Friam

Acronyms

Classic

List

Threaded

62 messages Options

1234

jon zingale

Re: Acronyms

Ah, yeah, and then there is YAML (YAML Ain't Markup Language")

--
Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

jon zingale

Re: Acronyms

In reply to this post by thompnickson2

Nick ,

Please pardon a second attempt to address your question. Let me grant your
definition of *rigor* as meaning *that which compiles*. *Clarity*, however,
I would like to treat differently. What strikes me as a structural
difference between *rigor* and *clarity* here is that the former (as
narrowly defined above) depends only on the property of being compilable.
Something, anything, was stated such that a program can run. The latter, to
my mind, would require a concept of two programs being equivalent (or at
least orderable). How else could we claim that one program was stated more
clearly than another? This equivalence can be shoddy as in an optimizing
function, ie. modulo some countable things I value, or actual equivalence.
Many computer languages do not allow for actual functional equivalence in
this sense, though there are some narrow examples. While you and I, and some
algebraically focused languages, can immediately tell that *adding 1 to x
and then squaring the result* is the "same thing" as *adding together a
squared x to two times x and a 1*, many languages would require checking
every value to determine such an equivalence. In this way, *clarity* appears
to me to require more structure than a notion of *rigor* does. To some
extent, I wish to reject the programmer/compiler dialectic, as it seems that
it hides more useable observations.

--
Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

Frank Wimberly-2

Re: Acronyms

I would not expect the compilers I have used (Algol, Fortran, Java, Lisp (interpreter), Pascal, C, C++) to produce the same result to the last bit for (x + 1)^2 and x^2 + 2x + 1. Would you?

On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 7:18 PM jon zingale <[hidden email]> wrote:

Nick ,

Please pardon a second attempt to address your question. Let me grant your
definition of *rigor* as meaning *that which compiles*. *Clarity*, however,
I would like to treat differently. What strikes me as a structural
difference between *rigor* and *clarity* here is that the former (as
narrowly defined above) depends only on the property of being compilable.
Something, anything, was stated such that a program can run. The latter, to
my mind, would require a concept of two programs being equivalent (or at
least orderable). How else could we claim that one program was stated more
clearly than another? This equivalence can be shoddy as in an optimizing
function, ie. modulo some countable things I value, or actual equivalence.
Many computer languages do not allow for actual functional equivalence in
this sense, though there are some narrow examples. While you and I, and some
algebraically focused languages, can immediately tell that *adding 1 to x
and then squaring the result* is the "same thing" as *adding together a
squared x to two times x and a 1*, many languages would require checking
every value to determine such an equivalence. In this way, *clarity* appears
to me to require more structure than a notion of *rigor* does. To some
extent, I wish to reject the programmer/compiler dialectic, as it seems that
it hides more useable observations.

--
Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

Frank Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz
Santa Fe, NM 87505
505 670-9918

Research: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: Acronyms

That depends on the type system of the language and the types that have been given.

$ math

Mathematica 12.1.1 Kernel for Linux x86 (64-bit)

In[1]:= Expand[(x+1)^2] == x^2+2x+1

Out[1]= True

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: Monday, January 25, 2021 6:28 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Acronyms

I would not expect the compilers I have used (Algol, Fortran, Java, Lisp (interpreter), Pascal, C, C++) to produce the same result to the last bit for (x + 1)^2 and x^2 + 2x + 1. Would you?

On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 7:18 PM jon zingale <[hidden email]> wrote:

Nick ,

Please pardon a second attempt to address your question. Let me grant your
definition of *rigor* as meaning *that which compiles*. *Clarity*, however,
I would like to treat differently. What strikes me as a structural
difference between *rigor* and *clarity* here is that the former (as
narrowly defined above) depends only on the property of being compilable.
Something, anything, was stated such that a program can run. The latter, to
my mind, would require a concept of two programs being equivalent (or at
least orderable). How else could we claim that one program was stated more
clearly than another? This equivalence can be shoddy as in an optimizing
function, ie. modulo some countable things I value, or actual equivalence.
Many computer languages do not allow for actual functional equivalence in
this sense, though there are some narrow examples. While you and I, and some
algebraically focused languages, can immediately tell that *adding 1 to x
and then squaring the result* is the "same thing" as *adding together a
squared x to two times x and a 1*, many languages would require checking
every value to determine such an equivalence. In this way, *clarity* appears
to me to require more structure than a notion of *rigor* does. To some
extent, I wish to reject the programmer/compiler dialectic, as it seems that
it hides more useable observations.

--
Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

Frank Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz
Santa Fe, NM 87505
505 670-9918

Research: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2

thompnickson2

Re: Acronyms

In reply to this post by jon zingale

Jon, Thanks for taking the time. N

Nick Thompson
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of jon zingale
Sent: Monday, January 25, 2021 8:19 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Acronyms

Nick ,

Please pardon a second attempt to address your question. Let me grant your
definition of *rigor* as meaning *that which compiles*. *Clarity*, however,
I would like to treat differently. What strikes me as a structural
difference between *rigor* and *clarity* here is that the former (as
narrowly defined above) depends only on the property of being compilable.
Something, anything, was stated such that a program can run. The latter, to
my mind, would require a concept of two programs being equivalent (or at
least orderable). How else could we claim that one program was stated more
clearly than another? This equivalence can be shoddy as in an optimizing
function, ie. modulo some countable things I value, or actual equivalence.
Many computer languages do not allow for actual functional equivalence in
this sense, though there are some narrow examples. While you and I, and some
algebraically focused languages, can immediately tell that *adding 1 to x
and then squaring the result* is the "same thing" as *adding together a
squared x to two times x and a 1*, many languages would require checking
every value to determine such an equivalence. In this way, *clarity* appears
to me to require more structure than a notion of *rigor* does. To some
extent, I wish to reject the programmer/compiler dialectic, as it seems that
it hides more useable observations.

--
Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

gepr

Re: Acronyms

In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels

Yeah, I know. I repurposed it. But it's also important to allow poor schlubs stuck in toxic workplaces trying to get something done in spite of their inadequate abilities to manipulate their environment. I was that way at Lockheed, where we used GNAT to demonstrate that the Tartan compiler was doing some funky stuff. Luckily, someone up the hierarchy had serious pull with Tartan. But sometimes you just don't have that power. All I could do was show them how GNAT vs Tartan did it and hope for the best. I was a lowly syseng, but had some ins with softeng [⛧]. So we could have gotten around it. But we didn't have to. This is the 2nd time in as many months I've pulled that story out of my hat. I wish I could remember the details, now. Maybe it's sitting on some 3.5 floppies in some vault somewhere.

[⛧] Softeng stopped making fun of us, calling us bureaucrats, box-and-arrow-guys, etc. after this incident. 8^D

On 1/25/21 5:41 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> I don't disagree with that interpretation.
>
> What I meant at the time was that there is really no group of people that have a better understanding of optimizing code for, and knowledge of, microarchitectures than the people that build compilers. People that fancy themselves experts at tuning application code performance should direct their attention to doing the Real Work of improving compilers. I don't mean "leave it to the experts", I mean "Know what you don't know and maybe what you don't even want to know."

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Barry MacKichan

Re: Acronyms

In reply to this post by Prof David West

Are you spamming on behalf of the New York and Atlantic Railway? ;-)

On 25 Jan 2021, at 18:16, Prof David West wrote:

NYAR

Barry MacKichan

Re: Acronyms

In reply to this post by Steve Smith

TMI

On 25 Jan 2021, at 18:43, Steve Smith wrote:

Nick -

I think it *can* be the thing you call out, but I encounter it in so many contexts where that explanation doesn't really fit.   Sometimes I think it is entirely unconscious shortcutting.   On this list, for example, I use LANL (Los Alamos National Laboratory) because I believe that *all* Santa Fe/NM folks know what it is an acronym for and *many* non SFe (Santa Fe) NM (New Mexico) folks know it *by now*.   Similarly I find SFI an acceptable contraction in this context.

On the technical side, the shortcut/contraction/acronym is often the primary/preferred reference.   Even if you might not *know* that DNA is deoxyribonucleic acid or ATP is adenosine triphosphate... or that the YMCA is the young men's christian association, for example, you know the signified by that signifier, and in fact you *won't* know what those contractions are *for* unless you are in fact using them in some insider/technical sense.

I know people who work within a large but somewhat insular community whose acronyms are myriad and they are truly NOT trying to be exclusionary.   I have a number of friends who are either social workers or have studied in the field or have friends/families with mental illness so I hear the acronym DSM and I can tell it is being used in a very "insider" way.   I know little of the details, but I've gathered that "DSM II" somehow connotes both "modern" and "not-really-modern" psychiatric models, but I think even if I do the GoogleFu to learn the first level of details, I would not be much less puzzled by knowing, for example:

DSM-I and DSM-II

In 1952, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) published the DSM-I, an adaptation of a classification system developed by the armed forces during WW2. It was designed for use by doctors and other treatment providers.

The DSM-I was the first of its kind, but experts agreed that it still needed work. The DSM-II, released in 1968, attempted to incorporate the psychiatric knowledge of the day. It was heavily influenced by psychoanalytic concepts that were prominent at that time.

I think that both Glen and maybe Frank have tossed DSM or even DSM II into the conversation here without any more explication than I get at cocktail parties and it lands just as dead for me, but not offensive here as there (until I get my GoogleGoggles flashing Wikipedia/Wiktionary in my peripheral vision with automatic explication). It even seems like a good feature for Alexa/Siri/HeyGoogle to listen continuously and recognize acronyms and offer ordered-by-likelihood-from-context explications in your ear (or in the room if you want to shame the acronymster acrimoniously).

I understand that many are "lazy typists" who find it patently painful (emotionally if not physically) to type anything out.   And *too many people* (IMO ... in my opinion) do too much of their correspondence on a TS (tiny screen) which requires them to hunt-peck with one finger (maybe two thumbs) without touch feedback and without the benefit of QWERTY knowledge built into their Neural Net neurons.

I'm assuming Frank's OP (original post) was in response to both some specific TLA (three letter acronym) used recently or the accrued irritation of having to look up jargon ( especially TLAs and MLAs (multi letter acronyms)) just to figure out a conversation he is *otherwise* informed enough on to follow.   Or both. Or maybe he's just taking out his frustration with his daughter here where it's "safe" <grin>.

BTW (by the way) and FWIW (for what it's worth) I think I'd be game for one of Glen's experiments, even if the constraints offered somehow cramped *my* style (e.g. 20 line limit on posts, no markup-like formatting like *bold* or EMPHASIS or _underscore_ HTML (even formatting like bold or italics).   or even his extremal suggestion of requiring "peer review" by 3 others before submitting (I'd probably become rather mute over that one) WTFOMFGROFLMAOGMWAS!

- Steve

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

Frank Wimberly-2

Re: Acronyms

Three Mile Island, of course.

On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 9:23 AM Barry MacKichan <[hidden email]> wrote:

TMI

On 25 Jan 2021, at 18:43, Steve Smith wrote:

Nick -

I think it *can* be the thing you call out, but I encounter it in so many contexts where that explanation doesn't really fit.   Sometimes I think it is entirely unconscious shortcutting.   On this list, for example, I use LANL (Los Alamos National Laboratory) because I believe that *all* Santa Fe/NM folks know what it is an acronym for and *many* non SFe (Santa Fe) NM (New Mexico) folks know it *by now*.   Similarly I find SFI an acceptable contraction in this context.

On the technical side, the shortcut/contraction/acronym is often the primary/preferred reference.   Even if you might not *know* that DNA is deoxyribonucleic acid or ATP is adenosine triphosphate... or that the YMCA is the young men's christian association, for example, you know the signified by that signifier, and in fact you *won't* know what those contractions are *for* unless you are in fact using them in some insider/technical sense.

I know people who work within a large but somewhat insular community whose acronyms are myriad and they are truly NOT trying to be exclusionary.   I have a number of friends who are either social workers or have studied in the field or have friends/families with mental illness so I hear the acronym DSM and I can tell it is being used in a very "insider" way.   I know little of the details, but I've gathered that "DSM II" somehow connotes both "modern" and "not-really-modern" psychiatric models, but I think even if I do the GoogleFu to learn the first level of details, I would not be much less puzzled by knowing, for example:

DSM-I and DSM-II

In 1952, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) published the DSM-I, an adaptation of a classification system developed by the armed forces during WW2. It was designed for use by doctors and other treatment providers.

The DSM-I was the first of its kind, but experts agreed that it still needed work. The DSM-II, released in 1968, attempted to incorporate the psychiatric knowledge of the day. It was heavily influenced by psychoanalytic concepts that were prominent at that time.

I think that both Glen and maybe Frank have tossed DSM or even DSM II into the conversation here without any more explication than I get at cocktail parties and it lands just as dead for me, but not offensive here as there (until I get my GoogleGoggles flashing Wikipedia/Wiktionary in my peripheral vision with automatic explication). It even seems like a good feature for Alexa/Siri/HeyGoogle to listen continuously and recognize acronyms and offer ordered-by-likelihood-from-context explications in your ear (or in the room if you want to shame the acronymster acrimoniously).

I understand that many are "lazy typists" who find it patently painful (emotionally if not physically) to type anything out.   And *too many people* (IMO ... in my opinion) do too much of their correspondence on a TS (tiny screen) which requires them to hunt-peck with one finger (maybe two thumbs) without touch feedback and without the benefit of QWERTY knowledge built into their Neural Net neurons.

I'm assuming Frank's OP (original post) was in response to both some specific TLA (three letter acronym) used recently or the accrued irritation of having to look up jargon ( especially TLAs and MLAs (multi letter acronyms)) just to figure out a conversation he is *otherwise* informed enough on to follow.   Or both. Or maybe he's just taking out his frustration with his daughter here where it's "safe" <grin>.

BTW (by the way) and FWIW (for what it's worth) I think I'd be game for one of Glen's experiments, even if the constraints offered somehow cramped *my* style (e.g. 20 line limit on posts, no markup-like formatting like *bold* or EMPHASIS or _underscore_ HTML (even formatting like bold or italics).   or even his extremal suggestion of requiring "peer review" by 3 others before submitting (I'd probably become rather mute over that one) WTFOMFGROFLMAOGMWAS!

- Steve

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

Frank Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz
Santa Fe, NM 87505
505 670-9918

Research: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2

Barry MacKichan

Re: Acronyms

Clearly a context-sensitive TLA.

On 26 Jan 2021, at 11:24, Frank Wimberly wrote:

Three Mile Island, of course.

jon zingale

Re: Acronyms

In reply to this post by David Eric Smith

Maybe someone has posted this before, but it also seems relevant here:
Coding graphics in the 140 character limit <https://www.dwitter.net/>

--
Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

gepr

Re: Acronyms

Surely if there's one for images, there's one for audio. Something like this:

http://wurstcaptures.untergrund.net/music/

On 1/26/21 8:51 AM, jon zingale wrote:
> Maybe someone has posted this before, but it also seems relevant here:
> Coding graphics in the 140 character limit <https://www.dwitter.net/>

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

jon zingale

Re: Acronyms

That is so very wonderful! L'arte dei Rumori!

--
Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

gepr

Re: Acronyms

I should have included this:

https://github.com/erlehmann/algorithmic-symphonies

I use $ gcc music.c; ./a.out|aplay

On 1/26/21 9:44 AM, jon zingale wrote:
> That is so very wonderful! L'arte dei Rumori!

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Robert J. Cordingley

Re: Acronyms

In reply to this post by Barry MacKichan

I think you're discussing initialisms not acronyms. Laser, scuba and Nasa are acronyms. TLA is a TLI

On 1/26/21 9:33 AM, Barry MacKichan wrote:

Clearly a context-sensitive TLA.

On 26 Jan 2021, at 11:24, Frank Wimberly wrote:

Three Mile Island, of course.

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

-- 
Cirrillian 
Web Design & Development
Santa Fe, NM
http://cirrillian.com
281-989-6272 (cell)

thompnickson2

Re: Acronyms

In reply to this post by Frank Wimberly-2

This correspondence has been an example of it self. Narcissism is the enemy of communication.

I suppose there is SOME sense in putting obscurities in email blasts to the list and clasping to your bosom anybody who happens to understand you. (I did that with my recent supervenience post and got one answer that was tremendously helpful) It’s like hitchhiking, then; you only need one ride. But while it makes some sense, as a general strategy of communication, isn’t it a bit pathetic, after all? Isn’t there some paradox in communication that is designed to be exclusive?

Nick Thompson

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: Monday, January 25, 2021 4:18 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: [FRIAM] Acronyms

Can you all be careful about the use of acronyms? You're not as bad as my daughter whose emails are full of BRB, IDK, WYD, etc. Unless you're sure that it's universally known why not put its meaning in parentheses the first time you use it in an email and then use it freely after that.

Thanks,

Frank

Frank Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz
Santa Fe, NM 87505
505 670-9918

Research: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2

gepr

Re: Acronyms

IDK, man. This contribution rings a bit hollow. Jargon, insider jokes and words, etc. all serve group cohesion. Coming from Nick, who sporadically talks of FriAM as important *as a group*, including attempts to formulate some threads as coherent presentable things, it seems good, generalized/popularized, communication is antithetic.

But it *does* bode well for treating forum posts as public essays rather than intra-group chatting ... which I've argued is the case. A flaw in my argument, that those who disagree with me have yet to point out, is that despite being publicly available on Nabble, it's not really a public forum. It's not widely read. We *do* use obComplexity jargon just to titillate each other. Etc. Perhaps the biggest obstacle to viewing these posts as public essays is that we don't have a standard set of rules (like Frank's) posts are expected to follow.

So, the classical mathetists among us will argue that you can't have your cake and eat it. Either we're a group of insiders, a tribe, or this is a publication medium which should have some associated rules. Perhaps that's the paradox Nick's after?

On 1/26/21 10:19 AM, [hidden email] wrote:
> This correspondence has been an example of it self. Narcissism is the enemy of communication.
>
> I suppose there is SOME sense in putting obscurities in email blasts to the list and clasping to your bosom anybody who happens to understand you. (I did that with my recent supervenience post and got one answer that was tremendously helpful) It’s like hitchhiking, then; you only need one ride. But while it makes some sense, as a general strategy of communication, isn’t it a bit pathetic, after all? Isn’t there some paradox in communication that is designed to be exclusive?

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

thompnickson2

Re: Acronyms

Well, generally that is the paradox. But the narcissism I am talking about is INTRA group narcissism -- writing a post that one knows damn well only 2 members of the group will understand. We are a sufficiently broad group that I imagine that if we developed a language understood by most of us, it would also be understood by a lot of other people.

But there is value to narcissism that might be lost if we tried to standardize. That you all understand me is an illusion that helps me to write, and when I write, thoughts happen that I did not plan on happening. Even if NONE of you understood, that would be a gain for me. I think many of us write to the list in this delusional way, and I can't claim that that's altogether a Bad Thing.

Nick

Nick Thompson
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ???
Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2021 12:46 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Acronyms

IDK, man. This contribution rings a bit hollow. Jargon, insider jokes and words, etc. all serve group cohesion. Coming from Nick, who sporadically talks of FriAM as important *as a group*, including attempts to formulate some threads as coherent presentable things, it seems good, generalized/popularized, communication is antithetic.

But it *does* bode well for treating forum posts as public essays rather than intra-group chatting ... which I've argued is the case. A flaw in my argument, that those who disagree with me have yet to point out, is that despite being publicly available on Nabble, it's not really a public forum. It's not widely read. We *do* use obComplexity jargon just to titillate each other. Etc. Perhaps the biggest obstacle to viewing these posts as public essays is that we don't have a standard set of rules (like Frank's) posts are expected to follow.

So, the classical mathetists among us will argue that you can't have your cake and eat it. Either we're a group of insiders, a tribe, or this is a publication medium which should have some associated rules. Perhaps that's the paradox Nick's after?

On 1/26/21 10:19 AM, [hidden email] wrote:
> This correspondence has been an example of it self. Narcissism is the
> enemy of communication.
>
> I suppose there is SOME sense in putting obscurities in email blasts to the list and clasping to your bosom anybody who happens to understand you. (I did that with my recent supervenience post and got one answer that was tremendously helpful) It’s like hitchhiking, then; you only need one ride. But while it makes some sense, as a general strategy of communication, isn’t it a bit pathetic, after all? Isn’t there some paradox in communication that is designed to be exclusive?

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

jon zingale

Re: Acronyms

I am not sure that it is all that helpful to point out, but I will point out
that we don't come at all close to even hearing from the majority of us let
alone knowing what the majority of us thinks or is familiar with.
Contributions on this forum likely follow some kind of Pareto distribution.
What sense would it make to target either an imagined mean or the
contributing one-percenters? I cannot help but feel that one ought to be
free to write what it is that compels them and to leave the analysis to the
critics.

--
Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

Frank Wimberly-2

Re: Acronyms

Jon practices what he preaches. He sometimes uses the language and concepts of category theory unapologetically in his posts.

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Tue, Jan 26, 2021, 12:18 PM jon zingale <[hidden email]> wrote:

I am not sure that it is all that helpful to point out, but I will point out
that we don't come at all close to even hearing from the majority of us let
alone knowing what the majority of us thinks or is familiar with.
Contributions on this forum likely follow some kind of Pareto distribution.
What sense would it make to target either an imagined mean or the
contributing one-percenters? I cannot help but feel that one ought to be
free to write what it is that compels them and to leave the analysis to the
critics.

--
Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

1234