Seems like it could just be getting at some phonetic encoding, or even raw audio information. The grammatical and vocab transformations could be accounted for by an imperfect decoder.
Lol. IMO the difference between an C and Assembly (as between vacuum tubes and the abacus) is really a difference in power, since it allows the same program to be implemented on different architechtures. It's only fair to start calling things convenience wrappers once you get past C. And often enough, an abstraction aimed at convenience leads to a reduction in expressive power.
The article is presenting a Scheme interpreter running in Scheme, compiled to WASM, not a Scheme compiler, but your idea is also cool. The WASM API apparently doesn't need a pre-made file as its input: you can pass raw bytes generated during runtime into the Module constructor, so it would be totally feasible.
I admit a scenario in which you have to communicate everything that the abstract communicates is kinda contrieved, though it could happen if the article is the main target of your discussion. But in general, pointless paraphrase of other sources is widespread.
>Summarizing another academic work in the context of your own work is a bedrock activity in academic thinking as well as writing.
Summary has its place, but paraphrase is another thing. Quality of paraphrase is defined by surface-level features like vocabulary, grammar, and re-arrangement of sentences, and second-language English education often fails to advance beyond word-by-word substitution. Even when the exercise of paraphrase demonstrates some kind of understanding of the original text on the part of the author, it doesn't necessarily aid the reader.
I'm not trying to deny that tortured phrases may also indicate paper farming and plagiarism btw, just saying that there are other factors.
I think this can result from cases where paraphrase isn't useful but still culturally expected. For example, you often need to introduce the central point of another paper before you can comment on it, and the ideal way to do that would be to insert the whole abstract verbatim, but people look down on that. So, you end up writing a paraphrase as faithful to the original as possible while still being superficially different. If you're good at English, you can paraphrase in a way that flows well and displays your understanding. ESL writers might be at risk of screwing the wording up, not noticing, and getting ridiculed for poor research.
Not a fan of Python, but it isn't too bad pedagogically speaking. JS on the other hand... I hope WASM can one day kill it, leave it obsolete, and have it forcefully deprecated like Flash.
>I think there are almost literally no software systems today that don't have bugs in them.
Programs that have been formally verified with something like Coq can be bug free. Automating formal verification may be a more effective way to solve the trust issue in this domain.
The article makes this sound a bit like a lamer, English version of the Antikythera mechanism. In reality it's just a quadrant, i.e., a portable sundial relying on gravity for alignment, and it's only a decade older than the next oldest specimen.