freemrkt8

Solo-dadding, hopped up on cold meds, both of which are impacting social media attention which I’m only giving attention anyway because of the cold.

Think a bit literally; reading language is “adding” information to our memory. To explain certain data structures and geometry in English would take an absurd amount of storage; first draw a Cartesian plane; what’s that; first draw a vertical line and a horizontal line extending to the right from the bottom of the horizontal line… is a lot of information to import to explain…

|_

The information density, memorization of form, syntactic rules, of English obfuscates simple ideas.

It’s that obfuscation that’s leveraged by aristocrats to then create confusion around truth when simple mathematical analysis shows they’re one of billions like everyone else, propped up by politically correct adherence to the subset of English that’s socially viable; tax a minority pf the population empowered by run of the mill political corruption being an example of politically incorrect language right now.

You think he’s wrong about how great government control would be, but the government is in control.

As inequality has grown, so has the deficit.

But for decades, government programs ran surpluses.

It’s not hard to explain it away in memorized economics terms. The thing is those terms are merely one set of reasonable, generic language. Not immutable laws of reality.

Technology is moving faster than that because of government investment; IBM refused to invest in solid state fearing it would undermine sales of old tube computers. Government invested in and gifted them solid state patents.

What do you think the cheap money flowing to tech corps was about the last decade? Government subsidy of technology, which is verifiable in that now that rates are down tech genius CEOs are not innovating but pushing traditions of austerity. These companies are middlemen dependent on government subsidies.

I don’t mean the glyphs, “math as a language.”

I mean intuition for state change in our meat bags. I mean measuring and building things that fit what we’d call in language now a use case, has been a thing humanoids have done forever.

Literally engineering an easier life came before language.

The problem with language is it couples ideas to emotions. It does not couple outcomes to emotions.

People say the same after a long, solo walk in nature. A more apt headline would be “doing a variety of things instigated valuable state change in our biology.”

Qualified answers are customization of well known generalizations.

I’ve been in meetings where rich elders openly admit to ageism; who cares about the problems this will create, they said, they’ll be dead by then!

This was back in the 00s before the last decade plus of expanded info awareness.

Scientific measure of fossil fuels impact on environment was achieved in 1860s. How long the runway is before catastrophe has been modeled and then hidden away over and over.

There is absolutely no reason to bequeath immense influence on human agency to the aristocrats. One small time polluter in the middle of BFE has nothing on Intel and Apple.

Humanoids have been around for millions of years. In universal timescales language has existed as long a TV.

I’m arguing figurative identity built through linguistic structures is bad for us. That it binds inner monologue to circling fantasy. That’s it’s entirely built on emotional policing; reinforced preservation of spoken story and tradition, which binds agency to pledges of allegiance, other words of power.

Whether it’s good or bad, I don’t know. That’s too simple a set of choices. I don’t think it has much to do with engineering tolerances to build a bridge or machine. I see how it’s correct use is babysat by the educated, as is spoken tradition. But I have yet to see how those educated are more than one of billions.

I don’t buy into figurative identity. It’s all a bit repetitive. If I can just dismiss the truth in language I have a hard time seeing how it matters in concrete terms?

To be real this is a perspective I’ve adopted over time. I’m in my 40s. I used to love creative writing and fiction. Now it all seems prosaic and repetitive relative to experimental discovery. I don’t use English to guide my next experiment but the measurements of the previous one.

If, as a normal human, one of billions, can function like this successfully it’s hard to see language as a fundamental requirement of doing and more of a historical barnacle like religious texts.

Edit: I really don’t care about comment scores and online reps either. Chemical addiction to doing what’s acceptable in the aggregate is exactly the argument against language I’m making. Infinite potential sentences of meaning, constrained by politically correct memory.

I would hope it’s obvious words are not stored as real things in us. Speaking and writing are trained mechanical behavior. If you merely train the smallest amount of language possible, behavior is tailored to defend that language. This isn’t really a novel idea.

Such an idea has been discussed for centuries. Adam Smith warned division of labor would lead people to become “…as stupid and ignorant as it is for a human creature to become.” by repeating the same career behaviors for too long.

IMO this explains a great deal about current society stuck on the idea re-training is a waste, the habit of re-electing politicians for decades being one outcome of living life “on the career escalator.”

Such an inner monologue becomes a default state of being.

Accepting simple memes like “will work for money” become the norm and “will work to acquire knowledge” becomes vulgar language.

So its about technical guidance, not approval to include code. Got it.

Jason open sourced the project. Why would they need his approval?

The article was observed, not the events. I know PR people who plant such articles for profit, all the details are vague enough to seem possible. Even the supposed pictures of eng folk with printed code could be in on the gag. CNBC got trolled by a guy faking being an ex Twitter staffer. Someone from Twitter posted “the algorithm” repo as a troll on Musk.

Why not troll the public and traditional media who are far more obsessed with office life than doing real things for others?

Why bother taking the article seriously? It’s unverifiable. I see no reason to give it a sincere discussion.

Anxiety and a lot of gossip can make people do dumb things, like make non-technical middle managers issue stupid edicts because they don’t know about git logs.

I’ve worked for orgs where engineer head count alone pushed 250 people. The number of people in power with no technical skills managing technical workers was a huge waste of time.