I keep seeing comic strips classifying programming languages. They’re intentionally offensive, because it’s impossible to say anything about a programming language without offending the language’s users. Which makes sense, because you can’t help but get emotionally attached to the thing you’ve been using for years to weave your dreams. It’s also super fun to be hyper-critical about programming languages to the point of innacuracy. All programmers have been wronged by their language of choice or found themselves in the depths of debugging hell with a foreign language.
The Power and Fragility of Networked Protest
At it’s core, Twitter and Tear Gas by Dr. Zeynep Tufekci is a delightful deep analysis of the structure of modern protest movements and the technologies that support them. It brought up a lot of things I knew were bad (grass roots organisation problems, “fake news”) and made them impossible to ignore by shoving them in my face. I. The meat of Twitter and Tear Gas comes from contrasting the modern protest movements of Occupy and Tahrir Square to more “classic” movements.
[epistemic status: exasperated rant trying to disguise itself as a persuasive essay] If you want to get a question publically answered by a fellow professional in an academic domain (physics, biology, neuroscience, psychology… etc.), you have a few options: Research Gate Quora StackExchange They all share a common goal. You go there to get your question answered by other people. However, they pursue this goal in different ways.
They kept changing the damn layout on me. I specifically chose Medium because they allowed you to have little side-notes shown at the same time as your main article. Then they made those side-notes “replies” even though they clearly weren’t the same thing as the existing “replies”. Medium limits what I can put on the web. If I want a table, an embedded Mindmup or anything else, I’m screwed. If I want my diagrams to be SVG or I want to create simulations, I’m even more screwed.
Debunking Public vs. Private Sector Myths
When I was first getting interested in Cognitive Science, I started reading “How to Build a Brain” by Chris Eliasmith. By the end of it, I felt biologically plausible modelling was hugely important for the advance of Cognitive Science. I also knew this feeling was misleading given I had no familiarity with the argument landscape. Why wasn’t everyone else doing biologically plausible modelling? Why were they still using their seemingly inferior frameworks?