Comment author: Kawoomba 09 December 2014 11:31:13PM 3 points [-]

It's debatable whether "reciprocal altruism" isn't a contradiction in terms, and whether "quid pro quo" wouldn't be the more accurate descriptor for what is in essence "you scratched my back, so I'll scratch yours". Then again, I may just be griping because you made me look up Hegelianism in your other comment.

Comment author: JoshuaMyer 10 December 2014 12:03:16AM 1 point [-]

You are correct. Reciprocal altruism is an ideal not necessarily implementable and I should have written, "As far as the spirit of reciprocal altruism should dictate". :-)

Comment author: gjm 09 December 2014 10:54:09PM *  2 points [-]

anglophone

English-speaking.

ISO-8859-1

An 8-bit character set (i.e., representing 256 different characters) suitable for many Western European languages.

Windows codepage 1252

Something very much like ISO-8859-1 but slightly different, used on computers running Microsoft Windows. It's slightly different because for some reason (there are more and less cynical explanations) Microsoft seem unable to use anything standardized without modifying it a little.

ANSI

Microsoft-Windows-ese for "an 8-bit character set whose first half is the same as ASCII". Specifying the second half is the job of a "code page", such as the "code page 1252" mentioned above.

not universally machine readable

Not machine-readable without knowledge of which "code page" (see above) it uses. If you know that, or can guess it, you're OK.

encryption

Not actually encryption, despite the term "encoding". A character encoding is a way of representing characters as smallish numbers suitable for storing in a computer. Strictly speaking, every time I said "character set" above I should have said "encoding". Every time you have any text on a computer, it's represented internally via some encoding. Common encodings include ASCII (7 bits so 128 characters, but actually some of those 128 slots are reserved for things that aren't really characters), ISO-8859-1 (8 bits, suitable for much Western European text, though actually nowadays the slightly different ISO-8859-15 is preferred because it includes the Euro currency symbol), UTF-8 (variable length, from 8 to 24 bits per character, represents the whole -- very large -- Unicode character repertoire). For most purposes UTF-8 is a good bet.

irregardless

Regardless. (Sorry.)

[EDITED to answer the question about "not universally machine readable".]

Comment author: JoshuaMyer 09 December 2014 11:15:00PM *  0 points [-]

It has nothing to do with my article but you've made me very happy by explaining this to me. I think I understand better what is meant by "encoding". Also the bit about regardless I found quite witty and even laughed out loud (xkcd.com kept me informed about the OED's decision on that word).

So the encoding was probably not the problem then because most programs default ANSI and it was not the unanimous first suggestion from everyone to switch to 7 bit encoding ... although I do understand why ASCII is more universal now. Open questions in my mind now include: does the GUI read ASCII and ANSI? And what encoding is used for copy and pasting text?

Comment author: JoshuaMyer 09 December 2014 10:18:26PM 0 points [-]

So, if I understand the implication, anything encoded in ANSI is not universally machine readable (there are several unfamiliar terms for me here "anglophone" "ISO 8859-1" and "Windows codepage 1252")? I probably won't look up all the details, because I rarely need to know how many bits a method of encryption involves (I'm probably betraying my naivety here) irregardless of the character set used, but I appreciate how solid of a handle you seem to have on the subject.

Comment author: JoshuaMyer 09 December 2014 10:18:53PM 0 points [-]

Either way, I owe you.

Comment author: Lumifer 09 December 2014 10:00:08PM *  1 point [-]

For future reference, ANSI is not Unicode. You can google up the gory details if interested, but basically ASCII is a seven-bit character set with 128 symbols. The so-called ANSI (it's a misnomer) extends ASCII to 8 bits and so another 128 symbols, but without specifying what these symbols should be. On most Anglophone computers these will correspond to ISO 8859-1 (or a very similar Windows codepage 1252), but in other parts of the world they will correspond to whatever the local codepage is and it can be anything it wants to be.

UTF-8, on the other hand, is proper Unicode. So it seems the closest you can get to plain ASCII is to use ANSI.

Comment author: JoshuaMyer 09 December 2014 10:18:26PM 0 points [-]

So, if I understand the implication, anything encoded in ANSI is not universally machine readable (there are several unfamiliar terms for me here "anglophone" "ISO 8859-1" and "Windows codepage 1252")? I probably won't look up all the details, because I rarely need to know how many bits a method of encryption involves (I'm probably betraying my naivety here) irregardless of the character set used, but I appreciate how solid of a handle you seem to have on the subject.

Comment author: Gunnar_Zarncke 09 December 2014 09:57:40PM 4 points [-]

I'm impressed by how mindful you reflected on the content of LW. Your high level view of LW is interesting and provides an interesting data point of how newbies and outsiders perceive LW. The problem (besides the formatting) I see is that your post is quite long and I had trouble seeing the tread or objective of your post. I think a few reader will have trouble connecting to this. It is not exactly on topic. Also to me it appears a bit like stream of consciousness writing which I find difficult - but interesting.

Comment author: JoshuaMyer 09 December 2014 10:10:31PM *  3 points [-]

I tried really hard to imitate and blend the structure of argumentation employed by the most successful articles here. I found that in spite of the high minded academic style of writing, structures tended to be overwhelmingly narratives split into three segments that vary greatly in content and structure (the first always establishes tone and subject, the second contains the bulk of the argumentation and the third is an often incomplete analysis of impacts the argument may have on some hypothetical future state). I can think of a lot of different ways of organizing my observations on the subject of cognitive bias and though I decided on this structure, I was concerned that, since it was decidedly non-haegalian, it would come off as poorly organized.

But I feel good about your lumping it in with data on how newcomers perceive LW because that was one of my goals.

Comment author: JoshuaMyer 09 December 2014 09:43:11PM 0 points [-]

Wow. My encoding options are limited to two Unicode variants, ANSI and UTF-8. Will any of those work for these purposes?

Comment author: JoshuaMyer 09 December 2014 09:56:22PM 0 points [-]

ANSI works if I turn off word wrap and put the space between paragraphs, as you suggested. Thanks again Lumifer.

Comment author: ChristianKl 09 December 2014 09:13:08PM 0 points [-]

The formatting of your article is broken. It would be much easier if you could structure it into normal paragraphs.

Comment author: JoshuaMyer 09 December 2014 09:54:09PM 0 points [-]

It's fixed now.

Comment author: JoshuaMyer 09 December 2014 09:49:16PM 0 points [-]

okay I did that and am about to paste.

Comment author: JoshuaMyer 09 December 2014 09:51:09PM 1 point [-]

You are officially my hero Lumifer. Thank you so much.

Comment author: JoshuaMyer 09 December 2014 09:50:19PM *  0 points [-]

HURRAY! Thank you everyone who helped me format this! As far as reciprocal altruism should dictate, Lumifer, I owe you.

Comment author: Lumifer 09 December 2014 09:44:34PM 4 points [-]

Turn OFF word wrap. You should also not be concerned with pagination at all. Separate paragraphs by an empty line.

Comment author: JoshuaMyer 09 December 2014 09:49:16PM 0 points [-]

okay I did that and am about to paste.

View more: Prev | Next