From Modes of Production to the Resurrection of the Body: A Labor Theory of Revolutionary Subjectivity & Religious Ideas

Open source is not open to most people. Source code in a git repo is not open to everyone. It’s open to the select class of people who know what it means to clone a git repo.

the use of a choir of instruments, in this case two saxophones, as the main means of exposing the melody, and the playing off of different instruments against one another in a rudimentary contrapuntal manner

Blues and Song Form

In a blues song with a sung text, the lyrics consist of a line that is repeated, then followed by a contrasting line (aab). The melody often follows this structure as well. Blues melodies often leave large gaps to allow for call-and-response between the melodic instrument and other instruments. The blues scale is like a minor pentatonic scale with an additional chromatic passing tone: do–me–fa–fi–sol–te (^1−↓^3−^4−↑^4−^5−↓^7)(1^−↓3^−4^−↑4^−5^−↓7^)(\hat1-\downarrow\hat3-\hat4-\uparrow\hat4-\hat5-\downarrow\hat7). The blues scale can be rotated to begin on its second note, creating a major blues scale: do–re–ri–mi–sol–la (^1−^2−↑^2−^3−^5−^6)(1^−2^−↑2^−3^−5^−6^)(\hat1-\hat2-\uparrow\hat2-\hat3-\hat5-\hat6).

The “major” blues scale Some improvisers find it helpful to think of a major blues scale. The difference between a major and minor pentatonic scale is identical to the difference between the major and minor blues scale: the major blues scale is a rotation of the blues scale of its relative minor. Begin the blues scale on me (↓^3)(↓3^)(\downarrow\hat3), and you will get a blues scale for the relative major. These relationships are summarized in Example 5

Another essential part of blues phrase structure is the notion of call-and-response, a feature likely inherited from the work songs of enslaved Africans and African Americans. The vocal, lyricized melody takes on the role of the “call” while an instrumental filler takes on the role of the “response.” Notice that in “Gulf Coast Blues,” each lyric labeled with an a is sung entirely and exclusively in the first two measures of the phrase. Example 3 annotates a transcription of “Gulf Coast Blues” to show this call-and-response relationship.

This blues scale is used in both major and minor blues tunes, despite the clashes with the underlying harmony.

Much as the harmonies of the blues tend not to stick to one diatonic key, flouting the norms of tonal music, the melodies are similarly chromatic to match.

The poetic structure: it is undoubtedly a structure made of three lines of fourbars each but its organization differs on the levels of prosody, melody, andharmony.The prosodic structure: AAB generally. The phrase (either sung or spoken)during the first line is repeated in the second line and a second phrasefollows in the third line.9The melodic structure: AAB but often AA’B. The same melodic phrase usuallyis repeated but may be subject to variation.The harmonic structure: ABC. As seen above, the three lines have been differentfrom each other right from the most original chord changes. The first linestarts with I, the second with IV, and the third with V

Vitamin E: Regulatory Redox Interactions

one of the first experiments in humanities book publishing to rigorously explore the potential implications and possibilities of the digital medium for the humanities monograph, for the humanities, and, ultimately, for the human.

This article provides all the essential information that you will need if you want to study PhD in France.

读 CS PhD 之前没有工业界经历真的没关系吗？

Focus 2022 Borders, Migration and KnowledgeThe migration of people is intimately connected to the migration of knowledge and culture. However, strong international borders still define what is considered national literature, art, or history and which artists, writers, and thinkers from which parts of the world gain global recognition. We invite project applications that explore how national and international canons are produced and changed. Under what conditions do knowledge and culture circulate easily, and when are they blocked? What powers and interests are served when canons are defined? How do museums, universities, archives, and libraries change when traditional intellectual and cultural power centers are displaced or decentered? Questions concerning borders, migration, knowledge production and circulation as well as social and cultural transfers across nations are the focus of the current call for applications for Ph.D. scholarships. We encourage applications for projects concentrating on following aspects, although other topics will also be considered: - trajectories of migration and mobility of cultural and intellectual production, - social and cultural dimensions of borders, - cultural borders and their manifestation in arts and cultural production, - circulation of ideas and knowledge, - the changing understanding of the “national”, - transnational and global cultural institutions and canons, - decolonizing decoloniality – what is a decentered approach to producing, disseminating, teaching about and acting upon knowledge in more equitable ways. We invite applications from Ph.D. students worldwide studying borders and bordering phenomena in different regions of the world. Both empirical research based on extensive fieldwork and projects centered on theoretical reflection are eligible for support. Innovative and challenging research questions as well as comparative approaches are highly welcome.

The problem is not just the displeasure you experience trying to wade through the syntax. It’s what lies beyond the words – what they tell us both about humanitarians and, ultimately, the current state of humanitarian aid.

Having worked with researchy vs more product/business driven teams, I found that the best results came when a researchy person took the time to understand the product domain, but many of them believe they're too good for business (in which case you should head back to academia).

Open Access Explained!, an 8-minute animated video from PHD Comics.

key attributes needed to produce a worthy PhD thesis are a readiness to accept failure; resilience; persistence; the ability to troubleshoot; dedication; independence; and a willingness to commit to very hard work — together with curiosity and a passion for research

“emergent, iterative, collaborative, critical.

As a developer familiar with Smalltalk I would myself describe it, in terms of its basic structure of entelechies and messages, as metabolically oriented, if I was forced to include orientation in the description

a reading group is a common activity amongresearch labs. The purpose of a reading group is to stay on topof newly published research in a specific field. In most formats,one student is selected to present a research paper to the restof the group. Most reading group formats meet weekly from30 minutes to an hour.

Members often toutthat “anyone can be a hacker.”While this claim is dubious– participation is limited by technical inclinations, skills, and comfort hanging around rowdy spaces –hackerspaces certainly helpproduce an “ordinary hacker.” Theyare sites where we can observe hacking’s movement from subculture to mainstream, and from an edgy to popular identity.

Hackerspaces’ messy, heterogeneous interactions between people and things reflect an odd bundle of concepts. They are competitive andneoliberalist. Simultaneously, they are injected with feelings of community and liberal freedoms.To understand the logic that undergirds this confluence of concepts and where it leadsI argue we must return to Williams’ notion of ordinary.

Ordinariness– the everyday, unexceptional, and mundane – is a useful hermeneutic to view collective action and identity in hacker and maker spaces (or simply “hackerspaces”) (Schrock, 2014). This framing is a response toassumptions about hackers as exceptional. Two types of exceptionality have emerged. Critical scholars praiseactivism in hackerspaces(Maxigas, 2012)orotherwise bemoan the invisible hand of “cyberlibertarian” ideology(Golumbia, 2013). Then there are writers who look tohackerspaces as the key toeconomic profitability(Anderson, 2012). Thedefinitional disputebetween activism and corporatization bears more than a whiff of similarity toa previous such dispute; Pekka Himanen’s “hacker ethic”(Himanen, 2001) idealized hackers as labor for modernity, while McKenzie Warkpositioned hackers as a resistant class (Wark, 2004).

The black boxes will most likely also contain ideas about the roles of the different types of engineers, programmers, designers, managers, and so on. If you take all this apart, you might look at the elements, throw away a lot of them, twist others, add stuff from elsewhere, and grow some on your own. You will look into different, often historical, technological paradigms, other ideas about what will become technologically possible (and when), different ideas of social order, the good life and problems that need addressing, other books to be read, alternative uses of the forces of media, and different ideas about the kind of people and the nature of their professions or non-professions, who should take charge of all this.

Computing is to take the role of an infrastructure: much as books need light, but are not modeled after the light’s logic, the medium might draw, where necessary, on the computing possibilities provided by the OS in the background, but it should not be driven by them. Instead, the dynamic spatial medium should be driven by properties of the medium itself, and as such, it should drive technology.

The lab as a whole—its walls, desks, whiteboards, roofs, machines, and the people inhabiting it—functions as a first demo for an alternative medium.

As such, bootstrapping can assume different scopes and directions. While Engelbart’s and English’s project might sound ambitious, they still believed, at least in the 1960s, that bootstrapping inside a research group would achieve the desired results. Alan Kay’s Learning Research Group extended this setting in the 1970s through pedagogy and McLuhanite media theory. By bringing children in, they aimed to achieve recursive effects beyond the lab, with the long-term goal of involving the whole world in a process akin to bootstrapping. Bret Victor and his research group’s form of bootstrapping resembles a multi-layered onion. The kind of people who should be part of it, and at what moments, can lead to intense internal discussion.

Simply building prototypes with prototypes would not be a smart recipe for radical engineering: once in use, prototypes tend to break; thus, a toolset of prototypes would not be a very useful toolset for developing further prototypes. Bootstrapping as a process can thus only work if we assume that it is a larger process in which “tools and techniques” are developing with social structures and local knowledge over longer periods of time. The processes are recursive, much like the “recursive publics” that Chris Kelty (2008:30) describes for the free software development community: in both cases developers create sociotechnical infrastructures with which they can communicate and cooperate, which then spread to other parts of life. Kelty shows how such recursive effects are not simply the magical result of self-enforcing positive feedback. Recursive processes are based on politics. And resources. And qualified personnel. And care. And steering. In short, they need to be continually produced.

in a continuous process of “augmenting human intellect.” According to Engelbart, the latter can be achieved through the process of “bootstrapping.” This is a term that can mean many things in the Silicon Valley, from initiating systems to kicking off startups, but in the context of Engelbart’s work, bootstrapping is the “…interesting (recursive) assignment of developing tools and techniques to make it more effective at carrying out its assignment. Its tangible product is a developing augmentation system to provide increased capability for developing and studying augmentation systems” (Engelbart and English 2003:234). Just as Moore’s so-called law, this is a dream of exponential progress emerging out of nonlinear, self-enforcing feedback. How much more Californian can you be?

IDP Forms and Documentation

Individual Development Plans (IDPs)

The Research Data Curation Bibliography includes over 620 selected English-language articles, books, and technical reports that are useful in understanding the curation of digital research data in academic and other research institutions.

From far away, successful Bazaars look like moneyless anarchic systems, but up close, the bulk of responsibility falls on a couple of people, who are usually being paid to do the work.

Open source projects don’t start as communitiesMany would agree that open source projects don’t start out as Bazaars, but just in case, I’ll emphasize the point. Raymond himself wrote:It’s fairly clear that one cannot code from the ground up in bazaar style. One can test, debug and improve in bazaar style, but it would be very hard to originate a project in bazaar mode. Linus didn’t try it. I didn’t either.Somebody has to be chiefly responsible for an open source project’s initial development. In Linux’s case, it was Linus. Somebody has to live and breathe the problem all day. Once that project is in a stable position, the community helps support it.

lthough it is clear that reading scientific papers becomes easier with experience, the stumbling blocks are real, and it is up to each scientist to identify and apply the techniques that work best for them.

At the beginning, new academic readers find it slow because they have no frame of reference for what they are reading.

Smalltalk doesn’t have to be pragmatic, because it’s better than its imitators and the things that make it different are also the things that give it an advantage.

Self contained. All of the source code is accessible inside the image. One can change any of it at any time. Every tool is written in Smalltalk. If one doesn't like how something works, one can change it. If one wants to add a feature, one is empowered to. Since everything is open, one can even change how the language works. It's programming without constraints. The original refactoring tools were written in Smalltalk.

Not every committer has the rights to release or make high level decisions, so we can be much more liberal about giving out commit rights. That increases the committer base for code review and bug triage. As a wider range of expertise in the committer pool smaller changes are reviewed and adjusted without the intervention of the more technical contributors, who can spend their time on reviews only they can do.

We know what happens to unhealthy projects over a long enough time period, more maintainers leave, contributions eventually fall, and if we’re lucky users leave it. When we aren’t so lucky adoption continues and years later we’re plagued with security and stability issues in widely adopt software that can’t be effectively maintained.The number of users a project has is a poor indicator of the health of the project, often it is the most used software that suffers the biggest contribution crisis.

This is what a healthy project should look like. As the demands on the project from increased users rise, so do the contributors, and as contributors increase more are converted into committers. As the committer base grows, more of them rise to the level of expertise where they should be involved in higher level decision making.If these groups don’t grow in proportion to each other they can’t carry the load imposed on them by outward growth. A project’s ability to convert people from each of these groups is the only way it can stay healthy if its user base is growing.

Vocabulary* A Contributor is any individual creating or commenting on an issue or pull request. * A Committer is a subset of contributors who have been given write access to the repository. * A TC (Technical Committee) is a group of committers representing the required technical expertise to resolve rare disputes.

Corporate practices can be directly hostile to individuals with exceptional skills and initiative in technical matters. I consider such management of technical people cruel and wasteful. Kierkegaard was a strong proponent for the individual against “the crowd” and has some serious discussion of the importance of aesthetics and ethical behavior. I couldn’t point to a specific language feature and say, “See, there’s the influence of the nineteenth-century philosopher,” but he is one of the roots of my reluctance to eliminate “expert level” features, to abolish “misuses,” and to limit features to support only uses that I know to be useful. I’m not particularly fond of Kierkegaard’s religious philosophy, though.

TR: How do you account for the fact that C++ is both widely criticized and resented by many programmers but at the same time very broadly used? Why is it so successful?BS: The glib answer is, There are just two kinds of languages: the ones everybody complains about and the ones nobody uses.There are more useful systems developed in languages deemed awful than in languages praised for being beautiful–many more. The purpose of a programming language is to help build good systems, where “good” can be defined in many ways. My brief definition is, correct, maintainable, and adequately fast. Aesthetics matter, but first and foremost a language must be useful; it must allow real-world programmers to express real-world ideas succinctly and affordably.

And without real changes in user behavior, software suppliers are unlikely to change.

This bold claim has led design and critical scholars to hotly debate if participants have a technological ideology imposed on them, or if thinking with technologies enable new civic perspectives.

Winners were praised by sponsors and rewarded with invitations to be part of an accelerator or incubator. Stories from the day generated ample traffic on social media and articles in local newspapers.

But ultimately you have to stop being meta. As Jeff Kaufman — a developer in Cambridge who's famous among effective altruists for, along with his wife Julia Wise, donating half their household's income to effective charities — argued in a talk about why global poverty should be a major focus, if you take meta-charity too far, you get a movement that's really good at expanding itself but not necessarily good at actually helping people.

peerlearningandcooperativelearnin

processofjointactivityitself.Rather,itiscreatedinthecourseofcollaboration:"Weproposethatanessentialfeatureoflearningisthatitcreatesthezoneofproximaldevelopment;thatis,learningawakensavarietyofdevelopmentalprocessesthatareabletooperateonlywhenthechildisinteractingwithpeopleinhisenvironmentandincollaborationwithhispeers"(Vygotsky,1978,p.90

peercollaborationcannotignorewhateachindividualbringstothecollaborativeproces

seofpsychologicaltools

dwellssolelyoninterpersonalaspects,relyingontheconceptofthezoneofproximaldevelopment,reducesthetheoryinawaythatseriouslydetractsfromitsvalue

Vygotsky-inspiredresearchintopeercollaborativeprob-lemsolvinghasbeenlessplentifulbecauseVygotsky,unlikePiaget(especiallyinhisworkonmoralreasoning),didnotemphasizetheparticularbenefitsofpeercollaborationandfocusedmoreonadult-childinteraction.Vygotsky'stheory,however,hastremendousimplicationsforourunderstandingofpeercollaboration

However, establishing psychological safety is, by its very nature, somewhat messy and difficult to implement. You can tell people to take turns during a conversation and to listen to one another more. You can instruct employees to be sensitive to how their colleagues feel and to notice when someone seems upset. But the kinds of people who work at Google are often the ones who became software engineers because they wanted to avoid talking about feelings in the first place.

When pursuing the Early Adopters, don't spend time putting in features that only the Conservatives care about.

So you have to treat them like they are very special.  Give them everything they want, almost as if they were ordering a custom application.  You may have to implement special features just for them.  You may have to give them substantial discounts.  You should visit their site and meet them in person.  You may have to install your product for them. 

But mature languages can't change easily if at all. This situation is described in theory of frozen evolution. Basically the evolution of language is similar of the evolution of a new specie. Evolution happens in short burst when the new language(specie) is created. In this period language design is plastic, there are few if any users, little amount of code and libraries and the community consists of enthusiasts. This short period of plasticity is fallowed by a long period of stability. The evolution of the language is frozen. There are few tweaks here and there but nothing radical. And nobody , not even the original creator could change that.

In order to successfully cross the chasm you need a pragmatist in pain.

Conclusion: if you're in a market with a chicken and egg problem, you better have a backwards-compatibility answer that dissolves the problem, or it's going to take you a loooong time to get going (like, forever).

That bears mentioning again. WordStar was ported to DOS by changing one single byte in the code.  Let that sink in.

What makes this more difficult to resolve is that GitHub is — surprise! — not open source. GitHub is closed source, meaning that only GitHub staff is able to make improvements to its platform.The irony of using a proprietary tool to manage open source projects, much like BitKeeper and Linux, has not been lost on everyone. Some developers refuse to put their code on GitHub to retain their independence. Linus Torvalds, the creator of Git himself, refuses to accept pull requests (code changes) from GitHub.

But it comes with new challenges: how to actually manage demand and workflows, how to encourage contributions, and how to build antifragile ecosystems.

As a result, while plenty of amateur developers use open source projects, those people aren’t interested in, or capable of, seriously giving back. They might be able to contribute a minor bug or fix, but the heavy lifting is still left to the veterans.

Experienced maintainers have felt the burden. Today, open source looks less like a two-way street, and more like free products that nobody pays for, but that still require serious hours to maintain.This is not so different from what happened to newspapers or music, except that nearly all the world’s software is riding on open source.

Now developers had all the tools they needed. In the 1980s, they had to use a scattered combination of IRC, mailing lists, forums, and version control systems.By 2010, they had Git for version control, GitHub to collaborate, and Stack Overflow to ask and answer questions.

Almost all the artifacts that we value as a society were made by or at the order of men. But behind every one is an invisible infrastructure of labor—primarily caregiving, in its various aspects—that is mostly performed by women.