- Mar 2019
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.
- Jan 2019
- Oct 2018
In computer science and logic, a dependent type is a type whose definition depends on a value. A "pair of integers" is a type. A "pair of integers where the second is greater than the first" is a dependent type because of the dependence on the value.
this is not the most impressive defitnition but it does the job ;) it's more like "relational types" where type definitions include relations between potential values
On the flip side, it can go further than mere types, including emulating dependent types and programming-by-contract.
spec though it's used at runtime (not compile time)
- hence: not a replacement for types as such BUT
- enables dependent types
- programming by contract
- Jul 2018
I have written elsewhere that time “is a collective noun” (Bluedorn 2000e, p. 118). That pithy statement summed up the belief that there is more than one kind of time. For example, Paul Davies thought long and hard about time, especially as it is conceptualized in the physical sciences. Yet despite those labors, he felt time’s mystery still: “It is easy to conclude that something vital remains missing, some extra quality to time left out of the equations, or that there is more than one sort of time” (Davies’ emphasis; 1995, p. 17). So in the physical sciences just as in the social, the possibility is explicitly recognized that there may be more than one kind of time.
Good quote for CHI paper.
So the vital point is that all conceptions of time are and always will be social constructions, which is, in Barbara Adam’s words, “the idea that all time is social time” (1990, p. 42). After all, all human knowledge, including scientific knowledge, is socially constructed knowledge. But this point does not ipso facto invalidate any or all concepts of time. Their validity rests, instead, on their utility for various purposes, such as prediction and understanding. And as societies and cultures evolve, it is likely, perhaps even incumbent, for their concepts of time to evolve as well. So it would be well to understand how concepts of time differ in order to understand them and their differences better.
Time is a contested topic. Some believe time is binary, duality, or hierarchical and others (in physics, thermodynamics, metaphysics) propose that time flows in a particular direction.
Again cites Adam re: "all time is social time" and the need "to understand how concepts of time differ in order to understand them and their differences better."
Temporal RealitiesSome theorists have taken the multiple-types approach further and proposed multiple types of time that are arranged in hierarchies. It is interesting to note that these approaches all seem to rely on a hierarchical view of reality itself.
J.T. Fraser's more complex, hierarchical model of nested temporalities includes sociotemporality (time produced by social consensus) at the top.
The multiple, hierarchical views of time are most often rooted in biology and physics. Sociological and sociocultural theories of time embedded in hierarchies don't seem to have caught on. Other than Fraser, I haven't seen these mentioned elsewhere.
Another way of saying this is that there is no imperative to see such categories as mutually exclusive. Neither partner is the true, real, or even preferred time; instead, they may coexist, intermingle, and even be tightly integrated in specific social systems.
Critique of previous categorizations of time as dualities that "may coexist, intermingle and even by tightly integrated in specific social systems."
Cites Adam and Orlikowski/Yates here.
Also notes that clock-based and event-based time do coexist in organizations (Clark 1978, 1985).
a binary classification system exacerbates this tendency, with one choice receiving the imprimatur of “real time” and the alternative being condemned as a “perversion” of it, if it is perceived at all
Critique of previous categorizations of time as binary.
- Jan 2017
Boolean satisfiability problem
This is just one specific type of the classes of satisfiability problems (a.k.a. search problems).
Other related problems include: Linear equation satisfiability, Linear inequality satisfiability, 0-1 integer linear equation satisfiability.
Given the current context (of search problems), all the above are known as NP problems in general (with the observation, that the classic definition of NP limited the scope to only YES-NO problems).
One can think of search problems as "one of many ways of characterizing the set of problems that form the basis of the study of intractability". Other ways include viewing such problems through the lenses of decision problems or optimization problems. In other words, problems in any of the aforementioned types can be translated between (or more formally, reduced to) each other with relative ease.
- Aug 2016
Here the method subtypePolymorphic() has no type parameters, so it’s parametrically monomorphic. Nevertheless, it can be applied to values of more than one type as long as those types stand in a subtype relationship to the fixed Base type which is specified in the method signature — in other words, this method is both parametrically monomorphic and subtype polymorphic.
- Feb 2016
n Saul Carliner’s LessonsLearned from Museum Exhibit Design, exhibit design is broken into three main stages(2003). The “idea generator,” “exhibit designer, and “idea implementer,”leads each phase respectively (Carliner, 2003). The idea generator determines the main concepts or themes and chooses the content of the exhibit. Then, the exhibit designer takes the concept to prepare physical designs for the new gallery, creating display cases and deciding wall and floor coverings for the overall ambiance. Lastly, the idea implementer brings together everything to create the exhibit. The implementer collects any missing pieces for the gallery, ensures conservation of displayed pieces, and oversees all parts of the assembly(Carliner, 2003)
Types of museum visitors outlined: idea generators, exhibit designers, idea implementers. Next paragraph introduces that an aspect of exhibit design missing is 'audience targeting' - reaching out to a specific clientele intentionally with an exhibition's design.
Really interesting discussion of some of the assumptions the author makes in the post.
- Nov 2015
almost all languages are dynamic and involve dynamic typing, even languages like Ocaml and Haskell. Every time your code interprets data and makes choices based on that, you have dynamic typing. The simple fact is that there's no hard and fast distinction between type information and data: constraints on data, such as the format of a stream of text, are type constraints which are beyond the static type system to check, so the checks are done dynamically at run time by your code, and that's dynamic typing!
An interesting perspective, which is a bit like the dual of the Lisp mantra: "code is data".
- Feb 2014
Interdependence and Regeneration2c5c7 A very important feature to be noted from the discussion in this section bears upon the interdependence among the various types of structuring which are involved in the H-LAM/T system, where the capability for doing each type of structuring is dependent upon the capability for doing one or more of the other types of structuring. (Assuming that the physical structuring of the system remains basically unchanged during the system's operation, we exclude its dependence upon other factors in this discussion.) 2c5c7a This interdependence actually has a cyclic, regenerative nature to it which is very significant to us. We have seen how the capability for mental structuring is finally dependent, down the chain, upon the process structuring (human, artifact, composite) that enables symbol-structure manipulation. But it also is evident that the process structuring is dependent not only upon basic human and artifact process capabilities, but upon the ability of the human to learn how to execute processes--and no less important, upon the ability of the human to select, organize, and modify processes from his repertoire to structure a higher-order process that he can execute. Thus, a capability for structuring and executing processes is partially dependent upon the human's mental structuring, which in turn is partially dependent upon his process structuring (through concept and symbol structuring), which is partially dependent upon his mental structuring, etc. 2c5c7b All of this means that a significant improvement in symbol-structure manipulation through better process structuring (initially perhaps through much better artifacts) should enable us to develop improvements in concept and mental-structure manipulations that can in turn enable us to organize and execute symbol-manipulation processes of increased power. To most people who initially consider the possibilities for computer-like devices augmenting the human intellect, it is only the one-pass improvement that comes to mind, which presents a picture that is relatively barren compared to that which emerges when one considers this regenerative interaction. 2c5c7c We can confidently expect the development of much more powerful concepts pertaining to the manner in which symbol structures can be manipulated and portrayed, and correspondingly more complex manipulation processes that in the first pass would have been beyond the human's power to organize and execute without the better symbol, concept, and mental structuring which his augmented system provided him. These new concepts and processes, beyond our present capabilities to use and thus never developed, will provide a tremendous increased-capability payoff in the future development of our augmentation means.
I think these notions of interdependence and regeneration are a very key observation.
Physical structuring, the last of the five types which we currently use in our conceptual framework, is nearly self-explanatory. It pretty well represents the artifact component of our augmentation means, insofar as their actual physical construction is concerned.
Not much is said here. Is there more that is important?
As we are currently using it, the term includes the organization, study, modification, and execution of processes and process structures. Whereas concept structuring and symbol structuring together represent the language component of our augmentation means, process structuring represents the methodology component (plus a little more, actually). There has been enough previous discussion of process structures that we need not describe the notion here, beyond perhaps an example or two. The individual processes (or actions) of my hands and fingers have to be cooperatively organized if the typewriter is to do my bidding. My successive actions throughout my working day are meant to cooperate toward a certain over-all professional goal.
The other important part of our "language" is the way in which concepts are represented--the symbols and symbol structures. Words structured into phrases, sentences, paragraphs, monographs--charts, lists, diagrams, tables, etc. A given structure of concepts can be represented by any of an infinite number of different symbol structures, some of which would be much better than others for enabling the human perceptual and cognitive apparatus to search out and comprehend the conceptual matter of significance and/or interest to the human. For instance, a concept structure involving many numerical data would generally be much better represented with Arabic rather than Roman numerals and quite likely a graphic structure would be better than a tabular structure.
Unfortunately as an industry we're stuck here.
Concepts seem to be structurable, in that a new concept can be composed of an organization of established concepts. For present purposes, we can view a concept structure as something which we might try to develop on paper for ourselves or work with by conscious thought processes, or as something which we try to communicate to one another in serious discussion. We assume that, for a given unit of comprehension to be imparted, there is a concept structure (which can be consciously developed and displayed) that can be presented to an individual in such a way that it is mapped into a corresponding mental structure which provides the basis for that individual's "comprehending" behavior. Our working assumption also considers that some concept structures would be better for this purpose than others, in that they would be more easily mapped by the individual into workable mental structures, or in that the resulting mental structures enable a higher degree of comprehension and better solutions to problems, or both.
Mental structuring is what we call the internal organization of conscious and unconscious mental images, associations, or concepts (or whatever it is that is organized within the human mind) that somehow manages to provide the human with understanding and the basis for such as judgment, intuition, inference, and meaningful action with respect to his environment.
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:
The fundamental principle used in building sophisticated capabilities from the basic capabilities is structuring--the special type of structuring (which we have termed synergetic) in which the organization of a group of elements produces an effect greater than the mere addition of their individual effects. Perhaps "purposeful" structuring (or organization) would serve us as well, but since we aren't sure yet how the structuring concept must mature for our needs, we shall tentatively stick with the special modifier, "synergetic." We are developing a growing awareness of the significant and pervasive nature of such structure within every physical and conceptual thing we inspect, where the hierarchical form seems almost universally present as stemming from successive levels of such organization.
- mental model
- structuring types
- physical structuring
- structure types
- human mind
- key observation
- concept structuring
- symbol structuring
- process structuring
- capability hierarchy
- mental structuring
- higher-order thinking
Ho w to R ead a Judicia l Opin ion: A G uid e for N ew L aw Stu den ts Professor Orin S. Kerr George Washington University Law School Washington, DC Version 2.0 (August 2005) This essay is desig ned to help entering law students understand ho w to read cas es for class. It explains what judicial opinions are, how they are structured, and what you should look for when you read them. Part I explains the various ingredients found in a typical judicial opinion, and is the most essential section of the essay . Par t II discusses what you should look for when you re ad an opinion for class. Part II I con clu des with a brief discussion of why law schools use the case method.
I need a way to add tags to a document that will apply to all annotations in a particular document (except where explicitly canceled).
The problem is that I often want to query all annotations related to a specific document, collection of documents, or type of activity.
Type of activity requires further explanation: Given a document or collection of documents I may annotate the document for different reasons at different times.
For example, while annotating the reading materials, video transcripts, and related documents for the CopyrightX course there are certain types of annotations that may be "bundled together" so that when I search for those things later I can easily narrow my searches to just that subset of annotations; but at the same time I need a way to globally group things together.
While reading judicial opinions the first activity/mode of interaction with a particular document may be to identify the structure of the judicial opinion (the document attached to this annotation describes the parts of the judicial opinion I might want to identify: *caption, case citation, author, facts of the case, law of the case, disposition, concurring and/or dissenting opinions, etc).
The above-described mode I may use for multiple documents in one session related to the course syllabus for the week.
To connect each of these documents together I might add the tags: copyx (my shorthand for the name of the course, CopyrightX), week 1 (how far into the course syllabus), foundations (the subject matter in the syllabus which may span week 1, week 2, etc), judicial opinions (the specific topic I am focused on learning at the moment (may or may not be related to the syllabus).
Later on another day I might update my existing annotations or add new ones when I am preparing to study for an exam. I might add tags like to study, on midterm, on final to mark areas I need to review.
After the exam I might add more tags based on my test score, especially focusing on areas that received a poor score so I can study that section more or, if I missed some sections so didn't study and it resulted in a poor score in that area, add tags to study for later if necessary.
I have many more examples and modes of interaction in mind that I can explain more later, but it all hinges on a rich and flexible tagging system that:
- allows tagging a document once in a way that applies to all annotations in a document
- allows tagging a session once in a way that applies to all annotations in all documents connected to a particular session
- allows tagging a session and/or a document that bundles together new tags added to an annotation (e.g. tags for grammar/spelling, tags for rhetological fallacy classification, etc)
- fast keyboard-based selection of content
- batch selection of annotation areas with incremental filling-- I may want to simply select all the parts of a document to annotate first and then increment through each of those placeholders to fill in tags and commentary
- Mark multiple sections of the document at once to combine into a single annotation
- Excerpting only parts of a text selection, but still carry the surrounding textual context with the excerpt to easily expose the surrounding context when necessary
- A summary view of a document that is the result of remixing parts of the original document with both clarifications or self-containing summary re-writes and/or commentary from the reader
- structural tagging vs content tagging
- Jan 2014
These species represent not only different types of movement (on land, in air, in water) but also different types of relocation data (from visual observations of individually marked animals to GPS relocations to relocations obtained from networked sensor arrays).
Types of relocation data:
- visual observations
- networked sensor arrays
- Oct 2013
The first kind depends on the personal character of the speaker; the second on putting the audience into a certain frame of mind; the third on the proof, or apparent proof, provided by the words of the speech itself.
logos, ethos, and pathos
- Sep 2013
Law is either (a) special, viz. that written law which regulates the life of a particular community, or (b) general, viz. all those unwritten principles which are supposed to be acknowledged everywhere.
Law versus norm or social expectation
Chapter 8 (1366a) The political speaker will find his powers of persuasion most of all enhanced by a knowledge of the four sorts of government -- democracy, oligarchy, aristocracy, monarchy, and their characteristic customs, institutions, and interests. Definition of the four sorts severally. Ends of each. Chapter 9 (1366b, 1367a, 1367b, 1368a) The Epideictic speaker is concerned with virtue and vice, praising the one and censuring the other. The forms of virtue. Which are the greatest virtues? Some rhetoric devices used by the epideictic speaker: "amplification," especially. Amplification is particularly appropriate to epideictic oratory; examples, to political; enthymemes, to forensic. Chapter 10 (1368b, 1369a, 1369b) The Forensic speaker should have studied wrongdoing -- its motives, its perpetrators, and its victims. Definitions of wrongdoing as injury voluntary inflicted contrary to law. Law is either (a) special, viz. that written law which regulates the life of a particular community, or (b) general, viz. all those unwritten principles which are supposed to be acknowledged everywhere. Enumeration and elucidation of the seven causes of human action, viz. three involuntary, (1) chance, (2) nature, (3) compulsion; and four voluntary, viz. (4) habit, (5) reasoning, (6) anger, (7) appetite. All voluntary actions are good or apparently good, pleasant or apparently pleasant. The good (or expedient) has been discussed under political oratory. The pleasant has yet to be considered.
There are three kinds of rhetoric: A. political (deliberative), B. forensic (legal), and C. epideictic (the ceremonial oratory of display). Their (1) divisions, (2) times, and (3) ends are as follows: A. Political (1) exhortation and dehortation, (2) future, (3) expediency and inexpediency; B. Forensic (1) accusation and defence, (2) past, (3) justice and injustice; C. Epideictic (1) praise and censure, (2) present, (3) honour and dishonour.