157 Matching Annotations
  1. Nov 2022
  2. 6291320.fs1.hubspotusercontent-na1.net 6291320.fs1.hubspotusercontent-na1.net
    1. Samuel Taylor Coleridge, who’scredited with the first use of the term marginalia, in 1819, coined the term as literarycriticism and to spark public dialogue.6

      6 Coleridge, S. T. (1819). Character of Sir Thomas Brown as a writer.Blackwood’s Magazine 6(32), 197.

    1. Blake, Vernon. Relation in Art: Being a Suggested Scheme of Art Criticism, with Which Is Incorporated a Sketch of a Hypothetic Philosophy of Relation. Oxford University Press, H. Milford, 1925. https://www.google.com/books/edition/Relation_in_Art/BcAgAAAAMAAJ?hl=en

      Suggested by

      "Relation in Art" by Vernon Blake (1925), because it put art criticism on a quasi-scientific footing, articulated what was great about the art of all epochs (including the Greeks), and intelligently criticised the decline of art in the 20th century.

      — Codex OS (@codexeditor) November 5, 2022
      <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
    1. Can we all agree that Zettelkasten note-taking is probably WAY more complexity than we need as creators?<br><br>Here's how to take the best parts & leave the rest to the academics pic.twitter.com/LFnAeBkbpG

      — ⚡️ Ev Chapman 🚢 | Creative Entrepreneur (@evielync) February 21, 2022
      <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
  3. Sep 2022
    1. Sometimes it will be enoughto have analysed the text mentally : it is not alwaysnecessary to put down in black and white the wholecontents of a document ; in such cases we simplyenter the points of which we intend to make use.But against the ever-present danger oi substitutingone's personal impressions for the text there is onlyone real safeguard ; it should be made an invariablerule never on any account to make an extract froma document, or a partial analysis of it, without

      having first made a comprehensive analysis of it mentally, if not on paper.

  4. Jul 2022
    1. AuthorW.H. Auden demystified both literature and criticismwhen he said, “Here is a verbal contraption. How doesit work?”

      Auden himself kept a commomplace book of his own notes which was published as A Certain World: A Commonplace Book #, so we can read some of his notes! :)

    1. if it is the right of the people to “alter or abolish” thegovernment, then surely it is their right to criticize it.

      Now he gets to it... :)

    Tags

    Annotators

    1. Perhaps the most widely recognized failing of peer review is its inability to ensure the identification of high-quality work.

      stakesinscience

  5. Jun 2022
    1. send off your draft or beta orproposal for feedback. Share this Intermediate Packet with a friend,family member, colleague, or collaborator; tell them that it’s still awork-in-process and ask them to send you their thoughts on it. Thenext time you sit down to work on it again, you’ll have their input andsuggestions to add to the mix of material you’re working with.

      A major benefit of working in public is that it invites immediate feedback (hopefully positive, constructive criticism) from anyone who might be reading it including pre-built audiences, whether this is through social media or in a classroom setting utilizing discussion or social annotation methods.

      This feedback along the way may help to further find flaws in arguments, additional examples of patterns, or links to ideas one may not have considered by themselves.

      Sadly, depending on your reader's context and understanding of your work, there are the attendant dangers of context collapse which may provide or elicit the wrong sorts of feedback, not to mention general abuse.

  6. Apr 2022
    1. Every work of art can be read, according to Eco, in three distinct ways: the moral, the allegorical and the anagogical.

      Umberto Eco indicates that every work of art can be read in one of three ways: - moral, - allegorical - anagogical

      Compare this to early Christianities which had various different readings of the scriptures.

      Relate this also to the idea of Heraclitus and the not stepping into the same river twice as a viewer can view a work multiple times in different physical and personal contexts which will change their mood and interpretation of the work.

    1. ReconfigBehSci. (2020, November 25). We didn’t have explicit discussion of Red Team process at our SciBeh workshop, but I suspect it’s an extremely useful way to manage criticism- simply because the recipient is inviting it [Tweet]. @SciBeh. https://twitter.com/SciBeh/status/1331558570668806147

    1. as in much of his published work, Barthes doesn’t just performcritique; he works to unsettle the performance of critique throughperformance, especially via his creative engagement with thefragmental text – an engagement, as I have argued above, which isvery much shaped by his own card index use.
    2. Writing onstructuralism, Barthes (1972b) states that ‘the goal of all structuralistactivity, whether reflexive or poetic, is to reconstruct an “object” insuch a way as to manifest thereby the rules of functioning (the“functions”) of this object’
    1. “Adversaria” was an actor’s term for reading notes, which highlighted the factthat reading notes stood in relationship to another text (without any connota-tion of that relationship being adversarial).45

      Do all these sentences in this paragraph have any cohesion? The author seems to be rambling a bit to put all of these ideas together. Makes me wonder at what their note collection looks like and how they're using it. This paragraph is a particularly awkward stringing together of what might be disparate, but vaguely related zettels. ("You can see where one card ends and the next begins...)

    2. Genetic criti-cism seeks to reconstruct the creative process of great authors by examining thesuccession of working papers from reading notes to drafts and editorial changes.
    3. The study of personal papers was pioneered by a school of literary criticism (“ge-netic criticism”) that focused on famous authors of the nineteenth and twentiethcenturies who often deposited their papers in national libraries.
  7. Mar 2022
    1. நீங்கள் எழுத்தாளர்களிடம் உரையாடுவதென்பது இரண்டு காரணங்களுக்காகவே தேவையானது. ஒன்று, இங்கே ஓர் அறிவியக்கம் நிகழவேண்டும் என்றால் அதற்குரிய பொது உரையாடல் நடந்துகொண்டிருக்கவேண்டும். நீங்கள் அதில் பங்கெடுக்கையில் அது உயிருடன் இருக்க தேவையான ஒன்றைச் செய்கிறீர்கள். இரண்டு, உங்கள் அகவுலகை செம்மை செய்துகொள்ள நீங்கள் வெளிப்பட்டும் ஆகவேண்டும். உள்ளே செல்லும் சொற்கள் திரும்பி வருகையிலேயே அவை நம்முடையவை. இலக்கியம் பற்றிப் பேசுவதும் எழுதுவதும் இலக்கியத்தை ஆழமாக அறியும் வழி. மூன்றாவதுதான் எழுத்தாளர் அடையும் ஊக்கம்.

      Reader's benefit in writing Literary critic Letter to writer/author

  8. Feb 2022
    1. “I had [...]during many years followed a golden rule, namely, that whenever apublished fact, a new observation or thought came across me, whichwas opposed to my general results, to make a memorandum of itwithout fail and at once; for I had found by experience that such factsand thoughts were far more apt to escape from the memory thanfavorable ones. Owing to this habit, very few objections were raisedagainst my views, which I had not at least noticed and attempted toanswer.” (Darwin 1958, 123)

      Charles Darwin fought confirmation bias by writing down contrary arguments and criticisms and addressing them.

    1. Amid seemingly intractable problems here on Earth, a vision of the future can resemble a life raft, and in the absence of viable alternatives, substanceless promises of space travel, crypto-utopias, and eternal life in the cloud may become the only things to look forward to.

      Is that a bad thing, to have something to look forward to? It implies that new technological inventions are the only way to make progress, but it is undeniably progress. Not everyone will hold this view, and no one should force it upon you. So why are people constantly criticing "techno-utopia" views instead of creating and moving towards their own visions of the future?

    2. as if he could see his own bright future unfolding before him.

      He did see a bright potential before him, and that's precisely why he had a change at succeeding. I don't like the latent criticism about innovation in this article, it feels mostly like envy to me.

    1. The hermeneutic circle (German: hermeneutischer Zirkel) describes the process of understanding a text hermeneutically. It refers to the idea that one's understanding of the text as a whole is established by reference to the individual parts and one's understanding of each individual part by reference to the whole. Neither the whole text nor any individual part can be understood without reference to one another, and hence, it is a circle. However, this circular character of interpretation does not make it impossible to interpret a text; rather, it stresses that the meaning of a text must be found within its cultural, historical, and literary context.

      The hermeneutic circle is the idea that understanding a text in whole is underpinned by understanding its constituent parts and understanding the individual parts is underpinned by understanding the whole thereby making a circle of understanding. This understanding of a text is going to be heavily influenced by a text's cultural, historical, literary, and other contexts.

  9. Jan 2022
    1. This thesis frequently encounters a strong opposition arising from the idea that such analyses violently and considerably reduce the richness of the life of mind or spiri
    2. A view of this kind worries materialists (or 'physicalists') who are skeptical of the existence of imma-terial Cartesian egos.

      In philosophy, physicalism is the metaphysical thesis that "everything is physical", that there is "nothing over and above" the physical, or that everything supervenes on the physical.

    Tags

    Annotators

    1. they will appear to be omniscient and will generally know nothing; they will be tiresome company, having the show of wisdom without the reality.

      This is why active reading and studying are important. One can take notes and simply regurgitate them and seem wise, but having truly consumed and made a text one's own is the key.


      This is somewhat similar to the criticism of the zettelkasten as seen in https://hyp.is/cqT1mG0sEeyMMRNCE79Ozw/takingnotenow.blogspot.com/2007/12/critique-of-zettelksten.html

      One's note cards do not equal wisdom.

    Tags

    Annotators

  10. Dec 2021
    1. It is impossible to think without writing; at least it is impossible in any sophisticated or networked (anschlußfähig) fashion.

      The sentiment that it is impossible to think without writing is patently wrong. While it's an excellent tool, it takes an overly textual perspective and completely ignores the value of orality an memory in prehistory.

      Modern culture has lost so many of our valuable cultural resources that we have completely forgotten that they even existed.

      Oral cultures certainly had networked thought, Luhmann and others simply can't imagine how it may have worked. We're also blinded by the imagined size of societies in pre-agricultural contexts. The size and scope of cities and city networks makes the history of writing have an outsized appearance.

      Further, we don't have solid records of these older netowrks, a major drawback of oral cultures which aren't properly maintained, but this doesn't mean that they didn not exist.

  11. Oct 2021
    1. getHeroes(): void { this.heroes = this.heroService.getHeroes(); }

      Never ever name .getSomething a method that does not return anything, but sets a property to that something. This is always .setSomething

    1. To ease the burden of developing and maintaining these codebases, we created shared libraries to make common transforms and functionality, such as HTTP request handling, across our destinations easier and more uniform.For example, if we want the name of a user from an event, event.name() can be called in any destination’s code. The shared library checks the event for the property key name and Name. If those don’t exist, it checks for a first name, checking the properties firstName, first_name, and FirstName. It does the same for the last name, checking the cases and combining the two to form the full name.

      If this problem was solved by means of inheritance, then all these and future complexities would vanish.

      Each event should belong to an Event<destination> class. This way, the .name() method would know how to return the name of the user directly, without any guessing.

    2. Testing and deploying changes to these shared libraries impacted all of our destinations.

      Again, with event classes, no added complexities here, either.

    3. While we did have auto-scaling implemented, each service had a distinct blend of required CPU and memory resources, which made tuning the auto-scaling configuration more art than science.

      Why? I miss more details here.

      As a side note, the other day I saw an interesting rule of thumb about elasticity. Grow to double, shrink to one fourth. Which is a strategy based on two thresholds instead of one. With one threshold only, it would grow and shrink repeatedly if the load was oscillating close to the threshold.

    4. a small change that should have only taken an hour or two

      There's not such a thing!

      This is the typical statement of a developer, about to walk the happiest path in heaven. But when you get up to start walking that path, everything in hell gets in the way.

    5. It felt like magic.

      Oh, the power of mocking external I/O. This is a lesson any developer learns the first day you have to wait a couple of minutes to run a test suite.

      Why is it so difficult to maintain an even level of depth and awe in a tech article? It happens to me too, when I post something to my blog.

    1. It felt like magic.

      Oh, the power of mocking external I/O. This is a lesson any developer learns the first day you have to wait a couple of minutes to run a test suite.

      Why is it so difficult to maintain an even level of depth and awe in a tech article? It happens to me too, when I post something to my blog.

    2. a small change that should have only taken an hour or two

      There's not such a thing!

      This is the typical statement of a developer, about to walk the happiest path in heaven. But when you get up to start walking that path, everything in hell gets in the way.

    3. Testing and deploying changes to these shared libraries impacted all of our destinations.

      Again, with event classes, no added complexities here, neither.

    4. For example, if we want the name of a user from an event, event.name() can be called in any destination’s code. The shared library checks the event for the property key name and Name. If those don’t exist, it checks for a first name, checking the properties firstName, first_name, and FirstName. It does the same for the last name, checking the cases and combining the two to form the full name.

      If this problem was solved by means of inheritance, then all these and future complexities would vanish. Each event should belong to an Event<destination> class. This way, the .name() method would know how to return the name of the user directly, without any guessing.

  12. Sep 2021
    1. The press is full of reports that President Biden screwed up the pullout from Afghanistan. But none of the people saying he did it wrong say what he should have done instead.

      I've noticed this phenomenon as well. When criticizing public policy, writers should be required to write down their alternate plans and then go at least one or two levels deep as to the knock on effects that their decisions are likely to have.

      It's easy to criticize, but it's much harder to do the actual work and thinking to actually do something else.

    1. Our results cast a rather pessimistic light on dem-ocratic representation in Congress. Although seniorstaffers responsible for advising Representatives andSenators overwhelminglyreport they would like tobase their decisions and recommendations on con-stituent opinion, in practice these staffers have only alimited understanding ofconstituent preferencesacross important policy issues.

      I have not taken a government class in over six years so this article was kind of difficult to read. As the results are stated, I understand how the conclusion came to be, but I do not understand what they mean. How can staffers have any influence on policies if they only have a limited understanding of consituent preferences? I know I'm not totally educated on this topic, but it seems like an important factor after reading this article.

  13. Aug 2021
    1. Reading should never be merely passive and consist in the mere absorption or copying of information. It should be critical and engage the material reflectively, being guided by questions such as "Why is this important?" "How does this fit in?" "Is it true?" "Why is the author saying what she is saying?" etc.
  14. Jul 2021
    1. How should thinkers respond to monstrous lies? Should we mostly ignore the critics as Matsuda has, as I have? Because restating facts over and over again gets old. Reciting your own work over and over again to critics who either haven’t read what they are criticizing or are purposefully distorting it gets old. And talking with people who have created a monologue with two points of view, theirs and what they impute to you, gets old.

      Too many Republicans just aren't doing the work. They're spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt in order to attempt to win their arguments. They're going to be painfully disappointed should they "win".

    2. Over the past few months, I have seldom stopped to answer the critiques of critical race theory or of my own work, because the more I’ve studied these critiques, the more I’ve concluded that these critics aren’t arguing against me. They aren’t arguing against anti-racist thinkers. They aren’t arguing against critical race theorists. These critics are arguing against themselves.

      How does this compare with the idea of sealioning?

      Could the versions of argument be broken down into sub categories based on who is participating in the argument? Perhaps the way that IndieWeb has broken down syndication into sub-categories based on which direction the syndication is going: POSSE, PESOS, etc.?

  15. Jun 2021
    1. “Criticism is a marker of respect and an acknowledgement that others see in us the ability to learn.” they noted.

      quote from Catherine D’Ignazio, Assistant Professor, Emerson College, and Lauren Klein, Associate Professor, Georgia Institute of Technology, authors of Data Feminism.

    1. I’ve long been frustrated with the “distance” between criticism and reading itself. Most critical energy is expended in big-picture work — situating texts in history, talking about broad themes — all of which is useful but hardly touches the excitement of actual reading, a process of discovery that happens in time, moment by moment, line by line.

      An interesting critique on criticism.

  16. May 2021
    1. it makes a difference whether the argument made before Congress is “Facebook is bad, cannot reform itself, and is guided by people who know what they’re doing but are doing int anyway—and the company needs to be broken up immediately” or if the argument is “Facebook means well, but it sure would be nice if they could send out fewer notifications and maybe stop recommending so much conspiratorial content.”

      Note the dramatic difference between these spaces and the potential ability for things to get better.

    2. But “humane technology” is precisely the sort of pleasant sounding but ultimately meaningless idea that we must be watchful for at all times. To be clear, Harris is hardly the first critic to argue for some alternative type of technology, past critics have argued for: “democratic technics,” “appropriate technology,” “convivial tools,” “liberatory technology,” “holistic technology,” and the list could go on.

      A reasonable summary list of alternatives. Note how dreadful and unmemorable most of these names are. Most noticeable in this list is that I don't think that anyone actually built any actual tools that accomplish any of these theoretical things.

      It also makes more noticeable that the Center for Humane Technology seems to be theoretically arguing against something instead of "for" something.

    3. Big tech can patiently sit through some zingers about their business model, as long as the person delivering those one-liners comes around to repeating big tech’s latest Sinophobic talking point while repeating the “they meant well” myth.
  17. Apr 2021
    1. Adam Finn. ‘There Are Some News Outlets & Politicians Incorrectly Reporting and Criticising Respectively MHRA for Advising against Use of OxAZ in under 30s. Neither MHRA nor EMA Have Done This. JCVI Have Expressed a Preference for Alternative Vaccines for Healthy under 30s in the UK Context’. Tweet. @adamhfinn (blog), 8 April 2021. https://twitter.com/adamhfinn/status/1380031766703058944.

  18. Mar 2021
  19. Feb 2021
    1. <small><cite class='h-cite via'> <span class='p-author h-card'>tantek</span> in #meta 2021-02-21 (<time class='dt-published'>02/22/2021 08:49:58</time>)</cite></small>

    1. Repeating in his amorous fits, “Oh! Celia, Celia, Celia shits!”

      This part is funny for many reasons....isn't it reasonable to assume that Celia shits if he (Strephon) shits. It's crazy that this is a discovery worth mentioning. Also, Swift is making fun of and criticizing the imperfections of women, who have, at least, an outward appearance of perfection once they've gone through all of these primping processes. At the same time, it makes me wonder--what do the men look and smell like not ever bothering with any of these transitions?

    1. please, for the love of god do NOT use Mint as a source of inspiration for a derivative distro. If you like Cinnamon or Mate, fine, but holy CHRIST do not let your infrastructure get as criminally sloppy as Mint's. No unholy mixing of Debian and Ubuntu debs into some kind of Frankenbuntu, no namespace collisions, no ... well, no being Mint in general, please!Ideally, I really, really hope you'll continue to support Ubuntu as a primary platform, regardless of what you do with Pop!_OS. But hooboy, do not turn into another Mint, please.
  20. Jan 2021
    1. And for the downvoters.... bypassing CORS is exactly what is shown for those simply learning the front end. https://codecraft.tv/courses/angular/http/http-with-promises/
  21. Dec 2020
  22. Oct 2020
    1. When giving negative feedback, teachers can use the positive sandwich approach—starting and ending with a positive comment

      Compare and contrast to what Claude Steele calls the "Tom Ostrom strategy" - framing feedback in terms of "I have high standards; here is my feedback; I believe you can reach my high standards by taking this feedback."

    1. But presenting a library author as a "snake oil" merchant and those who show enthusiasm for that library as fools for falling "hook, line and sinker" for his lies is pretty insulting and not particularly constructive.
    1. ‘I stood like one Thunderstruck, or as if I had seen an Apparition.’ If that isn’t as much as to say: ‘Expect the sudden appearance of Mr. Franklin Blake’–there’s no meaning in the English language!” said Betteredge, closing the book with a bang, and getting one of his hands free at last to take the hand which I offered him.

      This is hysterical. I love how Betteredge takes obtuse passages of Crusoe as gospel--full of premonitions, and spiritual wisdom. Betteredge's Christianess may be questionable, but certainly not his Crusoeness. I love Collins use of pop culture in critiquing popular modes of religious thinking.

  23. Sep 2020
    1. This absolute self-dependence is a great virtue in a man. In a woman it has a serious drawback of morally separating her from the mass of her sex, and so exposing her to misconstruction by the general opinion.

      So much of the sexism portrayed by the narrators seems so on the nose, and inverted by the actions of the women in the novel. Rachel is strong, assertive, and segacious. Lady Verinder, kept her agency, and did not bend under the scrutiny of Mr. Cuff, Penelope was right about Rachel's feelings for Franklin, whereas Betteredge was none the wiser. And Rosanna, though tragically, also maintained her agency. I wonder if this was Collins's intent, is he making a critique?

    2. There, again, lay the illuminated manuscript on a table. Mr. Luker’s attention was absorbed, as Mr. Godfrey’s attention had been absorbed, by this beautiful work of Indian art. He too was aroused from his studies by a tawny naked arm round his throat, by a bandage over his eyes, and by a gag in his mouth.

      It's rewarding to see the Indians use the characters own Orientalism as a trap. Especially in the midst of what is possibly the most racist bit of narration yet. I wonder if Collins meant this as a sly critique of Orientalism, I also wonder if the frequent use of 'Christian' in place of kind, or decent (or good, etc.), wasn't so on the nose, as to be satirical. Especially, in a story, which by it's very nature, makes us curious to the true nature of its characters.

  24. Aug 2020
  25. Jul 2020
    1. So when Avdi took to air some of those grievances on Twitter, the natural thing happened that always happens when you feel your work is attacked: The core contributor group got defensive! That’s a mischaracterization! Where are the completed bug reports!? You know the drill, if you’ve ever worked on something, poured your heart into it, and then seen it criticized online. There’s that immediate, knee-jerk reaction of a sting. But it doesn’t have to sting.
  26. Jun 2020
  27. May 2020
    1. It’s so much easier to be a critic than a celebrator. Always remember there is a human being on the other end of every exchange and behind every cultural artifact being critiqued.