would getwhat he deserved. Thus, the filial son obedient to his parent would baskin the parent’s approval. With all duties performed, society would be inorder to everyone’s benefit.

      The hierarchic principle again



  11. Aug 2019
  12. Mar 2019
    1. Perhaps, he realized, these viruses don’t actually need to unite their segments in the same host cell. “If theory was saying that this is impossible, maybe the viruses just don’t do it,” he says. “And once we had this stupid idea, testing it was very easy.”

      This is different from the theory of evolution or the theory of electromagnetism. It's a smaller things, like an assumption. Evolution, also in biology, is a more encompassing set of ideas. So the theoretical framework has a hierarchy. Perhaps at the top is a Kuhnian paradigm or a Lakatosian research program.

      Does this hierarchy different between sciences, though? Like, how hard is it to take a new assumption and grow it into a fully-fledged theory? Biology is more complex than physics, with more "facts" and forms to understand. Evolution is different from electromagnetism because it doesn't limit as much. EM clearly prescribes what's possible and what isn't, whereas evolution doesn't make the distinction so clearly.

  13. Feb 2019
    1. supported the aristocracy, from whom she benefited

      This bothers our modern sensibilities, yet the hirearchy of needs dictates that we don't dismantle social structures that help us survive. Ironically, it's the people who can survive without regard for those structures (i.e., the wealthy and powerful) who often do the dismantling. Or, as my father would say, "don't sh*t where you eat." Unless, of course, you can eat somewhere else...

    1. he names of simple ideas tlie least doubtful. c8. Fr

      So, Locke is trying to establish somewhat of a hierarchy of language based in clarity. Names of simple substances are closest to the Truth of the substance. "Philosophical" words are furthest from Truth because what the concepts/things they represent are most difficult to nail down. I wonder, then, if we can translate this to exploring the human--do we have a hierarchy of understanding? Or a hierarchy of Truest representation?

  14. Aug 2018
    1. Although some of the earliest theories of the organization of peer pro-duction celebrated the phenomena as non-hierarchical, more recent work hasquestioned both the putative lack of hierarchy and its purported benefits (e.g.,Kreiss et al., 2011).

      Later foundational work focused on hierarchies within the various community structures — in contrast to the early perception that peer production was non-hierarchical/anarchistic.

      Benkler suggests that peer production uses a different form of governance and a lighter-weight hierarchical structure than other types of organizations -- not that these groups are anti-hierarchical.

      Cites Keegan's work on gate-keeping in peer production.

  15. Feb 2018
  16. Oct 2017
  17. Jun 2017
    1. This is a slight unmeritable man, Meet to be sent on errands: is it fit, The three-fold world divided, he should stand One of the three to share it?

      This concise quote explains Mark Antony's opinion on Marcus Aemilius Lepidus. He believes that the patrician "is a slight unmeritable man, meet to be sent on errands". Antony does not consider Lepidus to be of much importance, to such an extent that he questions Octavius if "the three-fold world divided, he should stand one of the three to share it?"

      First and foremost, the audience is again presented with the cruel, ruthless persona of Mark Antony. His confidence and arrogance supposedly puts himself above others, and Antony's actions are only motivated by his selfish interests.

      Mark Antony disregards Lepidus' importance in the upcoming campaign. In fact, he views him as a lowly errand-boy rather than an acquaintance and an equal. Antonius is not afraid to speak his mind to Octavius, believing that Lepidus does not deserve an place in their coalition.

      This quote also hints to what the world is like after the events of the play. Mark Antony, Octavius and Lepidus plan to divide the Roman Empire in three sections. This alludes to the Second Triumvirate of 43 B.C to 33 B.C.

      It is interesting that Mark Antony, a self-absorbed character with a selfish lust for power, is willing to share his authority with two other men that would be considered his equals.

    1. What trade, thou knave? Thou naughty knave, what trade?

      The scornful treatment of the Plebeians by the tribunes is a clear indication of the class distinction that was present during the Roman, and more appropriately, the Elizabethan eras. The noblemen's internal prejudices create perceptions of the commoners as 'naughty knaves', 'hard hearts' and the 'cruel men of Rome'.

      Flavius and Murellus' reprimand of the tradesmen for truanting a workday further solidifies their belief that a labourer's sole purpose is menial work. Shakespeare uses the context to express the irony of this hierarchy; the commoners are distinguished by stupidity, although it is the tribunes that fail to understand the meaning behind the cobbler's puns.

      Ultimately this scene serves to characterise the Plebeians and their purpose in the play. The constant defamation from the higher classes outline the insignificance of the commoners in regards to the more serious issues of the story.

  18. May 2016
  19. annotatingausten.sfsuenglishdh.net annotatingausten.sfsuenglishdh.net
    1. all the dirty work of the house was to be done by two pair of female hands at the utmost

      Catherine says in the novels only two women do the work, but in abbeys and castles of the period, there were about eighteen or more servants, ranging from cooks to laundry maids (countryhousereader, "The Servant Hierarchy", 2013).

  20. Sep 2015
    1. The dispersal of these people in Brady's is not random, and where people choose to sit or stand in Brady's is closely related to their sex and status in the Brady social hierarchy.

      Clearly, Brady's Bar is only for a select group of people who enjoy being in that atmosphere that focuses on "social hierarchy".. If we're still forming perceptions and making judgments on how we serve customers (and treat co-workers) based off of gender and status.. are we really doing our jobs as socially responsible citizens to improve our society for everyone's benefit?

  21. Jul 2015
    1. I agree with the conclusion that hierarchies and letting users put things in places is good, but I want to posit a more nuanced explanation than "we are set in our ways".

      I think sometimes we don't remember what exactly it is we're looking for. We may not have a word, or a name, or date. But if we put it some place in particular we can find it spatially rather than linguistically.

      This is why I think labels are superior to hierarchies. When we transcend the limitations of physical space would should not throw out space, but we should throw away the constraints of 3D space with its contiguous, volumetric forms. Labels let you put things in as many places as you like. Labels can, too, be hierarchical.

      The problem with the current crop of systems that eschew hierarchy is that they replace it with a text box.

      One could make the argument that smart indexing is just automatic labeling, but I think there's a memory function in having created the labels oneself.

      I'd like to see systems that experiment with more ways to fold space. Shortcuts are like wormholes. Maybe we should have common actions for creating bi-directional ones. On mobile devices I think we should take more advantage of zooming and z-planes.

  22. Feb 2014
    1. But at the level of the capability hierarchy where we wish to work, it seems useful to us to distinguish several different types of structuring--even though each type is fundamentally a structuring of the basic physical processes. Tentatively we have isolated five such types--although we are not sure how many we shall ultimately want to use in considering the problem of augmenting the human intellect, nor how we might divide and subdivide these different manifestations of physical-process structuring. We use the terms "mental structuring", "concept structuring", "symbol structuring", "process structuring," and "physical structuring."

      The 5 structuring types outlined by Doug Engelbart:

      • mental
      • concept
      • symbol
      • process
      • physical
    1. ecause such accumulation is less typical, the realm of intellectual property has less of the laborer/capitalist hierarchy of Marxist theory.