167 Matching Annotations
  1. Last 7 days
  2. Jan 2021
  3. Dec 2020
  4. Nov 2020
    1. the adjective strong or the adverb strongly may be added to a mathematical notion to indicate a related stronger notion; for example, a strong antichain is an antichain satisfying certain additional conditions, and likewise a strongly regular graph is a regular graph meeting stronger conditions. When used in this way, the stronger notion (such as "strong antichain") is a technical term with a precisely defined meaning; the nature of the extra conditions cannot be derived from the definition of the weaker notion (such as "antichain")
  5. Oct 2020
    1. Looking at all those bearing, heading, orientation, navigation, position, direction, etc. I think we have a bigger problem here. Someone has decided how to use tag (e.g. orientation is about page orientation), but there are 100 other cases. Imho, to disallow misusing there should be no "heading", but rather "html-heading", "gps-heading", "whatelse-heading", which make mistakes impossible. So yes, "heading" should go.
    1. As Ajax spoke, a bird flew out on the right, a high-flying eagle. Encouraged by the omen, the Achaean soldiers responded with a cheer.

      Birds have been a reoccurring theme within this chapter and have been referenced to several times.

    1. virtual-dom exposes a set of objects designed for representing DOM nodes. A "Document Object Model Model" might seem like a strange term, but it is exactly that. It's a native JavaScript tree structure that represents a native DOM node tree.
    1. BitTorrent is a peer-to-peer (P2P) communications protocol for file sharing. It may also refer to: BitTorrent (company), a company which develops and maintains the BitTorrent protocol BitTorrent (software), the original BitTorrent client
    1. encapsulation refers to one of two related but distinct notions, and sometimes to the combination thereof:[3][4] A language mechanism for restricting direct access to some of the object's components.[5][6] A language construct that facilitates the bundling of data with the methods (or other functions) operating on that data.[1][7]
    1. I decided I wanted something that was a cross between a wiki and a blog - which Ward Cunningham immediately dubbed a bliki.
  6. Sep 2020
    1. Can this word be used to describe the property in computing where a value can be dynamic? I feel like "dynamicness" would be a better term for this.

      It seems to refer more to personality:

      1a: marked by usually continuous and productive activity or change a dynamic city b: ENERGETIC, FORCEFUL a dynamic personality

      See also the same sentiment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4137596

    1. I considered it, but dynamism refers to personality and philosophy, while dynamicity is just the condition of being dynamic.
  7. Aug 2020
    1. The timescales on which a system’s processes run have critical consequences for its ability to predict and adapt to the future.

      A layer of architecture that is too slow to change: technical debt. (Pace layering)

    2. We also know that if individuals are bad at collecting good information – if they misinterpret data due to their own biases or are overconfident in their assessments – an aggregation mechanism can compensate.

      "wisdom of crowds"

    1. When it comes to exercise, the terms “stamina” and “endurance” are essentially interchangeable. However, there are some subtle differences between them.
  8. Jul 2020
    1. And

      shows addition. It shows the important effects of tree .

    2. But

      it shows contrast. it show the differences of her feeling how she love to sit out side while the heat can be unbearable for her.

  9. Jun 2020
    1. In systems engineering and requirements engineering, a non-functional requirement (NFR) is a requirement that specifies criteria that can be used to judge the operation of a system, rather than specific behaviors. They are contrasted with functional requirements that define specific behavior or functions

      This is a strange term because one might read "non-functional" and interpret in the sense of the word that means "does not function", when instead the intended sense is "not related to function". Seems like a somewhat unfortunate name for this concept. A less ambiguous term could have been picked instead, but I don't know what that would be.

    1. No, the term has nothing to do with racism, in current significance or historically. I am assuming the reference in the question is to racism based on skin color.
  10. May 2020
    1. corporatist

      From Google: relating to or characterized by advocacy for the control of a state or organization by large interest groups

    1. Also known as "serverless", "client-side", or "static" web apps, unhosted web apps do not send your user data to their server. Either you connect your own server at runtime, or your data stays within the browser.

      serverless has another meaning (that does actually use a server) so I prefer the term "unhosted" since it has no such ambiguity.

      See also:

    1. A serverless app is an app that doesn't require a server for it to work. Most apps nowadays require a server, such as Facebook, quora, twitter etc. As a rule of thumb any app that doesn't connect to the internet is a serverless app (there are some others that are serverless but that is harder to tell). Flappy bird is an example you’ll be familiar with that is serverless.

      See also this comment:

      While this answer is true in the literal sense of the term, the question is most likely referring the new serverless trend in cloud infrastructure, with services like AWS Lambda and Iron.io.

    2. Serverless architectures allow you to build and run applications and services without having to manage infrastructure. Your application still runs on servers, but all the server management is done by Provider. You no longer have to provision, scale, and maintain servers to run your applications, databases, and storage systems.Serverless architecture accelerates development as a set of small, distinct, and independent actions. By abstracting away infrastructure, by doing this the developers can just concrete on building micro services/functions which performs some action and integrate with others to build a bigger service.
    1. This has too many, very different meanings.

      Especially these 2 which are themselves similar, but seem unlike the first 3:

      • an establishment engaged in doing business for another
      • an administrative division (as of a government) Both are basically an organization.
    1. A "tag" is a snippet of code that allows digital marketing teams to collect data, set cookies or integrate third-party content like social media widgets into a site.

      This is a bad re-purposing of the word "tag", which already has specific meanings in computing.

      Why do we need a new word for this? Why not just call it a "script" or "code snippet"?

    1. Is "customizability" an English word? Yes. It is a root word in English, "custom," with English suffixes added according to the rules of English morphology. So even if it isn't in the dictionary, it is a perfectly legitimate English word.
    1. In any case, the Owner will gladly help to clarify the specific legal basis that applies to the processing, and in particular whether the provision of Personal Data is a statutory or contractual requirement, or a requirement necessary to enter into a contract.

      What kind of cop-out legal text is this that you generated, iebenda??

  11. Apr 2020
    1. In mainstream press, the word "hacker" is often used to refer to a malicious security cracker. There is a classic definition of the term "hacker", arising from its first documented uses related to information technologies at MIT, that is at odds with the way the term is usually used by journalists. The inheritors of the technical tradition of the word "hacker" as it was used at MIT sometimes take offense at the sloppy use of the term by journalists and others who are influenced by journalistic inaccuracy.
    1. In 1999, "collateral damage" (German: Kollateralschaden) was named the German Un-Word of the Year by a jury of linguistic scholars. With this choice, it was criticized that the term had been used by NATO forces to describe civilian casualties during the Kosovo War, which the jury considered to be an inhuman euphemism.
    2. the classic Orwellian arguments for finding this usage objectionable
    3. it is jargon, and to the extent that people cannot decode it, it conceals what is actually going on;
  12. Mar 2020
    1. Personality makes each of us different. Our style of behavior, how we react, our worldview, thoughts, feelings, and how we interact in relationships are all part of what makes up our personality.
  13. Jan 2020
  14. Dec 2019
    1. "The replication crisis, if nothing else, has shown that productivity is not intrinsically valuable. Much of what psychology has produced has been shown, empirically, to be a waste of time, effort, and money. As Gibson put it: our gains are puny, our science ill-founded. As a subject, it is hard to see what it has to lose from a period of theoretical confrontation. The ultimate response to the replication crisis will determine whether this bout is postponed or not."

    1. A 2009 study of Wikipedia found that most weasel words in it could be divided into three main categories:[13] Numerically vague expressions (for example, "some people", "experts", "many", "evidence suggests") Use of the passive voice to avoid specifying an authority (for example, "it is said") Adverbs that weaken (for example, "often", "probably")
  15. Oct 2019
    1. I'd say that "dump" in the CS sense, both as noun and verb, is merely another application of its preexisting meanings even without the vulgar one, particularly the ones related to unloading/releasing contents. (For example, "dump truck".)
    2. For some geeky reason, the computer programming world has long maintained a tradition of using words in new ways, with a studied obliviousness to their prior, rude meanings: for example, 'dump'. 'Falsey' is merely another word in this long, and quite useful, tradition.
    1. Robert Sedlack, my professor for Visual Communication Design I (who also happened to be my advisor and the driving reason why I decided to join the design program) banned two phrases during critiques in his class: “I like” and “I don’t like.”
  16. Sep 2019
  17. Apr 2019
  18. Mar 2019
    1. therefore at least to some extent a failure

      this is strange; I suppose you can 'succeed' in carrying out the utterance, but it does not consecrate anything, which... is the entire point? So, strange to say that it fails only in part when in another sense it fails completely. It's like I succeeded in taking a shot but missed the basket?

    2. One thing we might go on to do, of course, is to take it all back

      How can you take back an action? (though you could retract a claim about an action, of course)

    3. So far then we have merely felt the firm ground of prejudice slide away beneath our feet.

      Not absolute; not bedrock (though we thought it was). And merely? This is "merely" the dissolution of what you thought reality was?

    4. That this is SO can perhaps hardly be proved, but it is, I should claim, a fact.

      Haha - claiming "truth" for something that he acknowledges might not be provable - 'take my word for it, it's a fact'. Use of the performative again in "claim," e.g. "I claim" cannot be responded to with "that's not true!"

    5. outward and audible sign

      Proverbial tip of the iceberg; the "seen" part.

    6. Here we should say that in saying-these words we are doing some- thing-namely, marrying, rat her than reporting some- thing, namely that we are marrying

      Important distinction between doing and reporting; the former obviously an action, and the latter a verifiable statement. But can the lines blur? Is "I do" ever reporting the fact that you are getting married, which is verifiable?

    7. Yet to be 'true' or 'false' is traditionally the characteristic mark of a statement.

      All statements are boolean: T/F

    8. all cases considered

      Not sure that all cases considered are worth considering...?

    9. the only merit I should like to claim for it is that of being true, at least in parts

      You would think the goal of an essay would be to find or argue a truth, but here he is marginalizing it; truth is not the goal.

      Arguing that truth and falsehood are not what matters; that the performative exists outside such claims (as we learn later).

      Using the performative in his opening through the use of "I claim"; and here he claims truth. He performs his own argument.

    10. we shall next consider what we actually do say about the utterance concerned when one or another of its normal concomitants is absent

      So the utterance is surrounded by other ceremonial trappings, and without which there is a presumption that the utterance is hollow, that the accompaniments make it "complete"; suggests that the ceremony becomes greater than the sum of its parts by being able to bring about this binding force which the parts cannot do individually; or can they - is just the utterance enough to describe and seal the inward act? The other question is, does the utterance imply (and describe) the other trappings?

    11. our word is our bond

      And yet these are just words; as believable or unbelievable as the uttering of an oath?

    12. Thus 'I promise to . . . 9 obliges me-puts on record my spiritual assumption of a spiritual shackle.

      The consecration of the oath; but when is the uttering just a garnishment? For some, the internal / spiritual bond is the key thing, binding regardless of whether the one to whom the words are uttered believes them or not; the words are just words, but the intent is everything. The intent can exist without the words, and so the words can exist without the intent. It is the words though that offer a public record of commitment, and against which one's character is judged and assessed in accordance with their ability to live up to them.

    13. fictitious

      Interesting choice of words; many swear that they are real and binding, but, yes, they are imaginary (in our culture); we require signed contracts, and verbal oaths are nice, but have a romantic tinge to them and we expect them maybe to not be kept as frequently.

    14. the outward utterance is a description, true or false, of the occurrence of the inward performance

      The process by which we arm feelings of guilt / responsibility / etc to trigger when we have second thoughts about the vow we've made

    15. Surely the words must be spoken 'seriously' and so as to be taken 'seriously' ?

      Requires a certain solemnity, yes, but how many vows or promises are made with no intention of ever keeping them? Or only that they were meant in the moment, but that future circumstances resulted in the changing of one's heart/mind?

    16. tircumstantes

      Drilling down to the even-more-particular; not just anyone can marry somebody, at any time, at any place, with a word (and have it mean anything); requires person w/ particular qualifications / authority / occasion / etc.

      Also requires a society/set of institutions that considers such acts normal and reasonable. In this way, the particulars affected by the occasion are part of a much large general sphere in which they are legitimized and sanctioned; and outside of that may exist a larger sphere which is baffled by them.

    17. very commonly necessary that either the speaker himself or other persons should also perform certain other actions

      While the naming or the uttering of "I do" symbolically 'seals' or makes the transaction official, the naming or the uttering is part of a longer ceremony. Not sure about betting though; it would be strange somehow if a complete stranger bet another with no prior interaction (i.e. no mechanism to build trust, etc), but it could happen

    18. dangerous

      Dangerous?

    19. convert the propositions above

      Make them more particular; less general

    20. but in some other way

      Aren't the words more ceremonial? i.e. in marriage, they bind symbolically, but what really matters is the legal stamp of the JOP? But that's not what everybody stands, applauds or weeps for; maybe on some level that's what we're doing with words here?

    21. current

      Good qualifier; reminds us that language is always shifting.

    22. it indicates that the issuing of the utterance is the performing of an action

      Is it true that the function of the utterance is to assign metadata in some way?

    23. perfornative sentence

      Performs an action affecting particulars in a way that cannot be measured or perceived outside of the moment in which the utterance takes place.

    24. I assert this as obvious and do not argue it

      Is this phrase also an exercitive, neither true nor false?

    25. Examples :

      Involve the:

      • creation of relationships
      • creation of dividing lines which, prior to the uttering of the sentence, did not 'exist'; i.e. prior to "I do" they were not married, but afterwards they are; prior to "I name this ship...", it had no name, but afterwards it does; they are historical mile markers of sorts.
      • involves particulars; not all women are my wife; this one is. Not all ships are named; but this one is.
      • must be said aloud or in print, and often needs to be backed by some legal authority to "legitimate" the action; of course, anybody can name something, but the 'officially recognized' name can only come from a certain privileged source / I can marry a random woman just by saying "I do" to her, but the 'marriage' is not recognized, etc'; privileges some constructs over others by a vested authority
      • also denote things that cannot be done for me; I must utter them in order for them to take effect (be true); they require agency (or the appearance of agency)
      • the statements themselves are neither true or false, they just are; ex-post we can decide that a subsequent statement identifying the brother as the legal heir to the watch is 'true' or 'false'; but the original declaration is neither(?)
      • involve the combination of words with some ceremony or ritual that somehow enshrines it (in the case of the bet maybe the ritual is the exchange of money, but not sure if that fits the bill). Almost like incantations of sorts.
    26. exercit ives

      "A speech act in which a decision is made regarding action; examples include orders and grants of permission."

    27. the uttering of the sentence is, or is a part of, the doing of an action, which again would not normally be described as saying something

      The action is performed with the uttering of the sentence.

    28. Yet they will succumb to their own timorous fiction, that a statement of 'the law' is a statemknt of fact.

      When in doubt, defer to authority.

    29. disguise'

      Is the disguise applied moreso by the reader's bias than the author's intent?

    30. parti pris

      pre-conceived view or bias

    31. Whatever we may think of any particular one of these views and suggestions, and however much we may deplore the initial confusion into which philosophical doctrine and method have been plunged, it cannot be doubted that they are producing a revolution in philosophy.

      Makes me think of a generation set in its ways butting up against a younger "less respectful" generation that is "doing it all wrong"; i.e. generational divide between viewpoints; some may think a revolution hardly necessary, that it is fine the way it is and that they are simply being disruptive.

    32. Constative'

      "denoting a speech act or sentence that is a statement declaring something to be the case"

    33. It has come to be seen that many specially perplexing words embedded in apparently descriptive statements do not serve to indi- cate some specially odd additional feature in the reality reported, but to indicate (not to report) the circumstances in which the statement is made or reservations to which it is subject or the way in which it is to be taken and the like.

      Qualifying / conditional factors?

    34. We very often also use utterances in ways beyond the scope at least of traditional grammar.

      And how does the reader know exactly, and to what extent, the boundaries of a definition are being pushed by the use of a word which they think they are familiar with?

    35. For how do we decide which is which? What are the limits and definitions of each ?

      There is an unaddressed problem which hinders clear communication; there is no standard criteria for the establishment of intent in communication. (Doubt that's what the ultimate argument is, but seems to be the set-up)

    36. It is, of course, not reaw correct that a sentence ever is a statement: rather, it is used in making a smmt, and the statement itself' is a 'logical construction' out of the dings of satements.

      A sentence remains a sentence; it is just a tool or vehicle for the delivery of something which depends entirely on its configuration.

    37. It was for too long the assumption of philosophers that the business of a 'statement' can only be to 'describe' some state of affairs, or to 'state some fact', which it must do either truly or falsely.

      The utility of the vehicle used to distinguish truth from falsehood itself rests on an assumption; purports that there is or maybe ought to be a 'purpose' to a statement.

    38. discussed

      Makes it feel inclusive; a conversation.

  19. Feb 2019
    1. red so thro' custom. I shall now proceed to shew, that when by custo

      whoa, wait a minute. Is this some sleight of hand, or did I miss something?

      This seems like an amplification of his previous thought, a stronger claim than what has come before. Up to this point, I understood Sheridan as saying "not all language is spoken words." Fair enough, but now his claim that "words are only a part of language because of custom, and language could exist just as well without words at all" is a considerable raising of the stakes.

      Did I miss something?

    2. he other hand, are not confined to their province, but often supply the place of words, as marks of ideas. Ami tho' the ease and distinctness with which our ideas are marked by articulate sounds, has ma

      Words and tones must work simultaneously. The use of words enhance tones, and using tones enhances words.

    1. Firmness and strength of Mind ·,_ 1 • ..will carry us thro all these little persecutions,, ..... ..-orrt ... • h' h . r • • w 1c may create us some uneasiness 1or a.. .t...t 0r while, but will afterwards end in our Glory and-....:� Triumph.

      I think it's important to note that the words Astell is using are not unusual or incredibily difficult to understand -- they are, in fact, pretty conversational, and don't seem pretentious or alienating. She's working with her audience.

    1. for words I don’t know

      of which there are many like the forest ever growing sprouting out and anew my mind ever knowing the words I never knew

  20. Jan 2019
  21. Dec 2018
    1. preacher

      a person, usually a priest or minister, who gives a religious speech.

  22. Sep 2018
    1. Simply put, the modern economy is evolving beyond the constraints of traditional work models. As a society, we are demanding the freedom of flexible work environments. Collectively, we are breaking barriers and smashing limitations, especially when it comes to making a living. The time is ripe for us to champion our own destiny by harnessing the power of the gig economy to spur lasting social change.

      This is all very "uplifting," but this entire paragraph is devoid of meaning. When is it NOT the time to "champion our own destiny?" What does it even mean to "harness the power of the gig economy to spur lasting social change?" What sort of change? People can't afford to live in Silicon Valley. The ethos of the tech companies show that they don't care about the communities of which they are a part.

  23. Feb 2018
  24. Dec 2017
    1. What is decisive in collecting is that the object is detached from all its original functions in order to enter into the closest conceivable relation to things of the same kind. The relation is the diametric opposite of any utility, and falls into the peculiar category of completeness

      Collecting as a way of removing an object from its function; using words as objects also removes words from their function.

  25. Nov 2017
  26. Oct 2017
    1. In the '80s and '90s--as strange as it may seem to say this--we had such luxury of stability. Things weren't changing quite so quickly in the '80s and '90s. And when things are changing too quickly, as one of the characters in Pattern Recognition says, you don't have any place to stand from which to imagine a very elaborate future.
    1. The FORM-CLASS words (sometimes called open or lexical words) contribute content-meaningto the text and comprise the central subject matter in dictionaries.Whereas STRUCTURE-CLASS words (sometimes called closed, grammatical, or function words) contributegrammatical-structural meaning to the text. That is, they signal the relationships betweenwords in a sentence and function to make a text cohesive. They work rather like mortarto connect the bricks of the form-class words to each other.

      The Form-Class words and the Structure-Class words

    2. The function of a word in a sentence—that is, its role and its relationship to otherwords—always determines its part of speech in that sentence.

      Parts of speech vs Function/Role of words.

  27. Sep 2017
  28. Jun 2017
    1. It was bell hooks, I believe, who wrote “For in dreams we all drive Camaros.” I might be wrong about that. But it is a great quote and a great summer dream.
    1. She gets her hooks into you by being witty and dirty, and then drags you off somewhere dark and thoughtful and hard to laugh at.
  29. May 2017
  30. Apr 2017
    1. concomitant

      adj. "naturally accompanying or associated." n. "a phenomenon that naturally accompanies or follows something."

      This instance is an adjective.

  31. Mar 2017
    1. cribe and influence human motives

      Language as action, not just description; rhetoric is not only reflective, but also integral to formation and motivation. Interesting to think about when considering Burke's historical context i.e. the early 20th century was marred by intensely violent acts such as wars, revolution, and genocide. Perhaps the physical omnipresence of violence contributed to a conceptualization of words as a kind of violence.

    1. The fundamental and most prolific; faJ.lacy is, in other words, that the base of the triangle given above is filled in.

      This is the key claim here.

    2. The old Rhetoric was an offspring of dis-pute; it developed as the rationale of pleadings and persuadings; it was the theory of the battle of words and has always been itself dominated by the combative impulse.

      I guess "old Rhetoric" is still alive, because especially on cable news or in arguments with friends, discussions are not "expositions" but "battles of words."

    1. nature

      Words having naturally no signification, the idea which each stands for must be learned and retained, by those who would exchange thoughts, and hold intelligible discourse with others, in any language. But this is the hardest to be done where,

      First, The ideas they stand for are very complex, and made up of a great number of ideas put together.

      Secondly, Where the ideas they stand for have no certain connection in nature; and so no settled standard anywhere in nature existing, to rectify and adjust them by.

      Thirdly, When the signification of the word is referred to a standard, which standard is not easy to be know.

      Fourthly, Where the signification of the world and the real essence of the thing are not exactly the same.

      These are difficulties that attend the signification of several words that are intelligible. Those which are not intelligible at all, such as names standing for any simple ideas which another has not organs of faculties to attain; as the names of colours to a blind man, or sounds to a deaf man, need not here be mentioned.

      In all these cases we shall find an imperfection in words; which I shall more at large explain, in their particular application to our several sorts of ideas: for if we examine them, we shall find that the names of mixed modes are most liable to doubtfulness and imperfection, for the two first of these reasons; and the names of substances chiefly for the two latter. (818)

    2. Locke’s logicalprocess of knowledge discernmen

      World → sensory perception → idea → word.

  32. Feb 2017
    1. line between written and spoken rhetoric was indistinct

      Thinking back to Sheridan, who would probably disagree: "But tho' all who are blest with the gift of speech, by constantly associating the ideas of articulate sounds, to those characters which they see on paper, come to imagine that there is a necessary connection between them, and that the one, is merely a symbol of the other; yet, that it is in itself, a manner of communication entirely different, and utterly independent of the other..."

      Further down in the paragraph it is suggested that this blurred line between written and spoken rhetoric could possibly be attributed to Douglass' blending of African, European, and American cultural elements, beyond just necessary last-minute additions of antislavery tracts. Could it then be because of Sheridan's homogenous rhetorical background that he believed written and spoken word to be distinct?

    1. Doubtless, if things themselves be under-stood, it docs not seem material what names are assigned them.

      This is odd to me; that Campbell seems unconcerned with any possible etymological or symbolic importance behind the words that describe the concepts he is discussing. As if the concepts can exist in the same manner without the words used to describe them? That the words have no symbolic meaning or importance in themselves, or that they might even contribute to understanding the greater concepts they represent? Is it really possible to divorce a word from "things" and still be able to understand those "things" abstractly? Idk man. Sounds like some "What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet," kind of bullshit to me. Like, idk Romeo, if we stop calling it a "rose" and start calling it a "prickly red blob" then that line loses a lot of its gusto.

    1. First, The ideas they stand for are very com-plex, and made up of a great number of ideas put together.

      Is this not applicable for all words? I suppose I've always thought that the definition/meaning of a word as intersectional; different interpretations or significations inform one another in a kind of network of accumulation.