3 ms·

You explained the thing, gave references to learn more about the thing, and even listed one con of the thing: > It is also extremely difficult to understand.

by latexr 1y ago

You explained the thing, gave references to learn more about the thing, and even listed one con of the thing: > It is also extremely difficult to understand. But nowhere do I see a reason why we should learn the thing. Is It useful in any way? Is it just a curiosity? Does it develop your thinking? Any reason is fine, but if you don’t give one we’re just left looking at something which looks both complex and useless, so why would we learn further? To really drive the point home, I have no doubt this would be fun to learn and even useful for a certain kind of people. But because you don’t say, we don’t know if we fit the bill.

jacquesm 1y ago
You started off with 'I' and that was all fine and good but then you switched to 'we' and it wasn't. I fit the bill, and you don't speak for me.
- latexr 1y ago
  Alright, you fit the bill, but how do you know that? The fact that you fit the bill in no way invalidates the point that I believe the author could’ve done more to help readers understand if they do or don’t. I didn’t understand, and I’m confident I’m not alone. I’m not even criticising the post, I enjoyed it! But at the end I don’t know if there’s a point in me reading more about the subject or not. It feels stupid that I’m getting pushback in response to a comment trying to help both the author and future readers to learn more about this subject. Clearly I didn’t do a good job at communicating my intention.
  - jacquesm 1y ago
    I know it because (a) I read the article and (b) the combinators, brainfuck and so on have something magical to me: they show how unbelievably simple universal computation can be. When I was a kid I always imagined these layers underneath my code. BASIC, then the interpreter (written in assembly) then the machine code represenation of that read out by the CPU (in a way another interpreter, this time in hardware), and underneath that the logic gates. But there were so many logic gates, it still seemed quite complex. Adders, shifters, counters and so on. What this does is it strips away that last layer and compresses it into the most simple abstractions. Just like the 'one instruction set computers', another favorite. https://esolangs.org/wiki/OISC https://esolangs.org/wiki/OISC So the hardware all but evaporates, it is software until the very lowest level and then there is this very simple substrate.
    - latexr 1y ago
      > I read the article So did I. It was interesting, but didn’t really make me want to know more. > the combinators, brainfuck and so on have something magical to me Right, so in other words, it was because it’s interesting. Which is fine and something I said from from the start: > Is It useful in any way? Is it just a curiosity? Does it develop your thinking? Any reason is fine (…) I understand it can be interesting by itself (“Is it just a curiosity?”), I explicitly wanted to know if there’s something beyond that, which the article doesn’t say.
      - jacquesm 1y ago
        I think there is something beyond that, but possibly not for you. Just like philosophy possibly isn't directly useful to you or men on the moon or a thousand other things that other people find fascinating, and useful to them. What is useful to you is entirely yours, it is informed by your past and it is shaping your outlook of the future. So in that sense you could write that comment about anything that you find interesting but are not actually interested in, in the sense that you would pursue the thing for its own sake. It is probably better to approach such things in the same way that you would approach art: it may not be useful to you but if it is just interesting then that's enough. The utility of a statue is very limited, though I guess technically you can hit someone over the head with a stone arm as a stand-in club. But that's not why statues are made. Sometimes the ability to wonder or observe is the utility and if you don't want to end up in a nihilistic place (nothing has ultimate utility on account of the heat death of the universe) then that may help you to appreciate the journey and the views rather than just the 'what's in it for me angle'. For me the utility of these really low level computing abstractions lies in the fact that I have been wondering for a long time how I could compile a piece of software into a generic piece of hardware. These combinators are simple enough that they can be expressed with a gatecount that is low enough that I can make something more than just a counter (which I could do directly with fewer gates). This is in turn related to cellular automata, computing fabrics and so on. If you aren't interested in any of those then there is zero utility here.
gipp 1y ago
> But nowhere do I see a reason why we should learn the thing What makes you think the post was trying to convince you to learn it?
- latexr 1y ago
  That’s not what I said. I don’t think the author is necessarily trying to “convince” anyone, but clearly they care about the subject and welcome the idea of more people learning about it (hence providing more resources). All I’m saying is it would be nice to have some reasons why it’s worth investigating further. For all I know from the post, the author may think this is just a fun curiosity with no other applications. Which is fine, but I (and I believe more people) would be grateful to know if that’s the only reason or there’s something more (and what).
aDyslecticCrow 1y ago
Welcome to theoretical computer science and mathematics. Your complaint applies to most of modern mathematics. The point is evident; It's interesting.
- latexr 1y ago
  > The point is evident; It's interesting. And what I am asking is precisely if there’s any reason other than that. Again: > Is It useful in any way? Is it just a curiosity? Does it develop your thinking? Any reason is fine (…) Clearly I understand that being interesting is in itself a reward, but if that’s the only reason, I’ll probably pass this time. Which is fine, everyone is interested in different things. But if there’s another reason, I might reconsider.
  - dragonwriter 1y ago
    > And what I am asking is precisely if there’s any reason other than that. The author is explicit that that is the reason for which additional information is provided. So, the natural reading is from the perspective of the author in promoting the additional learning material, no, there is no other reason that is the focus of their promotion. If you are looking for some more direct, specific, or immediate payoff, I’m sure there are lots of other things tailored to you.
  - TeMPOraL 1y ago
    What other reasons are you thinking about? I mean, reducing motivations down to the fundamentals: - Will it give you power? - Will it get you laid? Yes and yes, but only indirectly; you need to be in the right environment that allows you to use this knowledge to convince others you're smart, and you need to be able to capitalize on it. Other than that? Nope.
dragonwriter 1y ago
> To really drive the point home, I have no doubt this would be fun to learn and even useful for a certain kind of people. But because you don’t say, we don’t know if we fit the bill. I would submit to you that it is quite probable that the information for further learning is provided for people who do not need anything more said to know they “fit the bill”, and if you read the article and don’t know if you do, them you don’t—at least from the author’s perspective. You might still enjoy learning more about it but you aren’t the audience the author is promoting it to.

by latexr 1y ago

jacquesm 1y ago

You started off with 'I' and that was all fine and good but then you switched to 'we' and it wasn't. I fit the bill, and you don't speak for me.

latexr 1y ago
Alright, you fit the bill, but how do you know that? The fact that you fit the bill in no way invalidates the point that I believe the author could’ve done more to help readers understand if they do or don’t. I didn’t understand, and I’m confident I’m not alone. I’m not even criticising the post, I enjoyed it! But at the end I don’t know if there’s a point in me reading more about the subject or not. It feels stupid that I’m getting pushback in response to a comment trying to help both the author and future readers to learn more about this subject. Clearly I didn’t do a good job at communicating my intention.
- jacquesm 1y ago
  I know it because (a) I read the article and (b) the combinators, brainfuck and so on have something magical to me: they show how unbelievably simple universal computation can be. When I was a kid I always imagined these layers underneath my code. BASIC, then the interpreter (written in assembly) then the machine code represenation of that read out by the CPU (in a way another interpreter, this time in hardware), and underneath that the logic gates. But there were so many logic gates, it still seemed quite complex. Adders, shifters, counters and so on. What this does is it strips away that last layer and compresses it into the most simple abstractions. Just like the 'one instruction set computers', another favorite. https://esolangs.org/wiki/OISC https://esolangs.org/wiki/OISC So the hardware all but evaporates, it is software until the very lowest level and then there is this very simple substrate.
  - latexr 1y ago
    > I read the article So did I. It was interesting, but didn’t really make me want to know more. > the combinators, brainfuck and so on have something magical to me Right, so in other words, it was because it’s interesting. Which is fine and something I said from from the start: > Is It useful in any way? Is it just a curiosity? Does it develop your thinking? Any reason is fine (…) I understand it can be interesting by itself (“Is it just a curiosity?”), I explicitly wanted to know if there’s something beyond that, which the article doesn’t say.
    - jacquesm 1y ago
      I think there is something beyond that, but possibly not for you. Just like philosophy possibly isn't directly useful to you or men on the moon or a thousand other things that other people find fascinating, and useful to them. What is useful to you is entirely yours, it is informed by your past and it is shaping your outlook of the future. So in that sense you could write that comment about anything that you find interesting but are not actually interested in, in the sense that you would pursue the thing for its own sake. It is probably better to approach such things in the same way that you would approach art: it may not be useful to you but if it is just interesting then that's enough. The utility of a statue is very limited, though I guess technically you can hit someone over the head with a stone arm as a stand-in club. But that's not why statues are made. Sometimes the ability to wonder or observe is the utility and if you don't want to end up in a nihilistic place (nothing has ultimate utility on account of the heat death of the universe) then that may help you to appreciate the journey and the views rather than just the 'what's in it for me angle'. For me the utility of these really low level computing abstractions lies in the fact that I have been wondering for a long time how I could compile a piece of software into a generic piece of hardware. These combinators are simple enough that they can be expressed with a gatecount that is low enough that I can make something more than just a counter (which I could do directly with fewer gates). This is in turn related to cellular automata, computing fabrics and so on. If you aren't interested in any of those then there is zero utility here.

gipp 1y ago

> But nowhere do I see a reason why we should learn the thing What makes you think the post was trying to convince you to learn it?

latexr 1y ago
That’s not what I said. I don’t think the author is necessarily trying to “convince” anyone, but clearly they care about the subject and welcome the idea of more people learning about it (hence providing more resources). All I’m saying is it would be nice to have some reasons why it’s worth investigating further. For all I know from the post, the author may think this is just a fun curiosity with no other applications. Which is fine, but I (and I believe more people) would be grateful to know if that’s the only reason or there’s something more (and what).

aDyslecticCrow 1y ago

Welcome to theoretical computer science and mathematics. Your complaint applies to most of modern mathematics. The point is evident; It's interesting.

latexr 1y ago
> The point is evident; It's interesting. And what I am asking is precisely if there’s any reason other than that. Again: > Is It useful in any way? Is it just a curiosity? Does it develop your thinking? Any reason is fine (…) Clearly I understand that being interesting is in itself a reward, but if that’s the only reason, I’ll probably pass this time. Which is fine, everyone is interested in different things. But if there’s another reason, I might reconsider.
- dragonwriter 1y ago
  > And what I am asking is precisely if there’s any reason other than that. The author is explicit that that is the reason for which additional information is provided. So, the natural reading is from the perspective of the author in promoting the additional learning material, no, there is no other reason that is the focus of their promotion. If you are looking for some more direct, specific, or immediate payoff, I’m sure there are lots of other things tailored to you.
- TeMPOraL 1y ago
  What other reasons are you thinking about? I mean, reducing motivations down to the fundamentals: - Will it give you power? - Will it get you laid? Yes and yes, but only indirectly; you need to be in the right environment that allows you to use this knowledge to convince others you're smart, and you need to be able to capitalize on it. Other than that? Nope.

dragonwriter 1y ago

> To really drive the point home, I have no doubt this would be fun to learn and even useful for a certain kind of people. But because you don’t say, we don’t know if we fit the bill. I would submit to you that it is quite probable that the information for further learning is provided for people who do not need anything more said to know they “fit the bill”, and if you read the article and don’t know if you do, them you don’t—at least from the author’s perspective. You might still enjoy learning more about it but you aren’t the audience the author is promoting it to.