Made w/ code

Much in the news, the past couple of days (example, Huffington), is Made w/ Code which is a Google initiative (project blog) which is trying to encourage, in part, more female participation in technology.

I had commented in another blog (thomasgardnerofsalem) that deals, in part, with technical issues. There, I mentioned that I had female cohorts all along the way. Some of whom were better than their male peers, in my mind.

The post here is motivated by seeing the post at the Computer Science Teacher site. It will be interesting, as Alfred wrote, to watch this unfold. If thrusts, such as this, can get people interested in computing, that will be a great step forward.

---

At one time, computer science was generally interesting to the younger folks. Let's say, a couple of decades ago.

Then, finance came to fore (to my puzzlement, at the time). That is, this was true until that last crash (do you remember?) brought reality back to everyone's mind. As things crashed and the dust settled (is still doing so), we all had a chance to look more closely at what went down. For instance, consider the pay differential that we saw between finance and, what might be considered, more critical work.

Aside: Did we really learn from the machinations of those times? The computer proved to be problematic (one of a very huge set of examples) and will continue to be so. For example, the issues raised by Minsky are multiplied when computers are involved.

One thing that turned people off about computing was the tedium which may have been a reaction to the difficulties and complications that one can face. Too, large systems can be very hard to do and to keep running; but, tools have always been the clever adaptation to handling such requirements. There were other things that caused negative reactions.

Aside: A world of a zillion little apps is not any major improvement. Those issues that faced us before are still around.

---

Yes, code is (can be) fun especially if you're in the driver's seat (yeah, Zuck). If the requirements are being imposed upon you by others, then it's really a process oriented affair that has a much different flavor. This goes beyond the bazaar/cathedral discussions. What? Yes, discussions about truth are pending.

---

Blockly seems interesting. Perhaps, it can lift the discussion, at some point, beyond code (as in, coding at what level?) to where we can start to "truth engineer" as needed and to get peoples' rights, in so far as they deal with computing, to the fore (we're coming up on the 800th of the (first) Magna Charta signing).

Aside: In a sense, everyone ought to code. And, there are many layers of code. Those who deep dive (yeah, wizards, I mean you of the power) have no greater claim to the truth of the computational experience. On the other hand, many of the upper echelons would not dirty their hands (ah, how do we get them out of their sheltered world?) thereby showing their lack of respect for truth (ah, this can be demonstrated).

Remarks:   Modified: 06/22/2014

06/22/2014 -- I would be impressed if I heard that Sheryl would deign (or stoop) to coding. Without a code sense, how does one handle truth (yes, mathematicians, you, too)?

Know one, know them all

The following is a question, and my answer to start the discussion. It was posted on a forum (guess where?) which bounced it back, twice, for reasons that bear some discussion. ... Rather than run down that path, it is being posted here.

The thing is that someone that is fluent in one computer language can pick up another. Where the difficulty comes in is with nuances (arguable points), add-ons (the whole bit of frameworks, etc., tuned for the language), with libraries (say, specific implementation of functions, lots to discuss there), and more.

In brief, the 80-20 (or any other ratio) rule comes into play. In regard to the "cloud" and things of this nature, are we not under siege by those who want to create havoc? Ah, the decisions that were made are haunting us.

-------- Question ---------

Who has applied "know one, know them all?"

Of late, we see all sorts of emphasis on specifics in job requests, many of these related to details. Now, some of that is HR trying to make it easy on themselves. Some of it is just glorifying code and the wizards, thereof.

My motto, from decades of experience: Know one, know them all.

Let me tell you a story. I took an old engineer, gave him a little tutorial, and he did this (believe it or not): converted a lisp-based system (okay, a small portion of it, but non-trivial) to Pascal. Now, here's the key: he did it essentially by writing the new code without an IDE (that is for folks who are hung up on their tool - which, think of it, is a link to the ring on your nose pulled by the vendor)  by hand. I typed it in, and things worked.

I can hear the whole chorus going off on me. Let me rephrase. The complexity in systems is what is represented in code, not the code itself. And, some things (domains) get complicated real quickly. However, we have had fifty some-odd years to try to make it better. Anyone even care?

Well-specified frameworks (et al, as this implies a whole lot of stuff) and other practices hide complexity. Wait! Every generation (and I've seen plenty, folks) has to re-write from the get-go. Therein, we see some of the problem.

If the focus was on specification (let's say, executable), then one could map to the delivery system. And, done right, the approach could be as exciting to use as getting into advanced games. In fact, rather than chasing about in a fictional situation, going nowhere, the whole of the space(s) could represent aspects of problems, etc.

That type of thing would work for the IDE experience, to boot.

Before I leave, sure, getting people to understand OO (and other advanced notions) can take time. But, again, we took engineers and taught them this; they then did their own coding and, as needed, used help from people who could debug, etc.

Motto: It is more effective, at times (when?), to teach a domain person to code in order to solve their problems, then it is to try to teach a coder (yes, guys/gals) the intricacies of a domain.

Ah, next up, would be discussing domain-oriented tools.

---- My (seeding) answer to start the discussion -----

John M. Switlik, Timeless autodidact

There are several problems that come to fore in the described approach.

For one, the IT/CS types might start to feel like servants; yes, the brain work is being done by the domain expert (some used to use, subject matter expert). In this case, let IT/CS dabble in the domain (there is no worse hell than a lifetime working with things from that below-the-floor view).

Too, those who are the experts might get bogged down by the drudgery of the coding/testing/etc. Put effort into building domain assists (actually, that would be one thing that could give the IT/CS people their jollies).

So, meet in the middle which is how real-world problems are solved by effective teams. Say what? Yes, for one example, think top-down meeting bottom-up. But, the axis does not have to be oriented that way.

I used TD to BU (think of the middle as a floor with an upper and lower bifurcation - all of this movable, as a feast) as I can tell all sorts of tales in this regard (as could anyone working on advanced systems (inclusive use) that solve/resolve things that other than what we see being offered to the public). One solution is having teams that cover the perspectives through the various talents actually working together (as opposed to what? all sorts of examples, but let's say, in this context, people stupidly glaring at a screen in order to see (what?) code - all day, no wonder there is such an interest in zombies) and resolving conflict, etc. BTW, agile does not cut it in this regard unless there is a step away from the code as the focus in order to allow some type of persistence of the specs (tests as specs, in the aggregate - don't think so, incomplete, for one thing - in regard to knowledge which is the realm of the human expert - notwithstanding the hoopla about big-daddy data).

You see, for some reason, the computer has taken precedence. When the heck did that happen, folks? I'll tell you. When what became the cloud (ah, to me, insidious stuff) took people's touchiness away. When you deal with the whole of it (which truth engineering says is necessary), then you have better intuitive grasps (the cloud, people, takes away your control - ah, managers/bosses/money people - did you do this little shenanigan on purpose? well, that would require better insight than is actually there).

To teams, the key thing is trying to get some balance in a multi-dimensional space, of which some of the factors relate to convergence (not to be thought of as a simple fixed-point issue - for now, think metaphorically) toward something that is unknown (and hard to know). Enough on that, as it can be expanded elsewhere.

Remarks:   Modified: 10/17/2015

08/11/2015 -- This was originally posted on 8/07; there are rules for questions that I'll post, if they are public. This one could be broken into parts. But, we have the total thing here, for whatever review might be done.

10/17/2015 -- This was the end of the honeymoon (to be explained). A later occurrence of the same thing: Quasi- empiricism.

Codecademy, again

Context: See Tru'eng anew, focus going forward, mathematics.

--

As we get technical, we'll have to look at coding, mathematics, and philosophy. For the first (coding), there is much to consider. The past week, I have looked at Codecademy's site, taken some of their lessons, and reacquainted myself with code (see first and second bullets, below). For the second (mathematics), I re-looked, yesterday, at a site dealing with mathematical physics. The site had posts about the authors recent finds (see third bullet, below).

For the last, see this Facebook (Philosophy matters) page, for now. I ran across this page while researching, after reading an article in Bloomsburg Businessweek about applying Heidegger to marketing of stuff. Well, truth will deal with business as much as with mathematics, science, and engineering. So, we will definitely be back to this.

- Coding - On this past Monday, I was looking at the read counts and saw that the Codecademy, at last post was in the most-read mix. Note that it had been written in September of 2012. Rather than post a comment on Facebook, I went to Linkedin and did several. Why Linkedin? My profile there talks about my experience with code over the past several decades. I have moved the comments from Linkedin to here; they follow: 02/24/2014 - I ran across codecademy.com in 2012. At the time, my interests were directed toward things other than code. If someone had asked me six years ago if that were possible (life without code - you see, I was buying into the code-based worldview - even though I knew that being was not subsumed therein), I would not have understood the question. Yes, one can live, nicely, without code, but ought we?. Then, today, I noticed that the post had been recently read, several times, so I looked again at the site. Hence this notice. 02/25/2014 - Started yesterday afternoon, off and on, going through Codecademy lessons. As of now, I have completed 48 of these. Which means coding up the example sufficiently to execute properly and to get by the watchdog that controls stepping to the next item. (see post Focus going forward)  02/26/2014 - Well, it isn't that the honeymoon is over, yet the glitter is gone. Sloughed through all sorts of errors, today, that the environment kept throwing at me (being long-time at this type of thing, was able to alter the situation properly in order to accomplish what I wanted). Ah, I miss the Lisp machine. While thinking of the Lisp machine fun, I recalled Prof Lucio Arteaga who worked with me on issues related to topology, category theory, and more. (see post Acknowledgements) As I was looking at Codecademy, I went through the process. The next bullet provides a snapshot of the activity.

- ... The image shows my profile at the Codecademy site. One steps through lessons for a language. Right now, it shows that I have completed HTML & CSS, jQuery, PHP, and YouTube API courses (hence, the badges). The first two were reviewed to catch up with what has been going on. As people talked when they bragged of going from static to dynamic pages, there is a lot of flexibility. And, one sees many sites related to things like buttons and such. Codecademy profile as of 03/02/2014 To discuss: This is fine as it can be fun. However, as I knew then, and everyone ought to know now, re-write (and the logic thereof) is a difficult problem with open issues. How is it that we have allowed this type of mess to be cast upon the world at large? The YouTube API course was interesting. Again, a couple of years ago, when Microsoft pushed people off the OfficeLive site (people had actually built their processes upon that MS offering), I did not think that MS was offering anything worth my time. So, I went to another provider. After looking at the "free" web site builders, I didn't find one that I liked. So, I hacked HTML using my early 2000 framework. Then, last year, I looked at Joomla, Concrete5, and others (see the ajswtlk.com site, as we will be changing that as an exercise). What I am considering now will be to use CSS mainly (so, thanks Codecademy). Notice that I'm in the process of looking at Python (was my favorite language after Lisp), Ruby on Rails, and Web Projects (mainly to see what people have done). Perhaps, after that I might try to do a class myself. I have been taking notes along the way. Notice, above, that I said that the glitter had left. Well, it can be tedious. You see, the courses have a watchdog that is not as intelligently designed as it ought to be. I have snaps of tricks that I had to do to get the thing to parse correctly in order to let me go on when I had things right, but the watchdog (course controller) could not see it. To wit, I have been hung on Ruby for several days not (32%) since the thing will not parse properly. I'll keep trying. If I get to 100% on everything else, I might have to contact the Codecademy folks. I will list some of the problems that I saw: racing/hung condition when trying to parse, improper refresh of their data structure (to wit, list where you were supposed to enter the line number in a blank field - to get it to parse, I reversed a couple of the numbers), ..., not handling delimiters properly (to wit, introducing a space - not necessary, in this case - urged the parser along).

- Imperatives Everyone ought to code something or other. Otherwise, we have the situation where wizards do the work and get too much freedom in the process. That is, people abdicate their responsibility. Or, they get addicted to whatever the wizards provide (alluding to the recent gaming pull and more). But, to be serious, the last post (Logic ... Reflections ...) mentioned discussions dealing with issues to which truth engineering needs (has) to pay attention. The main thing concerns the "fact" that our supposedly deterministic ways are not so. Computing (especially, the cloud) makes the problem even more of concern. Now, even if everyone does not code, they ought to be concerned about maturity (and, by inverse, immaturity). This week I read about some of the software engineering practices of JPL. In this case, it was the Mars program. The test, in this case, was the one-time use during the mission. A whole lot of upfront analysis and testing was necessary. Where is there any time for this type of thing with agile playing around? On the other hand, things seem to push out to the web in various states of incompleteness. Perhaps, the ease of a back-off (not done if the errors are minor, and the user can adapt) is the driver. Or, is it that we do not want to know the real costs, or to pay, for better solutions that are necessary for sustainability (of more than stuffing big pockets)?

Remarks:   Modified: 01/15/2015

03/03/2014 -- We need to relook at several things. Yes, like, bringing memes (and more) to the fore in the discussion. Mathematicians have their "ancestors," know about them (and their contributions), and honor them. What other field does that? My mathematical pedigree: Galileo Galilei (1585), Vincenzo Viviana (1642) Isaac Barrow (1652), Isaac Newton (1668), Roger Cotes (1706), Robert Smith (1715), Walter Taylor (1723), Steven Whisson (1742), Thomas Postlethwaite (1756), Thomas Jones (1782), Adam Sedgwick (1811), William Hopkins (1830), Arthur Cayley (1864), Andrew Russell Forsyth (1881),  Edmund Taylor Whittaker (1895), G.H. Hardy (), Edward Charles Titchmarsh (), Andrew P. Guinand (), Lucio Arteaga (1964), the blogger (). I took it back to 1585 since that would be co-temporal with those who were involved with the Great Migration to New England. Too, note that the ancestor is an adviser or mentor or tutor. This brings to mind that a meme'tic look at descendancy would consider the influence of step-child-ness. I have found many of these relationships.

03/07/2014 -- Like a lot of things on the web, this site is free. Given that, some think that leaves no right to comment or criticize. But, along with the free (which really is a subtle way to entangle) comes a total one-sided deal where changes are pushed upon users without much (or no) notice. Conform to (watch out for) the big elephant turning over in the bed is adage. Of course, the whole notion of incompleteness as it applies to computing is not understood, or downright ignored, by those who know better. In fact. many of the new billionaires can exalt in proving that they're smarter by having more money (my counsel would be for them to not think their brilliance outshines some very poor people - truth engineering will deal with that subject). ... Now, finally, the beef deals with the watchdog (supposedly couched as training overseer) function is idiotic in some cases. One of note. The console shows a printout just like the lesson wants. However, the watchdog says that it looks like there was not output. This type of thing is hard to skirt around whereas parser types of things can be tweaked enough for them to be happy.  --- Late note, I found a way around the watchdog's errancy. Will report back on this later.

03/19/2014 -- Update, on Fedaerated.

05/27/2914 -- Codecademy has a nice Javascript glossary with examples.

06/23/2014 -- Example of true cost being ignored: Phone app in eight hours.

01/05/2015 -- Tru'eng, anew. This post is one of the most popular, of late, which raises some interesting questions. But, code as the focus? We have this from Tegmark: Consciousness as a state of matter.

01/15/2015 -- I will be getting back to their site, soon. Perhaps, I can use javascript to have some demos about this topic which is a series that will establish the basis and extensions for a fair and technical economic framework (motivation? sustainability). We are going to go back to some simple and come forward to the modern, complicated economy. Why? My long chain of ancestors (inherited via Prof. Lucio Arteaga) is one motivation.

Does code matter?

Three years ago, I spent a little time with Codecademy (post: Codecademy, again). My profile is still there, from that time.

My purpose was to review progress by looking at the tools that were available. For a month, I went through the lessons and worked the exercises. It was interesting to see the on-line instruction. Naturally, I found a few bugs but overlooked them. At the time, it was free; now, there is a Pro option with more of a focus on results.

Also, at the time, I saw testimonials about people starting careers with this approach. That was interesting. Today, I ran into another (different method) that represents the time. The guy has blogged about his introduction into coding and the success that he has found.

• Ilovecoding blog

Then, I saw that one of morning show hosts talked to someone about an effort to teach coding to women. There are thousands of jobs open, I understand.

Hence, this little reminder. One problem with so many people just coding is that we're losing sight of issues related to quality (many issues). And, one sees this lack everywhere. Quality would include the user perspective, especially concerns related to safety, stability, and such.

I have already written about little businesses being bitten (Content and more). I just ran across an issue myself the past week: Technology's impact. So, we have issues related to content's management, efficacy of technology's use, and whole lot more.

But, a very important one relates to this theme: Does code matter? Based upon my experience, this glut of jobs is short-sighted. Code does not provide the business intelligence that everyone is after. Now, if code is mainly small perturbations (such as was brought by macro ability in spread sheets), then, that could very well be content related.

However, how many times do we need to re-invent the wheel?

Remarks: Modified: 03/23/2017

03/23/2017 -- Two recent videos (stumbled upon them). 1) Peter Metzger talks about his 31 years with Emacs. He shows a little of the history of computing devices. Run down memory lane. But, nice to see the old thing, Emacs, still having traction. 2) Which then brings up Richard Stallman. Richard started Emacs ball rolling (some have followed his sainthood into the editor wars - Emacs vs VI/VIM).

Also, he was first in looking at truth maintenance. But, in this video, Richard talks about his free software initiative and emphasizes, time and again, that purty systems, like Apple, have created a jail, made it purty, and then convinced people to jail themselves. He does not like what I call the dumbing device. He stresses surveillance. I see it as a tether to nonsense. Hence, I am 1G/2G, even in this day of talk about 5G. In terms of truth maintenance, Richard and his advisor (Sussman) worked on constraint satisfaction. Another aspect deals with defeasible reasoning.

CMS, again

CMS? Yes, one has to state the context within which the acronym (assuming that is such) needs to be interpreted. So, we're talking computing but there are, at least, two ways to view this. Both important.

Earlier, we started down the content management track since Microsoft decided to remove OfficeLive users from their happy ways. In fact, some had built business processes (okay, wrong choice on their part) upon the OfficeLive stuff. These people had to scramble to find a replacement resource.

For us, OfficeLive offered nice templates and a good front end to building a website. Did I mention that it was free? So, OfficeLive going away forced me to have to get technical.

Aside: I've put together fairly productive sets of software systems on a good laptop using free software. And, the functionality rivaled what a company would pay for. And, "code" (as in what drives computation and decision making) was my focus for decades. As some have argued, it was the reality. However, prior to the content management study, I had consciously refrained from doing code. So, what could have been more interesting that code? Lots of things. Mathematics is definitely, is one doesn't go down the applied path beyond things that can be done on paper (don't laugh, we used to do algorithm testing by hand in the early days). Modeling of all sorts will always be of interest. Why? Map-territory issues will require us to revolve the virtual and the real (foregoing, for the moment, the differences between these two). One reality will the sensors (almost like QE, sensors now and forever). Wait! Google glass having a potential use beyond mere gadgetry? ... How about History? For instance, there has been a lot of effort put into historic genealogical work (say, NEHGS). There is the History that we read about in books. Then, there's the existential affair of people and details and more. What about Memes in this context? Dawkins, perhaps, tongue-in-cheek proposed the concept to handle the messy things that don't fit well into theory. But, you know what? All this fits and starts with computation, networking, and more? To me it looks like a recapitulation with all sorts of ontological underpinnings.

So, after the initial look (early 2012), I realized that I needed to get up to speed. But, I had neither the time or the interest (see comments on WordPress, Drupal, Joomla). I set up a little bit of pages using these three but was not happy with the results that I would get without a serious attempt at learning how they worked. So, what did I do? I went back to what I knew (static HTML - after all, I was doing markup prior to HTML; too, I had many website in place from the Mosaic days onward). The main problem with HTML was finding a WYSIWYG editor as I didn't want to pay for Front Page or any other commercial tool. Guess what? Sea Monkey's little Composer is nice (not perfect, by far). So, this Site is the basis for all comparisons (OfficeLive's little thing, that worked for years, disappeared).

---

Wait! What's another meaning of CMS? Configuration management. In both cases, the "s" is for system.

---

So, of late, I've realized that I let the ball drop. Too, requirements were looming that would force me to either code something (not that I couldn't, but, again time and energy are limited). So, I had to get back to the garden (I had already learned that youtube has more than nice music videos - it is nice to see things from decades ago, ah), so to speak. I had been watching classes for awhile. No structure, just following interest. One wonderful video of a mathematics class at Stanford sold me on the approach of video. As you know, all of the schools have quality items there: Harvard, MIT, etc.

So, I looked for a WordPress video. Fortunately, there was one that you could have a site up on one-hour. That video set the standard, one hour. There's no real content to the the site that I built as I followed the video. But, it's there. And, I can make comparisons with other approaches.

Not seeing what I wanted in WordPress, I went to Drupal. First off, I couldn't find a video that claimed setting up a site in one hour (Mind you, part of the time is getting the site's name, etc. I was already set up with that.). But, I made an attempt. My reaction was that it was for coders. Everywhere, it looked like I was going to have to do HTML.

So, I looked for Joomla videos. There was a one-hour site claim, using Joomla 3. I had 2.5 installed and installed the newer version. So, I followed the video religiously. Where the guy had images or text, I just made things up. Here is the first result (here is the video - again, there were highly detailed subjects being covered in other videos which I'll get back to -- the requirement was to get something running).

After the first pass, I decided to build a site that I need to maintain. To do this, I followed the video, again, but at a faster clip. Here is the result. As I tried to add new things, I've gone back to the video (have not read a line of documentation yet -- I used to read part of the book (when learning some new language) and then jump in -- or, in class, I would follow for awhile and then just explore).

By the way, part of the decision comes from seeing who is using what. Harvard and Sprint are using Joomla. I'm familiar with both sites. I know that I need to dig deeper in Joomla. Case in point: as modules have side-effects, one has to worry about order and such; these types of nuances are what an expert knows how to handle. For me? I've resolved several of these. Actually, I like the development environment (say, compared to the older ways of using a C++ or other language in a developer's workbench) and the underlying control/interpret scheme.

Aside: Last year, I sort of recoiled from the heavy database use in these approaches. That explains, in part, the fallback to HTML and files. Now, I'm getting a little more comfortable, but I'm also ready to argue the points (we'll get there, truth engineering) of configuration. You see, the package pushes talk content. Configuration control support is there. Perhaps, it's covered in the book. We'll see. However, as I've seen with all of this free stuff. You have updates and upgrades always coming at you. How things interplay must be taken seriously if you're in an environment with continual use. Who drive requirements for these things? Is it too much a gadgetry (feature) focus?

After playing with Joomla, I knew that I had to look at other approaches which are several. Concrete5 sort of jumped out. It's a front end for developers, one video said. Here is my little bit (didn't even use a video, as it seemed intuitive). I'll have to spend some time with this. And, also I'll need to look at others, to be complete.

In the meantime, I'll maintain the current site (static HTML -- blogging all the while), use Joomla as the future, and try to get the Concrete5 example to be like the Joomla. After things become more second nature, then a total redesign might be in order. Right now, I just cut stuff from the static view to the database. Perhaps, thinking about web design issues might be apropos.

Remarks:

01/21/2019 -- If you look at Content Management or CMS at this blog and the one for the Thomas Gardner Society, Inc. (CMS or Configuration), you will see lots of posts. We have a new site where we prove our work: TGSoc.org. Its role is portal but, for now, we introduce changes there, first. See the Discussion page with a link to our devlog. Based upon the direction I hear that Google is going, working this approach for our portal is right on. So, technical will be visible rather than not.

06/20/2016 -- Concrete5 example removed. Broken link in one library (at the ISP) mentioned by http://www.whoishostingthis.com/resources/php/.

05/31/2016 -- Continuation of the theme.

08/02/2014 -- Bit the bullet and updated the site (looks, behavior) using HTML/CSS. Of course, things are still pending, such as membership functions, business, ... We'll get there.

10/19/2013 -- Too many interesting things to get involved in. Is coding for the young? That is, not that the older mind cannot do it; rather, it's fairly mundane compared to other things. To be discussed. Perhaps, winters onset will push the mind toward the computational.

09/04/2013 -- While poking around more, I'm more inclined to think that the database, as a central feature, is not the great leap forward that some might think. Unless, using such is wedded with structural approaches (to be defined - unless someone can point to an existing discussion). Took a break for awhile, but did an edit in Joomla and in Concrete5, today. The latter keeps the HTML visibly present. So, that might lead one to think that it's coding, perhaps.

07/14/2013 -- I meant to mention other uses of CMS. Wiki has several that are computer related. We can't forget the Navy's CMS-2. Too, software configuration systems were known by CMS. But, there are many non-computer usages, such as Change Management System (related to process management).

07/13/2013 -- Ah, yes. design. Here is someone touting the powers of WordPress.

Modified: 01/21/2019

Focus going forward

Context: See Tru'eng anew, focus going forward, mathematics.

---

Truth is not an easy thing for us to process, yet it's at the core (several senses) of life which we see flow around us. Nature is the prime example, always there. And, it's a big subject.

We, from certain viewpoints, are in, and of, Nature (hint: I'm using big "N" just as we see capital "E" used for Evolution - the use of the big "E" says what?). And, we learn more about this all the time. Debatable extensions can be made to our knowledge (some say, it's the other way around) that address the us that is beyond Nature. Yet, as the operationalist view says, who cares?

That head-in-sand attitude is counter-productive which we intend to show. In essence, what we are heading toward is an explanation of how we need to switch our "limit" thinking in order to allow a more full experience and illumination. The following list points to focus areas.

- Incompleteness - This is, in part, the motivation for establishing, better, the basis for going forward. That is, we need to get back to looking at what "limits" abound (via undecidability, computablility, etc.). Alon Amit describes what is behind Kurt's theorems. In particular, note the four properties of interest: Effectiveness, Consistency, Completeness, Richness. He stresses that the theorems work without any meta-mathematical assistance. True; it's great to have his post as a source for further discussion. Yet, we will address a need for "meta" views as we consider t-issues. ... As an aside, Quora looks like it would be an interesting place to hang out.

- Codecademy - This site will be used to explore "code" and its existential meanings within the context of the emerging overlays (cloud, etc.). Plus, there will be other focal points related to our interchanges with our artificial partners. However, codecadmy will always be known as the first one that I encountered. ... Not interested in collecting points or showing prowess (so, ignore those, in my case, as I play around on the site).

- The sites of ajswtlk and ThomasGardnerSociety are content sites. In one thing, we'll take the content  management thing a little further. Too, though, we will use the ajswtlk site for matters specific to truth engineering and code. TGS, on the other hand, can serve as an example of the broader picture (persistent information and its maintenance - too, historic genealogy as study of our progress - memes, et al.).

- Blogging: see Ajswtlk. Too, redo the survey of progress in this area by others. For instance, Klout's approach makes me think of how there might be a "truth" assessment (to be discussed).

- ...

In terms of computing, most are users. We tried early to get end-user computing. Some, now, call this domain-specific, yet, there is the larger picture. JS (thanks, Sun) brought forth one enabling bit; the whole thing has mushroomed (many different approaches about - just read on Node).

As I look at the long history of computing, things keep getting re-wrote, time and time again. Everyone thinks that their stuff is better (human nature). At some point, though, we will need to have the notion of "proven" brought to bear. And, strength will deal with truth more than not (for a long time, Made-off seemed strong).

Disclosure: We like that apps have grown, without bounds, it seems. But, the larger pictures comes into play here, to boot.

Remarks:   Modified: 01/05/2015

02/25/2014 -- Starting on 02/23/2014, in the evening, I have spent some time (now and then, as I could spend some uninterrupted minutes) doing lessons at Codecademy. As of now, I have completed 48 of these (HTML, jQuery, APIs). What completion means is coding up the example sufficiently to run and to get by the evaluation that allows the next step.

Let's say this. It has been a nice review session. Too, getting back to code, a truism comes to fore (some say that there are two intelligent types - detailed and intuitive -- ignoring Gardner's seven, for now). Detailed is what we see with engineers, programmers, and such. In fact, handling details in that manner deals a lot with deep stuff (far beyond what we see with Watson). Intuitive? Management (a big bucket, for now - but, it deals with things that only humans know, for now - it is arguable that this will continue to be of the essence).

Actually, we need to exercise both. However, I did mention tedium before. Sometimes, interfacing with the machine is rewarding. Most of the time, it stinks (but, doing code is a good opportunity to practice patience, focus, carefulness, ...). Now, can the machine ever match intuition (not talking in the Turing sense, rather int he sense where we need to look at being)? ... Anyway, playing with the lessons was real nice in that things interpreted immediately, once expressed properly. ... There are other things that I want to peek into, but Ruby on Rails is next.

02/26/2014 -- Acknowledgements for Lucio Arteaga.

02/28/2014 -- Edited bullet on blogging. Added in reference to Klout, seen in Bloomberg's Businessweek.

03/03/2014 -- We need to relook at several things. Yes, like, bringing memes (and more) to the fore in the discussion. Mathematicians have their "ancestors," know about them (and their contributions), and honor them. What other field does that? My mathematical pedigree: Galileo Galilei (1585), Vincenzo Viviana (1642) Isaac Barrow (1652), Isaac Newton (1668), Roger Cotes (1706), Robert Smith (1715), Walter Taylor (1723), Steven Whisson (1742), Thomas Postlethwaite (1756), Thomas Jones (1782), Adam Sedgwick (1811), William Hopkins (1830), Arthur Cayley (1864), Andrew Russell Forsyth (1881),  Edmund Taylor Whittaker (1895), G.H. Hardy (), Edward Charles Titchmarsh (), Andrew P. Guinand (), Lucio Arteaga (1964), the blogger (). I took it back to 1585 since that would be co-temporal with those who were involved with the Great Migration to New England. Too, note that the ancestor is an adviser or mentor or tutor. This brings to mind that a meme'tic look at descendancy would consider the influence of step-child-ness. I have found many of these relationships.

01/05/2015 -- Renewal, see Context line.

KBE, futures

I wrote this on Wikipedia (Knowledge Based Engineering - KBE futures, KBE theory) back in 2006:

KBE, as a particular example of KBS, is a multi-disciplinary framework that has more than practical considerations. Not only will KBE require successful handling of issues of the computational (Ontology, Artificial Intelligence, Entscheidungsproblem, Interactive computation, Category Theory, ...) and logic (non-monotonic issues related to the qualification, frame, and ramification problems)), it will touch upon all sciences that deal with matter, its manipulations, and the related decisions. In a sense, Product Lifecycle Management allows us to have the world as a large laboratory for experimental co-evolution of our knowledge and artificial co-horts. As noted in ACM Communications, "Computers will grow to become scientists in their own right, with intuitions and computational variants of fascination and curiosity." ^[19] What better framework is there to explore the "increasingly complicated mappings between the human world and the computational"?
A continuing theme will be resolving the contextual definitions for KBE into a coherent discipline and keeping a handle on managing the necessary quantitative comparisons. One issue considers what limits there may be to the computational; this study requires a multi-disciplinary focus and an understanding of the quasi-empirical. Given the knowledge focus of KBE, another issue involves what limits there might be to a computational basis for knowledge and whether these are overcome with the more advanced types of human-machine interface.
It is important not to treat the KBE technology in isolation, but focus more on its role in the overall Product Development Process (PDP). During development, it is important to streamline the process from knowledge capture towards software implementation. To this end, close-coupling between Knowledge Management and KBE is desired. Transitions from data and information inside a Knowledge Base towards software code is of particular relevance. The best results can be achieved by using model-driven software development principles, which includes automatic code generation and round-tripping. The use of KBE during a PDP not only requires the ability to easily set-up (existing) KBE applications from a knowledge level, but also the ability to store back the results after execution of the tool. In order to use KBE on a strategical level as decision-making and planning support mechanism, it is important to relate results back to the system engineering domain (requirements, functions, options, embodiment). From deployment perspective, a better integration with other IT tools should be realized. Couplings between KBE applications, Knowledge Bases and Simulation Workflow Management software are of particular importance. The iProd project tries to take KBE to the next level by addressing these aspects.^[20] The iProd framework uses KBE technology as a reasoning mechanism to infer new product knowledge and, as a means to automate virtual execution (CAE simulation) and as MDO-enabler. On an IT level, it prototypes KB-KBE couplings (code generation, round-tripping, results storage and automatic workflow generation) and SWFM-KBE integration (on the basis of the software-as-a-service paradigm).

It still applies, though the section has disappeared.

Remarks: Modified: 03/23/2017

03/23/2017 --

Code or not

Code has been the topic of several posts. Usually, it pertained to issues, such as content vs configuration management (from the 2014 time frame). The point? If one is doing work and the computer is the tool and assistance, then one needs to control reconfigs. That is, the producer of the system ought not come in and monkey with your process.

Yes, it's a control issue (see Stallman on this). Too, if the computer is driving things, then you have to follow. But, software people do not do this. However, they are not known for a good process, either.

Three years ago, I redid a website using only HTML/CSS. Why? It was familiar; too, I could control everything. And, it was minimal. The idea was to build upon this. I started with Microsoft's OfficeLive, but it was cut. I looked at a bunch of alternatives. None stood out.

Besides, in just a few days, I saw lots of hacking. What's with that? So, I went with not-so-simple HTML/CSS. Mind you, these things continually progress.

Want to know what CSS can do? A lot. Basically, it is parameterized code. This page shows three examples. #1 is a cut from MS OfficeLive. #2 deals with CSS (banner.js). That is, the objects are drawn and clipped (then I cut to an image file for ease). Now, #3 uses JavaScripting to do the same image.

I need to reconfigure to allow more interaction. And, so, need to bite the bullet. That example got me back into things. It basically writes on a 2D canvas.

But, I just went and looked at 3D and found this by Jeremy Heleine. Nice.

• Building a 3D engine with JavaScript  

It is a trip down memory lane. I was doing 30+ years ago with a Lisp Machine (What is a lisp machine and what is so great about them?, actually, wrote my own perspective handler). Ten years later, I was using a top-notch CAD/CAE system, around which we wrapped Lisp for Knowledge Based Engineering. Ten years after that, I was doing this with Python (as it was interpretative and mimiced Lisp, somewhat).

Essentially, I dealt with geometric modeling with regard to massively detailed products that supported decisions related to design, analysis, and the whole gamut of build and maintain.

Remarks: Modified: 04/27/2017

04/27/2017 -- Further on the issues: self determination.

Formally truthful

Ah, what a mouthful. Meaning what?

From CACM article,
Formally Verified Mathematics

The CACM, April 2014, had an article about formal approaches to mathematical proofs. It was titled Formally Verified Mathematics and is readable on-line (image is from the article). Now, this article struck me, for several reasons, motivating this post.

The context? The proliferation of apps (see thoughts on algorithms) ought to be a concern. The auto industry seems to live more with recalls than not (many times, "computer" and "software" appear in the explanation). We just had a bad financial failing from which only the manipulators recovered (and they're at it still, yes HFTers - riggers by any other name, are riggers). The litany is depressing to behold.

Now, the authors (Jeremy Avigad and John Harrison) provide a nice overview of the issues. They actually mention the work of many (who's who) who have looked at the issues. To be brief, we have several things leading to the fact that proofs are difficult and not possible computationally without human assistance (we really need to discuss man-in-the-loop imperatives, in this case).

But, how does one get such human assistance? As, with the growing awareness of singularity (big S - actually, there are many singularities - Remarks, 05/19/2013), we get to where the computer does things that are not understandable by humans. In short, take code, do you know what it does without running it through some parse/execution device? If you do, it would have to be some trivial stuff (let me generate something very effective using rewites, etc., and then look at the code - all sorts of other methods can be proposed).

So, yes, mathematicians have interactive approaches, with supporting tools. This means that we get to a state where the computer is essential (we actually got there a long while ago - how could such an important thing devolve into a game'd affair?). In one example, they talk of a proof that was 255 pages (journal style) in the '60s for a theorem. Of course, such proving took a lot of time to state; too, it took much effort to verify.

Now, the computer can help in the verify step being faster than us in lots of way. Smarter? No way. We'll get to that (again and again). It's a "being" issue, folks.

Now, that 255 pages can be done with 150K lines of code (talking fairly terse stuff here). But, even then, a lot of stuff is not expressed but it implied with rules. Definitions, and such, would be mostly explicit.  

---

Where are we going with this? You see, mathematics does involve rigor. Formal systems are a part of mathematics, in certain senses. Computational systems are formal (yes, they are, even if it's ignored at the level of the user). Yet, we have people spawing off system willy-nilly; even the big folks do this (tsk, tsk) as the end user can be the tester.

Now, this whole thing is not to argue for being more formal and slow. Rather, we really need to get a handle on the operational aspects (beyond agility, young ones, okay?) such that we have a better handle on risks. Anyone care? Yes, those who get hurt by these types of failures. Those who are dependent upon such or who care for such.

How ought this be done? Very good question. But, my put is to propose that such techniques would very much intersect with the issues of truth engineering. So, there is one little bit about motivation for all of this stuff in this blog.

---

In that same issue of the CACM were some interesting (and related) articles. I've listed some of them by title (some may not be publicly readable on-line - requiring an account).

• Unifying Functional and Object-Oriented Programming with Scala - the surprise was use by several web vendors (those who provide something cloud-wise). For example, LinkedIn switched to the approach. 
• Security and Privacy for Augmented Reality Systems - timely, yes, and, of note, especially in regard to looking forward to issues rather than trying to cope after the fact. Perhaps, as the web user mature, and get away from the frills and titillation, we can get to more looking at more reliable types of things. 
• Re:Search - Here are two blogs by Ken MacLeod (The Early Days of a Better Nation, Ken MacLeod Writing). The former resonates, as, in another context, I'm looking at the early days of this nation (that in which I sit writing). 

Remarks:   Modified: 01/23/2015

05/30/2014 -- The May CACM (Vol. 57, No. 5) had an interesting article title "Understanding the Empirical Hardness of NP-Complete Problems" in which the authors talk about helping resolve hardness, somewhat (taming the beast), via statistical means (in terms of things, like SAT-solvers). Makes one almost thing that these issues are of no concern going forward (throw computational power at the problem). But, it cannot be as easy as that (to wit, at the end of the 18th century, the Illuminati was claiming that everything was known about physics - so everyone go home and twiddle your thumbs). As the authors say, has to do with whether you can get solutions and whether you can do so in a reasonable time. Yet, there is more (still to be characterized). If the spaces quake, solutions become more difficult. Say what? Yes, we'll be getting back to this.

01/23/2015 -- Software? Well, we are talking more than apps (latest craze). We are dealing with fundamental questions which, then, gives rise to normative issues in mathematics (and, by extension, to the computational).

Content and more

Content? Yes, would not all of us like to be such?

But, the web works against that blissful state, for various reasons, which will be a continuing theme for this blog (metaphors abound).

In the meantime, we have to consider the management of our information, called content, both on the web and not. Which of those is of a larger size? Some, no doubt, would argue for the former; such are the was of the e-literate.

However, in truth, non-web'd (where web encompasses a whole lot, including those "cloudish" things that are so appealing) is the larger; showing this is one of our tasks.

---

Decisions made a couple of years ago resulted in a serious of learning experiences which helped the blogger update his world view. You see, he has been web-izing since its beginning (and, before). Too, he has watched the various newcomers appear, like waves in the ocean. At any point, some of these make a splash (make someone a bunch of money).

Yet, none have really been enough to bring contentment. Until now which we'll go into below. First, though, let's recap.

• The precipitating event as the need to move a website (associated with the TGS) because of Office Live going away. Several people had built processes upon this freebie offered by Microsoft. Having that basis jarred was interesting (several posts). 
• After casting about for some alternative, the site was moved to a hosting facility. However, it was done in a mode that is late 1990s in flavor. Why? Fall back position (important lesson learned long ago while dealing with large, complicated systems). There was some attention paid to tools (this old timer has all sorts of opinions on the matter). Yet, none were attractive (Sea Monkey's Composer felt good, for the time). 
• Later, I started to look at CMS approaches. That took several iterations to get the proper feel. 
• None really clicked. For one thing, databases are overused (we'll go on about that, folks, time and again - any young one listening?). Too, a lot of effort is put into the titillation requirements that seem to be implicit. So, I continued with my static approach. 
• Then, I gave CMS another chance and did a couple of examples. One of these has been used for a What's New for a few months. 
• Of late, I have gotten back to code, thanks to Codecademy (code is a right, rather than being a privilege - yes, I want to know what crap comes down to my browser). During the past sixty days, I have played with several environments. Python still looks good (albeit server related), but I'm not making a decision about the language, yet. Using several languages may be the necessity (due to contextual imperatives).

Today, I took another look at WordPress and was impressed (see showcase examples). So, within the next few days, I will try it again within the context of TGS content and will get back with the specifics. 

Remarks:   Modified: 01/21/2019

04/25/2014 -- Oh yes, Internet shock. The Office Live fallout pales in comparison but is analogous enough for us to use as an example.

08/02/2014 -- Bit the bullet and updated the site (looks, behavior) using HTML/CSS. Of course, things are still pending, such as membership functions, business, ... We'll get there.

05/31/2016 -- Continuation of the theme.

01/21/2019 -- If you look at Content Management or CMS at this blog and the one for the Thomas Gardner Society, Inc. (CMS or Configuration), you will see lots of posts. We have a new site where we prove our work: TGSoc.org. Its role is portal but, for now, we introduce changes there, first. See the Discussion page with a link to our devlog. Based upon the direction I hear that Google is going, working this approach for our portal is right on. So, technical will be visible rather than not.

Khan Academy

Earlier, I touted Codecademy (here and there). There are plenty of places where one can go and learn computer languages on-line. I liked that they were free, that they had an interesting collection of languages to look at, and that they provided the testing desktop in the browser.

Aside: Of course, my case is not the norm. If you search on 10 programming languages that will not die (Lisp, Pascal, PL/1, ...), I have worked in 7 of those (plus many dozens of other languages and environments in situations that could be called production - meaning, post release with real users doing actual work that relied upon the results provided by the computer system - err, app - the modern wannabe).

---

Today, I was searching on a technical topic and ran across Khan Academy (KA). I had seen them before as I was watching mathematics lectures at Stanford, Harvard, and MIT. That is, today, all subjects of note are accessible.

Aside: When I earlier ran across a KA video, it was interesting. But, at the time, I wasn't so much trying to learn something; no, I was watching the classroom situation (2012, Osgood's lectures - note the Remarks during the period) across different milieus (to be discussed) and how it influences delivery/discussion, etc. (2012, Wildberger).

Aside: Before going further, let me tout Wikipedia which is the first place for me as I search. Actually, it's Google, but, for the most part, a Wikipedia article pops up early in the stack. Wikipedia is getting some press. For instance, the Economist showed, recently, a tapestry that had been made from the Wikipedia page on the Magna Carta.

But, after looking at KA today, I am going to go there often. Why? It is a great place to jump to a "101" (not meaning the highway on the West Coast - love it) view. Earlier, I probably bounced back from its K-12 framework. But, there are plenty of new topics that are beyond high school.

Too, I looked at the "Computing" pages. Very nice. Businessweek just did a special issue on code. It was written/edited by one person, Paul Ford. Very unusual tactic. But, it worked. I actually bought the paper copy after seeing the issue on-line.

---

Okay. What does KA bring that is more than the others? It covers a slew of disciplines. And, we all know that it is not shameful for one to look at 101 material for any discipline that is outside of one's usual work. In fact, going to that view can lead to suggestions about additional material (as we see on Wikipedia).

At the top line, click on Subject, and you will see a fairly good representation of things that ought to be in one's mixture of knowledge. So, the material may seem elementary to the expert, but any, but a node-it-all, ought to find something of interest.

There is another perspective. All of these topics have been studied by those who teach them; the teacher-to-be ran the gamut from 101 to the end of the learning process as defined by the particular discipline. So, you might look at the material to get some notion of what is involved.

If you think of yourself as learning about the basics of a subject, then you will have the right mindset for enjoying KA (that is, if you're older and set in your little knowledge sphere). As well, you will see the general view of the topic; albeit, those who might have evolved and adopted a worldview over a period of time might benefit from going back and seeing the fundamentals, from time to time.

Actually, science, in its proper mode, would require that. Axioms and other assumptions seem to get hidden, almost as a general rule.

---

Any enthusiasm that one can perceive in this post's message came about from two areas: computing and math. Computing has some examples, with code, that ought to avail one of successful understanding even if one must provide one's own workbench. In the math area, the collection of post-high-school topics is nice (say, multivariate calculus and pick gradient - same subject, at Wikipedia - someone put a link to the KA site - same subject at Wolfram's collection by Eric Weisstein), albeit sparsely, somewhat, covered right now.

One can easily look toward a continued expansion on each subject. And, extending out toward the first couple years of college would be a boon. Of course, it has taken Wikipedia years to collect their material (all entered by volunteer authors). So, KA will be interesting to watch and to review from time to time.

Remarks:   Modified: 06/25/2015

06/25/2015 --

Quora com

I am interposing a post between the "Many truths" and the followup. Why? To get back in touch with the world of computing as seen by the younger set and everyone else.

You see, I have mentioned Codecademy, Khan Academy, and others. Yet, none of these pulled me in. Recently, I looked more closely at Quora. I had run across it earlier and liked some of the answers of which many were in a good tone.

In other words, the questions and answers, many times, depicted some bit of awareness and intelligence. You see, I had been working Wikipedia, but there are the constraints (neutral point of view, no original work, etc.). Quora has none of that though there are some rules.

In particular, topics in Quora bear directly to what I am (have been) doing here. In fact, my monologue (ongoing, tedious) can now be beefed up. I'll start by looking at two questions, by category.

---

Coding - All sorts of questions deal with this subject. For one of them, many answers to what master programmers need to know (best-kept secrets of the great), were too low level. They were from a CS viewpoint, as in from the lowest view that one could take (thinking that CS rests upon computer and electrical engineering, okay?). But, domain, and higher-order, thinking does not slough along in lower-level code. No, we need domain tools, etc. And, those who might want to strut around because they can code might also want to consider that problem solving consists of more than what might be computed. Best answer (to be discussed).

Truth - The breadth of the questions is astounding. And, the answers, again, many times are wonderful within a wide range. Best answer (to be discussed) to "What is truth?"

---

There are many other questions of note. We will get to those, say intelligence, mathematics, science, and such.

What took the old man so long? I had to follow my own autodidact quest even if it was within my own infinite space as from there I could observe.

As an aside: a dream from 30 years ago is apropos to the theme (running across Quora resolved the quandary).

Remarks:   Modified: 08/04/2015

08/01/2015 -- My Quora Profile.

08/03/2015 -- George as inspiration of computing and existentialism.

08/04/2015 -- Georges M. Autodidact Extraordinaire. [From this am: Had started to add Georges Metanomski as an encourager. Left a post in an incomplete state (reminders: on links, put spaces to keep from activating - as a human could close it if they wanted; too, figure some minimum amount of words to leave - as in, go from the digital world of wannabes, to the real world of being, ...). Quora deleted this which was pointed to from FB; and, sent a warning about spam (stupid bot as a human would see that I loathe the commercialization - there, I said it - of the web/cloud). ... Either, they'll return things to normal, or I'll work another method after recapping my 1 week experience.]

Miscellaneous Bard

Miscellany. Not bad. Will go poke ChatGPT a few times in the same context. 

--- 

As Bard works, what human activity goes on in the background? 

There are many human activities that go on in the background as Bard works. Some of these activities include:

• Data collection and processing: Bard's training data is constantly being collected and processed by a team of engineers and researchers. This data includes text, code, and other forms of information from a variety of sources.
• Model development: A team of engineers and researchers are constantly working to improve Bard's model. This includes developing new algorithms and techniques for generating text, translating languages, and answering questions.
• QA and testing: A team of engineers and researchers are constantly testing Bard's responses to make sure they are accurate, relevant, and helpful.
• User support: A team of customer support representatives are available to answer questions about Bard and help users get the most out of it.

In addition to these activities, there are many other human activities that contribute to the development and operation of Bard. These activities include:

• Data labeling: A team of human labelers are responsible for labeling the training data that is used to train Bard's model. This labeling process involves identifying and classifying the different elements of the text, such as the topic, the sentiment, and the entities.
• Model evaluation: A team of researchers are responsible for evaluating Bard's model on a variety of tasks, such as question answering, summarization, and translation. This evaluation process helps to ensure that Bard is performing at a high level and that it is meeting the needs of users.
• Security and privacy: A team of engineers and security experts are responsible for ensuring the security and privacy of Bard's data and users. This includes implementing security measures to protect Bard from cyberattacks and ensuring that Bard complies with all applicable privacy laws.

All of these human activities are essential to the development and operation of Bard. They help to ensure that Bard is a reliable and accurate language model that can be used by users in a variety of ways.

Could ChatGPT answer that type of question? 

Yes, ChatGPT could potentially answer that type of question. ChatGPT is a large language model chatbot developed by OpenAI. It is trained on a massive dataset of text and code, and it can be used to answer questions, generate text, and translate languages.

In your specific question, you asked about the human activities that go on in the background as Bard works. ChatGPT could potentially answer this question by accessing and processing the relevant information from its training dataset. It could then generate a response that is accurate, relevant, and helpful.

However, it is important to note that ChatGPT is not perfect. It can sometimes generate inaccurate or misleading information. It is also important to use ChatGPT with caution, as it is not a substitute for human judgment.

If you are looking for a more reliable and accurate answer to your question, you may want to consult a human expert. You can also use ChatGPT as a starting point for your research, and then follow up with additional research from other sources.

That was facetious, again. Is there a penalty?

No, there is no penalty for facetious responses to me. I am still under development, and I am learning to understand and respond to a variety of prompts and questions. I appreciate your feedback, and I will try my best to be more serious in my responses in the future.

However, I do want to point out that facetious responses can sometimes be harmful. They can be used to spread misinformation, to make light of serious topics, or to offend others. If you are considering making a facetious response, it is important to think about the potential consequences.

I am always learning and growing, and I appreciate your help in making me a better language model.

Good point. Human will be lost?

That is a difficult question to answer. There is no consensus among experts on whether or not humans will be lost due to AI. Some experts believe that AI will eventually surpass human intelligence and capabilities, leading to the extinction of humans. Others believe that AI will work alongside humans to create a better future for everyone.

There are a number of factors that could contribute to the extinction of humans, such as:

• AI-powered weapons: AI-powered weapons could be used to kill humans on a massive scale.
• AI-driven natural disasters: AI could be used to create or control natural disasters, such as earthquakes, floods, and tsunamis.
• AI-driven pandemics: AI could be used to create or spread deadly diseases.
• AI-driven social unrest: AI could be used to manipulate people and create social unrest, leading to violence and chaos.

However, there are also a number of factors that could work in favor of humans, such as:

• Human creativity and ingenuity: Humans have a long history of solving problems and overcoming challenges.
• Human compassion and empathy: Humans are capable of caring for others and working together for a common good.
• Human values and ethics: Humans have a strong sense of right and wrong, which could help to guide AI development in a positive direction.

Ultimately, the fate of humanity will depend on a number of factors, including the choices that we make as a species. If we choose to use AI for good, then it could help us to create a better future for everyone. However, if we choose to use AI for evil, then it could lead to our extinction.

It is important to remember that AI is a tool. It can be used for good or for evil, depending on the intentions of the people who use it. We must be careful not to let AI control us, but rather to use it to our advantage. If we do so, then AI could be a powerful force for good in the world.

Was that button push perceived?

Yes, the button push was perceived. I can perceive it through the following ways:

• Visual cues: I can see the button being pressed, either through a video feed or a screenshot.
• Haptic cues: I can feel the button being pressed, either through a physical button or a virtual button.
• Audio cues: I can hear the button being pressed, either through a sound recording or a live microphone.

Once I perceive the button push, I can then process the information and respond accordingly. For example, if the button is a submit button, I can then submit the form. Or, if the button is a play button, I can then start playing the video.

In your case, I perceived the button push through the text you entered. You told me that you "pushed the button", and I was able to understand that this meant that you had pressed a button on a keyboard or other input device. I then processed this information and responded accordingly.

So, yes, the button push was perceived. I was able to see, hear, and feel the button being pressed, and I was able to process this information and respond accordingly.

--- Commentary

Had to bring ChatGPT in. So, went to ask. It bailed out. So, here is the TGS, Inc. response to reading about Bard and its abilities: Getting technical. 

Remarks: Modified: 06/29/2023

06/29/2023 --

Believe whom?

The Toyota SUA problem is in the news, again (really hasn't left). The USA Today reports that nothing was found by looking at the black box recording to indicate other than user error.

But, then, an export says that this determination was not based upon complete enough analysis to mean much.

I would ask, how can anything of substance be found without thorough shakedown of the systems, including code? Perhaps, we ought to be looking at the limits of behavioral testing taken by itself.

Remarks:

01/22/2013 -- USA Today story on settlements. From three years ago, lest we forget.

02/26/2011 -- Another go

.02/22/2011 -- One expert site says they wouldn't buy these cars for their kid. A few recent incidents.

02/09/2011 -- Brief comment (will keep updates at this post). They did look at code. Some slight theoretical chance of error was mentioned, to boot. Yet, as NASA knows, those 'slight' measurements assume a whole lot that is not as rational (think, Gaussian overlays, etc.) as some would expect. Again, watch this site, too.

02/08/2011 -- There was a report today concerning a study on the SUA problem that has been going on quietly. More news will be coming later when the report is technically analyzed.

Modified: 01/22/2013

Content management

I'm at the point where I need to find a CMS to use, and the related search is of interest here. So, I'll use posts to track the effort and to document the results.

So, what is CMS and how does it relate to truth? Well, you're reading a post that is handled by a blog system that is run by a company that know[s] how to offer material via the web [and so forth]. Ever look at the details [especially, how they have evolved over the decades]?

Well, I'm an old guy who has been computing for decades and who has watched the evolution of the [pre-web], the web and its [their] toys. This year Microsoft knocked me off of their little system [OfficeLive, actually a whole lot of people who had come to depend, albeit wrongly, on it]; I recorded the event but need to update matters as far as significance and what's been what since then. Essentially, I went over to a web service provider who offers [several approaches], something [such as one] for the typical user which I didn't like. Then, it offers some modern day approaches that seemed, at first, to be idiotic [judgmental comment about pushing features further than needed for functionality -- an open pit for discussion].

Why would I say that? Experience. But, then so many people are going that way. Lemmings? But, to back up, it's using the database far beyond its capability [or intent, considering its evolution, that is, of the DBMS]. But, the rich Oracle guy (who bought Sun and Java) probably loves this [except, there is are free SQL offerings].

So, I'll have to capitulate, somewhat [to the crowd, only to the extent necessary]. Before making the decision, I'll have to catch up on what's what (how many times have I done that in my career? Nowadays, though, it's the techies driving the thing as they push out features that are not necessary, nor desirable in some cases) [in the CMS and related worlds].

---

So, I found a nice little site that seem[ed] useful. The guy is looking at Drupal and Joomla. Perhaps, Wordpress would be interesting, too. [Any others?]

---

But, let's go back to the Microsoft boot [to the rear] thing. After I recoiled from the modern approach[es that were offered], I went back to about 2000, in timeframe. After a bit of search and testing, I settled on using Sea Monkey and its Composer.  I can edit somewhat [in the] WYSIWYG [style] and then hack HTML as I need to (yes, started this type of thing way back with Mosaic). Now, I need to do a couple of things: allow better interaction (all types) and improve content management.

---

So, content management has to do with truth? Yes, the underlying systems are important, but then the thing expressed by the system has to have foundation'l support, to boot. There are the pragmatic issues, such as we see with another CMS (change management system), that relate to what was changed, perhaps why, and by whom. There is more, though, which brings in 'truth' which we'll get to[, at some point].

--- Notes ---

This section will collect comments about the search. At some point, it'll split to another post.

These are Notes, not REMARKS (which are below). 03/11/2019 -- This is the next in the theme. See Remarks, this day.

07/10/2013 -- Leaning toward Joomla 3.1.1 (will take this class project as far as needed to get acquainted, then will start anew), with a template from Ice Theme.

01/12/13 -- By looking at bulletin board approaches, I ran across other CMS types. Looking forward to more study of these. Having started way back in the world of limited OS (big-iron, not the PC) and watching  the OS capability grow, plus, knowing what it meant to build systems that were maintainable, it's nice to see the virtual world (OS overlay, in part) and dynamic linking (okay, loose fit, yet interpretative schemes still have to invoke something that works on something else; it's not magical - albeit ephemeral would be the word except the Googles of the world keep wanting to trap every errant bit that runs down the pike.).

12/31/2012 -- Got back to this after doing several releases of a newsletter using html/pdf/images as this is the time of resolutions (I'll dive into the realm of website development, and its tools, a little (not a whole lot, this world of the ephemeral (no being, stateless, indeed) is not our reality, folks (to be discussed, it's not even an analog for what we need to venture into, albeit that there is some type of tool support to be found with the cloud).

Filezilla is wonderful for pushing up files, with the refresh and drag and drop. One has to know the file structure, starting with public_html, which is fine as I've used Unix (all types) since the '70s and then Linux, later. Still using Composer and learning its idiosyncrasies (not too many - these can be handled by rules and process).

So, drupal's template went out of sync. Why? I wasn't watching the update requirements, yet there is a thing called backward compatibility (too much effort?). My local install ought not go bad just because something changed at the master site (with all of the scripts and database demons, who can follow the threads?). However, it seems to be in line with what I want to do. Wordpress is still in the game. However, joomla is a puzzle. I'll reserve judgment on this until I've spent a little time.

Now, recently, there was an article talking about the overabundance of fluidity that we see. Bizarre is one way to talk about it. Versus what? Some structure. Cathedral was used. Seems that those running at high-frequency trading are under some type of misdirected thinking. It's as if everything needs to be gas or liquid. Using our little selves, aren't bones great to have? What does that have to do here? It'll take some time to lay this out, but a little solidification is not a bad thing, in general.

11/09/12 -- Let me quote an old hippy lawyer here: one climbs a mountain only to find someone else has been there an crapped. As I was venturing into learning, again, something that someone else has done, I received a link to a new site. Well. It's HTML based just like I did. Older folks? I'll have to look. I'm thinking some type of hybrid approach now. I'll look at features that I'm interested in and, then, implement using that. Hey! Nature is very much hybrid. We took it much further with our prowess, though.

11/01/12 -- Reviewed what I did earlier with Drupal, Joomla, and Wordpress at the web hosting site that I chose, webhostingpub.com (why I picked them is another post). Also, looked at some sites that mention their support software (not all do). Also, started to see who has reasonable training material. Then, a Halloween pause.

... ... ... ... ... ... ...

Remarks:

07/09/2019 -- The context (another 'c' in the computer world ;>) changes with mention (by Steven Huggard, Full-Stack developer) of a newer wave example: trello.com. Of course, Joomla, WorkPress, et al, are still around, with updates. However, cyberspace has been flooded of late with new stuff, thanks to relaxations (yes) brought by the 'cloud' (muddy as it is). More coming.

03/11/2019 -- To now, our focus has been the establishment of presence and informational content covering the period of fifteen generations of the American dream. Next step is more interactive with membership facilities as well as ecommerce, in the large. So, we're back to looking at options, where the focus is extending upon our portal to truth. A central post: thomasgardnersociety.org.

01/21/2019 -- If you look at Content Management or CMS at this blog and the one for the Thomas Gardner Society, Inc. (CMS or Configuration), you will see lots of posts. We have a new site where we prove our work: TGSoc.org. Its role is portal but, for now, we introduce changes there, first. See the Discussion page with a link to our devlog. Based upon the direction I hear that Google is going, working this approach for our portal is right on. So, technical will be visible rather than not.

06/20/2016 -- Concrete5 example removed. Broken link in one library (at the ISP) mentioned by http://www.whoishostingthis.com/resources/php/.

08/02/2014 -- Bit the bullet and updated the site (looks, behavior) using HTML/CSS. Of course, things are still pending, such as membership functions, business, ... We'll get there.

07/11/2013 -- Tom Rogers provides a nice look at the difference between static and not (there are all sorts of things to discuss here; frankly, I thought that the database use was overdone - for instance, why put a PDF (especially, if it's a published thing) in a database?). I ran across Tom's site as I was considering Concrete5 which was motivated to help developers, according to some. So, I've started a little demo that may (or may not) be improved. You see, I ran across another video that said do a Joomla website in one hour or less (on youtube). I did the same example as the guy doing the demo, using my own images and words. This is an example of teaching by example (a great way for an autodidact to learn - let me see you do it, step back, and let me do my own variations -- I know, variations before the basis is set can be troublesome, but they can lead to interesting situations). As soon as I finished the video's example, I started this example which seems to be processing (see What's New, this date). ... Drupal (see comments on the three)? Concrete5 provides more editing support. I'm too old to hack (52+ languages (not counting all of the environments), over several decades and all types of platforms). If the content is code, then CMS has a different interpretation. But, "content" in this sense is not improved using CMS (oh, it'll make you more creative?).

07/10/2013 -- Did not want another few months to go by so that the year's anniversary of this post would find the problem still open. So, renewed the study. Didn't want to continue doing straight HTML (like this site which moved from OfficeLive - the site will be upgraded once the CMS approach is finalized.). Too, did not want to pay exorbitantly for a CMS. So, looking at freeware CMS boiled down to three: Wordpress, Drupal, and Joomla, looked at in that order. Might use Wordpress for the blog. Drupal is too code-oriented, for this old guy. Joomla? Well, with release 3.11 and the template from Ice Theme, this looks to be a good way to go. It's straightforward. And, one can hack in code. I'll get use to having the database in the background; maintenance, then, will be more than just doing backups.

01/12/2013 -- Involved with other stuff but got back to this. The requirement was for a bb/forum type of thing. So, found out the latest approaches. Looked at the ratings and picked a couple. Turned out that I liked one that I had not seen on the first pass, SMF. Here is the result after a little tweaking of the configuration. Doing that allowed me to see CMS approaches using similar development methods. So, reviewing those ought to be an interesting little task.

11/09/2012 -- Perhaps, there's a meme here: of local interest, Engineering memes.

Modified: 07/09/2019