> I have not read the linked article

I don't understand.

As a grammar and language Messerschmidt I hate how correct and elegant this is:

> If those who correct can’t or won’t explain why one is correct over the other, then it simply isn’t.

I will try to remember this and also execute it with kindness and trivia, like you suggest, in the future.

Thank you.

It's profoundly annoying that it's correct, isn't it! Every time I wince at reading something that feels wrong I have to remind myself that it’s ultimately only wrong because of convention.

(I do occasionally slip, and correct its/it's, your/you're or they're/their/there in someone's comment, but only if that comment is aggressively or nastily calling someone else stupid.)

Ha! I guess I'm less human than expected, and finally I understand why I've failed sooooo many CAPTCHAs over the years :)

Thanks, I really never knew!

Off-topic:

http://retrofitta.se/

retrofitta

Definition

Add (a component or accessory) to something that did not have it when manufactured.

What did you think it meant?

[EoF]

Strålande! Well done :)

"Fitta" is sort of like "cunt" in Swedish & .se is the TLD of Sweden.

The Swedish Scunthorpe problem ...

I disagree...

Actual intelligence might be[0] to know what typos (of any kind) are fun to riff off.

Maybe this didn't hit the mark for you, but it got a chuckle out of me (especially considering the last hype before AI was crypto).

-----

[0] I don't even try to figure that out anymore, in a few years I'll pick the definition that I think best captures my thoughts

For now, but then again they weren't going to show ads at all according to ppl in this topic.

I'm having immense problems digesting this interview to understand the concept of the uni-context.

It does sound very interesting and right up my alley.

I also don't seem to be able to use internet search anymore (probably a user error) so if anyone has a link to a document, soundfile or video of Agnes Callard explaining the concept without the interuptions from a interviewer that is more interested in contributing than to let her explain the concept I would very much appreciate it.

> I also don't seem to be able to use internet search anymore

A bit off topic, but you're not the only one. I've grown up with the internet and yet I'm now completely unable to find things on demand.

I sometimes resort to claude, not because I want to, but because it's so difficult to search the real internet now. Asking claude, then asking claude for sources, can uncover hidden gems. ( It can also reveal claude talking out of its arse. )

I believe this is often because things fall off the internet. Back in the early days, things were added more frequently than they were removed, because there wasn't much to remove. Now, it's reached equilibrium - things are also frequently removed.

That's true of some things, but sometimes there are things that exist, but google no longer reliably surfaces in a way that it once did.

Search anything and you are bombarded with unoriginal sites, optimised for SEO, filled with generated rubbish and adverts.

There used to be an arms-race between google and SEO spam that Google could keep up with, if not ahead.

But it feels like at some point in the past decade, google just gave up and let them win.

I feel more like Google combatted SEO spam by using a domain whitelist, which your website will never be on

I wish philosophers—everyone, really—would provide a definition of their neologisms. I'd prefer a succinct, Aristotlian one but I'll settle for anything approximating it.

This is probably the best source, but it's completely unavailable online:

https://www.reed.edu/events/?trumbaEmbed=view%3Devent%26even...

What a great link, thanks.

Hopefully there will be some artifacts from this that will be available to the greater public.

This is, IMO, an excellent analogy.

Then it was to protect our modems bandwidth (cost and time) while now it's more about protecting our own cognitive bandwidth.

I really like how the article focuses on rest and not doing the thing as a core part of learning.

How learning and doing aren't exactly the same and that you need to get back to it many times rather than doing a lot at once.

It's ofc nothing new and the same principle as for example spaced repetition.

What a delightful find, pairs well with the post about designing for a blind client[0].

Thank you for posting <3