F
I used to teach at a Steiner school. They have a lot of strange ideas (some are very questionable) but one of their notions is that "mathematics lives in the limbs and fingers" (they were always saying this kind of new-age sounding stuff which I found fascinating and troubling.)
But, I think there may be a drop of truth in this notion. A part of math is a lot like muscle memory, not language based, but kinetic. Beyond words. Or maybe before words.
Same! I always delete the whole word and just "make it again" like doing a bat swing or something. It's hard to break the action of typing a word into parts.
Ah yes. The vaunted "reasons" ...
You'd think. But I do think there is something like a spatial memory involved in solving algebra. A sense of what can and cannot be done, like it's a board game.
Everyone will just love Calculus but in roman numerals. Is that what you're suggesting?
When you are typing, if you touch type, do you think about individual letters at all?
Or are you only actively thinking about the the words? Suddenly really curious about how this skill is even possible at all.
It'd be interesting to ask people to try to draw a keyboard from memory. I think it would be easy to show that frequently expert touch typists *cannot* do this accurately.
Knowing what to do with your hand to find a letter, or sequences of letters isn't the same thing as knowing where each letter is located.
Much like I have many students who have memorized all of the formulas and theorems but cannot use them correctly. There is something to remember about learning in this.
Having numbers on a separate level is such a bad idea if you are typing math in LaTeX. Everyone who said this is "more efficient" is lying.
But, again, this keyboard *is* really really really cute and good looking.
I cleaned my keyboard and accidentally swapped the B and V keycaps.
This has caused me to discover that for writing words I touch type as I have no problem using the board like this... but when I try to copy and paste text? I *do* look at the keys and the swap fools me every time.
Experimental design!
I use a 40% keyboard with three layers at home. I do not know why I bother to do this it's very annoying but the keyboard is so handsome looking...
Maybe this is a sign to move on.
And it's nice to finally have the experience of being impressed by something AI generated. I was starting to wonder if I really did have some bias, or if everyone else was crazy in some way I'd never noticed because I couldn't understand how they could look at the output and go "wow this is just what I wanted"
And this meant that I felt like I was missing some key experience needed to understand how this tech should be used and understood.
If my theory that gen AI will upset people who have a lot of experience with what it's trying to imitate is true, someone who knows a lot about electronic funk music should get sea-sick from listening to this.
Maybe people with lots of experience with the source material, and experience thinking about and analyzing creative works in the category feel themselves being tugged and pulled in subtile different directions and this is what causes the problem.
I'm kind of glad this happened because I've been trying to understand how people aren't more ... disturbed by AI images and text. And I've been going in circles with a few friends who think I'm just prejudiced against computers or something (this is a hilarious theory on multiple levels)
But, with the music? I can't spot these fakes at all. Maybe from the fade outs you mention, but even then. Nice to be on the other side of this for once.
Huh. I don't pay a lot of attention to music. Which is probably an oversight.
Unlike AI text and images this music doesn't give the the nausea feeling. I wonder if it's different for people who study music more.
I thought it was just an electronic ditty with a mood.
But also it's too long and sort of gets boring after a bit. But that happens with music people say is amazing too.
"Rat Detective Boogie" (Exactly what it says on the tin.) (If you look closer, you'll see the tin is a building from a run down part of town, downstairs a jazz club, upstairs the best damn detective agency in town.) #RatDetectiveBoogie This is about to turn into one of those deep conversations about #genAI #ai #LLMS https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4hjX6ZsplU
Sauropods.win (sauropods.win)
Look at her rugulos* integument!
*I've been excited to use this word for a whole year. Now is my chance!
(Photo by Philipp Hoenle for inaturalist https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/250817-Apterostigma/browse_photos )
I've never seen one like that before.
Which one are your reading?
Never fall asleep listening to Mr. Alastair Preston Reynolds' novels. Not only will you be hopelessly lost when you wake up ... but the dreams will be SO STRANGE.
I dreamed my robotics team cloned itself so they could have more drivers. But then the robot came to life and wanted to be cloned too (it was mad) and we had to take it to see a giant squid on Mars who was also my mother for some reason.
*shakes head*
lordy lordy
Ants use their front two legs differently from the back legs. They may use these limbs to dig or hold objects in place when manipulating them with their mandibles. The coxa of the front leg is often longer while all of the other segments are shorter. Ants have a comb on their front legs which they use for grooming—
I don’t think the front legs are used for manipulation in enough ways to have that be their primary purpose but there is a distinction that makes them more like “arms”
In walking limbs, the range of motion and control decreases as you move away from the body. In limbs made for manipulation things are less consistent. The human shoulder is a lot like the coxa in ants, it allows a wide range of movements in multiple dimensions. The elbow only allows one dimension of motion.
Ants have many more joints after that but they are like a stiff chain, no fine control. However, ants can flex their claws and expand and retract their foot pads.