The great internet dishes your a personalized world, that is just designed to your order. This is not something specific to internet.
The physical world around you is also sculpted by your actions. You "feel at home" while at home only because you have adjusted it to become your mould. You become an integral piece in your world, making you a piece in jigsaw puzzle which won't be complete without you.
Your bookshelf, for example, is moulded around your interests. Your wine cellar has your favorite wines. Your clothes just fit your fashion. That's your world. When you visit internet, it presents your own world. It reflects an awareness about you, just like your wardrobe does.
In wardrobe case, you intentionally made your choices. In the internet case, you intentionally expressed your interest by your implicit interactions that were enough to be translated into your selections.
You don't actually control most of the things in your world. Your neighbour, for instance, isn't a reflection of your preferences and interests.
Also - in your home, it's YOU that's rejigging things. A result of your intent, your actions. Not curated and delivered to you via some corporate monster with a variety of incentives that are directly at odds with yours.
Goal definition is way down at step 5. Why do you even care about doing something even before you know the goal?
Why does step 6 has word "urgency" in it, as if it applies to all goals?
Getting more fundamental, why do you need to go through any of this at all? What happens if you don't do all of this? What's the cost-benefit analysis of doing all this and not doing?
The fact that it requires so much explanation, indicates the level of degradation in the reasoning ability of the audience. A value of a subtype shall deliver all of the expectations of its super type, because it is wearing both the hats of super type and sub type.
What part of GP's one-sentence explanation is not strictly logical? Does obfuscating a simple logical concept by describing it in academia-wanky-terms like Liskov's Substitution Principle make it More Logical? Or does it just make the author and their in-crowd feel more intelligent?
Note, also, that the article isn't even objective. It asserts that the definition of a subtype is Liskov's principle. However, Liskov's principle is only one of multiple possible definitions. In other words, the article is really only invoking Liskov's name as an appeal to authority. So much for strict logic.
If the article is written for human consumption, then it fails the primary goal (or logic?) of being useful. If a human has to digest a flood of this logic slop just to get convinced about this simple concept, they are not going to be able to do anything useful.
Accept everything as moulded by the evolution. All the trends since the cave days to now. Believe that there is a purpose for the trend, even if the purpose is extinction.
Do not assume that you caused something or invented something. You are just a carrier of the change, with minimal resistance. If you can't carry the change (invent stuff) with minimal cost to the evolution, then it will pick the next least resisting guy to carry the change. And he will claim that he invented something. That's the carrot offered for being the carrier.
Nice idea. How does the provider receive the order from customer? Is it through phone call, or via some other app? If it is an app, won't that app have a status tracking feature?
Finding patterns and information using machines, in a seemingly random noise should no longer be a surpise, much the same way as lifting tonnes of weight using a crane is no longer a surprise.
It shows that the human quest has been in wrong direction since the industrial age began. Domains like math and other inter-connected or inter-dependent domains - all exist in modern times only to keep people employed outside of basic work such as farming and survival. All of these domains can be removed and humans can still continue with their lives taking care of what really is needed for their survival and sprawl. 99% of the "work" that happens today is froth, disconnected from basic needs.
You can remove pretty much everything in the modern world, from cars to computers etc.. and humans would still continue with their lives. Such and argument is only anti-progress.
>> You realise the extent to which the world around is sometime quite precariously perched on these supply chains.
As s child, I lived in a world where there were no supply chains, no marketing and no advertising. Profit-based business was seen a mean thing to do.
City living and desire for goods from far away lands - created supply chains which dictate how people should live, in a precariously dependent way such that they can't make their needed things on their own and they can't have them made them locally. What a progress.
Unless you lived thousands of years ago, there was a supply chain. For bread there was a farmer, a miller, and a baker. That's a supply chain. And they were even more profit hungry back then, adulterating the flour with fillers to save money.
They are not being sarcastic. My grandparents lived in a place like this - the old ways have been forgotten by most but in my family you only have to go back two generations before it's all pretty much living off the land...
Game engines, AI, robots and machines in general are establising a "goal horizon" for humans. This is unnecessary and counter productive way of using tools. Tools are supposed to work for us, not set goals or direction for us.
But as technology progresses and becomes more advanced, it does seem to set goals in all directions in that seems inevitable if we continue to 'collaborate' with modern technology. I mean, we no longer develop tools to help us out really, if you think about it. We develop tools to get ahead of other tools, to be faster than them, to protect ourselves from still other tools.
I'd argue that as we condition ourselves into a state of constant development, we shouldn't even call these things "tools" anymore, but pieces of an organism that spurn us to upgrade and complete it at every step.
Tools working for us only applies to local, simple tools that one person or a small communiity can basically understand and make, like a hammer. That's a tool. I wouldn't call a computer a tool any more just like I wouldn't say that our brain is merely a tool. It's more: it's an extension of us and even an integral part of us that modifies our very instincts and desires itself.
We shouldn't condition ourselves to keep transforming these tools unto our masters. That's the point I was making. We don't the "goal horizon" that is reachable to machines but too far away for humans. There is no point in having that. Goals should be reachable to humans. Humans never needed deal with numbers larger than a few thousand. Centralization is driving the demand for super-human capabilities.
The physical world around you is also sculpted by your actions. You "feel at home" while at home only because you have adjusted it to become your mould. You become an integral piece in your world, making you a piece in jigsaw puzzle which won't be complete without you.
Your bookshelf, for example, is moulded around your interests. Your wine cellar has your favorite wines. Your clothes just fit your fashion. That's your world. When you visit internet, it presents your own world. It reflects an awareness about you, just like your wardrobe does.
In wardrobe case, you intentionally made your choices. In the internet case, you intentionally expressed your interest by your implicit interactions that were enough to be translated into your selections.
Nothing spooky.
reply