notfashion

As far as I can remember, Wainer doesn't really assert that the equation is known as "de Moivre's equation", that's just what he calls it in the context of his article.

  float fbm( in vecN x, in float H )
  {    
      float t = 0.0;
      for( int i=0; i<numOctaves; i++ )
      {
          float f = pow( 2.0, float(i) );
          float a = pow( f, -H );
          t += a*noise(f*x);
      }
      return t;
  }

I don't think you're helping by bringing positive pop psychology and generic consumer zen "mastery" to what is effectively a borderline clinical mental health situation. Narcissism and gaslighting (whatever the actual situation described in the previous comment) are way beyond what can be smoothed away with equanimity and a good attitude. It's unhelpful and a bit condescending to suggest otherwise.

"Haskell's built in support for monads is split among the standard prelude, which exports the most common monad functions, and the Monad module, which contains less-commonly used monad functions. The individual monad types are each in their own libraries and are the subject of Part II of this tutorial."

https://wiki.haskell.org/All_About_Monads#Monad_support_in_H...

The fact that monads are used to implement parts of the language doesn't make them a core part of it. Techniques used in implementation aren't the same as language features.

So it even has to do with the protestant/catholic divide (science and manufacturing was something "they" did). It's a very painful story, and a lot of Irish tech people have a chip on their shoulder (narcissistic injury) because of our backwardness.

The scenario is something like a situation in which individuals are categorized into two discrete groups, and then inference proceeds as if the fate of each individual has been determined by which group they fell into (rather than determined probabilistically). The fact that a discrete categorization is assumed to 'determine' the outcome (the possibility wave function 'collapses' at the moment of categorization) could certainly be referred to as deterministic. I agree that it's not an application of the word that we are familiar with.

It's pretty sickening to watch the (sadly predictable) HN sneering and mockery around the topic of someone's (anyone's) mental health. It's such a cruel, distorted and completely non-constructive conversation. Do you guys really not have anything more interesting to say?

This paper https://www.math.brown.edu/~res/Papers/intel.pdf is mentioned in one of the Numberphile videos on the topic and it basically says this in the introduction.

As Wikipedia says, it "straddles" various styles including Googie. I don't think a pure Googie building could be so prestigious. The typical Googie structure is low tech and relatively low cost, "flashy and vernacular" as Wikipedia says. Once you start dealing with an architect like Saarinen (TWA) or Pereira (Theme Building) there is something a bit more sophisticated and expensive going on. Those prestigious buildings don't really epitomize the style, even if we consider them to express some aspects of it in retrospect. Googie has more to do with diners, jukebokes and the fins on a car than with "serious" architecture.

The Changi building really couldn't have been built in the 60s. It's one of those load-bearing triangulated structures with a large number of glazing components of different dimensions. It is much simpler, without CAD, to make a smooth reinforced concrete dome/cantilever like the TWA building, or an arch like the Theme Building. Triangulated high-tech building skins like the one on the Gherkin in London (and Changi) are extremely expensive because of the complexity and the need to custom manufacture each component. There is a fetishization of that complexity (it's the main driver of it) in contrast to the more sculptural preoccupations that are evident in the TWA terminal. Saarinen was moulding concrete (not really a Googie concept) and Safdie is blowing bubbles of super high-tech geometry...

It is a bit of a retro design, but it looks back to the scifi environments, megastructures and geodesic domes of the early 70s rather than the stiffer, simpler shapes of Googie.

You could argue that it's what futuristic architecture looks like now, which is probably fair. That doesn't make it a form of Googie.

But maybe this video is similar in content to the talk you saw?

As a psychiatric professional, you may find it reassuring to predict the future dominance of an objective medical model of mental illness. It would be braver to admit that the complexity of the mind and of the circumstances that lead to mental illness mean that medical research is a very long way from cracking this problem.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Root_cause_analysis

https://books.google.ie/books?id=8J0djs-FK_8C&pg=PA65&lpg=PA...

http://www.rudyrucker.com/blog/2009/06/08/alicia-boole-charl...

There's not much architects can do about what happens to buildings after completion. They no longer have a role in the life of the building. I don't think it's necessarily a very bad sign that they sometimes express disappointment or frustration or indifference about the way the building actually ends up being used. They aren't responsible for maintaining it, unlike the authors of software. It is out of their hands.

Every sane architect is OK with the fact that users will adapt their work.

"You know, it is life that is right and the architect who is wrong"—Le Corbusier.

He also alludes in that final paragraph to Kant (who used the term architectonic in his philosophy) so that's a hint that he has a Kantian perspective in mind. IMO that makes that final paragraph too speculative and frankly just out of scope if we're trying to talk about the design of software. I know a bit about Kant, and it seems to me that he doesn't really have anything to say about what a theory of the design of abstractions would look like. It's all too much of a stretch. Combining philosophers and category theory (take Zalamea for example) seems to produce "architecture astronauts,".

There is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tekt%C5%8Dn which broadly supports your first paragraph.

On the other hand, in architecture, tectonics is usually contrasted with stereotomics. Tectonics is concerned with framing, stereotomy with compressive masses. The former is paradigmatically a branch of carpentry, the latter part of stone-masonry. This is how the words are used in architectural history. See e.g. https://www.campobaeza.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/1996_0...

I'm an architectural historian, so I tend to care most about the way the term tectonics functions within architectural discourse. But I think I would translate tecton as carpenter anyway, because of the strong older biblical tradition of doing so, and (independently) the etymology of the word.

'* teks- Proto-Indo-European root meaning "to weave," also "to fabricate," especially with an ax," also "to make wicker or wattle fabric for (mud-covered) house walls."'

https://www.etymonline.com/word/*teks-?ref=etymonline_crossr...

NB the distinction in German between Wand and Mauer. Both mean "wall", but Wand corresponds to the light, woven wattle partition, while Mauer is associated with massive masonry.

One thing that would convince me to drop the architectural association of tectonics with carpentry would be a classical Greek text describing fortifications or other heavy stone masses being built by people referred to as "tecton", since that scenario would strongly suggest that they were not carpenters. The revisionist biblical concerns mentioned on the Wikipedia page seem less relevant to the connotations of the Greek word—they have more to do with recovering the connotations of the text in its original language, before translation to classical Greek.