A sibling and me constructed a con-lang, and we tried reverse polish order where you say the terms before the connectives.
It failed badly. While it's easy to construct sentences that way, it puts immense cognitive load on the receiver. Probably because you don't have any structure in which to put all these terms thrown at you, we reasoned, so we reversed the order to get structure (connectives) first, followed by the terms.
It wasn't better. Turns out, receiving a structure with a bunch of holes to be filled later also results in high cognitive load.
Why? My guess is that the cognitive load mainly comes from the number of unfinished structural connections. To minimize that, you need to transmit a tree in such a way that the terms come as close as possible to the connective. In other words, not bottom or top first, but "side first".
I believe this is why infix notation is so popular. While you parse "A and B" or "X + Y" you never have more than one open connection. When you parse "(+ X Y)" you have two open connections after reading the "+". Five levels deep that begins to matter a lot.
I like the purist lispy idea of operation-first expressions, but I struggle to make my mind actually work like that. If you like clojure-type threading macros, consider that they do something similar to infix notation: they reduce the number of open structural connections during parsing.
That's a fascinating observation. I happen to study Japanese and my first language is English, and the reversed order is often cited as one of the bigger hurdles to language acquisition.
I feel it too, it's a higher context language and I agree that it is probably the fact that you are holding onto more unresolved threads at a time. But perhaps that's just because I didn't grow up with it? I would love to find out.
An interesting observation related to this is that on top of the sentence order differences, things are generally spoken about from the largest concept to the smallest which is different to English as well.
So where we would say "I ate lunch at the park today", in Japanese you might say Today, I at the park ate lunch.
In the second sentence it feels like there is a cliffhanger until we get to the end, the smallest details are often the point of a sentence, and so it's like waiting for the punchline. My brain is on hold until we get there, but in English I must admit I can tune out of a sentence early on and usually get the gist anyway.
Someone who holds this view would probably have to make the definitions more precise, so that if you live in a deterministic reality, you actually cannot conceive of a universe that isn't deterministic. You can throw around words like "indeterministic", but you cannot precisely simulate something indeterministic using only deterministic ingredients, and hence, for some precise definition of "conceive", cannot conceive such a universe.
I believe that you are more real than Donald Duck if and only if the future is not yet determined.
In philosophy, theories of time are categorized in A- and B- theories [1].
In B-theoretic time, the difference between past, present and future is only subjective. Objectively, all points in time exist and are equally real. I view this to mean that there isn't any particular difference in the degree of reality between our reality and any mathematical model or imagined reality. Only with A-theoretic time are you objectively more real than Donald Duck.
One of the similarities between philosophy and art is that in both fields, non experts seem to think they are qualified to give their own opinions. Unfortunately this means the public discourse becomes more about what people enjoy than what is actual.
Author here. I chose tkinter because it's included in Python, or so I thought. I wanted to minimize the complexity of installation.
The README lists alternatives and why I find them insufficient. Okular allows free-hand annotations, but not saving those for later use. It allows inserting custom saved stamps, but these will not be visible in other PDF readers.
As i had mentioned in github issues , it is outdated/misinformation . Please update. I had been using Okular to sign contracts for a few years and it works perfectly fine across all PDF readers.
> We have so many online tools available to convert Volume units, but not every online tool gives an accurate result and that is why we have created this online Volume converter tool.
Then it converts 231 in^3 to 0.99999994293884 U.S. gal, while 1 U.S. gal converts to 231 in^3.
Backblaze is terrible, but you will likely only find out when you need to restore.
When backup excluded some files, they blamed antivirus software and recommended to go without.
They actively deleted their only backup because the client couldn't read the original files (which was due to disk error).
They admitted that there isn't any guarantee or even effort to make the backup consistent - after asking me to explain the concept.
The only reason I still have my data is because of the very expensive cleanroom disk rescue that they of course refused to pay for - because why try to do what you can to compensate for failing at your only job?
It sounds like these problems are related to their end-user backup solution - can't comment on that as I've never used it.
However, when referring to Backblaze, I think most people here refer to their nice (and cheap) S3-like cloud storage solution, which works perfectly with the likes of restic, rclone and friends. That's probably what you should use if you care about control.
That's why I'd like to see a web archive doing this, so that most publicly accessible content gets a timestamp. That way, it would be suspicious to present an image of an event in the far past that should've been published long ago.
It failed badly. While it's easy to construct sentences that way, it puts immense cognitive load on the receiver. Probably because you don't have any structure in which to put all these terms thrown at you, we reasoned, so we reversed the order to get structure (connectives) first, followed by the terms.
It wasn't better. Turns out, receiving a structure with a bunch of holes to be filled later also results in high cognitive load.
Why? My guess is that the cognitive load mainly comes from the number of unfinished structural connections. To minimize that, you need to transmit a tree in such a way that the terms come as close as possible to the connective. In other words, not bottom or top first, but "side first".
I believe this is why infix notation is so popular. While you parse "A and B" or "X + Y" you never have more than one open connection. When you parse "(+ X Y)" you have two open connections after reading the "+". Five levels deep that begins to matter a lot.
I like the purist lispy idea of operation-first expressions, but I struggle to make my mind actually work like that. If you like clojure-type threading macros, consider that they do something similar to infix notation: they reduce the number of open structural connections during parsing.