Except when it doesn't, which is especially common in intercultural communication. Anna Wierzbicka has a lot to say about this (e.g. _Imprioned in English_, although her Rx gets some pretty harsh criticism, too
-
-
-
Thanks for that pointer! Yes, there’s several asterisks that should be applied to my statement, and that is one.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Is it better because it isn't precise? It can't be precise, as it is trying to be shared pattern matching. If it was precise the concepts would be too precise and specific and meaningless to anyone else. It has to be inaccurate to work at all?
-
I wonder how the deeper, actually more precise, communication happens within the brain. Bet there are a few interesting techniques. The glib part in
@waitbutwhy on Musk's Neuralink where Musk assumes working out what the high bandwidth comms is like is not a problem amused me!
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Tangent: more expressive programming languages are harder to perform static analysis on, so you can either say a lot or be confident that what you're saying makes sense, or strike an ideal balance of some sort (not that anyone knows what that is)
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
premature optimization evil?
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.