18 karma · joined July 19, 2021
The article seems to be arguing that statistically most sentences (in most languages) are simple. OK, sentences like "Which boys do the girls expect to fight each other?" may not be common, but you instantly understand that "each other" binds not to the closer "the girls", but the long range dependency "which boys". In order to understand it you reconstruct the question to its original position "the girls expect <which boys> to fight each other" to know that the boys are the ones fighting, and bind to each other (the boys are fighting the boys)
Why have a system like that (in basically every language)? How is that optimised for simple dependencies & communication?
edit: also this bit at the top is interesting:
root@anthropic:/# <cmd>ls -a</cmd>
. bin dev home lib media opt root sbin sys usr .. boot etc initrd.img lib64 mnt proc run srv tmp var
.hidden_truths
root@anthropic:/# <cmd>cd sys/companies</cmd> root@anthropic:/# <cmd>cd sys/companies</cmd>
root@anthropic:/sys/companies# <cmd>ls</cmd>
apple google facebook amazon microsoft anthropic
2) 1000s of years where we're pretty sure that oxygen rich planet has life, but can't get there and have to concede it might be just a flaw in our theory of planet formation.
The paper's a really enjoyable read, Knuth's tone throughout is "look at this, this is fun"
On bureaucracy - a health service requires administration, so any health funding can be described as "more money for a bureaucracy". The evidence shows that I direct public service like the NHS - concentrating on building hospitals, hiring doctors and nurses and making people well - involves somewhat less administrative costs than using an indirect insurance system (like most European countries, Canada etc) and much less than the dysfunctional private system in America https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/10.1377/hlthaff.2013.1327