https://www.reddit.com/r/TheTypingRoom/comments/1x7optf/does_the_paper_change_the_way_you_write/
See also commentary at https://www.reddit.com/r/TheTypingRoom/comments/1x7optf/does_the_paper_change_the_way_you_write/
What effect does the quality of paper have on what we write?
Some people feel that using a typewriter can enhance creativity. Makes sense. But I think the most obvious tech-related draw of these old machines is that they offer a way to create something genuine and avoid so-called artificial intelligence.
There's a way to link this to the idea behind Friedrich Nietzsche's discussion about typewriters as tools and how that effects our work.
https://youtu.be/0ajIPRy_yc0?si=tBJjJNjg5tnlR9oW&t=1504
For whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them.
Some tools have the ability to speak to you in ways that others do not.
An extension of this is Conway's law which may tend to force us to create work which not only reflects us, but which becomes us.
The relationship with tools becomes a two way street between us and the tool as well as the tools which interpose all of us (humanity).
What might this mean for our relationship with Artificial Intelligence? Will our laziness with respect to thinking turn us into non-thinkers who rely on a tool not actually able to think?
[O]rganizations which design systems (in the broad sense used here) are constrained to produce designs which are copies of the communication structures of these organizations.— Melvin E. Conway, How Do Committees Invent?
One thing worth mentioning is that these request distributions will look different depending on which harness is being used, since different amounts/types of context are injected
harness 影响的不止跑分，还一路传到硬件账单：注入多少上下文、怎么切子代理，直接决定 KV cache 复用率和推理成本结构。也要看到代价——这份数据集全部是 Claude Code 轨迹，代表性靠“世界上很大一部分 agent 编码流量走 Claude Code”这个假设撑着，harness 生态一变就得重采。
for - search - Google - how new words divide the world in new ways - https://www.google.com/search?q=how+new+words+divide+the+world+in+new+ways&oq=how+new+words+divide+the+world+in+new+ways&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIHCAEQIRigATIHCAIQIRigATIHCAMQIRigAdIBCDgwODFqMGo0qAIAsAIB&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 interesting results returned - How words shape our world - https://hyp.is/v03HxqUxEfCM7h8cfH031w/www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/culture/48612/how-words-shape-our-world
featuring I would then argue is the attempt to shape the space for action by identifying and circulating images of the future a process by which relationship between past present and future are enacted
for - definition - futuring - the attempt to shape the space for action by identifying and circulating images of the future (in the present) - a process by which relationship between past, present and future are enacted - Maarten Hajer
“We shape our buildings; thereafter they shape us,” said Sir Winston Churchill in his speech to the meeting in the House of Lords, October 28, 1943, requesting that the House of Commons bombed out in May 1941 be rebuilt exactly as before.
Is there a document/source?
emust bewareofacertaincrazeforcollectingwhich sometimestakespossessionofthosewhomakenotes.Theywanttohaveafullnotebookorfilingcabinet;theyareinahurrytoputsomethingintheemptyspaces,andtheyaccumulatepassagesasotherpeoplefillstamp and postcard albums.Thatisadeplorablepractice;itisasortofchild-ishness,andrisksbecomingamania. Orderisanecessity, butitmustserveus,notweit.Toin-dulge obstinatelyinaccumulatingandcompletingistoturn one’smindaway from producingandeyen from learning; excessive attentiontoclassifi-cation interferes withuse;nowinthisconnectioneverything mustbesubordinatedtothegoodofthework.
If you collect everything, you collect nothing.
Confusion about what it means toown a book leads people to a falsereverence for paper, binding, and type—a respect for the physical thing—thecraft of the printer rather than thegenius of the author.
This sort of worship of objects extends to those who overbuy notebooks (or other stationery). It's nice to "own" them, but it's even more valuable to write your thoughts in them and use them as the tools they were meant to be.
cross-reference: https://hypothes.is/a/sSgxLMGoEe6j8ccyyMeDTw
As Thoreau said, “We do not ride on the railroad; it rides upon us”;and this is what we must fight, in our time. The question is, indeed,Which is to be master? Will we survive our technologies?
another variation of Thoreau on tools... source?
It's Walden. (see: https://hypothes.is/a/b10mJsGoEe6rgteMdxbwKQ)
Joy may have more profitably quoted the earlier Walden piece from p.41: "But lo! men have become the tools of their tools."
There also seems to be the idea of our slow evolution into cybernetic or Borg-like beings hiding not only in Joy's argument, but in Thoreau's. If we integrate so closely with our tools, where do they stop and we end and vice versa?
Compare this with the infamous problem of the ship of Theseus.
We do not ride on the railroad; it rides uponus. Did you ever think what those sleepers are thatunderlie the railroad ? Each one is a man, an Irish¬man, or a Yankee man. The rails are laid on them, andthey are covered with sand, and the cars run smoothlyover them. They are sound sleepers, I assure you.And every few years a new lot is laid down and runover; so that, if some have the pleasure of riding on arail, others have the misfortune to be ridden upon.
p100
This fits into the same sort of framing as Thoreau's earlier quote "men have become the tools of their tools." (p41)
But lo!men have become the tools of their tools. The manwho independently plucked the fruits when he was hun¬gry is become a farmer; and he who stood under a treefor shelter, a housekeeper.
p41
This quote is fascinating when one realizes that the Thoreau family business was manufacturing pencils at John Thoreau & Co., one of the first major pencil companies in the United States. Thoreau's father was the titular John and Henry David worked in the factory and improved upon the hardness of their graphite. https://hypothes.is/a/sm7LUpazEe2tTq_GhGiVIg
One might also then say that the man who manufactured pencils naturally should become a writer!
This quote also bears some interesting resemblance to quotes about tools which shape us by Winston Churchill and John M. Culkin see: https://hypothes.is/a/6Znx6MiMEeu3ljcVBsKNOw
But if we are downloaded into our technology, what are the chancesthat we will thereafter be ourselves or even human?
reminiscent of the quote:
Life imitates art. We shape our tools and thereafter they shape us.<br /> —John M. Culkin, “A Schoolman’s Guide to Marshall McLuhan” (The Saturday Review, March 1967) (Culkin was a friend and colleague of Marshall McLuhan)<br /> (see: https://hypothes.is/a/6Znx6MiMEeu3ljcVBsKNOw)
or the earlier version:
But lo! men have become the tools of their tools. The man who independently plucked the fruits when he was hungry is become a farmer; and he who stood under a tree for shelter, a housekeeper.<br /> —Henry David Thoreau, Walden, p41 <br /> (see: https://hypothes.is/a/vooPrPkwEe2r_4MIb6tlFw)
summary
reference
can we build one of these kinds of shapes for animal communication
for: question, question - universal meaning shape for animal communication
comment
pretty much every human language that's been tried ends up fitting in a kind of universal human meaning shape 00:15:40 which I think is just so profound especially in this time of such deep division that there is a universal hidden structure underlying us all
for: language, quote, quote - Aza Raskin, quote - universal language shape, quote - universal meaning shape, CHD, CHD - language - universal meaning shape
quote
A core architectural building block of the Internet is the open protocol. A protocolis the rules that govern the transmission of data. The Internet consists of manysuch protocols, ranging from those that direct the physical transmission ofdata to those that govern the most common Internet applications, like emailor web browsing. Crucially, all these protocols are open, in that anyone canset up and operate a router, website, or email server without needing toregister with or get permission from a central authority.5 Open protocolswere key to the first phase of the Internet’s growth because they enabledunfettered access, removing barriers and bridging gaps between differentcommunities. This enabled and encouraged interactions between groupswith various interests and knowledge, resulting in immense creativity andidea-sharing.
The domain name registration isn't as much of an outlier as this author makes it out to be. DNS itself is an open protocol—any server can be queried by any client. The DNS registration process replaced manual host tables on each node, which quickly grew unscalable. There are similar notions of port registration, MIME-type registration, and other registries.
This goal caused TCP and IP, which originally had beena single protocol in the architecture, to be separated intotwo layers. TCP provided one particular type of service,the reliable sequenceddata stream, while IP attempted toprovide a basic building block out of which a variety oftypes of service could be built. This building block wasthe datagram, which had also been adopted to supportsurvivability. Since the reliability associated with thedelivery of a datagram was not guaranteed, but “besteffort,” it was possible to build out of the datagram aservice that was reliable (by acknowledging andretransmitting at a higher level), or a service which tradedreliability for the primitive delay characteristics of theunderlying network substrate. The User DatagramProtocol (UDP)13 was created to provide a application-level interface to the basic datagram service of Internet.
This is the center of the hourglass protocol stack shape.
D. Clark. 1988. The design philosophy of the DARPA internet protocols. In Symposium proceedings on Communications architectures and protocols (SIGCOMM '88). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 106–114. https://doi.org/10.1145/52324.52336
The Internet protocol suite, TCP/IP, was first proposed fifteen years ago. It was developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), and has been used widely in military and commercial systems. While there have been papers and specifications that describe how the protocols work, it is sometimes difficult to deduce from these why the protocol is as it is. For example, the Internet protocol is based on a connectionless or datagram mode of service. The motivation for this has been greatly misunderstood. This paper attempts to capture some of the early reasoning which shaped the Internet protocols.
A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that worked. A complex system designed from scratch never works and cannot be patched up to make it work. You have to start over with a working simple system.
Gall's Law is a rule of thumb for systems design from Gall's book Systemantics: How Systems Really Work and How They Fail.
It reminds me of the TCP/IP versus OSI network stack wars.
Shaping has four main steps that we will cover in the next four chapters.
Set boudaries. First we figure out how much time the raw idea is worth and how to define the problem.
Rough out the elements. Then comes the creative work of sketching a solution. We do this at a higher level of abstraction than wireframes in order to move fast and explore a wide enough range of possibilities. The output of this step is an idea that solves the problem with the appetite but without all the fine details worked out.
Address risks and rabbit holes. Once we think we have a solution, we take a hard look at it to find holes or unanswered questions that could trip up the team. We amend the solution, cut things out of it, or specify details at certain tricky spots to prevent the team from getting stuck or wasting time.
Write the pitch. Once we think we've shaped it enough to potentially bet on, we package it with a formal write-up called a pitch. The pitch summarizes the problem, constraints, solution, rabbit holes, and limitations. The pitch goes to the betting table for consideration. If the project gets chosen, the pitch can be reused at kick off to explain the project to the team.
Two tracks
You can't really schedule shaping work because, by it's very nature, unshaped work is risky and unknown. For that reason we have two separate tracks: one for shaping, one for building. During any six week cycle, the teams are building work that's been previously shaped and the shapers are working on what the teams might potentially build in a future cycle. Work on the shaping track is kept private and not shared with the wider team until the commitment has been made to bet on it.
That gives the shapers the option to put work in progress on the shelf or drop it when it's not working out.
Shaping is a closed-door, creative process. You might be alone sketching on paper or in front of a whiteboard with a close collaborator. There'll be rough diagrams in front of you that nobody outside the room would be able to interpret. When working with a collaborator, you move fast, speak frankly and jump from one promising position to another. It's that kind of private, rough, early work.
It's also strategic work. Setting the appetite and coming up with a solution requires you to be critical about the problem.
Knowledge about how the system works will help you see opportunities or obstacles fro implementing your idea.
Shaping is primarily design work. The shaped concept is an interaction design viewed from the user's perspective. It defines what the feature does, how it works, and where it fits into existing flows.
When a project is defined in a few words, nobody knows what it means. "Build a calendar view" or "add group notifications" sound sensible, but what exactly do they entail?
Team membres don't have enough information to make trade-offs.
Principles of Shaping
When we shape the work, we need to do it at the right level of abstraction: not too vague and not too concrete. Product managers often err on one of these two extremes.
Second, we shape the work before giving it to a team. A small senior group works in parallel to the cycle teams. They define the key elements of a solution before we consider a project ready to bet on. Projects are defined at the right level of abstraction: concrete enough that the teams know what to do, yet abstract enough that they have room to work out the interesting details themselves.
To manage this new capacity, we switched from ad-hoc project lengths to repeating cycles. (It took some experimentation to find the right cycle length: six weeks. More on that later.)
We formalized our pitching and betting processes.
My role shifted again, from design and product management to product strategy.
I needed new language, like the word "shaping", to describe the up-front design work we did to set boudaries and reduce risks on projects before we committed them to teams.
Don't think of this asa a book. Think of it as a flashlight. You and your team have fumbled in the dark long enough. Now you've got something bright and powerful to help you find a new way.
Founders ask themselves: "why can't we get features out the door like we used to in the early days?" 创始人问自己“为什么我们不能像早期那样把功能推出去？”
At the time I wasa a web designer with a focus on usability and user interfaces. I executed Json's design direction for key features of the app and collaborated with him to fill in details of the concept.
We knew we wouldn't get anywhere with those ten hours of programming unless we used them very deliberately. Our intense focus on "hammering" the scope to fit within a given time budget was born under these constraints.
I learned the techniques programmers use to tame complexity: things like factoring, levels of abstraction, and separation of concerns.
with one foot in the design world and one foot in the programming world, I wondered if we could apply these software development principles to the way we designed and managed the product.
I wore the designer and product manager hats on the project and prototyped the breadboarding and scope mapping techniques described in this book to manage the complexity.
...we redesigned Basecamp from scratch for version 2.0.
We needed language to describe what we were doing and more structure to keep doing it at our new scale.
EvoArch suggests an additional reason that IPv4 has been so sta-ble over the last three decades. Recall that a large birth rate atthe layer above the waist can cause a lethal drop in the normalizedvalue of the kernel, if the latter is not chosen as substrate by thenew nodes. In the current Internet architecture, the waist is the net-work layer but the next higher layer (transport) is also very narrowand stable. So, the transport layer acts as an evolutionary shield forIPv4 because any new protocols at the transport layer are unlikelyto survive the competition with TCP and UDP. On the other hand,a large number of births at the layer above TCP or UDP (applica-tion protocols or specific applications) is unlikely to significantlyaffect the value of those two transport protocols because they al-ready have many products. In summary, the stability of the twotransport protocols adds to the stability of IPv4, by eliminating anypotential new transport protocols that could select a new networklayer protocol instead of IPv4.
In the case of IPv4 at the network layer, it is protected by the small number of protocols at the Transport Layer. Even the cannibalization of TCP by QUIC, that is still happening at the Transport layer: [QUIC] does this by establishing a number of multiplexed connections between two endpoints using User Datagram Protocol (UDP), and is designed to obsolete TCP at the transport layer for many applications, thus earning the protocol the occasional nickname "TCP/2"..
The EvoArch model predicts the emergence of few powerful and old protocols in the middle layers, referred to as evolutionary kernels. The evolutionary kernels of the Internet architecture include IPv4 in the network layer, and TCP and the User Datagram Protocol (UDP) in the transport layer. These protocols provide a stable framework through which an always-expanding set of physical and data-link layer protocols, as well as new applications and services at the higher layers, can interoperate and grow. At the same time, however, those three kernel protocols have been difficult to replace, or even modify significantly.
The hour-glass model is the way it is because these middle core protocols profile a stable foundation experimentation and advancement in upper and lower level protocols. That also makes these middle protocols harder to change, as we have seen with the slow adoption of IPv6.
club-shaped spikes
The shape of the virus. more detail of the shape
nd wat
"clay" elicits ideas of rebirth and reformation; a new shape, a new you.
"wattle" as well--is symbolically laden with anatomy connotations, but also can be reference to twings, and other images of nature.
But floats are still useful and relevant! In fact, we have to use them for the shape-outside property to work.
first sighting: shape-outside
This way the text will wrap above the shape even though the div extends to the top.
shape-outside: inset(100px 100px 100px 100px 10px);
It might be better to think of it this way: with the shape-outside property we’re changing the relationship of other elements around an element, not the geometry of the element itself.
thoughts, notions, and ideas
practices, geography, time period, class etc. etc.
summary,
super helpful summary. Commenting just to tag it.
It may be said that every individual man and all men in common aim at a certain end which determines what they choose and what they avoid.
What is left out is as important to shaping the argument and what is chosen.