.@doriantaylor amateur modelers think the point is to find a frame that will fit all the variables you can think of, even if it's useless..
-
-
Replying to @vgr
.
@doriantaylor pros get that point of a model is to pick best variables within 'budget' of a frame that has been picked for affordances4 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @vgr
So here's the context: I encountered a bunch of architects interested in "computational design"…problem: several semi-orthogonal defs.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @doriantaylor @vgr
the concepts under the term break down obviously under 2 predicates:…
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @doriantaylor @vgr
1: use of computers irrespective of principles (eg AutoCad) 2: use of computational principles irrespective of use of computers
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @doriantaylor @vgr
there is a third predicate though: 3: design of artifacts vs design of processes
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @doriantaylor
Have you considered a pick 2 of 3 type triangular representation?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @vgr
well, what becomes evident is the first 2 predicates delineate what's interesting and what isn't, like a checkerboard pattern.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @doriantaylor
Every dimension beyond 2 is like a math equation in a pop-science book: your potential audience gets cut by an order of mag
2 replies 2 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @vgr
so yeah it seems like one could make a didactic distinction with one 2x2, then take the interesting half and use it in a second 2x2.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
yeah, I once made a sort of monster 2x2 where Q1 of A was Q3 of B. Feasible if coupling is 0d, there's options here
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.