Git Diagramming "the Weave"

> Four minutes of the weave was about all I could handle

I wouldn't want to torture the author by force-exposing him more to Trump's inanities. That's already 5x longer than I can stand before the urge to tear my ears off becomes unmanageable.

To be representative, the models need a stronger bias towards what the last person they talked to said was the truth rather than what was in their training data.

> For the presidency, the current benchmark to beat is GPT2 it seems.

You're generous. I would've gone with Eliza, but on second thought that's an insult to Joseph Weizenbaum.

I should really add some enumeration protection to these image sharing urls haha

Also not on Firefox: https://imgur.com/a/fkaQeIp

A mobile screen is not wide enough anyway!

I had a professor in a math heavy subject that just started throwing out maths on the blackboard to derrive formula after formula.

It could take 20 minutes until we reach the conclusion, at which point he finally explains what the purpose of the final formula is and why we want it.

I got the habit of reading his book in reverse before the lectures; reading section by section in reverse order from the end. This way the mathematical calculations had a clear goal and were faar easier to follow.

... brilliant maths, but he was fully and utterly incompetent at teaching it. And he had a bit of an ego about how many students fail each year because "they're lazy".

Me and a few friends did deep recaps to de-tangle the explanations using his book, rephrasing it in a easier and shorter format; and he accused us of cheating because our scores deviated from the normal distribution.

All this to say; sometimes clever doesn't correlate well to great with words.... though dont take that as a endorsement of trump.

This reminds a lot of a post here on HN. Someone described a very different way some people talk to each other. If someone else was else was listening in, no sentence and it's response from the other person would seem related at all. But to them that communication is very coherent.

Trying to search that post.

Edit: in the discussion there was a link to a do a YouTube video where to movie characters were playing word badminton with each other.

Edit: this clip https://youtu.be/swqfFHLck1o

When it all merges, the payoff feels great. I'm a big fan of when it's used in comedy - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Callback_(comedy)

A sibling and me constructed a con-lang, and we tried reverse polish order where you say the terms before the connectives.

It failed badly. While it's easy to construct sentences that way, it puts immense cognitive load on the receiver. Probably because you don't have any structure in which to put all these terms thrown at you, we reasoned, so we reversed the order to get structure (connectives) first, followed by the terms.

It wasn't better. Turns out, receiving a structure with a bunch of holes to be filled later also results in high cognitive load.

Why? My guess is that the cognitive load mainly comes from the number of unfinished structural connections. To minimize that, you need to transmit a tree in such a way that the terms come as close as possible to the connective. In other words, not bottom or top first, but "side first".

I believe this is why infix notation is so popular. While you parse "A and B" or "X + Y" you never have more than one open connection. When you parse "(+ X Y)" you have two open connections after reading the "+". Five levels deep that begins to matter a lot.

I like the purist lispy idea of operation-first expressions, but I struggle to make my mind actually work like that. If you like clojure-type threading macros, consider that they do something similar to infix notation: they reduce the number of open structural connections during parsing.

My mother-in-law is also a master of 'the weave'. When my wife and I visit she uses it to inform us about every possible happening of gossip and 'important events' . She just needs a key word and then she uses the chance to get all the information out in one stream of thought. (One problem is that she speaks in dialect and also assumes some deep knowledge about my wife's family relations). I often have thought of trying to map the branching. I often assumed that my wife could follow but I found out that everyone seems happy, without any deeper exchange of information.

I talk like this and not sure why. I thought about it a lot over the years and figured that I for some reason need to have a, well, reason to tell a story. And so I tell it not as just a context free snapshot, but a bit more detail to it. And sometimes that resonates with people well, especially when it's something funny, but a lot of times it's too much to ask, especially these days when everyone has a short attention span. Which is fair, I'm the one doing the talking, listening is definitely more challenging.

It's hard to graph the semantics of a set of arbitrary human statements. It's even harder to work with literal, even intentional non sense.

Humans can indeed make sense. Not to be too Swiftian, but in some countries, children even go to school for it.

For semantic analysis, however, git is just not the right tool. It's a chronological graph that affords diffs. For code.

We need Python NLP and spacy here. But even the best tooling won't get far. A compiler would abort nonsequential logic and unsatisfied contracts and grammar.

An important business presentation would have structure and facts. Inside the theoretical classroom, a public speech is different from casual, random remarks. Unless the speech is intended for entertainment (e.g. comedy, theatre) or some dark usage, such as propaganda.

From TFA:

> the cyclical pattern of his speeches, little snippets of “the best words” and talking points assembled like a ransom note cut from a magazine

That's gold!

works perfectly on my firefox

Can git handle recursion?