http://www.edkeyes.org/blog/050728.html
Somewhat ironically, the inventor of the computer mouse, Douglas Engelbart, is still a bit critical of modern graphical user interfaces compared to the fuller vocabulary of, say, the command line. "Here's the language they're proposing: You point to something and grunt," he says.
> In Python I can just move a block around and, if necessary, move it horizontally to the correct level, whereas in bracelang I often have to adjust braces as well, which are outside the moved section and need extra cursor navigation.
Could you clarify; I think adding one/two more line to the block being moved makes this a similar operation.
For that matter, the editor can unambiguously figure out the block and do auto-indentation when braces are present.
cool. Maidenhead seems more structured and easier to add precision by adding pairs of characters, compared to MGRS.
cons: standardised only upto 4 pairs.
yes. In a touchscreen keyboard, the only feedback if your keypress registered is to look at the echo back on the screen.
In a tactile keyboard, the feedback is via tactile sensation of the key being pressed.
True, communicating thoughts vocally is imprecise and slow.
But hearing does have some more parallell-ness in a sense.
A fire alarm is a good interface to alert to a fire.
It is still in the background, and you can talk to someone over it, but you are constantly aware of it.
True that article ignores passengers using only tubes or trains.
But I think the article suggests global congestion may be improved by slowing down certain parts of a system.
Even considering only people using just the tube, the tube station can switch only a finite number of passengers in and out of tubes. If a system has two bottlenecks, improving the narrower bottleneck will result global improvement only until that bottleneck is no longer the narrowest.
It is possible that increasing tube throughput would increase arrival rates at the destination stations.
And if we consider congestion as nonlinear to number of passengers arriving at the station, then this might decrease the throughput at that station (beyond some threshold arrival rate); (I think this transition is similar to a phase change).
That would mean the second bottleneck would effectively becoming slightly narrower in capacity, and thus the global throughput decreases.
The trick would be to improve the narrowest bottleneck; but not too much, that it would cause such phase transitions at other points in the network. At which point, we need to start looking at other bottlenecks.