Using unmaintained plugins

Using unmaintained plugins

[Bithov Vinu]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1710 bytes --]

Hi,

I recently began to use Emacs org-drill (see:
https://orgmode.org/worg/org-contrib/org-drill.html) in Emacs which is an
unmaintained Emacs package for scheduling and reviewing flashcards
using a spaced
repetition <https://www.gwern.net/Spaced-repetition> algorithm. There is a
link on the aforementioned URL that goes to another gitlab url which hasn't
been updated in over a year, so I found a legacy version (one of the last
versions written by Paul Sexton, the original author, before it being
handed over to Phil Lord). Phil Lord's version is the currently
unmaintained version on gitlab, I just found the "org-drill" module and
it's requirement (org-learn.el) through some digging. There are some other
plugins that do the same thing as org-drill (pamparam, org-fc come to mind)
but none of these are as slick and efficient (in terms of creating and
reviewing cards) as org-drill.

My question is, is there any concern over using a plugin that is
unmaintained? If it was written in something like C, I could rest assured
that the C standard is not going to change so drastically in the
foreseeable future that I won't be able to compile it, but I'm lost in this
regard with Emacs and Emacs Lisp. Obviously, Emacs isn't going away anytime
soon, but should I have concerns
 that a change in Emacs Lisp cripples org-drill (or any other plugins I
use)? Should I be worried about a dependency of org-drill becoming
unmaintained or losing support in a newer version of Emacs? Org-drill is
pretty much a completed project (it's a flashcard plugin, so security
patches/updates aren't really necessary) because it seems to be a
write-once-and-forget-about-it thing, but I just wanted to be sure.

Thanks,
~~~

[-- Attachment #2: Org drill.zip --]
[-- Type: application/zip, Size: 91825 bytes --]

Re: Using unmaintained plugins

[phillip.lord]

org-drill is erratically maintained I think rather than unmaintained: I 
used it fairly intensely for a period, now I don't need it as much and 
it's rather fallen down my todo list.

Mostly Emacs packages will work for a fairly long time, even without 
maintenance -- some of my packages have not been updated in a decade, 
because they still work. The main issue with org-drill specifically is 
that it depends on org-mode and that does perhaps change a bit more 
frequently.

Some Emacs packages do eventually fade away into the ether and that's 
always a risk. Not sure whether it will happen with org-drill of course. 
No one else has stepped up to take the maintainership and I may or may 
not get around to it.

On 2021-04-18 10:35, Bithov Vinu wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I recently began to use Emacs org-drill (see:
> https://orgmode.org/worg/org-contrib/org-drill.html) in Emacs which is 
> an
> unmaintained Emacs package for scheduling and reviewing flashcards
> using a spaced
> repetition <https://www.gwern.net/Spaced-repetition> algorithm. There 
> is a
> link on the aforementioned URL that goes to another gitlab url which 
> hasn't
> been updated in over a year, so I found a legacy version (one of the 
> last
> versions written by Paul Sexton, the original author, before it being
> handed over to Phil Lord). Phil Lord's version is the currently
> unmaintained version on gitlab, I just found the "org-drill" module and
> it's requirement (org-learn.el) through some digging. There are some 
> other
> plugins that do the same thing as org-drill (pamparam, org-fc come to 
> mind)
> but none of these are as slick and efficient (in terms of creating and
> reviewing cards) as org-drill.
> 
> My question is, is there any concern over using a plugin that is
> unmaintained? If it was written in something like C, I could rest 
> assured
> that the C standard is not going to change so drastically in the
> foreseeable future that I won't be able to compile it, but I'm lost in 
> this
> regard with Emacs and Emacs Lisp. Obviously, Emacs isn't going away 
> anytime
> soon, but should I have concerns
>  that a change in Emacs Lisp cripples org-drill (or any other plugins I
> use)? Should I be worried about a dependency of org-drill becoming
> unmaintained or losing support in a newer version of Emacs? Org-drill 
> is
> pretty much a completed project (it's a flashcard plugin, so security
> patches/updates aren't really necessary) because it seems to be a
> write-once-and-forget-about-it thing, but I just wanted to be sure.
> 
> Thanks,
> ~~~

Re: Using unmaintained plugins

[Joost Kremers]

On Sun, Apr 18 2021, Bithov Vinu wrote:
> My question is, is there any concern over using a plugin that is
> unmaintained? If it was written in something like C, I could rest assured
> that the C standard is not going to change so drastically in the
> foreseeable future that I won't be able to compile it, but I'm lost in this
> regard with Emacs and Emacs Lisp.

Emacs Lisp does change, more so probably than C, but backward compatibility is
always a top priority, so as far as the language itself is concerned, it would
normally take many years before code becomes so stale that it won't compile
anymore.

The bigger concern is the Emacs environment. A package may make assumptions
about the environment it is used in that stop being true at some point. Case in
point, I used to use a plugin for mu4e (an Emacs-based e-mail client) that made
particular assumptions about the way mu4e's main screen was built up. At some
point, the way this was done changed and the plugin stopped working. It still
compiled fine, but it didn't work anymore.

`org-drill` obviously relies on Org mode, which may not be as strict about
backward compatibility as Emacs itself, but its core functionality won't change,
so most Org-based packages should work just fine even if they are a couple of
years old.

But, as you may guess from all the hedging, there are no guarantees.


-- 
Joost Kremers
Life has its moments

Re: Using unmaintained plugins

[Jean Louis]

* Bithov Vinu <bithov.vinub@gmail.com> [2021-04-18 16:15]:
> Hi,
> 
> I recently began to use Emacs org-drill (see:
> https://orgmode.org/worg/org-contrib/org-drill.html) in Emacs which is an
> unmaintained Emacs package for scheduling and reviewing flashcards
> using a spaced
> repetition <https://www.gwern.net/Spaced-repetition> algorithm.

The page explains the classical condition of memorizing it versus
understanding it. People who do not understand what they read will
tend to memorize it as by repetition. By repetition one can memorize
anything, for example parts of foreign language, then can repeat it,
but will not be able to apply it practically neither as it was never
understood in the first place.

Those people who would learn let us say some phrases of foreign
language by understanding each word and full sentences and by applying
words in sentences and in real life, would never forget about it, and
also would not need the feeling to memorize it.

IMHO, the whole concept is upside down, I find it as a useless
disadvise as it brings people into such a wrong direction of
thinking -- which is to memorize things without understanding and
without associations.

Then associations instead of repetitions are used as a learning
method, even then, a person need not have more than just one occurence
of proper association, even for most stupidest things, to memorize the
whole set even for life if necessary. No repetitions necessary.

That is called mnemotechnic. It utilizes the power of association.

We understand things by associations. This is similar to Emacs Lisp
building of functions, as the majority of new function and variable is
related to some previous functions and that is why program works. It
relies on some previous foundation.

Without association some people may say "to memorize it", but I find
it an abuse of mind whereby mind is perfectly capable to understand
things by association, forget about it and remember it at any time in
future.

Example is the word:

The adj mnemonic has 1 sense (no senses from tagged texts)
1. mnemonic, mnemotechnic, mnemotechnical -- (of or relating to or involved the practice of aiding the memory; "mnemonic device")

If person would not know the meaning of "memory" in the above
definition, person would not have the association necessary to
understand what would mnemonic mean. The association would be missing,
and thus full understanding, because there is no association, when
there is a real life need to use the word mnemonic, person would not
be able to associate the memorized definition.

To memorize would mean to remember without understanding. You can
repeat that sentence many times you want, if you don't know the
meaning of "memory" -- and you can repeat it, but you if you don't
know the maning of memory, there is no way that you may really acquire
the understanding versus memorizing.

You have to know also more than meaning of "memory", learner would
need to know meaning of adjective, sense, what means "relating" and
all other words such as "aiding" and similar, so that full association
in proper context may be understood. Even then, person rather should
practice either in one's own mind or by talking that sentence. As for
example, one can learn and understand the sentence in German: "Was
kosten diese Kaiser brötchen?" but if one applies that sentence in
real life in a bakery to ask for price of Emperor's buns, then that
accomplishes realistically full association and helps person
understand it probably forever.

For those things which are harder to memorize such as birthdays,
faces, phone numbers, various labels and similar, those things which
are harder to associate to something, one uses mnemotechnics, such as
on https://artofmemory.com/start/ or
https://examples.yourdictionary.com/examples-of-mnemonics.html yet
even those mnemotechnics share the basic methods of associations.

-- 
Jean

Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns:
https://www.fsf.org/campaigns

Sign an open letter in support of Richard M. Stallman
https://stallmansupport.org/
https://rms-support-letter.github.io/

Re: Using unmaintained plugins

[Marcin Borkowski]

On 2021-04-19, at 00:21, Jean Louis <bugs@gnu.support> wrote:

> * Bithov Vinu <bithov.vinub@gmail.com> [2021-04-18 16:15]:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I recently began to use Emacs org-drill (see:
>> https://orgmode.org/worg/org-contrib/org-drill.html) in Emacs which is an
>> unmaintained Emacs package for scheduling and reviewing flashcards
>> using a spaced
>> repetition <https://www.gwern.net/Spaced-repetition> algorithm.
>
> The page explains the classical condition of memorizing it versus
> understanding it. People who do not understand what they read will
> tend to memorize it as by repetition. By repetition one can memorize
> anything, for example parts of foreign language, then can repeat it,
> but will not be able to apply it practically neither as it was never
> understood in the first place.

I don't really understand why you present it as "memorizing it versus
understanding it".  It is a typical example of false dichotomy.

As a long-time student of mathematics (5 years Masters program, then 4
years of PhD) I can assure you that understanding does not imply
memorizing _at all_.  In fact, I'd consider "understanding" and
"memorizing" two separate and pretty independent goals.

> Those people who would learn let us say some phrases of foreign
> language by understanding each word and full sentences and by applying
> words in sentences and in real life, would never forget about it, and
> also would not need the feeling to memorize it.

How about learning idioms which _by definition_ cannot be "understood"
by means of understanding their constituent parts?  You can either use
a mnemotechnic (a bad idea, since it introduces complexity - it requires
_thinking_ when one has no time or capacity for it (i.e., while speaking
in a foreign language and expressing one's thoughts on something else),
or just "cram" it (using repetition, because how else?).  The same (but
even moreso) goes for actual words, where (from a typical student's
point of view at least) there are no "constituent parts" at all (most
people do not learn etymology while learning a foreign language,
especially as kids).

I find your opinion not only wrong, but even dangerous.  If you
emphasize "learning by understanding" and skip the "tedious memorizing,
maybe even without understanding" part, you run the risk of not having
enough data readily available in your brain (without crutches like
"mnemotechnics") to e.g. find analogies.

An analogy (perhaps not the best one, but insightful, I think).  You can
only learn about more advanced concepts of calculus once you have
memorized the basic concepts of (elementary) algebra like simplifying
expressions, multiplying out brackets or factoring polynomials so well
as to be able to carry them out without actually _thinking_ or
_understanding_ them.  If what you need to do is integrating
a complicated function, you cannot "spend your brain points" on
performing elementary operations.  IOW, you need to memorize certain
rules - not necessarily "without" understanding, but - so to speak -
"beyond" it.

> IMHO, the whole concept is upside down, I find it as a useless
> disadvise as it brings people into such a wrong direction of
> thinking -- which is to memorize things without understanding and
> without associations.

Again, false dichotomy.  IMHO, the right way of learning is: understand
first, then memorize.

> Then associations instead of repetitions are used as a learning
> method, even then, a person need not have more than just one occurence
> of proper association, even for most stupidest things, to memorize the
> whole set even for life if necessary. No repetitions necessary.

I am strongly convinced this is not true.  Memorizing something for
a lifetime after one occurrence is only possible under the assumption
that you don't live long enough to forget it.  (Of course, with
especially strong experiences, the time-to-forget might as well be on
the order of millenia, which - given the lifespan of a human being - may
seem like "forever".)

> That is called mnemotechnic. It utilizes the power of association.
>
> We understand things by associations. This is similar to Emacs Lisp
> building of functions, as the majority of new function and variable is
> related to some previous functions and that is why program works. It
> relies on some previous foundation.
>
> Without association some people may say "to memorize it", but I find
> it an abuse of mind whereby mind is perfectly capable to understand
> things by association, forget about it and remember it at any time in
> future.

Yes, it does work like this for _some_ things (possibly substituting "at
any time in the future" with "at any time in the next several hundred
years" or something similar, as I mentioned above).  For some things,
however (language is the first example that comes to mind - whether it
is a natural but foreign language you learn, a programming language or
the language of algebra), not necessarily.

> Example is the word:
>
> The adj mnemonic has 1 sense (no senses from tagged texts)
> 1. mnemonic, mnemotechnic, mnemotechnical -- (of or relating to or involved the practice of aiding the memory; "mnemonic device")
>
> If person would not know the meaning of "memory" in the above
> definition, person would not have the association necessary to
> understand what would mnemonic mean. The association would be missing,
> and thus full understanding, because there is no association, when
> there is a real life need to use the word mnemonic, person would not
> be able to associate the memorized definition.

I am not sure what you mean by "full" understanding.

Is it enough for you to "fully understand" the word "mnemonic" if you
know what "memory" is?  Or do you need to know that it comes from the
name of Mnemosyne, the Greek goddess of memory, and mother of the nine
muses?  If you only know the former, your understanding is not really
full (as you have demonstrated by your email;-)), since it is only when
you know that the nine muses (according to ancient Greeks) were
responsible for various disciplines of art and science, you may ponder
the crucial role of _memory_ in those disciplines - how it is, in
a sense, a "mother" to them.  Does that mean that _my_ understanding is
full? Not remotely, I think, it only means that most probably it runs
a bit deeper than yours _in this particular aspect_.

Again: many years of studying mathematics taught me not to use the
phrase "full understanding".

Here is an especially striking example I like a lot.  When I first
learned the theorem saying that given a finite set of points in the
plane (under some technical assumption about their abscissae), there
exists exactly one straight line minimizing the sum of squares of their
deviations (along the vertical axis) from that line, I thought
I understood that theorem.  (I was even shown a sketch of the proof.
"Full understanding" - because what else could be the "full
understanding" in maths but seeing the proof - yay!)

A few years later I learned a bit of functional analysis, and it turned
out that this theorem was just a quite basic application of the fact
that in a nonempty, closed and convex subset of a Hilbert space you can
find a unique closest point to any other point of that space.

And just when you think this is your "full understanding", you learn
more about geometry of Banach spaces and it turns out that you don't
really need the inner product - the crucial property is that Hilbert
spaces are uniformly convex Banach spaces.  And I suspect it's not the
end of the story, either...

> To memorize would mean to remember without understanding. You can
> repeat that sentence many times you want, if you don't know the
> meaning of "memory" -- and you can repeat it, but you if you don't
> know the maning of memory, there is no way that you may really acquire
> the understanding versus memorizing.
>
> You have to know also more than meaning of "memory", learner would
> need to know meaning of adjective, sense, what means "relating" and
> all other words such as "aiding" and similar, so that full association
> in proper context may be understood. Even then, person rather should
> practice either in one's own mind or by talking that sentence. As for
> example, one can learn and understand the sentence in German: "Was
> kosten diese Kaiser brötchen?" but if one applies that sentence in
> real life in a bakery to ask for price of Emperor's buns, then that
> accomplishes realistically full association and helps person
> understand it probably forever.
>
> For those things which are harder to memorize such as birthdays,
> faces, phone numbers, various labels and similar, those things which
> are harder to associate to something, one uses mnemotechnics, such as
> on https://artofmemory.com/start/ or
> https://examples.yourdictionary.com/examples-of-mnemonics.html yet
> even those mnemotechnics share the basic methods of associations.

Again: I consider mnemotechnics very useful, but still crutches.  They
are a good tool for when the "memory latency" (the time you need to
retrieve some piece of information from your memory) is not critical.
If it is, they are useless.

Best,

-- 
Marcin Borkowski
http://mbork.pl

Re: Using unmaintained plugins

[Jean Louis]

* Marcin Borkowski <mbork@mbork.pl> [2021-04-19 09:52]:
> As a long-time student of mathematics (5 years Masters program, then 4
> years of PhD) I can assure you that understanding does not imply
> memorizing _at all_.  In fact, I'd consider "understanding" and
> "memorizing" two separate and pretty independent goals.

Not that I said it implies. It is one of many methods on how people
will start to think and in both methods or multiple, they may want to
remember it.

I clearly see how you view understanding and memorizing as two
unconscious or conscious methods of remembering.

Where I lay focus is on practicality, so it does not matter how person
call something rather is important if person has practical method to
remember it.

You have seen mentalists who can remember whole deck of cards? There
are tricks to it, and there are mnemotechnic methods to it. I have
been doing the feat many times.

Remembering for example very unrelated objects on its number is
normally perceived as hard, for example this list:

1. Ball
2. TV set
3. Cup
4. Table
5. Bucket
6. Emacs
7. Spoon
8. Earphones
9. Loudspeakers
10. Blocks
...
up to 20 or 50 or 100.

Now imagine you get the list and you should hear it just one time and
rememember and be able at any time to produce it by using your memory:

- to produce the list from 1 to 100

- to produce the list backwards

- to produce the list randomly by any number like 9 and to tell
  "loudspeakers"

Now one could use the spacing method, but that would be awful compared
to this rather simple feat in the field of mentalism where no tricks
are involved. And method is very simple. Each number like 1, 2, 3 and
up to 100 is related to some associations such as number 1 could be
giraffe head, giraffe doing something, with some object, for example
giraffe carrying ice cube on its head. Number 2 is a swan, as it looks
like a swan, swan that is swimming in the lake carrying on the back
its swan chicks. And so on. Once that is remembered once for life,
then it is very easy to remember objects placed on specific number.

Example would be 1. Ball and 2. TV set, in that case one does silly
imagination such as that giraffe carries large ice cube on its head
where inside one can find a ball, and giraffe wants to win the rugby
game with lions. Swan at number 2. instead of swimming has made a hole
in the TV set and uses it as a boat to come over the lake.

All that one does is that kind of imaginative associations. Imagine
once, forget, and recall at any time as by recalling number 2, one
recalls the swan that had to swim over the lake but this time in a
broken TV set floating on water.

> > Those people who would learn let us say some phrases of foreign
> > language by understanding each word and full sentences and by applying
> > words in sentences and in real life, would never forget about it, and
> > also would not need the feeling to memorize it.
> 
> How about learning idioms which _by definition_ cannot be "understood"
> by means of understanding their constituent parts?

They mostly can as all idioms also have its etymology and
associations. Full dictionaries for every language are number of
tomes, if one uses small dictionary, then maybe cannot find all the
related information.

> You can either use a mnemotechnic (a bad idea, since it introduces
> complexity - it requires _thinking_ when one has no time or capacity
> for it (i.e., while speaking in a foreign language and expressing
> one's thoughts on something else),

Which tells me that you should try it out instead. I did and I have
performed those feats of mind and I recommend it to everybody.

> or just "cram" it (using repetition, because how else?).

Because you don't know it. It is very simple, you can make
associations with the meaning by applying it in your own words. Here
is example:

Idiom is:

4. idiom, idiomatic expression, phrasal idiom, set phrase, phrase --
(an expression whose meanings cannot be inferred from the meanings of
the words that make it up)

From: https://www.thoughtco.com/common-english-idioms-3211646

Idiom: Go the extra mile

Instead of remembering or doing whatever, just first understand its
meaning, what it means, and then construct few sentences and tell it
loud to you or to somebody else. That is how children learn too.

You create a sentence with verb and various other related pieces
something like: "I had to go extra mile and to fetch Info page to
explain the Emacs Lisp function to Joe." -- then you create another
sentence and another one, and once you are sure you know how to apply
it practically, at that moment you may forget about it
completely. Time will come, and you will be able to apply it
practically in real world.

> The same (but even moreso) goes for actual words, where (from a
> typical student's point of view at least) there are no "constituent
> parts" at all (most people do not learn etymology while learning a
> foreign language, especially as kids).

Well that is lack of educational methods if you ask me

> I find your opinion not only wrong, but even dangerous.

Yes, maybe somebody will read and die or otherwise get spikes from the
sky. /irony/

> If you emphasize "learning by understanding" and skip the "tedious
> memorizing, maybe even without understanding" part, you run the risk
> of not having enough data readily available in your brain (without
> crutches like "mnemotechnics") to e.g. find analogies.

That is true but only true within boundaries of that specific person,
not within my personal boundaries, but my skills are nothing as
compared to Harry Lorayne. Recommended reading:
https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/memory-book-harry-lorayne/1101889940

Everybody can improve memory drastically:
https://www.harrylorayne.com/

And let me say that in school and in education, the mnemotechnics may
be useful only when we have to remember birth dates, some years
related to whatever events, in other words those pieces of information
that have no practical use, and such usage would be minimized. For
anything else there are methods to understand everything and start
applying it in real world so that things get properly realistically
related to each other where person learns at once, can put focus on
many other things, but can recall it any time later.

> An analogy (perhaps not the best one, but insightful, I think).  You can
> only learn about more advanced concepts of calculus once you have
> memorized the basic concepts of (elementary) algebra like simplifying
> expressions, multiplying out brackets or factoring polynomials so well
> as to be able to carry them out without actually _thinking_ or
> _understanding_ them.  If what you need to do is integrating
> a complicated function, you cannot "spend your brain points" on
> performing elementary operations.  IOW, you need to memorize certain
> rules - not necessarily "without" understanding, but - so to speak -
> "beyond" it.

You know it better from experience as mathematician, thanks for
explaining it.

> > IMHO, the whole concept is upside down, I find it as a useless
> > disadvise as it brings people into such a wrong direction of
> > thinking -- which is to memorize things without understanding and
> > without associations.
> 
> Again, false dichotomy.  IMHO, the right way of learning is: understand
> first, then memorize.

What is false is vague. In that comment of yours, if false or not, is
to me not important, but I am not sure what you mean with
"memorize". I was referring to memorize in the context of just
remembering it without understanding or associating it to
anything. That is "learn by heart" or "commit to memory". I think that
is right.

But then you say the right way of learning is to understand first then
memorize, however, I think you were thinking to understand first and
then remember. Which is not same.

As remembering and understanding are akin but not same to memorizing.

Memorizing would be to let us say commit all phone numbers of our
family into our memory. Or to commit a written song in the memory and
to recall it any time later. Because of scarce associations
remembering such things isn't easy.

That is where Harry Lorayne's methods come for remedy. Instead of
memorizing plane numbers, there would be for each number some funny or
imaginary picture as I have previously explained and they would be all
associated into a story for specific number related to specific
person. By recalling the person one would recall the number easily,
and this may remain so forever, for life time.

As side note, we did memorize numbers back in time, as children and
teenagers even without using any mnemotechnics, it was very common to
memorize numbers at the time when we did not have smart phones, we
could recall numbers of our neighbors and friends and family. Every
person knew at least 5-10 numbers by heart.

> > Then associations instead of repetitions are used as a learning
> > method, even then, a person need not have more than just one occurence
> > of proper association, even for most stupidest things, to memorize the
> > whole set even for life if necessary. No repetitions necessary.
> 
> I am strongly convinced this is not true.  Memorizing something for
> a lifetime after one occurrence is only possible under the assumption
> that you don't live long enough to forget it.  (Of course, with
> especially strong experiences, the time-to-forget might as well be on
> the order of millenia, which - given the lifespan of a human being - may
> seem like "forever".)

You may be convinced. It does not matter. There is much knowledge yet
that you may acquire and learn. If you wish contact me privately and I
will send you the PDF books on those methods.

> Memorizing something for a lifetime after one occurrence is only
> possible under the assumption that you don't live long enough to
> forget it.

For my viewpoint, as knowing how some mnemotechnic methods work, that
statement is funny, it is clear that you have not try it out. As I
said, I will send you few books, just contact privately.

> > If person would not know the meaning of "memory" in the above
> > definition, person would not have the association necessary to
> > understand what would mnemonic mean. The association would be missing,
> > and thus full understanding, because there is no association, when
> > there is a real life need to use the word mnemonic, person would not
> > be able to associate the memorized definition.
> 
> I am not sure what you mean by "full" understanding.
> 
> Is it enough for you to "fully understand" the word "mnemonic" if you
> know what "memory" is?  Or do you need to know that it comes from the
> name of Mnemosyne, the Greek goddess of memory, and mother of the nine
> muses?

Yes, that would be full understanding, to know where it comes from
should be included in definitions. 

> Again: many years of studying mathematics taught me not to use the
> phrase "full understanding".

Mathematics comes often as difficult subject to many, because if the
lack of associations but also lack of discussion or interpretation of
symbols. Would schools and universities emphasise its meaning it would
help students so much.

The proof that you have got a full understanding of something is that
you can practically apply it. Not that you can have a feeling that you
understand it. If person cannot then make whatever mathematical
formula and cannot demonstrate it practically, that is the final test.

Practical demonstration is proof that person has got full understanding.

-- 
Jean

Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns:
https://www.fsf.org/campaigns

Sign an open letter in support of Richard M. Stallman
https://stallmansupport.org/
https://rms-support-letter.github.io/

Re: Using unmaintained plugins

[Bithov Vinu]

Thanks for your input. I think I'll keep using org-drill (and hopefully
learn emacs lisp over the years) rather than moving to another spaced
repetition application. Since I collected Paul Sexton's org-drill and
org-learn.el, there have only been trivial changes, which I have been able
to fix (for example, org-drill depends on *cl*, which I was informed by
Emacs was deprecated, so I used cl-libify
<https://github.com/purcell/cl-libify> to convert the org-drill.el source
to not use *cl*). I can at least hope that changes to Emacs/Org-mode don't
cripple it any more than I know how to fix. Having said that, I'll be sure
to use it with caution and learn Emacs Lisp and org-mode programming. On
that note, does anyone have any resources for learning org-mode
programming? Emacs Lisp guides are abundant, but I'm not sure how to
learn org-mode programming.

The ongoing discussion about the spacing effect and memory seem
interesting. I'm leaning towards Mr Borkowski's view; I've been reading
memory science and around the forgetting curve in general as a hobby for a
good few years and his arguments seem fairly sound. I partly understand
Jean Louis' point, but a lot of the points made about mnemotechniques have
been addressed by Dr Piotr Wozniak (see here
<https://www.supermemo.com/en/archives1990-2015/english/company/wozniak> for
credentials) pretty extensively here
<https://www.supermemo.com/en/archives1990-2015/articles/myths>.

The point that mnemotechniques can be used solely as a panacea for memory
is directly debunked in that article; many of the courses that claim to
give the audience "infinite memory" and are self-described "mentalists" are
often snake-oil salesman and shills. Jean's point that you ought not to use
spaced repetition, because it relies on rote memorization rather than
understanding, isn't sound in that:
a) no-one versed in the field of spaced repetition and the forgetting curve
is advocating substituting understanding for rote memorization through
spaced repetition
b) in fact, Piotr Wozniak (the first researcher to implement a spaced
repetition algorithm on a computer) argues that formulation of knowledge is
hugely important in using spaced repetition, as summarised here
<https://www.supermemo.com/en/archives1990-2015/articles/20rules>. The
first rule of "formulating knowledge" is "do not learn (ie. memorise using
spaced repetition) what you do not understand (ie. what you haven't learned
in the traditional sense of the word)".

I could debunk each point that Jean made, but the field of spaced
repetition is incredibly well documented (mostly by Piotr Wozniak, see his
sites here <https://www.supermemo.com/en/blog> and here
<https://www.supermemo.guru>) so going through each point would be a waste
of time. I would highly recommend that you read SupermemoGuru in
particular, that site is rich in its writing.

More generally, the forgetting curve is found everywhere in nature, and
attempting to circumvent it using mnemonics is completely futile
<https://supermemo.guru/wiki/Mnemonic_anchor>. In fact, the rate of
forgetting is explained by Zipf's Law
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zipf's_law>, which is fantastically
explained in a video by Vsauce <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCn8zs912OE>.
*All *memory is subject to the forgetting curve, perhaps forgetting can be
delayed through the use of mnemonics, but ultimately, permastore is a myth
<https://supermemo.guru/wiki/Permastore>.

I've linked a lot to Piotr Wozniak's writings, so I'd advise that anyone
reading it check out the references page
<https://supermemo.guru/wiki/References> so that they can verify his
claims, and to ensure that Piotr Wozniak
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piotr_Wo%C5%BAniak_(researcher)> is actually
a legitimate researcher.

There have been some dubious claims made by Piotr, but, all in all,
supermemo.guru seems to be a legitimate site. Org-drill uses SM-2 and SM-5
officially and an experimental SM-8 algorithm, SM in this case standing for
Supermemo (the product in which Piotr implemented his spaced repetition
algorithms). SM-0 was the first one, SM-2 and SM-5 succeeded it. Up to
SM-5, the algorithm was peer reviewed (you can find them and his other
research papers here <https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Piotr-Wozniak>)
but after this, the newer algorithms were not published and instead the
algorithms (the latest is SM-18) became a trade secret. You can read about
the history of the supermemo algorithm here
<https://supermemo.guru/wiki/History_of_SuperMemo_algorithm>.

There's a fantastic article by Wired that explains in great detail the
spacing effect, I'd advise you all read it. It's linked here
<https://www.wired.com/2008/04/ff-wozniak/>.

Re: Using unmaintained plugins

[Bithov Vinu]

An addendum: a quick scan of org-drill reveals that all it uses (from org
at least) is the functionality to search for headers with a certain tag
(:drill: in its case) and some other core functionality (it doesn't use any
hot-out-of-the-oven org features) so I think I can rest assured that unless
there's a major refactoring of all of org, I need to worry.

On Mon, 19 Apr 2021, 09:12 Bithov Vinu, <bithov.vinub@gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks for your input. I think I'll keep using org-drill (and hopefully
> learn emacs lisp over the years) rather than moving to another spaced
> repetition application. Since I collected Paul Sexton's org-drill and
> org-learn.el, there have only been trivial changes, which I have been able
> to fix (for example, org-drill depends on *cl*, which I was informed by
> Emacs was deprecated, so I used cl-libify
> <https://github.com/purcell/cl-libify> to convert the org-drill.el source
> to not use *cl*). I can at least hope that changes to Emacs/Org-mode
> don't cripple it any more than I know how to fix. Having said that, I'll be
> sure to use it with caution and learn Emacs Lisp and org-mode programming.
> On that note, does anyone have any resources for learning org-mode
> programming? Emacs Lisp guides are abundant, but I'm not sure how to
> learn org-mode programming.
>
> The ongoing discussion about the spacing effect and memory seem
> interesting. I'm leaning towards Mr Borkowski's view; I've been reading
> memory science and around the forgetting curve in general as a hobby for a
> good few years and his arguments seem fairly sound. I partly understand
> Jean Louis' point, but a lot of the points made about mnemotechniques have
> been addressed by Dr Piotr Wozniak (see here
> <https://www.supermemo.com/en/archives1990-2015/english/company/wozniak> for
> credentials) pretty extensively here
> <https://www.supermemo.com/en/archives1990-2015/articles/myths>.
>
> The point that mnemotechniques can be used solely as a panacea for memory
> is directly debunked in that article; many of the courses that claim to
> give the audience "infinite memory" and are self-described "mentalists" are
> often snake-oil salesman and shills. Jean's point that you ought not to use
> spaced repetition, because it relies on rote memorization rather than
> understanding, isn't sound in that:
> a) no-one versed in the field of spaced repetition and the forgetting
> curve is advocating substituting understanding for rote memorization
> through spaced repetition
> b) in fact, Piotr Wozniak (the first researcher to implement a spaced
> repetition algorithm on a computer) argues that formulation of knowledge is
> hugely important in using spaced repetition, as summarised here
> <https://www.supermemo.com/en/archives1990-2015/articles/20rules>. The
> first rule of "formulating knowledge" is "do not learn (ie. memorise using
> spaced repetition) what you do not understand (ie. what you haven't learned
> in the traditional sense of the word)".
>
> I could debunk each point that Jean made, but the field of spaced
> repetition is incredibly well documented (mostly by Piotr Wozniak, see his
> sites here <https://www.supermemo.com/en/blog> and here
> <https://www.supermemo.guru>) so going through each point would be a
> waste of time. I would highly recommend that you read SupermemoGuru in
> particular, that site is rich in its writing.
>
> More generally, the forgetting curve is found everywhere in nature, and
> attempting to circumvent it using mnemonics is completely futile
> <https://supermemo.guru/wiki/Mnemonic_anchor>. In fact, the rate of
> forgetting is explained by Zipf's Law
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zipf's_law>, which is fantastically
> explained in a video by Vsauce
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCn8zs912OE>. *All *memory is subject to
> the forgetting curve, perhaps forgetting can be delayed through the use of
> mnemonics, but ultimately, permastore is a myth
> <https://supermemo.guru/wiki/Permastore>.
>
> I've linked a lot to Piotr Wozniak's writings, so I'd advise that anyone
> reading it check out the references page
> <https://supermemo.guru/wiki/References> so that they can verify his
> claims, and to ensure that Piotr Wozniak
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piotr_Wo%C5%BAniak_(researcher)> is
> actually a legitimate researcher.
>
> There have been some dubious claims made by Piotr, but, all in all,
> supermemo.guru seems to be a legitimate site. Org-drill uses SM-2 and SM-5
> officially and an experimental SM-8 algorithm, SM in this case standing for
> Supermemo (the product in which Piotr implemented his spaced repetition
> algorithms). SM-0 was the first one, SM-2 and SM-5 succeeded it. Up to
> SM-5, the algorithm was peer reviewed (you can find them and his other
> research papers here <https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Piotr-Wozniak>)
> but after this, the newer algorithms were not published and instead the
> algorithms (the latest is SM-18) became a trade secret. You can read about
> the history of the supermemo algorithm here
> <https://supermemo.guru/wiki/History_of_SuperMemo_algorithm>.
>
> There's a fantastic article by Wired that explains in great detail the
> spacing effect, I'd advise you all read it. It's linked here
> <https://www.wired.com/2008/04/ff-wozniak/>.
>
>
>

Re: Using unmaintained plugins

[Jean Louis]

* Bithov Vinu <bithov.vinub@gmail.com> [2021-04-19 11:12]:
> been addressed by Dr Piotr Wozniak (see here
> <https://www.supermemo.com/en/archives1990-2015/english/company/wozniak> for
> credentials) pretty extensively here
> <https://www.supermemo.com/en/archives1990-2015/articles/myths>.
> 
> The point that mnemotechniques can be used solely as a panacea for memory
> is directly debunked in that article;

What I see on that website is that somebody is selling a competing
service. That service itself is mnemonic, but it provides a statement
like "Myth: other mnemonics are not good enough".

I don't need any special mnemonic to see there a conflict of interest.

Things are not "debunked" just because somebody says it is kind of "myth".

> many of the courses that claim to give the audience "infinite
> memory" and are self-described "mentalists" are often snake-oil
> salesman and shills.

I don't think you have a good example for that, saying so, does not
make it so. I gave on this list one of best references to Harry
Lorayne's books, and there are many others. Of course you are free to
make conclusions without research and looking into. But I am sad for
that as I have given you very proper recommendation.

The Memory Book is written by Harry Lorayne and Jerry Lucas, 1974,
Library of Congress Catalog Number: 73-90705, it helps in memorizing
long words, appointments, errands, shopping lists, speeches, foreign
and English vocabulary, names and faces, long-digit numbers, style
numbers, prices, telephone numbers, playing cards, anniversaries,
historical dates, stock market, politics, arts, music, and you name
it. By understanding the methods one can develop a method for just
about anything. In this book there is nothing impractical, all methods
are very practical and many people use it.

> Jean's point that you ought not to use spaced repetition, because it
> relies on rote memorization rather than understanding, isn't sound

Yes, that is the point, unless you know more about mnemonics and
spaced repetition is one of mnemonics, you better research the subject
as you may run into waste of time.

That a program exist for spaced repetiton is fine and good, but it is
not the only method of memorizing things, I consider it poor as it
does not work by what? Associations. That is one important chapter in
the above mentioned book "2. In the first place: Associations" where
it says "All memory, whether trained or untrained, is based on
association".

Spaced repetition creates in the mind subtle associations sooner or
later but that somehow goes by force. Repeat until repetition becomes
association itself.

To remember is action. If you "forget" it most probably means you
never really remembered. We do not teach new generations "how to
remember", we just tell them plain "remember this or that" -- but that
does not make it and they "forget" -- because they never remembered in
the first place.

> in that: a) no-one versed in the field of spaced repetition and the
> forgetting curve is advocating substituting understanding for rote
> memorization through spaced repetition

So what? Maybe they are group or class of people who never discovered
well known existing techniques.

Many people don't use spaced repetition, that similarly does not mean
that mnemonics under that name is nothing useful.

> b) in fact, Piotr Wozniak (the first researcher to implement a
> spaced repetition algorithm on a computer) argues that formulation
> of knowledge is hugely important in using spaced repetition, as
> summarised here
> <https://www.supermemo.com/en/archives1990-2015/articles/20rules>. The
> first rule of "formulating knowledge" is "do not learn (ie. memorise
> using spaced repetition) what you do not understand (ie. what you
> haven't learned in the traditional sense of the word)".

It is somehow defeating itself. To memorize means to learn by
heart. Word is rather used in the context where there is not so much
to understand, for example some numbers or verses, let us say whole
Bible. "To learn" is used in the context where person can understand
things.

One principle presented there is "Do not learn if you do not
understand" which I totally agree to.

> I could debunk each point that Jean made, but the field of spaced

Ha, wow, you must be expert, great. /irony/ Just how to debunk
something that you have never tried?

> repetition is incredibly well documented (mostly by Piotr Wozniak, see his
> sites here <https://www.supermemo.com/en/blog> and here
> <https://www.supermemo.guru>) so going through each point would be a waste
> of time. I would highly recommend that you read SupermemoGuru in
> particular, that site is rich in its writing.

It may be well documented, Author has interest to promote it why not,
and you are free to buy it.

If you know just A among all of the alphabet, it does not mean that
alphabet does not exist, once you learn the alphabet you may also
learn there are many other different alphabets. There is knowledge
behind the knowledge. People tend to have in their mind some kind of
"perfect set of knowledge" and many like to stop exploring as it is
better to focus on that what one knows and is used to, similarly like
people arguing which programming language is better or sticking to one
language for long time. 

> More generally, the forgetting curve is found everywhere in nature, and
> attempting to circumvent it using mnemonics is completely futile
> <https://supermemo.guru/wiki/Mnemonic_anchor>.

That is what you say and Supermemo.guru, not what Harry would say. I
also don't see that personally, I could and can at any time, remember
more and more from my childhood if I wish, as I know how to find those
apparently lost memories. Majority of people don't know, I know. So I
do not know what I am really forgetting, but those things which I did
not remember in the first place.

-- 
Jean

Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns:
https://www.fsf.org/campaigns

Sign an open letter in support of Richard M. Stallman
https://stallmansupport.org/
https://rms-support-letter.github.io/

Re: Using unmaintained plugins

[Bithov Vinu]

I will most certainly look into the book you referred - as soon as I
get through my current backlog :)

I'm not certain that you understand what the Supermemo method is. It
lies on the following principles:
1) memory decays at a predictable, rapid rate
2) review reduces the rate of forgetting
3) review at too early or late a time results in excess repetitions or
forgetting of knowledge respectively

(Those axioms aren't entirely true; when digging into the research you
find that frequent, early repetition negatively impacts the rate of
forgetting later on, but for the sake of argument, we'll ignore this)

The Supermemo algorithm is simply a mathematical method of attempting
to calculate the optimum interval for review, from the most crude and
simple SM-0 to SM-2 (used in Anki/Mnemosyne) to SM-5 (org-drill) to
SM-18, the latest iteration.
It isn't a mnemonic in any sense of the word - I hope that you can
explain how you understand the Supermemo method to be like a mnemonic.

You are most certainly right that the articles I linked may be biased
- of course, the latest iterations of Supermemo are pieces of
proprietary non-free software, and, ultimately, Piotr Wozniak's
motives will always be to sell you the software that he wrote and
invested his time into. There are definitely some snake-oil-like stuff
on supermemo.guru, but a lot of the claims Dr Wozniak makes in
reference to memory and forgetting are scientifically sound (for proof
of this, I'd advise you read the Gwern article I originally linked;
Gwern Branwen is an independent researcher and his article is richly
referenced and makes conclusions based plenty of peer reviewed
research).

I can't say I've done an extensive review of Harry Lorayne's work, but
from the bits that I've seen, I'm skeptical. I'm immediately
distrustful of someone for unbiased information if their occupation is
professional magician, even more so when he has written books with
titles as sensational and frankly nonsensical as "How to develop a
Super Power Memory", "Harry Lorayne's Secrets of Mind Power", "Memory
makes money" and, my personal favourite, "How to get rich using the
power of your mind". Now, I might be overly skeptical, but I generally
disregard sensationalised books written by someone with seemingly no
credentials whatsoever in favour of huge bodies of peer-reviewed
evidence.

You are most certainly right that associations underlie all memory -
the 20 rules of formulating knowledge relies on this fact. I think you
may have misunderstood the article; what Dr Wozniak means by "do not
memorise what you do not understand", he means, do not repeat using
the Supermemo method, what hasn't already been put into memory through
traditional means.

Mnemonics are definitely useful - I don't think I've ever argued that
they aren't, instead, what I'm arguing is that they aren't a panacea
to an indestructible memory.

I'd also like to dismiss this understanding of my points being
exclusive to me and supermemo.guru - they're not, these are well
documented theories and evidence-based conclusions.

Re: Using unmaintained plugins

[Jean Louis]

* Bithov Vinu <bithov.vinub@gmail.com> [2021-04-19 23:17]:
> I will most certainly look into the book you referred - as soon as I
> get through my current backlog :)

I am glad, just contact me privately I will dispatch the PDF>

> I'm not certain that you understand what the Supermemo method is. It
> lies on the following principles:
> 1) memory decays at a predictable, rapid rate
> 2) review reduces the rate of forgetting
> 3) review at too early or late a time results in excess repetitions or
> forgetting of knowledge respectively

I cannot find myself in none of those subjects. My memory never
decays. Please note that scientists have never proven where is human
memory stored, so if this cannot be proven scientifically they also
cannot prove that it decays. If you don't know where is something it
is hard to say that something is not any more there. There are many
reasons why memory can be blocked, one of reasons is trauma, drugs,
accidents, and so on, but memore is always there just may not be
easily accessible. When problems or obstacles are solved then memory
may be accessed. Today my memory is better than before few years,
better than before a decade or few decades.

Some of abusive scientists researched which parts of brain have to be
destroyed for memory not to be accessible, but that kind of research
does not prove where is memory, it only proves that when some human
parts are destroyed it is hard to access it. According to
calculations, there is not enough space in human body to store the
memory we record. It is similar to CPU and memory, if one destroys the
keyboard already or monitor, memory cannot be accessed, but chip remains
somewhere in existence.

Especially me, who is one of them:
https://html.duckduckgo.com/html/?q=children+who+remember+past+lives

cannot easily just say that "memory decays".

> (Those axioms aren't entirely true; when digging into the research you
> find that frequent, early repetition negatively impacts the rate of
> forgetting later on, but for the sake of argument, we'll ignore
> this)

Repetitions methods I have been using as a child as I was in the
environment where nobody knew better, neither my parents or
grandparents neither teachers. Then I got the a sexy coach to teach me
polynomials. Boy, I was getting it right! She explained me so that I
understand it in all details. Professor of mathematics did not believe
me when I got each of the tests perfect. I have even taken those most
hardest polynomials from a friend in the subsequent grade so I knew
already which tests will come and got myself well prepared. For
professor it was phenomena he never have seen before. But since then,
I have not been using repetition, I used methods to understand first
each and every part of whatever miniscule or large subject of
learning, especially I put attention to clarify all words by using
dictionary. 

> The Supermemo algorithm is simply a mathematical method of attempting
> to calculate the optimum interval for review, from the most crude and
> simple SM-0 to SM-2 (used in Anki/Mnemosyne) to SM-5 (org-drill) to
> SM-18, the latest iteration.
> It isn't a mnemonic in any sense of the word - I hope that you can
> explain how you understand the Supermemo method to be like a
> mnemonic.

Definiton of mnemotechnics or mnemonics (synonyms) is that it is
technique of improving the memory, reference:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mnemonics#medicalDictionary

and Wordnet:

1. mnemonic, mnemotechnic, mnemotechnical -- (of or relating to or
involved the practice of aiding the memory;

To say how your system, which improves your memory is not mnemonics
only to "debunk" other systems comes from a conflict of interest, but
any system helping the memory is mnemonics nevertheless.

> You are most certainly right that the articles I linked may be
> biased

They appear biased, I do not say that their method do not work. People
have various methods selling this and that, they don't like
competition.

There are those who truly like to help, no matter what, so they will
rather give more independent analysis. 

> - of course, the latest iterations of Supermemo are pieces of
> proprietary non-free software, and, ultimately, Piotr Wozniak's
> motives will always be to sell you the software that he wrote and
> invested his time into.

Well now it explains it all.

> There are definitely some snake-oil-like stuff on supermemo.guru,

I would say, as I already know you a little and how you will be in
rush to say so, don't say so, until you have exchanged opinions with
those who have tried it out.

Person's specific experience may be failure, but somebody else may be
using it right, often I would need to see what is wrong in my
application of a method and maybe I am doing something wrong. Once you
and few other people have tried it out, and also tried other methods,
then you could say that particular one does not work.

> but a lot of the claims Dr Wozniak makes in reference to memory and
> forgetting are scientifically sound (for proof of this, I'd advise
> you read the Gwern article I originally linked; Gwern Branwen is an
> independent researcher and his article is richly referenced and
> makes conclusions based plenty of peer reviewed research).

Harry and many other people who mastered memory in such way to
demonstrate it to public are proof that things remembered in first
place need not "decay". I don't know why is it important to state
so. My grandmother told me it is impossible to remember what I was
doing before my fifth year, but I remember the taste of my toes when I
was biting them as baby and my mother's nipples including the taste of
milk. And so many thing I can remember what my mother doesn't, and she
was adult back then. Then I met so many other people who remember
better then me.

It is very hard to believe there is some "scientific proof" of memory
decay. I will not tend to believe things when they are rather of
authoritarian character. 

> I can't say I've done an extensive review of Harry Lorayne's work, but
> from the bits that I've seen, I'm skeptical. I'm immediately
> distrustful of someone for unbiased information if their occupation is
> professional magician, even more so when he has written books with
> titles as sensational and frankly nonsensical as "How to develop a
> Super Power Memory", "Harry Lorayne's Secrets of Mind Power", "Memory
> makes money" and, my personal favourite, "How to get rich using the
> power of your mind". Now, I might be overly skeptical, but I generally
> disregard sensationalised books written by someone with seemingly no
> credentials whatsoever in favour of huge bodies of peer-reviewed
> evidence.

I think I have all of those books, just tell me. Well... can't help
more than that. Harry's titles are not exaggerated. He is one of many
who is eloquent and who made the methods closer to the public, but
those are not new, they are ancient methods. There is nothing in those
books that is impractical, like some vague practices that may not give
you personal win. Each single method explained as soon as you learn it
and do it, is giving you personal wins and you can do what you could
not before.

By the way I remember daughter of my friend in Messina, Sicily in
Italy, we have let some of children movies play and she could speak
the movie speech in real time with all words correctly spoken in the
movie with proper time spacing between them, even without watching the
video while having turned her back to the movie, and she could do it
with other 30+ videos by choice. He father and my friend and mother,
did not regard it as something special, as they could not compare it
to many other children. She developed method in her mind to remember
what is spoken in the movie while watching it, and with few
repetitions over the time she remembered whole of the speech in the
movie.

> Mnemonics are definitely useful - I don't think I've ever argued that
> they aren't, instead, what I'm arguing is that they aren't a panacea
> to an indestructible memory.

I never heard of destructible memory, but I know there is
not-accessible human memory, in many examples of amnesia, trauma,
accidents, problems in life, that is what happens and then again there
are methods to regain it back.

Another important factor is importance of application. Memory as such
may be there, but unimportant to recall it. IMHO, the urge to apply
piece of remembered information automatically recalls it. Let us say
subject of verification of stones, in geology, when geologist has
rocks on the table and proper tools, it will be easy to check it out,
but maybe after years of not doing the job, due to lack of practical
importance, those methods may not be easily accessible from
memory. Then again put that same person in front of the rocks with
same tools, person will start recalling.

Personally, I have some artistic models that I have been making each
time with my hands, and I feel that memory is there as soon as I would
take the same tools in my hand. People call it muscle memory, I would
rather say it is practice memory, practical application plus
importance recalls the memory.

Typing is one example, when person knows how to type, typing is blind,
no looking into keys. It is muscle memory, but I would rather say
practice memory. I can type the word "memory" but if somebody would
ask me to say where exactly the key "e" is located I would need to
think longer than what I would need to type. As I did not practice to
find single letters, I have practiced to type words.

While I can type on the whole keyboard blindly, including the ghost
keys from other international keyboards, I would have some problems to
reconstruct the whole keyboard from mind.

If practice decays, recalling will apparently, not really,
decay. Memory is stored somewhere, when practice comes back, recalling
becomes automatic.

-- 
Jean

Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns:
https://www.fsf.org/campaigns

Sign an open letter in support of Richard M. Stallman
https://stallmansupport.org/
https://rms-support-letter.github.io/

Re: Using unmaintained plugins

[Bithov Vinu]

On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 09:35:06AM +0300, Jean Louis wrote:
> I cannot find myself in none of those subjects. My memory never
> decays. Please note that scientists have never proven where is human
> memory stored, so if this cannot be proven scientifically they also
> cannot prove that it decays. If you don't know where is something it
> is hard to say that something is not any more there. There are many
> reasons why memory can be blocked, one of reasons is trauma, drugs,
> accidents, and so on, but memore is always there just may not be
> easily accessible. When problems or obstacles are solved then memory
> may be accessed. Today my memory is better than before few years,
> better than before a decade or few decades.

This argument seems reductive at best - we are yet to know where
in the brain conciousness derives, or even if it is in the brain
at all rather than in a "soul" of some sort - yet the majority of
people agree that conciousness, as it is commonly understood, exists.

We (and by we I mean humanity as a collective) know the precise probabilities
that a subatomic particle (or wave??) is in a certain state.
We have no idea why it is that way, but we most certainly now it is.

> Some of abusive scientists researched which parts of brain have to be
> destroyed for memory not to be accessible, but that kind of research
> does not prove where is memory, it only proves that when some human
> parts are destroyed it is hard to access it.

There have most certainly been unethical and morally corrupt
experiments in the field of
psychology in the past (the Stanford Prison experiment and the Milgram
experiments come
to mind) but that does not mean that the results of these experiments
are incorrect. Of
course, the aformentioned experiments had methodological experiments, but still,
an unethical experiment may yield valid, repeatable results, even if it's means
and motives are hateful.

> According to calculations, there is not enough space in human body to store the
> memory we record. It is similar to CPU and memory, if one destroys the
> keyboard already or monitor, memory cannot be accessed, but chip remains
> somewhere in existence.

I'm not a particular fan of analogies of humans to computers; I don't think they
do justice to the complexity and the beauty of every organism on
earth, especially
primates capable of higher level thinking.

> Especially me, who is one of them:
> https://html.duckduckgo.com/html/?q=children+who+remember+past+lives
>
> cannot easily just say that "memory decays".

I'm immediately skeptical of this claim - I have trouble believing that
you are able to remember your past lives - not just because there
is no research whatsoever that shows any evidence that the concept of past
lives exists. Regardless, this delves into the ideas of the supernatural,
which by its very nature cannot be explained through empirical research,
and more importantly, isn't the topic of interest on this mailing list
(though arguably nothing about this email chain, besides the occasional
mention of org-drill, makes it seem like it fits here). I can't rebutt
your point on this, not because there isn't valid rationalistic
reason to, but because it is entirely outside of the realm of science and
logic. At best I can bring up Occam's razor (from Wikipedia):

Occam's razor, Ockham's razor, Ocham's razor (Latin: novacula Occami),
or the principle of parsimony or law of parsimony (Latin: lex parsimoniae)
is the problem-solving principle that "entities should not be
multiplied without necessity"
or more simply, the simplest explanation is usually the right one.

...but I can't argue against your belief that you can "remember past lives"
any more than this.

> Repetitions methods I have been using as a child as I was in the
> environment where nobody knew better, neither my parents or
> grandparents neither teachers.

I think this might be me being overly cynical, but I'd generally lean
to being distrustworthy of
someone who claims to have unearthed (ancient?) knowledge and wisdom
in relation to memory,
that even the most advanced and experimental of neuroscience hasn't
hypothesised.

> Then I got the a sexy coach to teach me polynomials. Boy, I was getting it right!
> She explained me so that I understand it in all details.

I really, really don't like how you phrased this. I can't find
any official GNU mailing list etiquette rules that aren't
in relation to formatting emails, but I feel like describing
your coach as first and foremost "sexy" is gross
and undignified. Again, this is personal preference, there
is seemingly nothing in the GNU etiquette to prevent this
(though I may certainly be wrong, I haven't done more than
quickly skim the rules).

> Professor of mathematics did not believe
> me when I got each of the tests perfect. I have even taken those most
> hardest polynomials from a friend in the subsequent grade so I knew
> already which tests will come and got myself well prepared. For
> professor it was phenomena he never have seen before. But since then,
> I have not been using repetition, I used methods to understand first
> each and every part of whatever miniscule or large subject of
> learning, especially I put attention to clarify all words by using
> dictionary.

I'm glad it has worked for you. This doesn't mean, however, that
the knowledge you reaped is valuable for everyone, as you seem to
be pushing it. The body of evidence surrounding spaced repetition, however,
is, and can, generally, be applicable for everyone. Of course, mnemonics
may have worked exceptionally well for you, but you may be the exception rather
than the rule - for the vast majority of people, using spaced repetition
will yield success (in terms of retention).

> > The Supermemo algorithm is simply a mathematical method of attempting
> > to calculate the optimum interval for review, from the most crude and
> > simple SM-0 to SM-2 (used in Anki/Mnemosyne) to SM-5 (org-drill) to
> > SM-18, the latest iteration.
> > It isn't a mnemonic in any sense of the word - I hope that you can
> > explain how you understand the Supermemo method to be like a
> > mnemonic.
>
> Definiton of mnemotechnics or mnemonics (synonyms) is that it is
> technique of improving the memory, reference:
>
> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mnemonics#medicalDictionary
>
> and Wordnet:
>
> 1. mnemonic, mnemotechnic, mnemotechnical -- (of or relating to or
> involved the practice of aiding the memory;
>
> To say how your system, which improves your memory is not mnemonics
> only to "debunk" other systems comes from a conflict of interest, but
> any system helping the memory is mnemonics nevertheless.

Here's something that debunks this better than I ever could
(rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_dictionarium). There isn't really
much otherwise to be said. While technically the SuperMemo method may
fall under the "mnemonics" category, it isn't semantically similar to
what most people
think of when thinking about mnemonics. And to that point, I'd argue
that SuperMemo is
not a technique to aid the memory, rather, a method of analysis and
observation of memory.
Using Supermemo does not in and of itself improve one's memory,
instead, it exploits the
very biological nature of memory. The science surrounding the
biological mechanisms underlying the spacing
effect is explored in Piotr Wozniak's PhD thesis, linked here
(https://www.supermemo.com/en/archives1990-2015/english/ol).


> > You are most certainly right that the articles I linked may be
> > biased
>
> They appear biased, I do not say that their method do not work. People
> have various methods selling this and that, they don't like
> competition.

There is definetely a sense of typical free-market salesman rubbish
attached to SuperMemo, but the algorithm for SuperMemo-2 (the most commonly
used spaced repetition algorithm) is open source and
the basic information detailing SM-5 has been published (Optimization of
repetition spacing in the process of learning, Wozniak)
in sufficient detail to implement them in, say, Lisp or Python.
Your argument doesn't hold water with these algorithms -
a quick search on Google (!) Scholar reveals dozens of articles observing
students that used Anki vs students that did not use Anki, or similar
premises. I am yet to read an observational article questioning the
effectiveness of
expanding intervals (the basis of spaced repetition). Again,
although Dr Wozniak is most certainly trying to sell a product, his writing
is often richly referenced, esp. w/ reference to polyphasic sleep
(his work has been cited in Wikipedia articles surrounding polyphasic sleep).

> There are those who truly like to help, no matter what, so they will
> rather give more independent analysis.

I can't really argue against this, because fundamentally the
idea of relying on independent analysis (anecdotes) is a fallacy.

> Harry and many other people who mastered memory in such way to
> demonstrate it to public are proof that things remembered in first
> place need not "decay". I don't know why is it important to state
> so. My grandmother told me it is impossible to remember what I was
> doing before my fifth year, but I remember the taste of my toes when I
> was biting them as baby and my mother's nipples including the taste of
> milk. And so many thing I can remember what my mother doesn't, and she
> was adult back then. Then I met so many other people who remember
> better then me.

There are explanations for why people recall memories from before
the cut-off point for infantile amnesia, but it's far too much to
summarise adequately here. I'd advise you DuckDuckGo "infantile amnesia"
for breadth and detail. I'd also like to add that all memories aren't created
equal; declarative and procedural memories seem (?) to act very differently,
hence "you never forget to ride your bike".

> It is very hard to believe there is some "scientific proof" of memory
> decay. I will not tend to believe things when they are rather of
> authoritarian character.

They don't have to be, and aren't of an authoritarian charachter.
In fact, the bit (for want of a better term) of research that
kick-started memory science as a field was done independently
by Herman Ebbinghaus in the late 1800s, long before
the rigor and strict rules surrouding scientific research were
put in place. You can read his unfinished (!) studies on the
internet archive, free of charge.

A lot of the other points made in your email I have addressed previously.

On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 7:38 AM Jean Louis <bugs@gnu.support> wrote:
>
> * Bithov Vinu <bithov.vinub@gmail.com> [2021-04-19 23:17]:
> > I will most certainly look into the book you referred - as soon as I
> > get through my current backlog :)
>
> I am glad, just contact me privately I will dispatch the PDF>
>
> > I'm not certain that you understand what the Supermemo method is. It
> > lies on the following principles:
> > 1) memory decays at a predictable, rapid rate
> > 2) review reduces the rate of forgetting
> > 3) review at too early or late a time results in excess repetitions or
> > forgetting of knowledge respectively
>
> I cannot find myself in none of those subjects. My memory never
> decays. Please note that scientists have never proven where is human
> memory stored, so if this cannot be proven scientifically they also
> cannot prove that it decays. If you don't know where is something it
> is hard to say that something is not any more there. There are many
> reasons why memory can be blocked, one of reasons is trauma, drugs,
> accidents, and so on, but memore is always there just may not be
> easily accessible. When problems or obstacles are solved then memory
> may be accessed. Today my memory is better than before few years,
> better than before a decade or few decades.
>
> Some of abusive scientists researched which parts of brain have to be
> destroyed for memory not to be accessible, but that kind of research
> does not prove where is memory, it only proves that when some human
> parts are destroyed it is hard to access it. According to
> calculations, there is not enough space in human body to store the
> memory we record. It is similar to CPU and memory, if one destroys the
> keyboard already or monitor, memory cannot be accessed, but chip remains
> somewhere in existence.
>
> Especially me, who is one of them:
> https://html.duckduckgo.com/html/?q=children+who+remember+past+lives
>
> cannot easily just say that "memory decays".
>
> > (Those axioms aren't entirely true; when digging into the research you
> > find that frequent, early repetition negatively impacts the rate of
> > forgetting later on, but for the sake of argument, we'll ignore
> > this)
>
> Repetitions methods I have been using as a child as I was in the
> environment where nobody knew better, neither my parents or
> grandparents neither teachers. Then I got the a sexy coach to teach me
> polynomials. Boy, I was getting it right! She explained me so that I
> understand it in all details. Professor of mathematics did not believe
> me when I got each of the tests perfect. I have even taken those most
> hardest polynomials from a friend in the subsequent grade so I knew
> already which tests will come and got myself well prepared. For
> professor it was phenomena he never have seen before. But since then,
> I have not been using repetition, I used methods to understand first
> each and every part of whatever miniscule or large subject of
> learning, especially I put attention to clarify all words by using
> dictionary.
>
> > The Supermemo algorithm is simply a mathematical method of attempting
> > to calculate the optimum interval for review, from the most crude and
> > simple SM-0 to SM-2 (used in Anki/Mnemosyne) to SM-5 (org-drill) to
> > SM-18, the latest iteration.
> > It isn't a mnemonic in any sense of the word - I hope that you can
> > explain how you understand the Supermemo method to be like a
> > mnemonic.
>
> Definiton of mnemotechnics or mnemonics (synonyms) is that it is
> technique of improving the memory, reference:
>
> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mnemonics#medicalDictionary
>
> and Wordnet:
>
> 1. mnemonic, mnemotechnic, mnemotechnical -- (of or relating to or
> involved the practice of aiding the memory;
>
> To say how your system, which improves your memory is not mnemonics
> only to "debunk" other systems comes from a conflict of interest, but
> any system helping the memory is mnemonics nevertheless.
>
> > You are most certainly right that the articles I linked may be
> > biased
>
> They appear biased, I do not say that their method do not work. People
> have various methods selling this and that, they don't like
> competition.
>
> There are those who truly like to help, no matter what, so they will
> rather give more independent analysis.
>
> > - of course, the latest iterations of Supermemo are pieces of
> > proprietary non-free software, and, ultimately, Piotr Wozniak's
> > motives will always be to sell you the software that he wrote and
> > invested his time into.
>
> Well now it explains it all.
>
> > There are definitely some snake-oil-like stuff on supermemo.guru,
>
> I would say, as I already know you a little and how you will be in
> rush to say so, don't say so, until you have exchanged opinions with
> those who have tried it out.
>
> Person's specific experience may be failure, but somebody else may be
> using it right, often I would need to see what is wrong in my
> application of a method and maybe I am doing something wrong. Once you
> and few other people have tried it out, and also tried other methods,
> then you could say that particular one does not work.
>
> > but a lot of the claims Dr Wozniak makes in reference to memory and
> > forgetting are scientifically sound (for proof of this, I'd advise
> > you read the Gwern article I originally linked; Gwern Branwen is an
> > independent researcher and his article is richly referenced and
> > makes conclusions based plenty of peer reviewed research).
>
> Harry and many other people who mastered memory in such way to
> demonstrate it to public are proof that things remembered in first
> place need not "decay". I don't know why is it important to state
> so. My grandmother told me it is impossible to remember what I was
> doing before my fifth year, but I remember the taste of my toes when I
> was biting them as baby and my mother's nipples including the taste of
> milk. And so many thing I can remember what my mother doesn't, and she
> was adult back then. Then I met so many other people who remember
> better then me.
>
> It is very hard to believe there is some "scientific proof" of memory
> decay. I will not tend to believe things when they are rather of
> authoritarian character.
>
> > I can't say I've done an extensive review of Harry Lorayne's work, but
> > from the bits that I've seen, I'm skeptical. I'm immediately
> > distrustful of someone for unbiased information if their occupation is
> > professional magician, even more so when he has written books with
> > titles as sensational and frankly nonsensical as "How to develop a
> > Super Power Memory", "Harry Lorayne's Secrets of Mind Power", "Memory
> > makes money" and, my personal favourite, "How to get rich using the
> > power of your mind". Now, I might be overly skeptical, but I generally
> > disregard sensationalised books written by someone with seemingly no
> > credentials whatsoever in favour of huge bodies of peer-reviewed
> > evidence.
>
> I think I have all of those books, just tell me. Well... can't help
> more than that. Harry's titles are not exaggerated. He is one of many
> who is eloquent and who made the methods closer to the public, but
> those are not new, they are ancient methods. There is nothing in those
> books that is impractical, like some vague practices that may not give
> you personal win. Each single method explained as soon as you learn it
> and do it, is giving you personal wins and you can do what you could
> not before.
>
> By the way I remember daughter of my friend in Messina, Sicily in
> Italy, we have let some of children movies play and she could speak
> the movie speech in real time with all words correctly spoken in the
> movie with proper time spacing between them, even without watching the
> video while having turned her back to the movie, and she could do it
> with other 30+ videos by choice. He father and my friend and mother,
> did not regard it as something special, as they could not compare it
> to many other children. She developed method in her mind to remember
> what is spoken in the movie while watching it, and with few
> repetitions over the time she remembered whole of the speech in the
> movie.
>
> > Mnemonics are definitely useful - I don't think I've ever argued that
> > they aren't, instead, what I'm arguing is that they aren't a panacea
> > to an indestructible memory.
>
> I never heard of destructible memory, but I know there is
> not-accessible human memory, in many examples of amnesia, trauma,
> accidents, problems in life, that is what happens and then again there
> are methods to regain it back.
>
> Another important factor is importance of application. Memory as such
> may be there, but unimportant to recall it. IMHO, the urge to apply
> piece of remembered information automatically recalls it. Let us say
> subject of verification of stones, in geology, when geologist has
> rocks on the table and proper tools, it will be easy to check it out,
> but maybe after years of not doing the job, due to lack of practical
> importance, those methods may not be easily accessible from
> memory. Then again put that same person in front of the rocks with
> same tools, person will start recalling.
>
> Personally, I have some artistic models that I have been making each
> time with my hands, and I feel that memory is there as soon as I would
> take the same tools in my hand. People call it muscle memory, I would
> rather say it is practice memory, practical application plus
> importance recalls the memory.
>
> Typing is one example, when person knows how to type, typing is blind,
> no looking into keys. It is muscle memory, but I would rather say
> practice memory. I can type the word "memory" but if somebody would
> ask me to say where exactly the key "e" is located I would need to
> think longer than what I would need to type. As I did not practice to
> find single letters, I have practiced to type words.
>
> While I can type on the whole keyboard blindly, including the ghost
> keys from other international keyboards, I would have some problems to
> reconstruct the whole keyboard from mind.
>
> If practice decays, recalling will apparently, not really,
> decay. Memory is stored somewhere, when practice comes back, recalling
> becomes automatic.
>
> --
> Jean
>
> Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns:
> https://www.fsf.org/campaigns
>
> Sign an open letter in support of Richard M. Stallman
> https://stallmansupport.org/
> https://rms-support-letter.github.io/
>

Re: Using unmaintained plugins

[Jean Louis]

* Bithov Vinu <bithov.vinub@gmail.com> [2021-04-20 23:20]:
> This argument seems reductive at best - we are yet to know where
> in the brain conciousness derives, or even if it is in the brain
> at all rather than in a "soul" of some sort - yet the majority of
> people agree that conciousness, as it is commonly understood,
> exists.

Including scientists from Max Planck Institute, those researching
quantum physics, they found there is no matter, and matter must come
from something which is nothing, in other words something
spiritual. Recommended is to listen to Hans-Peter Dürr.

> We (and by we I mean humanity as a collective) know the precise probabilities
> that a subatomic particle (or wave??) is in a certain state.
> We have no idea why it is that way, but we most certainly now it is.

That is quantym physics, in the end, scientists in quantum physics can
prove that matter is not there. Sounds contradictive to everything we
know. 

> > Especially me, who is one of them:
> > https://html.duckduckgo.com/html/?q=children+who+remember+past+lives
> >
> > cannot easily just say that "memory decays".
> 
> I'm immediately skeptical of this claim - I have trouble believing that
> you are able to remember your past lives - not just because there
> is no research whatsoever that shows any evidence that the concept of past
> lives exists.

There is a lot of research and a lot of evidences. To say there is no
research one would need to know ALL of the human knowledge. And
research on the subject is older than you think.

Would you have trouble believing that I remember I was on swimming
pool last Sunday? That is the same, I know I was, and somebody comes
and tells me, no you did not. What a uncomfortable situation. It is
also not important. And it is not about believing. Somebody simply
tells experience. When I started talking with 3 years, I had no reason
whatsoever to lie around.

References:
https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-studies/our-research/children-who-report-memories-of-previous-lives/
https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-studies/publications/academic-publications/children-who-remember-previous-lives-academic-publications/

I have few friends, they could recall the names, profession and
whatever other identifications so that information could be used to
find files, documentary traces, of those people in past.

Research old books, this has been talked of since the mankind on this
planet. Now is 21st century and we still deny it.

If you have your own personal memory that you were on swimming pool
last Sunday, nobody can take you that.

> Regardless, this delves into the ideas of the supernatural, which by
> its very nature cannot be explained through empirical research, and
> more importantly, isn't the topic of interest on this mailing list

You never know when it will result with Emacs Lisp package for example
for the recall. I have some clues how to do it. We came to it from Org
Drill.

Things you do not know are not necessarily supernatural. Things are
not supernatural just because they cannot be explained through
empirical research, though it is questionable if they cannot, as I
said, one can prove it in many cases by finding previous graves,
locations, files, documents. There are reasons for amnesia, people
don't identify any more with past experiences.

That you were on swimming pool last Sunday, cannot also be explained
through empirical research. Is it supernatural?

That you love somebody and who do you love, cannot also be explained
through empirical research, is it supernatural?

> > Repetitions methods I have been using as a child as I was in the
> > environment where nobody knew better, neither my parents or
> > grandparents neither teachers.
> 
> I think this might be me being overly cynical, but I'd generally
> lean to being distrustworthy of someone who claims to have unearthed
> (ancient?) knowledge and wisdom in relation to memory, that even the
> most advanced and experimental of neuroscience hasn't hypothesised.

Seem like you know all of the advanced and experimental of
neuroscience, though empirically it may be easily proven that you do
lack a lot of references otherwise easy findable on Internet. ;-)

> > Then I got the a sexy coach to teach me polynomials. Boy, I was getting it right!
> > She explained me so that I understand it in all details.
> 
> I really, really don't like how you phrased this. I can't find
> any official GNU mailing list etiquette rules that aren't
> in relation to formatting emails, but I feel like describing
> your coach as first and foremost "sexy" is gross
> and undignified. Again, this is personal preference, there
> is seemingly nothing in the GNU etiquette to prevent this
> (though I may certainly be wrong, I haven't done more than
> quickly skim the rules).

That she was sexy was motivational event for learning. It is normal
human experience so far I know. Some people may be asexual, majority
of people do find sexy things on the sexes they like. My coach would
be so pleased to hear me say that today, just I cannot find her. By
the way I know so many friends as females like more than 250+ and not
even one that would ever complain that I know on being called
sexy. 

> I'm glad it has worked for you. This doesn't mean, however, that the
> knowledge you reaped is valuable for everyone, as you seem to be
> pushing it. The body of evidence surrounding spaced repetition,
> however, is, and can, generally, be applicable for everyone. Of
> course, mnemonics may have worked exceptionally well for you, but
> you may be the exception rather than the rule - for the vast
> majority of people, using spaced repetition will yield success (in
> terms of retention).

For polynomials it was rather learning with understanding and
practice, not really mnemonics as techniques. Those I have been using
as demonstration of memorization as feats for entertainment. Of course
it was not really and solely memorization but that is what people
think as they cannot look in my mind. Mnemonics is something people
with imagination can learn, anybody with imagination. I think those
who lack imagination would have a hard time with it.

When a number is told like number eight, pure memorization would need
just repetition or thinking of number 8, while by using some popular
associative mnemotechniques would require imagination and thus
creation of associations that could involve a whole story within less
than a second.

It is interesting that imagination can also be improved by practice,
but I would not wonder much if there are people who would have again
problems practicing.

In mass communications and analysis of people I do currently, I can
see that all people I have contacted claimed to have some previous
education and thus imply to know how to read, but in the end one
significant number of them know more how to talk then how to read. As
they have serious problems understanding a rather simple letter. A
surprise that good number of people can technically read but not
practically understand tells me somehow indicates that if I would ask
them about imagination, I could as well find those who have serious
troubles with imaginations.

Number of people asked about dreams told me they never dream, which
comes surprisingly to me, who dreams as soon as my eyes are closed,
and often after I open my eyes...

> > To say how your system, which improves your memory is not mnemonics
> > only to "debunk" other systems comes from a conflict of interest, but
> > any system helping the memory is mnemonics nevertheless.
> 
> Here's something that debunks this better than I ever could
> (rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_dictionarium). There isn't
> really much otherwise to be said. While technically the SuperMemo
> method may fall under the "mnemonics" category, it isn't
> semantically similar to what most people think of when thinking
> about mnemonics.

Dictionaries show us those definitions of words that people currently
agree upon while some words are so new that they are not necessarily
in a dictionary or they may be harder to find. That is where Internet
and various contexts may help to understand it.

I don't use definitions of words for manipulations. When I see that
you understand the word in some quite different context, I may
indicate it as it may not be that what is commonly understood with
it. Spaced repetition is by the definition mnemonics, yet you consider
it not, but then we have other people who do consider repetition to be
mnemonics. It is up to you to decide. You are also free to use any
word anyhow, then problems of understanding and misunderstanding may
arise.

References:
https://poets.org/glossary/repetition
Quote: "Repetition, as in rhyme, is a strong mnemonic device"

http://www.syncrat.com/posts/5258/mnemonic-devices
where repetition is mentioned as mnemonic device.

> And to that point, I'd argue that SuperMemo is not a technique to
> aid the memory, rather, a method of analysis and observation of
> memory.  Using Supermemo does not in and of itself improve one's
> memory, instead, it exploits the very biological nature of
> memory. The science surrounding the biological mechanisms underlying
> the spacing effect is explored in Piotr Wozniak's PhD thesis, linked
> here (https://www.supermemo.com/en/archives1990-2015/english/ol).

That is too hard for me. When I read "Supermemo" it is like to aid
memory to become super, but you say it is not, kind of contradictory,
I was thinking it aids the memory but you say it does not aid the
memory., it is just for analysis.

Larger issue at hand is that in GNU we shall not recommend proprietary
software and rather create free software that does the same purpose,
so it is good you found Org Drill, and it would be possible to get
formula for those intervals and integrate them into various learning
techniques.

While I don't find it as best general method for learning, I remember
some sets of historical and numerical fact questions with A, B, C
answers could by repetition easier be remembered. This method may be
said to be "pull"-type of spaced repetition as person oneself decides
on when to excercise the practice.

On my side, I also use repetition to get a message across and make
sales by using spaced intervals, and this method may be said to be
"push"-type of spaced repetition, as person is informed by SMS, email,
letter, fax or call about the opportunities that one can
buy. Thus repetition intervals could maybe be of use in sales, as it
brings people to remember the service or product easier.

That is a program to send emails, it will not send email that has been
already sent, and it takes care of specific time interval between
sending. Time intervals are recorded in the database table.

Thus for Emacs I would say that set of data on the disk or in the
database has to record times when specific questions or memory
practices have been exercised.

Additionally, if computer is running, and user does not remember to
practice, those intervals would pass, that requires also reminders to
run the program again. I have tried clicking on references but links
don't work.

It could be possible to make generic table that keeps intervals in the
database and then generic events to be done by using those intervals.

The principle could be used either for personal learning or teaching
other people like in mass communication, courses, and propagation of
marketing for sales purposes.

Then database and program could be:

0. Table of people;

1. Table for types of events, like question to be repeated, or email
   to be sent; 
   
2. Events referencing the types; those could get some data to present
   to user; it could be like questions and answers or emails, SMS to
   be sent; intervals that has to pass before the event is asked has
   to be recorded somewhere;

3. Table of executed events with times; this one would keep time
   intervals when events have been executed last time. For example the
   event or excercise A1 would be noted with the time when it was
   answered and if it was answered correctly or not; if email was
   pushed and interacted with, or not; interaction to sent
   communication indicates understanding; in my database I call this
   table "mailings" as it records when specific email has been sent to
   a person.

4. Algorithm decides if specific event from table (2) above would need
   to be invoked. There can be hundreds or thousands of events. That
   is where SQL queries comes very handy as for example in PostgreSQL
   one can easily find data by using time intervals;

5. Emacs Lisp and Emacs as interface can process and display events.

Does the technique involves questions with answers like A, B, C,
always? That would be pretty limiting. But I did that once as a quiz
questions, as that can be used to send a lesson, have user answer it
and automatically evaluate the results. In this case quiz like
questions could be used for teaching.

Then administrator could enter all the data first, for example by
adding questions and incorrect and correct answers. Once all
information has been added program can run, verify intervals, and
people may excercise.

You could maybe send here the intervals for repetition for SM-5?

What format need to be questions/answers? Is it like quiz or it can be
anything, like facts?


-- 
Jean

Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns:
https://www.fsf.org/campaigns

Sign an open letter in support of Richard M. Stallman
https://stallmansupport.org/
https://rms-support-letter.github.io/