11–20 of 20 posts
Every time I see an "ł", I think there's something on my monitor, or dead pixels. I definitely tried to remove the debris from my monitor with my thumb before realizing it was an "L with stroke" haha :)
Every time I see an "ł", I think there's something on my monitor, or dead pixels. I definitely tried to remove the debris from my monitor with my thumb before realizing it was an "L with stroke" haha :)
In Polish, "ł" is pronounced like english "w", an "w' like english "v".
This paragraph is really beautiful: I went gradually from level to level, each time learning the next version of the thing, and in this there was nothing remarkable. Everyone knows it — everyone first learned the version of the stork and then the more realistic explanation of his own genesis. The point is that all the earlier versions, even those as patently false as the one with the stork, are not discarded complete…
There's a term for this: "level of abstraction". Also "level of detail" when it comes to computer graphics. He hasn't said anything remarkable here. To move faster, to understand things at a grander scale, to understand some larger phenomena you need to (sometimes) skip unnecessary detail that would slow you down in pointless arguments.
To each his own. Comparing his ideas to software development would not be my first instinct, but I don't think level of abstraction is what he was going for. A closer analogy would be where there are many different implementations of an interface that run concurrently and then have their many outputs fused back into one single output. But that reads more awkwardly than the way Lem said it :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In Polish, "ł" is pronounced like english "w", an "w' like english "v".
As if Polish wasn't hard enough! That pronunciation is very confusing when you learn the language through English, e.g. 'wino' is Polish for 'wine'.
In Polish there's no "v", "u" is always the "oo" sound and "w" is always the "v" sound.
Same with "c"/"k"/"q" mess. In Polish there's no "q", "k" is always the sound in "Cat" and "c" is always the sound in "TZar". Simple. In English you have 3 letters randomly assigned to encode the same 2 sounds in different words.
Regarding "wine" Polish is also closer to latin: https://www.wordhippo.com/what-is/the/latin-word-for-e4fd69b...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a term for this: "level of abstraction". Also "level of detail" when it comes to computer graphics. He hasn't said anything remarkable here. To move faster, to understand things at a grander scale, to understand some larger phenomena you need to (sometimes) skip unnecessary detail that would slow you down in pointless arguments.
>He hasn't said anything remarkable here. To each his own. Comparing his ideas to software development would not be my first instinct, but I don't think level of abstraction is what he was going for. A closer analogy would be where there are many different implementations of an interface that run concurrently and then have their many outputs fused back into one single output. But that reads more awkwardly than the wa…
I like Lem but sometimes his complex grammar and vocabulary doesn't add any value. I think it's better to describe (relatively) simple things in simple language. Lem tended to phrase everything that way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In Polish, "ł" is pronounced like english "w", an "w' like english "v".
As if Polish wasn't hard enough! That pronunciation is very confusing when you learn the language through English, e.g. 'wino' is Polish for 'wine'.
This paragraph is really beautiful: I went gradually from level to level, each time learning the next version of the thing, and in this there was nothing remarkable. Everyone knows it — everyone first learned the version of the stork and then the more realistic explanation of his own genesis. The point is that all the earlier versions, even those as patently false as the one with the stork, are not discarded complete…
There's a term for this: "level of abstraction". Also "level of detail" when it comes to computer graphics. He hasn't said anything remarkable here. To move faster, to understand things at a grander scale, to understand some larger phenomena you need to (sometimes) skip unnecessary detail that would slow you down in pointless arguments.
He's talking about how the "magical", naive, imagination-based ways we understand things when we are young colour the way we perceive them we we get older.
Even if we know, rationally, that the way we used to think about something was incorrect, and conflicts with what we know to be true as adults, we don't discard those old ideas entirely, and they remain internalised to some extent:
The point is that all the earlier versions, even those as patently false as the one with the stork, are not discarded completely. Something of them remains in us; they mesh with succeeding versions and somehow continue to exist
I actually think it's at least a little more profound than you give it credit for.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a term for this: "level of abstraction". Also "level of detail" when it comes to computer graphics. He hasn't said anything remarkable here. To move faster, to understand things at a grander scale, to understand some larger phenomena you need to (sometimes) skip unnecessary detail that would slow you down in pointless arguments.
He's not really talking about abstraction or level of detail. He's talking about how the "magical", naive, imagination-based ways we understand things when we are young colour the way we perceive them we we get older. Even if we know, rationally, that the way we used to think about something was incorrect, and conflicts with what we know to be true as adults, we don't discard those old ideas entirely, and they remain…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In Polish, "ł" is pronounced like english "w", an "w' like english "v".
As if Polish wasn't hard enough! That pronunciation is very confusing when you learn the language through English, e.g. 'wino' is Polish for 'wine'.