Can this word be used to describe the property in computing where a value can be dynamic? I feel like "dynamicness" would be a better term for this.

It seems to refer more to personality:

1a: marked by usually continuous and productive activity or change a dynamic city b: ENERGETIC, FORCEFUL a dynamic personality

See also the same sentiment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4137596

(Also) is used in this sentence to tell there is more to know; that the chip can be used for more things.

A layer of architecture that is too slow to change: technical debt. (Pace layering)

"wisdom of crowds"

Not a commonly seen word...

shows addition. It shows the important effects of tree .

it shows contrast. it show the differences of her feeling how she love to sit out side while the heat can be unbearable for her.

Page tags

Page tags

This is a strange term because one might read "non-functional" and interpret in the sense of the word that means "does not function", when instead the intended sense is "not related to function". Seems like a somewhat unfortunate name for this concept. A less ambiguous term could have been picked instead, but I don't know what that would be.

„Corona" in leichter Sprache erklärt. (n.d.). Retrieved June 3, 2020, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJygKxyQr_Y

From Google: relating to or characterized by advocacy for the control of a state or organization by large interest groups

serverless has another meaning (that does actually use a server) so I prefer the term "unhosted" since it has no such ambiguity.

See also:

• https://www.quora.com/What-are-serverless-app?share=1

See also this comment:

While this answer is true in the literal sense of the term, the question is most likely referring the new serverless trend in cloud infrastructure, with services like AWS Lambda and Iron.io.

This has too many, very different meanings.

Especially these 2 which are themselves similar, but seem unlike the first 3:

• an establishment engaged in doing business for another
• an administrative division (as of a government) Both are basically an organization.

Had never seen this meaning of "index" before.

This is a bad re-purposing of the word "tag", which already has specific meanings in computing.

Why do we need a new word for this? Why not just call it a "script" or "code snippet"?

What kind of cop-out legal text is this that you generated, iebenda??

"The replication crisis, if nothing else, has shown that productivity is not intrinsically valuable. Much of what psychology has produced has been shown, empirically, to be a waste of time, effort, and money. As Gibson put it: our gains are puny, our science ill-founded. As a subject, it is hard to see what it has to lose from a period of theoretical confrontation. The ultimate response to the replication crisis will determine whether this bout is postponed or not."

Transition / connecting words

this is strange; I suppose you can 'succeed' in carrying out the utterance, but it does not consecrate anything, which... is the entire point? So, strange to say that it fails only in part when in another sense it fails completely. It's like I succeeded in taking a shot but missed the basket?

How can you take back an action? (though you could retract a claim about an action, of course)

Not absolute; not bedrock (though we thought it was). And merely? This is "merely" the dissolution of what you thought reality was?

Haha - claiming "truth" for something that he acknowledges might not be provable - 'take my word for it, it's a fact'. Use of the performative again in "claim," e.g. "I claim" cannot be responded to with "that's not true!"

Proverbial tip of the iceberg; the "seen" part.

Important distinction between doing and reporting; the former obviously an action, and the latter a verifiable statement. But can the lines blur? Is "I do" ever reporting the fact that you are getting married, which is verifiable?

All statements are boolean: T/F

Not sure that all cases considered are worth considering...?

You would think the goal of an essay would be to find or argue a truth, but here he is marginalizing it; truth is not the goal.

Arguing that truth and falsehood are not what matters; that the performative exists outside such claims (as we learn later).

Using the performative in his opening through the use of "I claim"; and here he claims truth. He performs his own argument.

So the utterance is surrounded by other ceremonial trappings, and without which there is a presumption that the utterance is hollow, that the accompaniments make it "complete"; suggests that the ceremony becomes greater than the sum of its parts by being able to bring about this binding force which the parts cannot do individually; or can they - is just the utterance enough to describe and seal the inward act? The other question is, does the utterance imply (and describe) the other trappings?

And yet these are just words; as believable or unbelievable as the uttering of an oath?

The consecration of the oath; but when is the uttering just a garnishment? For some, the internal / spiritual bond is the key thing, binding regardless of whether the one to whom the words are uttered believes them or not; the words are just words, but the intent is everything. The intent can exist without the words, and so the words can exist without the intent. It is the words though that offer a public record of commitment, and against which one's character is judged and assessed in accordance with their ability to live up to them.

Interesting choice of words; many swear that they are real and binding, but, yes, they are imaginary (in our culture); we require signed contracts, and verbal oaths are nice, but have a romantic tinge to them and we expect them maybe to not be kept as frequently.

The process by which we arm feelings of guilt / responsibility / etc to trigger when we have second thoughts about the vow we've made

Requires a certain solemnity, yes, but how many vows or promises are made with no intention of ever keeping them? Or only that they were meant in the moment, but that future circumstances resulted in the changing of one's heart/mind?

Drilling down to the even-more-particular; not just anyone can marry somebody, at any time, at any place, with a word (and have it mean anything); requires person w/ particular qualifications / authority / occasion / etc.

Also requires a society/set of institutions that considers such acts normal and reasonable. In this way, the particulars affected by the occasion are part of a much large general sphere in which they are legitimized and sanctioned; and outside of that may exist a larger sphere which is baffled by them.

While the naming or the uttering of "I do" symbolically 'seals' or makes the transaction official, the naming or the uttering is part of a longer ceremony. Not sure about betting though; it would be strange somehow if a complete stranger bet another with no prior interaction (i.e. no mechanism to build trust, etc), but it could happen

Dangerous?

Make them more particular; less general

Aren't the words more ceremonial? i.e. in marriage, they bind symbolically, but what really matters is the legal stamp of the JOP? But that's not what everybody stands, applauds or weeps for; maybe on some level that's what we're doing with words here?

Good qualifier; reminds us that language is always shifting.

Is it true that the function of the utterance is to assign metadata in some way?

Performs an action affecting particulars in a way that cannot be measured or perceived outside of the moment in which the utterance takes place.

Is this phrase also an exercitive, neither true nor false?

Involve the:

• creation of relationships
• creation of dividing lines which, prior to the uttering of the sentence, did not 'exist'; i.e. prior to "I do" they were not married, but afterwards they are; prior to "I name this ship...", it had no name, but afterwards it does; they are historical mile markers of sorts.
• involves particulars; not all women are my wife; this one is. Not all ships are named; but this one is.
• must be said aloud or in print, and often needs to be backed by some legal authority to "legitimate" the action; of course, anybody can name something, but the 'officially recognized' name can only come from a certain privileged source / I can marry a random woman just by saying "I do" to her, but the 'marriage' is not recognized, etc'; privileges some constructs over others by a vested authority
• also denote things that cannot be done for me; I must utter them in order for them to take effect (be true); they require agency (or the appearance of agency)
• the statements themselves are neither true or false, they just are; ex-post we can decide that a subsequent statement identifying the brother as the legal heir to the watch is 'true' or 'false'; but the original declaration is neither(?)
• involve the combination of words with some ceremony or ritual that somehow enshrines it (in the case of the bet maybe the ritual is the exchange of money, but not sure if that fits the bill). Almost like incantations of sorts.

"A speech act in which a decision is made regarding action; examples include orders and grants of permission."

The action is performed with the uttering of the sentence.

When in doubt, defer to authority.

Is the disguise applied moreso by the reader's bias than the author's intent?

pre-conceived view or bias

Makes me think of a generation set in its ways butting up against a younger "less respectful" generation that is "doing it all wrong"; i.e. generational divide between viewpoints; some may think a revolution hardly necessary, that it is fine the way it is and that they are simply being disruptive.

"denoting a speech act or sentence that is a statement declaring something to be the case"

Qualifying / conditional factors?

And how does the reader know exactly, and to what extent, the boundaries of a definition are being pushed by the use of a word which they think they are familiar with?

There is an unaddressed problem which hinders clear communication; there is no standard criteria for the establishment of intent in communication. (Doubt that's what the ultimate argument is, but seems to be the set-up)

A sentence remains a sentence; it is just a tool or vehicle for the delivery of something which depends entirely on its configuration.

The utility of the vehicle used to distinguish truth from falsehood itself rests on an assumption; purports that there is or maybe ought to be a 'purpose' to a statement.

Makes it feel inclusive; a conversation.

This is a word

non-normative apparently means "informative"

whoa, wait a minute. Is this some sleight of hand, or did I miss something?

This seems like an amplification of his previous thought, a stronger claim than what has come before. Up to this point, I understood Sheridan as saying "not all language is spoken words." Fair enough, but now his claim that "words are only a part of language because of custom, and language could exist just as well without words at all" is a considerable raising of the stakes.

Did I miss something?

Words and tones must work simultaneously. The use of words enhance tones, and using tones enhances words.

I think it's important to note that the words Astell is using are not unusual or incredibily difficult to understand -- they are, in fact, pretty conversational, and don't seem pretentious or alienating. She's working with her audience.

of which there are many like the forest ever growing sprouting out and anew my mind ever knowing the words I never knew

But, couldn't we argue that the words also shape the thoughts? Thinking of Ong here.

This seems unnecessarily narrow. Yes words have the power to represent preexisting things, but words also define things not yet in existence.

a person, usually a priest or minister, who gives a religious speech.

This is all very "uplifting," but this entire paragraph is devoid of meaning. When is it NOT the time to "champion our own destiny?" What does it even mean to "harness the power of the gig economy to spur lasting social change?" What sort of change? People can't afford to live in Silicon Valley. The ethos of the tech companies show that they don't care about the communities of which they are a part.

Connecting words

Connecting Words

Collecting as a way of removing an object from its function; using words as objects also removes words from their function.

What does heterogeneous mean?

The Form-Class words and the Structure-Class words

Parts of speech vs Function/Role of words.

poetry and music have always been closely related. poetry can contain many different kind of rhythm at the same time to create a complex rhythmic.

A perusal of the Oxford English Dictionary shows that this spelling was rare even at the time.

Inability to recall or correctly pronounce a word is a sign of cognitive decline/dementia.

adj. "naturally accompanying or associated." n. "a phenomenon that naturally accompanies or follows something."

This instance is an adjective.

Language as action, not just description; rhetoric is not only reflective, but also integral to formation and motivation. Interesting to think about when considering Burke's historical context i.e. the early 20th century was marred by intensely violent acts such as wars, revolution, and genocide. Perhaps the physical omnipresence of violence contributed to a conceptualization of words as a kind of violence.

This is the key claim here.

I guess "old Rhetoric" is still alive, because especially on cable news or in arguments with friends, discussions are not "expositions" but "battles of words."

Words having naturally no signification, the idea which each stands for must be learned and retained, by those who would exchange thoughts, and hold intelligible discourse with others, in any language. But this is the hardest to be done where,

First, The ideas they stand for are very complex, and made up of a great number of ideas put together.

Secondly, Where the ideas they stand for have no certain connection in nature; and so no settled standard anywhere in nature existing, to rectify and adjust them by.

Thirdly, When the signification of the word is referred to a standard, which standard is not easy to be know.

Fourthly, Where the signification of the world and the real essence of the thing are not exactly the same.

These are difficulties that attend the signification of several words that are intelligible. Those which are not intelligible at all, such as names standing for any simple ideas which another has not organs of faculties to attain; as the names of colours to a blind man, or sounds to a deaf man, need not here be mentioned.

In all these cases we shall find an imperfection in words; which I shall more at large explain, in their particular application to our several sorts of ideas: for if we examine them, we shall find that the names of mixed modes are most liable to doubtfulness and imperfection, for the two first of these reasons; and the names of substances chiefly for the two latter. (818)

World → sensory perception → idea → word.

A person skilled in exegesis

exegesis

Critical explanation or analysis, especially of a text.

Thinking back to Sheridan, who would probably disagree: "But tho' all who are blest with the gift of speech, by constantly associating the ideas of articulate sounds, to those characters which they see on paper, come to imagine that there is a necessary connection between them, and that the one, is merely a symbol of the other; yet, that it is in itself, a manner of communication entirely different, and utterly independent of the other..."

Further down in the paragraph it is suggested that this blurred line between written and spoken rhetoric could possibly be attributed to Douglass' blending of African, European, and American cultural elements, beyond just necessary last-minute additions of antislavery tracts. Could it then be because of Sheridan's homogenous rhetorical background that he believed written and spoken word to be distinct?

The distinct, even though here tightly connected, between words and things.

This is odd to me; that Campbell seems unconcerned with any possible etymological or symbolic importance behind the words that describe the concepts he is discussing. As if the concepts can exist in the same manner without the words used to describe them? That the words have no symbolic meaning or importance in themselves, or that they might even contribute to understanding the greater concepts they represent? Is it really possible to divorce a word from "things" and still be able to understand those "things" abstractly? Idk man. Sounds like some "What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet," kind of bullshit to me. Like, idk Romeo, if we stop calling it a "rose" and start calling it a "prickly red blob" then that line loses a lot of its gusto.

Is this not applicable for all words? I suppose I've always thought that the definition/meaning of a word as intersectional; different interpretations or significations inform one another in a kind of network of accumulation.

A weak defense of words?

This is a compelling focus: what do words do?

So language here is also a create source (invention).

words of the wiser. the lesson is that man is the animals enemy

Weasel words

repetition such as refrains repeat and echo themes. It does give us a simplified way of reading.

it's from http://durdenipsum.com/?par=5

When in actuality "leaf" is merely the distinction of singularity, meaning not "leaves". Not based on an "original" model at all, but a distinction what it is related, and not equal to. Concepts and words only create "context"; the water that all distinctions, all rhetoric, and all convention swims in.

words are concepts and conceptual

A concept becomes a word based on its relationship to other cases.

what is up with the wording here.