I don't think I ever need even ten, but I inevitably end up with 30+ spread across two browsers because I just don't close. Then I close all in CTRL+W rage* and rely on history + memory to find anything I'd like to return to.
*Thanks for your post. It reminded me to go into firefox and unset "Open previous windows and tabs," which I accidentally turned on and has ruined my ability to rage X out of firefox everytime I have too many tabs.
Do you know if there is any particular advantage of Influx over Prometheus for IOT stuff? I also have noticed that Influx is way more popular in that space, but I don’t know whether the reasons are technical or just social (more tutorials, more shared experience, etc).
> If people cared for quality they'd be reading Tolstoy, Hemingway and the like, not listicles and Lee Child
All of these works are in wide circulation, with thousands or perhaps millions of readers each year. But which works do you think will have the most readers 100 years from now?
But good pay and benefits can be taken at any time in a right-to-work state. And the pay is not consistent or transparent to quote adjectives from that section.
This is an interesting place for this to come from, since bandcamp has really been a model for fairness in how artists can distribute their work and get paid. And it was sadly recently bought by Epic Games. I know nothing about Epic, but I know the game industry is far from the paragon of fair labor or fair content distribution. I wish them luck.
I don’t really understand “juncture”, but money flows in the music and tech industries is changing, so it is nice if the people that produce the work make sure a good amount of money flows to them.
I actually thought about this company recently, because slack, zoom, Google suite, and all the other work apps perform so badly on my linux machine. Even with an i9 I get occasional full utilization. I thought I might just embrace the meme and outsource my browser. I only use chrome for work anyway. Too bad, Mighty, it is possible a similar business might work some day to centralize corporate work environments.
> Targeted sanctions have historically been shown to work.
Do you mind providing an example or two, with a sentence about how they “worked?” I ask because I can’t think of any sanction that had any result besides further impoverishing the people while the leader stayed in power.
But I am a layman and I would be happy to be proven wrong.
>If that prose is written in a code that is only meant to be comprehensible to sociologists and postmodernists, I don't see the sense in publishing it (as in, making it public).
I mean, it was a doctoral dissertation, written exclusively for an audience of Literature PhDs[1]. Other times, these papers are published in specialized journals. Without publishing, how else would they disseminate their research?
And even if it's not for me, I'm always happy for open access to research. So I'm happy whenever postmodern thinkers make their work available to the public, in the same way I am when thinkers of abstract mathematics do. I personally will probably not be looking in either work, though :-).
[1] Cardoza-Kane, Karen M, "Trauma's palimpsests: The narrative cycles of Louise Erdrich and Richard Rodriguez" (2005). Doctoral Dissertations Available from Proquest. AAI3193887.
Why not respond to my long comment in this thread, where I defend this abstract? Your sentence---"It's intensely obscurantist"---is forceful-sounding but it has no argument.
I also cannot say whether this paper is deliberately obscure, because I am not a literature professor and I don't know who the audience is. But, I tried to give some arguments for why the abstract looks reasonable. Are you a literature professor?
I'll try to answer. I absolutely don't think this look cherry-picked. In fact I think it looks like a reasonable humanities abstract! Note that I am far from a specialist in literature, but I do love to read.
First of all, although it uses some precise vocabulary, this abstract does not seem to have the particular blandness of much academic writing (I definitely agree that poor writing is often easy to find in all branches of academy). One little proxy to look at is the overuse of nominalization (i.e. using a noun form where a verb form could work). And not all nominalization is bad. The word "nominalization" is actually self-describing.
For example, perhaps we could "clean" this passage (my quote is a fragment of a participle phrase at the end of a sentence)
>... , their thematic and formal interconnections enacting both the repetitions of trauma and the necessary revisions of historiography, identity, and recovery.
into a new independent clause:
> They formally and thematically interconnect, repeating and necessarily revising how one presents history,self-identifies, and recovers.
But this "fix" might blur the original meaning in critical ways. For example, who now is this "one" being spoken of? That seemed to me to be the best option, over the worse pronouns "you" and "we" (which would be speaking for someone else). The original phrases avoid this entity identification, focusing instead on the general action.
I also removed enact, but what if these texts really do "enact" a revision? This "creation upon creation" of the an action seems in-line with the concept of a palimpsest, which is a repurposed book (I'll speak more on the palimpsest after I dissect my awful revision). Then, I completely butchered the last concepts. To present history is only one aspect of the general practice of historiography. Revising an identity is not the same as self-identifying (and, again, who is this self?). To recover matches with the action of recovery more closely, but using the verb would destroy the sentence's parallelism. Hopefully, this example demonstrates the great difficulty of using precise language with heavy, complex concepts.
On to the subject itself, using the word "palimpsest" doesn't seem obscure. Perhaps the author's central thesis is that the works that she studies have repurposed old texts or old memories of trauma again and again. This seems like a suitable metaphor. Or, maybe palimpsest has a special technical meaning in her body of scholarship.
And the abstract does carefully lay out the scholarly tradition that the paper follows, going chapter by chapter. Readers familiar with the works she mentions will probably be happy for this guided summary. Readers not familiar, like me for almost all the names, may not even be part of the intended audience.
Lastly it seems like she uses two different authors to explore her own scholarly interests in trauma, gender, sexuality, and self. These seem like great things to study, and very complex indeed.
Even if these themes were not on the minds of the authors who are the subject of this paper, these authors nevertheless do live in the world, and their work necessarily incorporates fragments of inherited thought (like how you and I speak English, whose development we had nothing to do with). Maybe this paper finds some unexpected connections.
> that it makes me wonder if the people into this stuff simply have nervous systems that are wired a bit differently
I don't know anything about nervous systems.
But in these kind of works, there are not any exact answers. You cannot say `gcc gender-paper.c` and find out if it compiles. Instead, these ideas have to be written about and discussed against a wider body of thought. And there's probably some element of judgement and metaphor required to think this way. And the ideas in these works in fact do slowly disseminate and affect society.
That's my spiel. I typed it up because I see these kind of comments often, and I wanted to put a good response on record.
----
I also don't believe there is zero obscurantism in the humanities, by the way. Shitty research happens everywhere. But, every time the humanities gets slammed as being particularly soft, it seems like the reader forgets all the articles on the front page about falsified scientific results, unreproducible research, political machinations to get tenure, outright grift, etc.
> generally its the philosophers that are presumptuous enough to tell other fields what they should do or think
I'm sorry but in my experience, this is not at all a one-way street. It is very common for me to hear engineers and other STEM-types to complain about modern art or about the supposedly obscurantist, sophistic style of various disciplines of the liberal arts. However, these complaints rarely come from Engineers who take an active interest in the fields they criticize.
Admittedly I'm mainly speaking about general people I work with or whom I (sadly often) encounter on the internet. But there are some eminent names who are just as guilty. In addition to Kaku, as bakuninsbart mentioned, I could also bring up, off the top of my head, Stephen "philosophy is dead" Hawking and Richard "Shakespeare would have been better if he were educated" Dawkins.
I think I could come up with many more examples if I started looking. On the other hand, we fortunately also have people like Murray Gell-Man, who has gotten us to quote from the most experimental book in all of English-language literature every time we talk about elementary sub-atomic particles.