Richard Stallman had it right long ago. Gist of it is Free is free. Anything else isn’t. But I wanted Minix to win the Linux/Minix war, and Hurd to win over Linux, but I usually back the unpopular side. “It’s time [to] explain the meaning of “Hurd”. “Hurd” stands for “Hird of Unix-Replacing Daemons”. And, then, “Hird” stands for “Hurd of Interfaces Representing Depth”. We have here, to my knowledge, the first software to be named by a pair of mutually recursive acronyms.”

Richard Stallman had it [read full article]


a) Pragmatism is one. b) Skepticism is another, with an emphasis on finding flaws in the very notions you depend upon in order to strengthen your certainties. c) Seek uncertainties, not to turn them all into certainties but as a reminder of whatever limitations of scope you may have. You can do all of these while also pursuing your dominant directions.

a) Pragmatism is one.[read full article]


Minimal? I’d start with “What are the components of successful communication?” For communication, you have a minimum of two brains connected by the activity of communication. The components that allow for communication to take place that lay beneath the content being communicated is what you’re looking for at minimum. By analogy, functioning computer network.

Minimal? I’d start with [read full article]


How I did my experiment: I don’t talk at length well and not at all well spontaneously (not knowing what I’m going to say where I just start talking and let whatever comes out). So, I forced myself to give an answer for: “How to solve anything”. I had to do it for at least 10 mins. Once done, I had to fit my spontaneously / forced speaking tempo to a backing track at the correct BPM. Thankfully, I already knew my comfortable “fast speed” on piano is 270 bpm (arpeggios using triplets at 270 bpm, which works out to 810 bpm really). So, I did fractions of that. It worked at 270, 135 (1/2), 67.5 (1/4). But it REALLY stood out at 90 bpm, which is 270/3. 1/3. That makes sense to me as “triplets” (3 in 1) is what I normally like.

How I did my [read full article]


Academics have been calling for a “replacement NATO” ever since Glasnost.… What’s Glasnost? Not something you hear about anymore “perestroika”? New phone, who dis? A commentator on a Q&A site from Moscow said this in 2008: “I was born in 1987 and i don’t know the principles of Glasnost. Nobody remembers that thing anymore. As for the freedom of word – we have the Internet without any “Great wall” firewall. Last couple of years, portals for city services started, so you can address an issue through the net, and it’s really working. As for transparency of the government machine – many of us are not interested in that. Constant ruling of one party and one man killed an interest in inner politics in us.” and that was 2008. Political atrophy. That’s why we’re so intriguing.

Academics have been calling [read full article]


context – con-text – “with text”. Basic sarcasm is: “ha, I have said the opposite of what I really mean and that’s funny haha!” There’s usually very little in the text itself that indicates, “THIS IS SARCASTIC NOW” but there is often something. Online, it might be a   or   that tells you, “Switch this meaning into opposite mode”. But that’s all basic sarcasm. Higher levels involve using your pre existing knowledge to bear upon the conversation in order to interpret it properly, as the text itself is devoid of its full message.

context – con-text –
[read full article]