I wish Alan had at least hinted at his partitioning of the ways “humans make and do things”. I can only think of it in terms of my undergrad curriculum (where

I wish Alan had at least hinted at his partitioning of the ways “humans make and do things”. I can only think of it in terms of my undergrad curriculum (where I apparently “didn’t learn much that is good”). There’s math, which gives us many formal ways of thinking about things. That intersects with CS because most computers have trouble with the natural ambiguity of our minds. Then there’s the “Philosophy of Mathematics” or “CogSci”, which asks “what are we capable of thinking?”, or more precisely “what kind of thinking can machines do for us?”, and the practical side of that coin, which is what most of undergrad CS focuses on: hardware architecture, operating systems, networking, compiler theory, type theory, virtual machines, etc. The latter-most is the bricklaying, I get that. I suppose the compiler and language design might be architecture, and the epistemological questions might be “modeling”? But then how is epistemology split up into three sub-divisions of its own? Does this even make sense?