Alec is based. Never thought I'd say that before this fic.
At least he's not basic. It would be almost as bad as being acidic.
Chemistry, the sub-culture that dissolves all others?
Sometimes, I experience a chain of "of course SV beat me to the punch," as in what I'd reply was already said, and what I'd reply to the reply, etc.
... and it makes me feel incredibly seen and warm and gooey, so thanks you all for being so adorkable. ❤️
Does 'information theory' fit somewhere in that? Also, sociology is applied psychology is applied biology... And 'ecology' goes somewhere in there...
If we mean "information theory" as established by Hartley, Nyquist, Shannon and so on (reasoning about "quantities of information" as the entropy of random processes) I'd probably classify it as an offshoot of probability theory / statistics.
If we mean "theoretical computer science" in general, I'd put almost-all of it under "discrete mathematics," though it's pretty densely interconnected with the rest of mathematics: as a random example off the top of my head, we have direct connections between the theory of fault-tolerant distributed systems and... algebraic topology.
Also, sociology is applied psychology is applied biology... And 'ecology' goes somewhere in there...
Yeah, it's very much not a linear chain but some directed acyclic(?) graph.
Mathematics and philosophy are weird... The first is a tool, the second is... weird.
(*cough* natural philosophy *cough*)
Oh gosh, don't even get me started about
that. Mathematics are "made up," they are social constructs rather than intrinsic properties of reality... like any other language. Thinking about
modern mathematics as a constructed language is interesting though:
they are constructed around an extremely minimalist core (the deductive system and axioms in use, like
ZF set theory) and everything else is (supposed to be) described exactly and
unambiguously in previously-defined terms of the language
... so we can see the formalization of mathematics as a process which builds
intersubjectivity: in this context, consensus about the definition of mathematical concepts and what they mean, shared assumptions, etc.
Mechanized mathematics takes it further, constructing
external oracles which determine whether a given statement is valid; in practice, the oracles are computer programs that check the validity of a given proof, which itself must be expressed in a machine-readable formal language, rather than natural-language refering to mathematical concepts.
With sufficient domain knowledge (corporate jargon for "I knows dis sh*t"
), it may actually be intuitive. The problem is getting that knowledge, and (well-written) manuals are a great way to do so...it's somewhat horrifying that the art of writing good manuals is now becoming lost, and, worse, is considered unnecessary.
Absolutely. I'm one of those weird people who
enjoys technical writing (both writing it, and reading good examplars thereof) and I
despair at the state of technical documentation, at least in "my" field.
I have the impression it's actively furthering "magical thinking" where a large amount of pretty fundational technology is treated as some sort of unknowable black box that requires paying someone else to run as a service, or hiring some near-mythical "wizard" to do in-house.
Sadly, so many products these days are compromised not by bad engineering, but by bad management decisions, usually in service of either saving money on manufacture (and/or certification, testing, etc.) or making more money on replacement parts. Those goals tend to encourage and reward bad engineering...
I honestly don't believe that's a core cause, though it absolutely does not help in the case of end-user documentation, as it's becoming increasingly rare for find good internal reference documentation... and not having good documentation is
incredibly expensive:
- people need to ask others for information very frequently, either immediately interupting someone more knowledgeable, or being blocked (on this specific thing) until the other becomes available to answer ; either way, productivity is significantly degraded.
- new hires (and internal transfers) need much longer to be socialized into a project, meaning they are a lot less productive longer ;
- whenever someone leaves, especially more-senior staff, some "tribal knowledge" is lost with no record of even what was lost.
Arguably, the same is true of "end-user" documentation, the only difference being that the cost is externalised on users... which often lack the long-term perspective which would make them prefer to buy from someone else (if there's anyone providing good documentation)
Anyone who doesn't like to flail around to learn things (and didn't learn how to use a smartphone before they grew out of that) hates the smartphone UI, because there's never any documentation, and, no, it is not intuitive. Worse, how do you SFTW for <insert some UI widget here>? (I can get an answer about 75% of the time because I've tried to keep up with UI design, etc., but that's not exactly a common skillset/knowledge base.)
One thing which frustrates me to no end is, we
could make it sensible and have metadata tying individual icons/buttons and widgets to their documentation, and provide a way for users to get the documentation of any on-screen UI element. We just... don't? 😬
Yeah this didn't come through as clearly as I would have preferred. Carol has done way of monitoring Vicky's movements, that's what she is looking at.
For what it's worth, it was pretty clear to me that was the intent, even though I also glitched on the specific phrasing.
PS: sorry, that must have been NEIN NEIN off-topic, as in
99.9999999% offtopic ("nine nines") 😅