BSEdlMMldESB

> I think you're wrong about historiography (and your highschool history teacher too).

you're wrong about me being wrong. I remembered a little better now:

"there is no history, the proper name of this subject is historiography" he taught us this

but also, your reply suggests you missed the point (and my teacher's) that there is no history, it's all accounts by some "historian"

I would use the name meta-history, or 'philosophy of history' for what you describe as 'historiography'.

then again, maybe you're just being nitpicky about things and are focusing on what I said wrong instead of on the point i was trying to make

further again, I cannot help but notice how going forwards "metahistory" may even be understood as the story behind Mark Zuckerberg's giant coorporation

history doesn't exist. at most we have "historiography": the made up mythical tale of the past[3]. why? it's easier to remember[2,4]

in oral cultures people just re-adjust their memory, subconsciously[1]

in written culture, people burn books, driven by their leaders.[2]

in transitional cultures, 'bad' comments are donwvoted, or moderated away, or the users get shadowbanned[2]

[1] "Orality and Literacy" by Walter J. Ong, An american jesuit monk and academic.

[2] I made this up just now

[3] my highschool history teacher taught me this

[4] arguably, [1] also says this

yes, but I think they're making fun of me by being sarcastic

they imply that my comment is wrong because clearly a blog post can do many things at once: be useful, but also invite the reader to buy more. like drug sellers know and make (ab)use of: "the first one is free"

... now who is going to pay me for this valuable AI training data? [explaining sarcasm over text]

clearly I'm downvoted because people find something useful in the blogpost, hence my criticism is rejected.

but I see the trends: any time now we will have to pay to watch publicity of this level. I've seen some youtube content which is really just advertisement prefixed by a funny skit.

> So this is a big blog ranting about something to then sell you something else. Distasteful...

like the overwhelming majority of new content on the public internet.

but also somehow calling it out as advertisement is bad form.... why??? how? what!?

maybe I should just get over myself, grow up, and give up on the idea that through digital technology we can share media for free between everybody. or maybe I just feel like this because I'm not collecting royalties?

an international organizaion does not pass laws in any country. NGOs such as that one (which I admit did not know existed) influence countries into shifting their laws over a long time

when I stared coming online, national talk about IP laws was just starting out. I don't keep up to date with law reforms, but in the late 90s mainstream awareness was shifting into this mindset of IP law. and back then, the law still spoke of those 3 concepts on their own. I suppose now it's really just one blob of ownership over ideas for the sake of some misguided market-ideology

one I first started coming online, there was no "intellectual property law"

what there was: trademark law, copyright law, and patent law. but 3 turn to 1?

"the ABC and the 123" are no longer sufficient. we need the xyz (allusion to algebra) AND the fgh, which stand in for the f(x), the g(y), and the h(z) better known as functions, BUT at the depth of lambda calculi.

and yes, for children, because computers.

> Mathematical ideas, even simple ideas, are often hard to transplant from mind to mind.

this is a problematic way to frame the issue which I agree is very difficult.

by framing it like this, I think, it sets up this task to be impossible. I'm also considering a subtle distinction between 'teaching' and 'education'

he's using a teaching framework. to put the idea in the head of the student. but education is more about guiding the student to find the answer on their own; if teaching is difficult, education may seem freaking impossible.

with a 'teaching framework' simple ideas are more difficult (and complex ones turn impossible)

but with the 'education framework' (which in my direct experience is not available publicly) simple ideas may be trickier, but the hope is that sophisticated ideas will become easier to communicate.... dunno

as I said, it's not exactly "parenthesis" with the strictness that real programing needs.

in fact, my whole idea has got me on a deep dive into the nature of the decimal point (up to which extent is the decimal point representation of numbers and instance of a "fixed point"? I don't know! I cannot understand a fix point just yet; and for me to say I get decimal notation actually means I understand something about p-adic representation; which I'm still working on figuring out)

I thought these models got more 'logical' after training with computer code

I think this boils down to the capacity to match together parenthesis in a logical-syntax way

however, the "parenthesis" can be any symbol. even grammatical clauses are one sort of "parenthesis" in the way I'm thinking about them

now shift fields such that the subtle methodological errors don't come to light in 20 years.

which field are you on now? economics!? haahha

in my experience, the rigorous pursuit feels like a hamster wheel

the real problem is that it moves very fast, so when I've tried jumping into this "wheel", I find it impossible to hold on on to it. I always fly out due to centrifugal forces

you do if/when you have such a case of leeches that you die.

if it is "your" company but you cannot change it, I put that it is not your company. but that in fact you are just its employee and not the other way around.

I like to draw a distinction between real and ideal.

I insist that math is ideal. it models reality ideally.

this distinction is important because otherwise we mix together something, and the ideas and concepts (e.g. symbols and rules) we use to describe and model said something.

the game is not real. people playing the game are real, the game getting played is real. the game on its own as may be described in symbols is ideal.

i suppose what it all is all about is the intersection between this reality and this ideality.

hmm, but imagining rules and symbols IS a pure mental activity, isn't it???

math describes (fragments) of reality;

therefore it is of no consequence if math as itself is "real" or not. it is intended to model whatever "real" even is.

somewhat similarly: in modern logical theories whatever "true" (and/including "false") even mean doesn't matter. is left out of the logical theory and it is effectively a mere parameter.

all the subject does is gurantee "truth in, truth out" (and complementarily "false in, false out")

the precise details of true "and/including" false, seems to me, are somewhere in the boundary between "classical" and "intuitionism" (or "constructivism")

the subtle distinction between intuitionism" and "constructivism" is above my pay grade (and seemingly above the paygrade of everybody I've had the chance of discussing this with)

> It's impossible for me to clearly find the number 1 (for example) anywhere.

what about that there is one of you?

if the system is sound, then (I think) by definition you cannot prove different (wrong) conclusions.

if you derive a different result, by soundness those would be equivalent ???

counterpoint:

remove all blackboards and chalk, and paper and pencils.

can you still do math?

> Embarrass users into encrypting their stuff.

so, utilize fear of humiliation to coerce people into doing what you think they should be doing?

your methods are wrong even if your goal is well intended, I would bet against you because wrong methods have unintended side effects.

I think HFT (i'm assuming high frequency trading) 'owns' all electricity

and people, people are a resource up for exploitation by this point

yes, agree

the issue then, is how to decide what "as much as we can" even means; if we do "as much as we can" but this kills us, then it will have turned out that we indeed could not do that much

maybe they're also considering the satisfaction of the slate of hardware?

/joking

what public even means is getting redefined completely.

but this must have something to do with the deep understanding rePUBLIC (continuous re-negotiation of this public/private boundary ? but i'm guessing having been unable to finish reading that old Plato book)

why this is scary is because of deep connections between privacy and identity (sense of self even) but I'm already rambling

what about understanding our own imperialistic civilization?

crash in planet (or new continent?) and proceed to expand while decimating native life?

in any case, good game.

so PCM would be like the piece of paper without the musical staves? (to draw a direct analogy)

I am interested in music in contrast with the broader "sound art"; then again I don't even know what the heck this 'difference' between these even means

yes, absolutely!

this kind of "compression" is essentially "understanding through theories" where theories are like those from physics

which are a lot like stories that explain many things with just the same "characters". in this context a 'character' is more like a concept. for example an atom would fit this bill.