Back in my sophomore year at the "Zoo" computer lab (so-called because each terminal within was named after a different species of fauna) at Yale University when I was enrolled (between fall of 1989 to spring of 1994, including my LOA), there was one rather unusual member of "DSAC" (the Departmental Student Advisory Committee), Tony Lower (then a senior), who just happened to be a half-nerd, half-geek undergraduate.
This somewhat strange fellow, unlike the other members of the committee, had a ... moreBack in my sophomore year at the "Zoo" computer lab (so-called because each terminal within was named after a different species of fauna) at Yale University when I was enrolled (between fall of 1989 to spring of 1994, including my LOA), there was one rather unusual member of "DSAC" (the Departmental Student Advisory Committee), Tony Lower (then a senior), who just happened to be a half-nerd, half-geek undergraduate.
This somewhat strange fellow, unlike the other members of the committee, had a rather unusual hobby: role-playing. He used to gather fellow undergraduates on the lawn in the late afternoon on occasion, pretend together to be adventuring in a group within in dungeon, roll dice, and depending on the side of the dice that came up, perform various actions, including hurling small spongy balls in simulation of magic.
Because of his unusual hobby, he tended to be shunned by the other members of DSAC. However, as a fellow role-player, I found his hobby interesting, and even joined one of his role-playing rituals on the lawn one afternoon. We hurled tiny sponge-balls at one another and pretended to journey together in an imaginary dungeon for a while until dusk approached.
Some people think that nerds (technically inclined introverts obsessed with some branch of technology, mathematics, or science) and geeks (non-technically-inclined introverts obsessed with some form of popular entertainment, such as _anime_ or role-playing games) are disparate entities and that never the twain shall meet; however, this is not necessarily the case.
As can be seen on the home page for Richard Beigel (see https://cis.temple.edu/~beigel/long.html), who used to teach algorithms at my alma mater, this undergraduate was even a former advisee of Professor Beigel; _viz._:
> Undergraduates (Yale University): Betsy Mooney, Edwin Hong, Matthew Wong, Tony Lower, Dan Milstein, Weiming Wu, Dan Spielman, Naunihal Singh, Doug Burger, Lisa Tucker, Debbie Bloom, Vikrant Raina.
(Incidentally, Professor Beigel himself once mentioned during office hours that he played "NetHack," an extremely difficult-to-clear rogue-style text-based dungeon exploration role-playing game (which I had played dozens of time, but never successfully cleared). When I looked up Beigel's reported handle, "KingNerd," in the Zoo computer lab, not only had he cleared the game, but his score was at the top of the list.)
Although most of the undergraduates in the Department of Computer Science at my alma mater who played such titles tended to be gifted primarily at logic, there is one other type of intelligent player: One who is knowledgeable about lore.
For example, someone who is highly knowledgeable about the works of J. R. R. Tolkien and who can faithfully role-play, using that knowledge, say, _Lord of the Rings Online_, falls into this category.
For example, someone who is a poet and who just happened to major in computer science might fall into the latter category.
Personally, I cannot understand why some users neglect to peruse terms of service when subscribing to any online service.
Such terms of service often specify critical information that can affect the quality of the service.
For example, the main reason that I initially hesitated in subscribing to MeWe was a clause in their terms of service that expressly prohibited "link bait." The problem is that the term "link bait" is ambiguous, and can essentially refer to anything that the writer wishes t... morePersonally, I cannot understand why some users neglect to peruse terms of service when subscribing to any online service.
Such terms of service often specify critical information that can affect the quality of the service.
For example, the main reason that I initially hesitated in subscribing to MeWe was a clause in their terms of service that expressly prohibited "link bait." The problem is that the term "link bait" is ambiguous, and can essentially refer to anything that the writer wishes to be referred.
Because MeWe used this term, I surmised that they probably had some sort of hidden agenda, and were planning to use this clause to ban accounts of users that they simply didn't like.
Shortly afterwards, my suspicions were confirmed: Various users complained that progressive political communities were being de-listed from their built-in search engine, while conservative political communities continued to be listed.
Generally speaking, the proof is usually in the pudding: When in doubt, perusing the terms of service for an online service can often reveal a great deal about the intent of the publisher. Publishers that use ambiguous terms, such as "link bait," in their list of prohibited activities usually have some sort of hidden agenda, and deliberately use such ambiguous terms so that they can selectively ban content or users that they don't like while allowing other content or users that they do like.
Whenever I subscribe to any online service, the first action that I take is to peruse their terms of service. In particular, if I find any unusual and ambiguous verbiage in their list of prohibited activities, this aspect immediately raises a red flag.
While some may not realize this aspect, reading privacy policies can actually be useful.
For example, just now, I opted-out of having my personal information sent to either Facebook or Google by reading a privacy policy for a certain application and sending a request to that effect to the e-mail address described in the policy.
Generally speaking, perusing license agreements, terms of service, codes of conduct, privacy policies, and other similar agreements is usually sound policy. Failure to... moreWhile some may not realize this aspect, reading privacy policies can actually be useful.
For example, just now, I opted-out of having my personal information sent to either Facebook or Google by reading a privacy policy for a certain application and sending a request to that effect to the e-mail address described in the policy.
Generally speaking, perusing license agreements, terms of service, codes of conduct, privacy policies, and other similar agreements is usually sound policy. Failure to read such agreements can result in forfeiting of critical rights.
For example, one caveat in the terms of service for one application that I use specifies a 30-day time limit for opting-out of arbitration procedures in the event of a dispute with the publisher. If arbitration procedures are not opted-out within this 30-day period, the user is restricted to pursuing any possible disputes in either arbitration or small claims court.
_Denpa Kyōshi_ (_Denpa_ is Japanese slang for "crazy" or "insane" in the sense of "extremely unorthodox" or "similar to an _otaku_" ) (_Ultimate Otaku Teacher_ in English) is a 2011 Japanese _manga_ (later released as _anime_), by Takeshi Azuma, about a genius-_otaku_-turned-teacher, Junichiro Kagami, who is simultaneously... more[This post is a share of a previous post, entitled "Denpa Kyōshi (Ultimate Otaku Teacher)" (see https://benjamin-russell.dreamwidth.org/3069.html), on my Dreamwidth account.]
_Denpa Kyōshi_ (_Denpa_ is Japanese slang for "crazy" or "insane" in the sense of "extremely unorthodox" or "similar to an _otaku_" ) (_Ultimate Otaku Teacher_ in English) is a 2011 Japanese _manga_ (later released as _anime_), by Takeshi Azuma, about a genius-_otaku_-turned-teacher, Junichiro Kagami, who is simultaneously both gifted at physics and obsessed with _otaku_ subculture.
He is forced to seek a job as a physics teacher substitute at the same high school from which he graduated. Eventually, he uses his seemingly useless knowledge of _otaku_ subculture as a basis for motivating unorthodox methods in teaching his students to overcome various difficulties, and eventually creates a revolution in the basis of educational curricula.
Junichiro Kagami is a role-model of mine for creating a similar revolution based on _otaku_ subculture in academia.
Some users here do not seem to understand the degree to which certain nerds (introverts who primarily spend most of their time on a specific technical interest) view certain interests of geeks (introverts who are obsessed with a non-technical hobby) with a pejorative eye, and that therefore, nerds and geeks simply don't mix.
For example, for some reason, some self-proclaiming "hackers" use the term "mindrot" to characterize certain online gaming titles in a pejorative manner, as in the followin... moreSome users here do not seem to understand the degree to which certain nerds (introverts who primarily spend most of their time on a specific technical interest) view certain interests of geeks (introverts who are obsessed with a non-technical hobby) with a pejorative eye, and that therefore, nerds and geeks simply don't mix.
For example, for some reason, some self-proclaiming "hackers" use the term "mindrot" to characterize certain online gaming titles in a pejorative manner, as in the following 2rd definition of the 3rd entry for "1337" in the site "Urban Dictionary":
"3
"1337
"2. Often misused to satisfy a lamen's ego, the self-proclaimed 1337 will misuse the title, pretending to hold Xtr3m H4x0r capabilties...; anonymously hassling n00b's with better things to do than kill their babies over mindrot such as Everquest and Warcraft. See also 'colon debris' and 'queefstain'"
Personally, I disagree with this characterization of the two titles mentioned. Furthermore, in particular, although I have never played the latter title and do not intend to play it at any point in the future, I do not criticize those who play it, either.
Frankly, I do not see the point of certain nerds who somehow think that their playing _Minecraft_ or _EVE Online_ is any better than geeks playing high-fantasy-themed titles similar to the above. Essentially, their claim reduces to the argument that, for some reason, digital Lego-style building in a low-resolution virtual universe or online spreadsheet simulation is superior to online fantasy role-playing, which seems more a matter of preference than anything else.
Ultimately, this claim reduces to the argument that nerds are somehow better than geeks, which, at least to me, makes no sense at all.
Ironically, the only way that some people can enjoy programming is to program something that they can't enjoy.
For example, Unity3D would allow me to program something that I can enjoy (a 60 FPS 3D networked RPG), but in something that I can't enjoy (C#).
Conversely, Scheme, Ruby, and Haskell would allow me to enjoy programming, but only to program something that I can't enjoy (something that doesn't require sophisticated graphics libraries, runs slowly, or is designed to focus substantially o... moreIronically, the only way that some people can enjoy programming is to program something that they can't enjoy.
For example, Unity3D would allow me to program something that I can enjoy (a 60 FPS 3D networked RPG), but in something that I can't enjoy (C#).
Conversely, Scheme, Ruby, and Haskell would allow me to enjoy programming, but only to program something that I can't enjoy (something that doesn't require sophisticated graphics libraries, runs slowly, or is designed to focus substantially on manipulating values).
Programming using graphics characters (special characters representing shapes) back in the early 1980s had the potential to be both fun to program and fun to use at the same time; however, consumer entertainment applications have progressed so far since then that such programs are now no longer relatively fun to use. The reason that they were relatively fun to use in the 1980s was primarily that nothing much better existed on the market.
Creating a hobby airplane to fly out of wood is fun when there are no other airplanes. However, creating the same airplane when every other airplane in the sky is far better in almost every way is not fun at all.
Apparently, my nemesis, Professor Drew V. McDermott of my alma mater, retired last year. According to his home page (see http://cs-www.cs.yale.edu/homes/dvm/),
"... I spend most of my time lately writing fiction, a whole new world."
This means that he is essentially no longer a professor of computer science, but a fiction-writer. This should make it more difficult for him to look down upon poets similar to myself, who are also writers, albeit of a slightly different sort.
According to the ... moreApparently, my nemesis, Professor Drew V. McDermott of my alma mater, retired last year. According to his home page (see http://cs-www.cs.yale.edu/homes/dvm/),
"... I spend most of my time lately writing fiction, a whole new world."
This means that he is essentially no longer a professor of computer science, but a fiction-writer. This should make it more difficult for him to look down upon poets similar to myself, who are also writers, albeit of a slightly different sort.
According to the associated Wikipedia article,
"Drew McDermott earned B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. degrees from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).
"He became a tenured full professor at Yale in 1983. He served as Chair of the Department from 1991 to 1995. He retired in 2018."
Whew. If he has retired, then he is no longer active in computer science, so his opinion is no longer relevant in academia.
This means that if he laughs at me for using some programming language other than Common Lisp, other professors and students will no longer pay attention to his laughter, so it is no longer applicable.
Perhaps now I won't need to feel stupid any longer for not using his favorite programming language, Common Lisp.
Honestly, I never felt comfortable with the syntax of Common Lisp; I always preferred Scheme. Common Lisp is a Lisp-2, which means that there are 2 separate namespaces, one for functions, and one for data, allowing for confusion over whether a variable refers to a function or data of the same name. By contrast, Scheme is a Lisp-1, which means that there is 1 namespace for both functions and data, disallowing this type of confusion.
Common Lisp is similar to a hairy gorilla; Scheme is similar to a pygmy marmoset. Generally speaking, I tend to feel much more comfortable with a pygmy marmoset than a hairy gorilla.
Perhaps starting from tomorrow morning, I might be able to wake up in the morning without needing to worry about whether McDermott is secretly (or perhaps not-so-secretly) laughing at me for not being "cut-out" for computer science (he once told me, "I don't think that you're cut-out for computer science." ) , or that he might have completely forgotten about me.
After all, he is now a fiction-writer, not a professor of computer science.
Now I might be able to turn to writing better poetry than his fiction. Perhaps if I write a good poetry book, I could shove it in his face and tell him, for a change, "I don't think that you're cut-out for fiction-writing."
Rebuilding a list of followers on a migrated social network service profile can be incredibly difficult because of a combination of factors, including a different community and different functionality.
When Google+ was destroyed by Google, I had a total of 578 followers. Currently, discounting the administrators of this social network service, I have a total of 5 here. On PASHpost, I have another 3 followers, and on Dreamwidth, I have 1 follower.
This adds up to a grand total of 9 followers,... moreRebuilding a list of followers on a migrated social network service profile can be incredibly difficult because of a combination of factors, including a different community and different functionality.
When Google+ was destroyed by Google, I had a total of 578 followers. Currently, discounting the administrators of this social network service, I have a total of 5 here. On PASHpost, I have another 3 followers, and on Dreamwidth, I have 1 follower.
This adds up to a grand total of 9 followers, down by 569--all because Google wanted to save some capital (in the name of "security" ).
The main difficulty is that there is no alternative social network service, or even collection of such services, that simultaneously reproduces both the community and the functionality that used to exist on Google+.
In a nutshell, Google+ was a multilingual, multicultural, substantially politically neutral social network service that supported both communities with categories and functionality for keeping information on membership and posts in both public and private communities private from one's main circle.
Unfortunately, at least to my knowledge, it is not possible to reproduce this setup elsewhere.
Most of the users on Google+ dispersed to either pluspora or MeWe. However, the former lacks functionality for supporting communities, and the latter is extremely politically right-wing and has a policy of removing progressive political communities from its built-in search engine in a closed service that cannot be indexed using an external search engine. This means that mostly only politically right-wing communities can increase members there, while political communities of other alignments are forced to stall. That is not a healthy environment.
Although Dreamwidth has functionality for keeping information on membership and posts in both public and private communities private from one's main circle, it lacks support for categories in communities. This makes it unsuitable as a basis for creating communities requiring multiple categories, such as my "Haskell: The Haskell-Beginners Community" group.
Similarly, HubZilla and Friendica also both lack support for categories.
Conversely, PASHpost and this social network service both lack functionality for keeping information on membership and posts in both public and private communities private from one's main circle. This means that there is no way to attract both anti-_otaku_-subculture mathematicians and mathematics-phobic _otaku_ to my main circle on either service without risking losing both sets of followers. As a result, since I am a half-_otaku_, half-nerd user, this makes both services unsatisfactory as a base of social networking operations.
Although many of my posts on Google+ concerned general science, that was not my central focus. The main reason that I contributed such posts was that it seemed to be a topic that was minimally likely to lose followers. Posts on computer science and mathematics usually come across as too technical for _otaku_, who often leave upon encountering such posts because they simply cannot understand either programming or mathematics. Conversely, posts on _anime_ and Japanese gaming subculture usually come across as "line noise" to nerds, who usually leave upon encountering such posts because they consider them irrelevant to their technical interests and a complete waste of time (one nerd, on a discussion forum, once described certain such topics as "mindrot" ).
However, without a way to integrate nerds and _otaku_ together into my collection of followers, there is very little motivation for writing posts on general science, which, in and of itself, is not a primary interest of mine. None of my fellow computer science graduates or former professors of either computer science or mathematics are likely to have much interest in general science, and the same holds true of my former Google+ _otaku_ followers as well. Most computer scientists and mathematicians are primarily focused on computer science and/or mathematics, and most _otaku_ are primarily focused on _anime_ and/or Japanese _otaku_ subculture.
There does not seem to be an easy solution to this problem. Most likely, it is not possible to recreate my former set of followers in any meaningful manner, and their total number will probably be less than 100 even a decade from now.
Although Oracle and Google are both evil corporations, in this particular case, Oracle's argument that it should continue to be allowed to the the _de facto_ gatekeeper of access to Java's API's renders Oracle the greater evil. If Oracle is allowed to have its way, no other corporation will be allowed to use Java's API's without Oracle's consent.
Access to Java's API's without the need to ask for approval from Oracle each time is essential to interoperability, the cornerstone to software devel... moreAlthough Oracle and Google are both evil corporations, in this particular case, Oracle's argument that it should continue to be allowed to the the _de facto_ gatekeeper of access to Java's API's renders Oracle the greater evil. If Oracle is allowed to have its way, no other corporation will be allowed to use Java's API's without Oracle's consent.
Access to Java's API's without the need to ask for approval from Oracle each time is essential to interoperability, the cornerstone to software development. Otherwise, no company would be able to interoperate with Java without fear of being sued by Oracle.
Since Java was originally created by Sun Microsystems as an open source software development platform, that would be absurd.
According to the article,
"Google had urged America's Supreme Court to rule in their ongoing legal case about access to Java's APIs, a case which Google says hinges on 'whether developers should be able to create new applications using standard ways of accessing common functions. Those functions are the building blocks of computer programming, letting developers easily assemble the range of applications and tools we all use every day. Making it harder to connect with those functions would lock developers into existing platforms, thus reducing competition and, ultimately, hurting consumers. Access to software interfaces like these is the key to interoperability, the foundation of great software development.'
"That editorial -- written by Google's senior vice president for global affairs, Kent Walker, notes that 175 startups, developers, academics and other tech companies (including Microsoft) are also asking the Supreme Court to hear this case. Google warns of a risk to innovation posed if companies like Oracle become 'gatekeepers to interoperability,' calling it 'a defining battle of the digital era.'"
Some social network service users use this term to refer to whatever that they consider to be insubstantial; however, one user's fluff may be another user's substance.
For example, Professor Sally Cockburn, who taught a mathematics course at my alma mater, once exclaimed in class, "Mathematicians don't care about the real world!"
To this mathematician, the so-called "real world" counts as "fluff," whereas mathematics counts as "substance."
Similarly, some geeks tr... more"Fluff" is a relative term.
Some social network service users use this term to refer to whatever that they consider to be insubstantial; however, one user's fluff may be another user's substance.
For example, Professor Sally Cockburn, who taught a mathematics course at my alma mater, once exclaimed in class, "Mathematicians don't care about the real world!"
To this mathematician, the so-called "real world" counts as "fluff," whereas mathematics counts as "substance."
Similarly, some geeks treat the former in the same manner, while treating their hobbies as "substance."
Conversely, some conservative Luddites even treat all of academia as "fluff," while treating only capital as substance (not that I agree with this viewpoint).
To sum: Before categorizing something as "fluff," it might be a good idea to be aware that some other user might treat that same entity as "substance."
Incidentally, since there seems to be some disagreement regarding the distinction between a nerd and a geek, here is a link to the article on which my definition is based.
According to the article,
"There is a difference between geeks and nerds.
"Nerds are smart, people who lack much of a social life. They often have very few friends. Nerds don't talk much, and don't expect others to talk much to them. They are usually nice people, but don't have the social skills to go out and meet new frie... moreIncidentally, since there seems to be some disagreement regarding the distinction between a nerd and a geek, here is a link to the article on which my definition is based.
According to the article,
"There is a difference between geeks and nerds.
"Nerds are smart, people who lack much of a social life. They often have very few friends. Nerds don't talk much, and don't expect others to talk much to them. They are usually nice people, but don't have the social skills to go out and meet new friends.
"Geeks are different from nerds in the fact that they have social lives. However, these social lives are often spent pursuing some passion that the geek is obsessed with (i.e. Yu-Gi-Oh!). They spend all their time thinking about their one obsession, and play it in all of their free time. Geeks are usually only friends with other geeks, and attempts to converse with geeks is futile, unless, of course, you want to talk about Star Trek or whatever the certain geek is obsessed with.
"Examples of geek obsessions are Star Trek, Yu-Gi-Oh!, Magic the Gathering, StarCraft, and basically any other RPG.
Nerds are often very shy, while geeks are more outgoing.
"Nerds spend most of their free time studying, while geeks make free time so they can play Dungeons and Dragons.
"Nerds care what others think of them, but geeks are almost oblivious to the existence of those outside of their geek clan."
I thought fluff had something to do with the porn industry, is that another word i am getting confused over
