asaph

typo in title: “patters” should be “patterns”.

This article is nearly 10 years old. Is this still true?

That album is more challenging to appreciate for listeners new to jazz, while Kind of Blue is immediately accessible to mainstream listeners.

Am I the only one who saw the title and thought OTP was "one time password"?

Coincidentally, not ironically. Perhaps clairvoyantly or prophetically. Definitely not ironically.

I would go so far as to say it isn't worth your time to catalog them. If you can find a 2nd-hand record store that will take them, accept whatever they offer. Otherwise, throw them out. Don't hoard them in your home beyond the point where the novelty of it wears off.

Judging by the condition of the records shown in the picture, and by the description of the records as "late-70's to mid-80's", a not particularly collectible vinyl era that produced mass amounts of low-grade (thin) vinyl, I would bet these records are not worth much. You would be lucky to find any gems in those crates.

“Almost” and “easily” are subjective and open to interpretation. My point is, that this is not a rigorous standard.

In English, the exceptions to the rules are arbitrary and numerous. English is also a moving target. From a logic problem perspective, English grammar is more of a practical brute force endeavor than an interesting one. When I read the article, I was wasn’t comparing the problem to English grammar, but rather comparing it to a logic puzzle that has a perfect solution.

What’s the threshold of special cases allowed where the problem is considered solved?

Perhaps my impression that this grammatical problem should be treated with logical rigor, where even a single counter-example invalidates the solution, isn’t the way this is being treated. The way it was presented in the article was like it was a kind of logic puzzle, for which an elegant solution has finally been found. Sounds like it’s more like a better rule of thumb was discovered that reduced the error rate, not to zero.

Well how would you know that if the rules of grammar are not fully resolved?

> Employing this interpretation, he found the Panini's "language machine" produced grammatically correct words with almost no exceptions.

If there are exceptions, I would think the problem isn’t solved. Perhaps the article is being loose with the wording. Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.

I only read the abstract because the rest of the article is behind a paywall. So I didn’t see this. However, it too, seems somewhat inconsistent with the idea put forth in the title and abstract. Perhaps the advice is: To be more likable, talk less, and focus your talking on lots of questions about the other person.