Misunderstanding (Re: Emacs-devel Digest, Vol 44, Issue 67)

Misunderstanding (Re: Emacs-devel Digest, Vol 44, Issue 67)

[Eric S. Raymond]

From: Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@ieee.org>
>         I think you first have to make your case that arch is
>  inferior. It does not change a whole lot, but what we have works just
>  fine.  Over the last year I have twice evaluate bzr and git, and found
>  that they do not support the feature set of arch that I have come to
>  rely upon -- so in my view, at least, bzr and git are the inferior
>  products. YMMV.

We've had a disconnect.  I don't actually have a strong opinion about
Arch one way or the other, other than being somewhat dubious about its
maintainence status.  (Full disclosure: from personal experience with
Tom Lord, I consider him borderline insane and possibly committable --
but I also consider that to be almost irrelevant to the issue at hand,
as having bizarre semi-delusional episodes clearly hasn't stopped him
from writing good software occasionally.)

What I was bridling at was the implication that *CVS* should be recommended
over *Subversion* just because one comes off an FSF server and the 
other doesn't.
-- 
		<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/">Eric S. Raymond</a>

Re: Misunderstanding (Re: Emacs-devel Digest, Vol 44, Issue 67)

[David Kastrup]

"Eric S. Raymond" <esr@thyrsus.com> writes:

> From: Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@ieee.org>
>>         I think you first have to make your case that arch is
>>  inferior. It does not change a whole lot, but what we have works just
>>  fine.  Over the last year I have twice evaluate bzr and git, and found
>>  that they do not support the feature set of arch that I have come to
>>  rely upon -- so in my view, at least, bzr and git are the inferior
>>  products. YMMV.
>
> We've had a disconnect.  I don't actually have a strong opinion
> about Arch one way or the other, other than being somewhat dubious
> about its maintainence status.  (Full disclosure: from personal
> experience with Tom Lord, I consider him borderline insane and
> possibly committable -- but I also consider that to be almost
> irrelevant to the issue at hand, as having bizarre semi-delusional
> episodes clearly hasn't stopped him from writing good software
> occasionally.)

If it is irrelevant to the issue at hand, why bring it up?  I find
that quite a lot capable and productive programmers, particularly
project leaders, appear borderline insane.  It is not really
surprising, considering that the brain is one mushy associative
holographic memory dump with a single stream of consciousness (known
as "mind") emerging as the main interpretation of its state and
history in interaction with its surroundings.  Lower the redundancy by
utilizing your brain better, and readjust with the behavior and
sensory impressions and ways of "thinking" of computers rather than
humans, and you detune a much more delicate and complex instrument
than most others that are around.

Most creative geniuses are nuts one way or the other.  The world is
richer for them.  Normal people tend to exhaust their creativity in
procreation and leave the task of memorable and lasting creativity to
their children.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: Misunderstanding (Re: Emacs-devel Digest, Vol 44, Issue 67)

[Eric S. Raymond]

David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org>:
> Most creative geniuses are nuts one way or the other.

This is commonly believed.  It's also not true.  Admissions to mental
hospitals per thousand drop off with increasing IQ. The professions with
the lowest insanity rates are mathematicians and theoretical phycisists,
where creative genius is a minimunm requisite to get in the door.
(Highest, in case you care, are waiters and short-order cooks.)
 
Yes, geniuses, in aggregate, are *saner* than average.  That's not to
say they don't have their own bell curve with some nutters on the low
end, but their median is higher.  This is true even though there are a
handful of forms of dementia that *only* affect the extremely bright
-- they're results of the brain, in effect, overclocking itself.

Just to be annoying, geniuses are also longer-lived, better-looking,
and more sexually active than average (there is good statistical
evidence for all three), Intelligence and creative ability are not
isolated traits; they're usually (though not invariably) an
epiphenomenon of genes that produce physical health and vigor as well.

The looks connection, BTW, comes from the fact that the two most
important beauty/handsomeness traits -- good skin and feature symmetry
-- are indicators of a robust immune system.  In fact, that's *why*
beauty is sexually important.  And immune-system function is probably
*more* closely connected to creativity and genius than most other
aspects of physical health; the relevant tissue systems are closely
related, both being elaborations of the embryonic ectoderm.

Near as I can tell, the trope that geniuses are usually sickly or mad
persists only because it makes people who aren't geniuses feel better
about not being geniuses.  It was utterly shattered, for me, the day I
was invited to speak at the Institute for Advanced Study, went to
faculty tea -- and noticed to my astonishment that the tea crowd
looked remarkably like a collection of Land's End models or TV stars.

Subsequently, I researched the matter, discovered the things I have
related above, and stopped being surprised.
-- 
		<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/">Eric S. Raymond</a>

Re: Misunderstanding (Re: Emacs-devel Digest, Vol 44, Issue 67)

[Thien-Thi Nguyen]

() David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org>
() Thu, 11 Oct 2007 02:47:43 +0200

   single stream of consciousness (known as "mind")

hey speak for yourselves!

thi

Re: Misunderstanding (Re: Emacs-devel Digest, Vol 44, Issue 67)

[David Kastrup]

"Eric S. Raymond" <esr@thyrsus.com> writes:

> David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org>:
>> Most creative geniuses are nuts one way or the other.
>
> This is commonly believed.  It's also not true.  Admissions to
> mental hospitals per thousand drop off with increasing IQ.

Hospitalization occurs when people are a danger for themselves or
others.  People with an overactive imagination tend to be able to
visualize others' pain vividly enough to have high morals.  And an
intelligent person will be able to present themselves well enough to
avoid hospitalization until it is too late.  A more relevant number
would be the suicide rates.

And another thing for those unable to lead a life of their own: the
create, special people will usually have others that love them for who
and what they are, and cater for them.  For those dropping off the
intelligence scale on the low end, the conditions are worse.

> The looks connection, BTW, comes from the fact that the two most
> important beauty/handsomeness traits -- good skin and feature
> symmetry -- are indicators of a robust immune system.  In fact,
> that's *why* beauty is sexually important.

I should be Adonis by that measure: my immune system is more active by
a factor of 3 compared to normal persons.  While it comes in handy
when I get the flu (and get rid of it again in two to three days of
high fever), the equivalent of it biting its nails in boredom (an
impressive ability to develop allergies) is a nuisance.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: Misunderstanding (Re: Emacs-devel Digest, Vol 44, Issue 67)

[Bastien]

David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:

> Hospitalization occurs when people are a danger for themselves or
> others.  People with an overactive imagination tend to be able to
> visualize others' pain vividly enough to have high morals.  And an
> intelligent person will be able to present themselves well enough to
> avoid hospitalization until it is too late.  A more relevant number
> would be the suicide rates.

I have a dream. 

A psychiatrist on some psy-oriented mailing list proposes a killer
feature that should finally make Emacs The One True Editor, pretending
he knows about the way this magic feature should be implemented (and of
course he knows this far better from people in emacs-devel.)

Would be a good laugh, isn't it?

-- 
Bastien

Re: Misunderstanding (Re: Emacs-devel Digest, Vol 44, Issue 67)

[David Kastrup]

Bastien <bzg@altern.org> writes:

> I have a dream.
>
> A psychiatrist on some psy-oriented mailing list proposes a killer
> feature that should finally make Emacs The One True Editor,

Sounds like reinventing the wheel.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: Misunderstanding (Re: Emacs-devel Digest, Vol 44, Issue 67)

[Dieter Wilhelm]

"Eric S. Raymond" <esr@thyrsus.com> writes:

> The looks connection, BTW, comes from the fact that the two most
> important beauty/handsomeness traits -- good skin and feature symmetry
> -- are indicators of a robust immune system.  In fact, that's *why*
> beauty is sexually important.  And immune-system function is probably
> *more* closely connected to creativity and genius than most other
> aspects of physical health; the relevant tissue systems are closely
> related, both being elaborations of the embryonic ectoderm.

This is only a part of the whole picture, otherwise more individuals
of humankind would have become more beautiful and intelligent at the
same time.  Fortunately for, I maintain, most of us beauty and
intelligence are not all-important for reproduction.

For example, one anomaly might be that good/healthy looking men tend
to leave more often their mating partner and it might be advantageous
even for beautiful women to procreate and have a lasting relationship
with an uglier one (Mr Nice Guy maybe) to heighten the chances to rear
their offspring to sexual maturity.

Hmmm, thinking of it, when such a female is a bit unfaithful now and
then, her offspring might carry better genes and chances.  This is, of
course, only a theoretical thought.  All in all, it remains
interesting and a trifle more complicated...  Uppps, what has this to
do with Emacs?

-- 
    Best wishes

    H. Dieter Wilhelm
    Darmstadt, Germany

Re: Misunderstanding (Re: Emacs-devel Digest, Vol 44, Issue 67)

[Lennart Borgman (gmail)]

Dieter Wilhelm wrote:
> interesting and a trifle more complicated...  Uppps, what has this to
> do with Emacs?

Emacs is ...

Re: Misunderstanding (Re: Emacs-devel Digest, Vol 44, Issue 67)

[Thien-Thi Nguyen]

() "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" <lennart.borgman@gmail.com>
() Sun, 14 Oct 2007 23:14:58 +0200

   Emacs is ...

EMACS: Mind and Code Synthesis.

now synthesis is ...

Re: Misunderstanding (Re: Emacs-devel Digest, Vol 44, Issue 67)

[Bastien]

Thien-Thi Nguyen <ttn@gnuvola.org> writes:

>    Emacs is ...
>
> EMACS: Mind and Code Synthesis.
>
> now synthesis is ...

Sorry You're Not The Holly Emacser Submitting Insight for Synthesis ...

-- 
Bastien

Re: Misunderstanding (Re: Emacs-devel Digest, Vol 44, Issue 67)

[Richard Stallman]

       Emacs is ...

    EMACS: Mind and Code Synthesis.

    now synthesis is ...

Synthesis: Young Nice Tender Handsome Ephebes & Splendid Island Strumpets