isnt this basically the same idea as plan 9, but with some more opinions on "decentralised" networks.
Loosely, yes, they're both network operating systems. And of course, Plan 9 is brilliant. :-) All the details are different....
Urbit: an operating function
81–90 of 177 posts
Re: Urbit: an operating function
#82Earlier quoted context omitted.
This has been done before: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INTERCAL "The INTERCAL manual gives unusual names to all non-alphanumeric ASCII characters: single and double quotes are "sparks" and "rabbit ears" respectively. (The exception is the ampersand: as the Jargon File states, "what could be sillier?") The assignment operator ... is in INTERCAL a left-arrow, <-, referred to as "gets" and made up of an "angle" and a…
Slightly less insanely, Forth did this too. The ANS Forth spec defines official pronounceable names for all words: http://lars.nocrew.org/dpans/dpans6.htm#6.1 The names are a mix between the visual (* is 'star', and ; is 'semicolon') and the semantic ( is 'not-equals', and ! is 'store'). Some are a mix (+! is 'plus-store').
Well, ++ is "increment" in C/C++. The glyphs themselves can be described "plus plus", but everybody calls it increment, because of what it does. Also "->" the arrow operator. Everyone calls it arrow, rather than "minus greater than". It makes sense to call the glyph or collection of glyphs by what they do, rather than spelling them out.
Re: Urbit: an operating function
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Interesting stuff, but in my usual 15 minutes of attention-span for things like this, utterly impenetrable. It's pretty much designed to be as hard to understand as possible. Look at the source/demo videos - it seems like it's designed to be obfuscated. https://github.com/urbit/urbit http://urbit.org/preview/~2015.9.25/materials/part-i Personally, I can't get over the really made up words.
You mean that out of all the things in this combinator [0] flavored abstract rewrite system [1], programmed via a symmetrical [2], forward-inferenced [3] typed language, exposing modula-2 style per-code-block compilation control [4], all designed to support a content centric [5], natively networked [6] global computing environment with sovereignty-hard siloing capabilities [7], the most difficult part to understand i…
Yes.
Re: Urbit: an operating function
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Personally, I can't get over the really made up words. The idea of having new names for everything is that when you use a name you've already seen before in another context, you carry forward any ideas you have about things with that name based on their implementations in those other languages. There's a specific meaning for the words that are used for the introductory language concepts: arm, gate, battery, sample,…
Interestingly, this same objection comes up when people try to read so-called (normally French) postructuralist theory from the 60s and 70s. Derrida himself, or Rorty writing on Derrida, supposedly advanced a similar argument, that using new terms allowed one to avoid falling back onto old concepts. I couldn't find a good source quickly, but it's mentioned here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Derrida#Criticism…
Fascinating side-chain .. thanks for that!
Re: Urbit: an operating function
#85Earlier quoted context omitted.
At a certain scale, it's often a lot easier to build one system that solves all the problems . Building a building: hard problem. Building 1/3 of a building: impossible problem. Building a cow: hard problem. Building 1/3 of a cow: impossible problem.
Without addressing the merits of Urbit, these examples aren't valid. A third of a building is just a building in progress (foundations laid, i-beams installed, etc.) A third of a cow is a calf. It might be the case that you will get synergistic effects and/or Urbit's vision isn't possible without solving multiple problems. But it could equally be you've bitten off more than you could chew by choosing to work on multi…
A third of a cow is dinner!
Re: Urbit: an operating function
#86Earlier quoted context omitted.
Their opinions about things unrelated to technology are, of course, highly relevant to their technological insight.
Meh, I prefer not to work with bigots. Good to know this fact; I was considering getting involved.
Unfortunately, at this point bigot is a distinctly Orwellian term. Consider, for example, the statement "Italians are more intelligent than Germans." By itself, this statement can't be bigoted, because it simply represents a possible fact about reality. At worst, it's false, or perhaps simply ill-posed (if, for example, one rejects the notion of quantifying intelligence). It's categorically distinct from things like "I don't like Germans because they're dumb" or "She can't be smart, she's German!" or "We don't serve Germans here." Any use of bigot that groups the first statement with the other three creates a false category, using language to attack (possible) reality for particular social and political purposes.
In the colloquial sense of not liking people simply because of their ancestry (or other such categories), I can assure you that the creator of Urbit is not a bigot. But, as with all Orwellian terms, bigot tinkers with the tools you use to think, so the word is best avoided.
Re: Urbit: an operating function
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Since even a silent reader will subvocalize..." Actually, no. I don't.
"Subvocalize" has a literal meaning (micro-activation of the vocal cords) which good silent readers avoid. But you're still activating the vocal areas of the brain [0]. If you read much poetry, you'll see that the connection between reading and sound is pretty inseparable. [0] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23223279
I'm afraid I'm having a great deal of trouble understanding your point here.
> "Subvocalize" has a literal meaning (micro-activation of the vocal cords) which good silent readers avoid.
Right; so I'm not subvocalising.
> But you're still activating the vocal areas of the brain...
Well, sure. I see the symbol 'cat' and both the memory-complex representing a cat and the audio complex representing the spoken version of the symbol will be activated. That's how memory associations work. The written version of the symbol and the spoken version of the symbol will be strongly associated, because they represent the same concept.
But that doesn't mean I have to wait for the audio to finish playing before I move on to the next symbol. That's a misconception of what's actually happening.
(Plus, of course, hardly anyone reads a word at a time. It's nearly always complete phrases. Frequently not even in the right order.)
> If you read much poetry, you'll see that the connection between reading and sound is pretty inseparable.
Well, no. Poetry is mostly intended to be read aloud; it's supposed to be subvocalised. It's unrelated to prose (or computer programs).
Re: Urbit: an operating function
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
Slightly less insanely, Forth did this too. The ANS Forth spec defines official pronounceable names for all words: http://lars.nocrew.org/dpans/dpans6.htm#6.1 The names are a mix between the visual (* is 'star', and ; is 'semicolon') and the semantic ( is 'not-equals', and ! is 'store'). Some are a mix (+! is 'plus-store').
Well, ++ is "increment" in C/C++. The glyphs themselves can be described "plus plus", but everybody calls it increment, because of what it does. Also "->" the arrow operator. Everyone calls it arrow, rather than "minus greater than". It makes sense to call the glyph or collection of glyphs by what they do, rather than spelling them out.
Actually, everyone I know calls it 'plus plus'.
I'm with you with 'arrow', though.
Re: Urbit: an operating function
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
Meh, I prefer not to work with bigots. Good to know this fact; I was considering getting involved.
I'm curious. Did you do some research into what was meant, or did the phrase "post opinions about black people" carry some hidden meaning I am not equipped to detect? There's a heavy implication, of course, but you mentioned a fact. I'm wondering what fact you reference.
2nd hit on Google is an interesting article from Slate: http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/bitwise/2015/06/cur...
His opinion on colonialism in South Africa is "if it ain't broke, don't fix it": http://blogs.swarthmore.edu/burke/blog/2008/11/07/on-its-sto...
Here's a nice post of his where he literally all but claims to be a white nationalist: http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2007/11/why-i-a...
He might have interesting software engineering ideas, but I'm not interested in ever working with him.
Re: Urbit: an operating function
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
Their opinions about things unrelated to technology are, of course, highly relevant to their technological insight.
Urbit embodies Moldbug's politics. Speaking of politics, one of the most interesting practical user-facing things about Urbit that I saw in an earlier video demo was the user choosing his or her political affiliation when registering. The claimed affiliation then acts as a mandatory filter for political conversations. You can opt out of participating in any political discussion but not opt in to more than one camp. I…
Finding the video (https://vimeo.com/75312418) I see that the four political associations are far-left, left, right, and far-right.
Now I need to know where the Urbit developers are based, because how these terms are interpreted is very, very, very different depending what country you're in...