Anand Thakker › Comments

"The quote is from a comment on this post: http://www.feministing.com/archive..." - Anand Thakker

"A colleague of mine has a connection with a farm, and has set up a delivery at our school. It's sweet :-)." - Anand Thakker

"Lol. That video is hilarious." - Anand Thakker

"Yeah, I was wrong about predictability being isomorphic to computability. It's conceivable that the person doing the prediction is only capable of it because she can make rational judgments herself, which a computer (probably) can't. I had another thought about the predictability of rationality, but I'm not sure what to do with it: prediction is itself a rational action, performed by an agent. As such, when the prediction is made about another person, it actually becomes part of an interaction between the two. Doesn't that cause problems for the soundness of the predictions?" - Anand Thakker

"It sounds to me like you're saying that rationality implies predictability, and predictability implies rationality. Predictability implies rationality: I'm not sure I see this: couldn't behavioral economics perfectly predict cockroach economics? Rationality implies predictability: To the extent that we could come up with "rules for how people will behave", it seems to me that this set of rules would basically be isomorphic to a computer-like logic. Am I missing something?" - Anand Thakker

"What do you think would be the consequences a) if so, b) if not?" - Anand Thakker

"I completely agree. In my totally unclearly-stated comment about rationality being "second order", I was really trying to extend your point. You said, "we often pretend that we think in the same way that computers operate. I don't think this is true at all." I think, going even further, that we often pretend that we're fundamentally rational, and I don't think *that* is true either." - Anand Thakker

"Well, no, definitely not. That's not what I meant to be doing...." - Anand Thakker

"Lol! Your point, then, is a perfect example of gross misuse of analogy, is it not? :-) But more seriously: yeah, I agree with your overall point... and I feel like it's a problem more generally, too, with models of the mind that assume that rationality is more fundamental to our processes of thinking than it really is. Why is it so hard to consider rationality a second-order thing?" - Anand Thakker

"Your office laughed at using computers during tests? Huh... I wonder if their ancestors laughed when some radical a couple thousand years ago suggested letting students use paper to answer questions." - Anand Thakker

"Thanks! It was fun to make :-)" - Anand Thakker

"Okay, I haven't quite fully thought this one out, but: 1... But maybe the web *does* represent a new, fundamental shift beyond merely the dust settling. Here's the before/after. Before: Object Orientation, because it's all about building flexible, but semi-static systems to manage dynamically flowing information. After: Functional Programming, because with web now maturing into a system where *interaction* is the primary unit, the distinction between information (changeable) and the processing system (less changeable) is dissolving. Sure, the available fields for a Facebook profile affect what user data is... but more and more, the user data--in particular user *interactions* which have now become data--then feeds back and affects the information management system that is Facebook. The upshot? The very data-transforming processes themselves have to be as dynamic as the data: which means functions need to be first-class data types." - Anand Thakker

"Let me preface this: as you well know, I fully agree with you. With that said... I have three questions for your next post on this topic, relating to each of your three ways that OO is broken: 1. If anyone besides the converted is going to buy this point, it's probably important to give it a little more historical context. Object orientation was a culminating triumph in an effort to address two serious, related problems in software design: the need for data-driven design ("modeling"), and the need for flexible modularity in code. As I see it, these needs coincided with the growing awareness that software was LESS about algorithms than we used to think, and MORE about information management (hence, data modeling) and system-building (hence, modularity). In that context, OO responded well by taking the emphasis away from overly algorithmic / process-based thinking. So my question is this: what is shifting -- or should be shifting -- in our understanding of what software is about? 2...." - Anand Thakker

"Relish the aporia, my friend." - Anand Thakker

"Oh... that was supposed to be sarcastic...." - Anand Thakker

"Thanks :-). Ever read any John Dewey, or the other Pragmatists?" - Anand Thakker

"If I'm not down in NC that weekend, I'll be there." - Anand Thakker

"I damn near got teared up that something like this exists. Heart." - Anand Thakker

"Hehe." - Anand Thakker

"Argh. I was being too reactive. Sorry: I fucked up. (heh) Here's the deal: I'm just tired of the fact that, because of the way *certain* men behave, many people walk around assuming the worst (or, at the very least, having their guard up) about all of us. I'm NOT an asshole/meathead, and it gets old being surrounded by the dominant effect of those who are. I have no beef with humor, and I think political correctness is absurd. If the "truth" you found humorous was that *men* fuck up a lot in relationships (moreso than women)-- well, I think that actually *is* a popular view, and most people wouldn't consider it un-P.C. If the "truth" you found humorous was that "sorry seems to be the hardest word"... well, I completely agree. But your implication that it's harder for men than women was unfair. Try hearing the following in both a male and female voice: "Why can't s/he ever admit s/he's WRONG!?" I think it plays equally well in both." - Anand Thakker

"My response here: http://thakker.tumblr.com/post..." - Anand Thakker

"Hmph! A "republic" indeed! Your point about upping the follower number is exactly what I'm talking about. In the short run, perhaps you're right: getting more people in would up my follower number, giving me that many more warm fuzzies about twitter, making me tweet that much more. But in the long run, a massive influx of less participatory users actually dilutes the very meaning of that follower number. Knowing somebody's following me is a first step; but the *real* value, for me, comes when I see my thoughts/actions/ideas being *responded to* by other people. Ultimately, I really am for democracy: maintaining a minor barrier to entry is a structural means of encouraging people to be more actively involved. The people who say twitter (or whatever social media app) is "not for me" still know that there's really something going on in that world. I say, let them come around--or not--in their own time." - Anand Thakker

"Hey-- I'm glad you like it!" - Anand Thakker

"I just wrote a response to this here: http://thakker.tumblr.com/post..." - Anand Thakker

"I guess what I was trying to get at was that one of the great values of the reblog-as-vote system is precisely that the *reason* people reblog things is that they fit "their goals for their tumblog"" - Anand Thakker

"Hmm. I feel like the "I like it!" is a lot more like a digg vote than a tumblr reblog. One thing I just tried -- you can reblog a particular piece of the post *as* a quote, and it still shows up as a reblog (go see how I reblogged this very post as an example)." - Anand Thakker

"In response to "One problem: since the way to get on the Radar is often by being reblogged, posts there are not always the same posts people are most interested in; for example, if someone posts a beautiful photo, I’m more likely to reblog it than I am an essay or poem or link, even if the latter are splendid, simply because of the nature of my site. In other words, Tumblr’s moderation system isn’t purely reflective of the Tumblr community’s values; reblogging shouldn’t be the only way to ‘reward’ great work" This is a great point. I do think, though, that there's something really good about the way this moderation/selection system works, at least in the case of images, quotes, links, etc. Namely, that it essentially measures the *value* of something in terms of how much other members take *action* with that thing for their own authentic purposes (rather than, say, basing it on "action" by voting like on digg, where the benefits of voting are at best abstract, rather than being..." - Anand Thakker

"You say that now... but when "tagtagging.com" becomes the hottest new website of 2008, you'll come crawling back. They always do... ;-)" - Anand Thakker

"Me, too, on the coward thing. One thing I try to stay aware of in my teaching is *what* I'm praising. Instead of praising correct results & finished products, I praise *process*: e.g., attempts to really be thoughtful, or playful, or creative, or careful, or attentive, or experimental, etc., with whatever problem or concept we're discussing." - Anand Thakker

"I worry about mine, too." - Anand Thakker