hyperthesis

what nm node is this?

when would it have been state of the art?

Maybe I'm unneccesarily inferring parentheses from the quotation marks, like:

  but they (tell don't show, show don't tell).

It reads differently without them.

My grammatical issue is not the swapping itself, but the introduction of "but they" (indicating a problem with what the author has done) being applied to the swapping. That makes sense for the first part, tell not show, but not for the second part, show not tell (which is what the author should do).

Is grammar necessary? The original "lingua franca", an English pidgin, was a trade language around the Mediterranean, therefore economically very advantageous, yet has minimal grammar.

People can communicate with gestures.

One does need a way to qualify some specific part, e.g. if we negate something, what exactly are we negating? Maybe I have too restricted a definition of "grammar", but I think of the Chomsky Hierarchy, which are all sequential, i.e., with order dependence. I think the target of negation can be indicated without position, e.g. so "not tree" and "tree not" are not a sequential grammar (a commutative grammar?) Negation of a part could also be denoted with inflection, or gestures.

One could argue all this is a kind of grammar; but it's so far from what we normally call grammar that I think it's overstretching the concept.

Parentheses give a sensible parse for me (or nested further):

  describe people and events from a distance instead of (dramatizing them, developing scenes in which the reader discovers what kind of people they are) instead of being told.

The two instances of "instead of" have opposing senses. The grammar can't be interpreted without the semantics. Anyway, it seems other people find this OK, which is interesting to me.

Below is the context in TFA, and the quote's form with show/tell placeholders:

  she informed one writer that their “story is certainly worth telling,” but they
  "[tell] instead of [show], [show] instead of [tell]."

I can read the second part as a directive (I'd use a semi-colon instead of a comma to show this myself). I bet the original letter's connection (instead of "but they" in TFA) supports this.

It feeds into my nascent theory that grammar is not necessary for everyday human communication, and its function is ornamental, like patterns on clothing, signifying social position. (Of course, it is useful in precise technical exposition and argument; though there's still greater precision in numerical quantification and first order logic.)

Grammar is the greatest joy in life, don't you find?

Thanks, I think you're right. It seems weird to have a parallel structure where the roles are swapped - but Toni Morrison would know better than me! Maybe it works better in the original context.

To see the context, I think I'd have to visit the "Random House archives at Columbia University’s Rare Book & Manuscript Library", though they do have a website: https://library.columbia.edu/libraries/rbml.html

The quote is introduced with "but", and the first part is the other way around ("...distance instead of dramatizing...").

> show don’t tell [...] she informed one writer that their “story is certainly worth telling,” but they “describe people and events from a distance instead of dramatizing them, developing scenes in which the reader discovers what kind of people they are instead of being told.”

The second part of the quote (from "developing...") seems to be saying tell don't show. Is the quote mangled or I am misparsing?

An exceptional author, A Fire Upon the Deep was his very best IMHO, and chapter 4 its best: https://www.baen.com/Chapters/-0812515285/0812515285___4.htm

A sensational adventure story, with the particular science-fiction skill of communicating strangeness, effortlessly.

Like AI and VR. But there is progress.

Apple legal's playbook is contempt:

> "So while the U.K. court did not find Samsung guilty of infringement, other courts have recognized that in the course of creating its Galaxy tablet, Samsung willfully copied Apple’s far more popular iPad." - https://filklore.com/wordpress/2012/10/are-apple-in-contempt...

Similar: the more uncertainty, the further I break it down.

This has been amazingly accurate for time estimates - in aggregate... Individually, they are wildly inaccurate.

So... they are probability estimates. Over many events, they even out.

> An API client is not venture scale.

Your link makes sense, and I believe you. Have struggled with similar issues. But who knows what the future will bring? Google once said "don't be evil"; Oracle bought Sun. Is there any way you can guarantee your future actions? Contracts, articles of association/company constitution? Maybe setup a trust or charity? I don't think there is.

AI Summer

https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Pattern_matching since 1957

I feel ML is the most famous for it.

€650,000

From TV (esp Poirot) and movie adaptations. Also, anecdotally, knowing a couple of people who love her books, who just don't do problem-solving (aka "detecting"). Instead, they more enjoyed the setting and relationships. I surmised that she was popular for portraying the declining upper class as morally suspect to the growing middle class.

But I'm curious and happy to be wrong - which is why I asked. Do you have an answer?

It's general tool use that distinguishes humans.

It would be fun to confer survival advantage to those individual animals which exhibit tool-use - like, urban environments for trash pandas. The real Uplift mechanism (maybe was for us, too).

It's in the sales rep's interest.

Her mysteries can't be solved without crucial information that is withheld until the end. Is this true?

Also home solar...

Fast chargers for long trips is an objection-overcomer, that is important and is used, but daily commute is the main use (as you say). 0 < fast-chargers < oil

Edison is famous for his lightbulb, but more significant was his electric power stations and infrastructure (via GE). Similar for Birdseye frozen fish and freezer infrastructure in supermarkets.

Selling some of the cars is one thing; selling fuel to all of the cars is another. Who's richer: car manufacturers or oil companies?

Do upper-class people have more children?

Our calendar is epicycles within epicycles within epicycles.

Democracy is all very well, but it takes a Caesar to fix time itself!

  Next, I started to increase the pricing; 250€ became 495€, then 695€ and 795€, and finally 895€. To my surprise, it did not mean getting fewer customers. I guess any sub-$1k amount for businesses is peanuts, so the only thing these price increases changed was improving the revenue.

Open sourcers identify with users, but businesses getting a ROI are unlike consumers.

It's thought to be 1.7% Neanderthal DNA in Europeans, which I think would require substantial interbreeding.

From my armchair, I wonder if these published academics considered that the comfort of a cat also increases risk tolerance?

BTW The EMyth, though on lifestyle not startup businesses, claimed that a major motivation of entrepreneurs is autonomy (i.e. no boss)

  the shorter it is, the less likely it will be invalidated by some future change. This is the main rule of thumb for ARCHITECTURE — only specify things that are unlikely to frequently change. Don’t try to keep it synchronized with code.

Interfaces are less likely [and harder!] to change. (On the criteria to be used in decomposing systems into modules, Parnas).

I agree it is the difficulty in grokking a codebase. "Pattern" naming sort of helps, but I end up having to read a far bit.

On github, I always keep thinking the commit messages for each file are descriptions. Would that be more useful?

The ones that don't no longer exist. Survival of the Obstructionest.

Some institutions obsolete themselves. Though I can't think of one as they are arguably not "institutions".