See annotations with the build-phases tag.

Why are the build phases not enumerated in the Nix manual? If the instructions on how to create a derivation (and thus, a package) then why not go all in instead of spreading out information in different manuals, making the subject harder to grasp?...

(By the way, it is documented in the Nixpkgs manual under 6.5 Phases; not sure why it is not called build phases when every page refers to them like that.)

This such a stupid move to go through a derivation example before introducing the language.

In addition to this rant, step 3. should be more generic, instead of tying it to Nixpkgs; at least, either show how to build your own Nix expression repo, or don't add this step, but it is not at all necessary to write a derivation. There is a Nixpkgs manual for a reason.

This is very thought provoking for me. For as long as I could remember I saw mankind as a species that sucks the life out of everything good pure or anything with natural beauty. Although, there are many wonderful things mankind can accomplish when we work together. A perfect example would be building a bridge or building. Take Rome for example. For thousands of years mankind has proven themselves more than enough, demonstrating that the impossible can be possible if you just put your mind to it.

This may be true, but can a modern machine or AI, on its own, give a detailed and personalized explanation of why the student was incorrect? For instance, in terms of music, I do not believe a machine can explain the nuance and tone of a passage. It may be able to play a professional recording, but in my opinion, music-making, especially at an enriching, educational level, should be a creative process, not a reductive, emulative one.

Furthermore, there is the problem of the expenses associated with these technologies. Let's say, in 2019, a machine or software is created that can grade music theory assignments with 99% accuracy. How long would it actually take for a significant number of schools to adopt such an AI? While wondering how great it would be to have such a device, it is simply not useful to pretend that it is already here.

Beyond Scantron multiple choice graders or online assignments or videos, I rarely see machines that take the teacher's role. No machine could do everything a human teacher does in this day and age.

Perhaps I extrapolated too much from this article. However, in my mind, when I see someone talk about "machine learning" or "machine teaching," I think of neural networking, big data, and Google Deep Mind.

To create a music-teaching machine, expanding upon my first annotation, one would need it to understand the musical material. We would need complex, large-scale neural networking that can compare a student's playing to some model or professionally-done recording. With regard to my own philosophy, I think this would lead to a lack of uniqueness among young musicians. Additionally, this software would need to be easy for teachers to use without programming experience.

In short, if we are to use machines to their full, modern capacity to inspire and guide young musicians, we would need:

1. Neural networking software,
2. A simple-to-use way for teachers to access or edit that software,
3. recording equipment.

Perhaps I extrapolated too much from this article. However, in my mind, when I see someone talk about "machine learning" or "machine teaching," I think of neural networking, big data, and Google Deep Mind.

I believe I understand why one would say this, or might say this (or conclude this). But it still makes me gasp and shudder. No poem can take a stand against artifice. The notion is absurd, self-cancelling, a terrible coarsening of fragile, essential ideas. And to top it all off, it's a bad reading. Does "oarless" not make "a good-faith attempt to embody the messy reality of death"? What part of the "mess" would the writer have her embody? The decomposition? ("Embody" is deeply ironic in this writer's thoughtless, heartless evaluation.) The financial tangles? What? Why is the image of a clock as the engine of the maelstrom of time that pushes our small craft into seas we cannot steer in NOT an attempt to convey the ultimate disarray of death? The mind boggles and the heart's gorge rises. Are people upset with Schnackenberg because she's smart and learned? Are we come to this?

Perhaps a better question is: "a terrible lie about what?"

Putting this quote in my back pocket the next time someone asks me 1) "Why are you majoring in English?" or 2) "What are you going to do with a degree in English?". My answer will be: "To make you heathens more civilized by revealing the highest truth of the world through rhetoric, something that is centrally important to society. Thanks, Fish!!

Hehe, I feel the same quite often!.. and I read&write scientific journal papers for a living!!