27 Matching Annotations
  1. Feb 2019
    1. set; if this is higher, the tree 2can be considered to fit the data less well

      To test the fit between data and more than one alternative tree, you can just do a bootstrap analysis, and map the results on a neighbour-net splits graph based on the same data.

      Note that the phangorn library includes functions to transfer information between trees/tree samples and trees and networks:<br/> Schliep K, Potts AJ, Morrison DA, Grimm GW. 2017. Intertwining phylogenetic trees and networks. Methods in Ecology and Evolution (DOI:10.1111/2041-210X.12760.)[http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/2041-210X.12760/full] – the basic functions and script templates are provided in the associated vignette.

  2. Nov 2018
    1. This is why, in the seemingly interminable debates about the ‘validity’ of neoliberalism as an analytical term, both sides are right: yes, on the one hand, the term is vague and can seemingly be applied to any manifestation of power, but, on the other, it does cover everything, which means it cannot be avoided either.

      Neoliberalism's ambiguity: it can describe anything, and yet is also everything.

  3. Sep 2018
    1. In Brave New World, by contrast, the evil is not so obvious because no one is hurt; indeed, this is a world in which everyone gets what they want.

      The author has created a great sense of ambiguity by using words such as Brave New World and evil. To say "evil is not obvious because no one is hurt" shows boldness in authors way of thinking. Evil has no real objective meaning and can create confusion in the minds of the readers. To say "this is a world which everyone gets what they want" sounds rather childish and unclear. Wouldn't such a world only lead to chaos?

  4. Apr 2017
    1. ~~~~!c:~Lsl!llation~~zili~!u~~s~~~~!9E,~~~~.~0~£~~.?rcO~I>1~~!:lI,J,SlillQr~Q!J!::§~..Qr~.nj~£4:.••

      the ambiguity of the sentence is mindblowing, so this structure could be anything and maybe but maybe not organized

    1. networkculture.Everythingusesandisused,andthereisnoclearboundarybetweentheoneandtheother.

      Re: my microresponse from 3/11 regarding Perelman, Burke, networks, community, and social fabric

  5. Mar 2017
    1. a network [une grille]

      Nice, I like the appearance of "network" here in this musing about "code", especially after our last class discussion about ambiguity ("code" is inherently ambiguous...) being entangled with itself, and ultimately supported by "spider webs" and "nets" and "molten masses" of various communications, à la Burke and Perelman.

    1. Even in the nineteenth century, a woman lived almost solely in her home and her emotions. And those nineteenth-century novels, remarkable as they were, were profoundly influenced by the fact that the women who wrote them were excluded by their sex from certain kinds of experience.

      This really makes me think of rhetoric in terms of the ambiguity that we have been discussing and the importance of being unable to classify it as one particular thought. In this instance, certain rhetoric can become an escape during unpleasant times and provide something that even life could not

    2. elasticity

      Is this elasticity similar to the ambiguity championed by Burke?

    1. Therefore, contained within Spinoza’s question is the radical idea that we not only don’t know what a body can do, but that we don’t even know what a body is.

      Ambiguity as "resource"?

    1. Accordingly, what we want is not terms that avoid ambiguity, but terms that clearly reveal the strategic spots at which ambiguities necessarily arise.

      Especially in regards to ambiguity, I read most of this article as stretching the ideas of Richards and Ogden further.

  6. Jun 2016
    1. Annie Sauter says: May 28, 2016 at 9:28 am

      Susan, did you read this comment. Kinda captured my own lostness but not quite. I get the feeling that I need to give up some of my...contextity? That's like saying "Hoist anchor" in a storm. And that really is a way of breaking smart if it saves your damned life. Our political life is exactly like this now. The contextity is killing us. Hoist the fucking anchor or be dragged down with it when the storm batters hell out of you. Here I am again trying to put down the meaning anchor. This is hard to do when you have spent your whole life trying to understand and do and drive uncertainty and ambiguity to ground. I think maybe the key for me to is to feel my way with a new set of antennae, nascent and emergent antennae.

    1. 29/ But big picture, the range of possible futures for humanity depends on our individual and collective ambiguity tolerance. 30/ Ours is an age of low ambiguity tolerance and a hunger for one determinate future for all. Resist! Increase your ambiguity tolerance. Help keep the future indeterminate!

      How to break smart--increase your ambiguity tolerance.

    2. Ambiguity resolution is an act of imagination.

      Aphorist heaven

    3. To resolve ambiguity is to add meaning and interpretation to information.

      I wonder how, in its use here, ambiguity is akin to curation. Noun v verb? Is v am?

    4. Ambiguity

      The question that ambiguity evokes: what am I looking at? The question that uncertainty evokes: what do I do with what I am looking at?

      Does the first question precede the second as we move through the world?

    5. there is an aspect to information processing that is not a "doing" skill but a "seeing" skill: this is ambiguity wrangling.

      What Rao sez,

      We live in a world with gradually increasing levels of uncertainty and ambiguity. Over the last few decades we've become much more comfortable with uncertainty, but still suck at dealing with ambiguity. Ambiguity is not knowing what you are looking at, as in those trick drawings that look like a rabbit one way, a duck another way. Uncertainty is not knowing what to do with what you're looking at. Unlike uncertainty, which is about missing or noisy information, ambiguity can exist even with complete, clean information. It is about interpretation and meaning, and is as such a truly creative act of seeing.

  7. Sep 2015
    1. A very fundamental property to maintain in ontologies are the identity criteria. There is fundamental work by Nicola Guarino et al. about making ontological distinctions based on identity criteria, which led to the DOLCE ontology. For the Semantic Web, we must try ensure two things: a) that different parties see one thing as one, both at the same time and diachronically b) that things have well-defined properties.
    1. all representations have essentially the same information content. And what we mean by "essentially" allows in fact some wriggle room, and in the end it rests on a common understanding between publisher of the information and quoter of the URI. The sameness we are after is the sameness of information content. That is what is identified by the URI. That is why we say that the URI identifies that conceptual information content, irrespective of its particular representation: the conceptual work. Without that common understanding, the web does not work. Some people have said, "If we say that URIs identify people, nothing breaks". But all the time they, day to day, rely on sameness of the information things on the web, and use URIs with that implicit assumption. As we formalize how the web works, we have to make that assumption explicit.
    2. I'm sticking with the machine-processable languages as examples because human-processable ones like HTML have a level of ambiguity traditional in human natural language but quite out of place in the WWW infrastructure -- or the Semantic Web.
    3. we must either distinguish or be hopelessly fuzzy. And is this bad, is it an inhibition to have to work our way though documents before we can talk about whatever we desire? I would argue not, because it is very important not to lose track of the reasons for our taking and processing any piece of information. The process of publishing and reading is a real social process between social entities, not mechanical agents. To be socially responsible, to be able to handle trust, and so on, we must be aware of these operations. The difference between a car and what some web page says about it is crucial - not only when you are buying a car. Some have opined that the abstraction of the document is nonsense, and all that exists, when a web page describes a car, is the car and various representations of it, the HTML, PNG and GIF bit streams. This is however very weak in my opinion. The various representations have much more in common than simply the car. And the relationship to the car can be many and varied: home page, picture, catalog entry, invoice, remote control panel, weblog, and so on. The document itself is an important part of society - to dismiss its existence is to prevent us being aware of human and aspects of information without which we are impoverished. By contrast, the difference between different representations of the document (GIF or PNG image for example) is very small, and the relationship between versions of a document which changes through time a very strong one.
    4. It demonstrates the ambiguity of natural language that no significant problem had been noticed over the past decade, even though the original author or HTTP , and later co-author of HTTP 1.1 who also did his PhD thesis on an analysis of the web, and both of whom have worked with Web protocols ever since, had had conflicting ideas of what the various terms actually mean.
    5. an HTTP URI may identify something with a vagueness as to the dimensions above, but it still must be used to refer to a unique conceptual object whose various representations have a very large a mount in common. Formally, it is the publisher which defines the what an HTTP URI identifies, and so one should look to the publisher for a commitment as to the exact nature of the identity along these axes.
  8. Feb 2014
    1. Beginning the issue with “are” or “is” often leads to a clearer and more concise expression of the issue than beginning it with “may,” “can,” “does,” or “should.” The latter beginnings may lead to vague or ambiguous versions of the issue. Examine the following alternative statements of the judicial issue from Aiken Industries, Inc. (TC, 1971), acq.: Issue 2 (Poor): Are the interest payments exempt from the withholding tax? Issue 2 (Poor): Should the taxpayer exempt the interest payments from withholding tax? In the first version of issue 2 above, to which interest payments and which withholding tax is the writer referring? The issue does not stand alone since it cannot be precisely understood apart from separately reading the brief�s facts. The extreme brevity leads to ambiguity. In the second version, the question can be interpreted as a moral or judgment issue rather than a legal one. Whether the taxpayer should do (or should not do) something may be a very different issue than the legal question of what the law requires. A legal brief, however, should focus on the latter. Rewriting issue 2 as follows leads to a clearer expression of the precise issue: Issue 2 (Better): Are interest payments exempt from the U.S. 30% withholding tax when paid to an entity established in a tax treaty country for no apparent purpose other than to escape taxation on the interest received?

      Extreme brevity leads to ambiguity. The summary of the issue should be written to avoid opening the question to interpretation as a moral or judgment issue; instead focus on the legal question.

  9. Jan 2014
  10. Oct 2013