Unfortunately it looks like this hasn't taken off. An international pictographic language is a great idea tho.
This is a better approach imo: https://artreview.com/ara-springsummer-2014-book-review-xu-b...
This pictographic book is readable without any training.
It took off then stagnated a bit. Used a lot in Canada and Iceland, Norway, Sweden and various parts of the globe eg Eastern Europe. There is various projects further developing it still
That book you referenced is cool. But it’s not depicting a true language. Language has rules which allows you to generate new novel words and sentences. This is what bliss does and why it’s called a language - rather than all other symbol systems
Stories inferred from pictures or videos are not implicitly using language. Language comes into the picture only when a human viewer interprets what is happening and describes it in words.
E.g. if we watch an unnarrated nature video of a squirrel gathering nuts into its burrow, we can describe it with words and sentences. But those sentences don't actually occur in the video, implicitly or otherwise, and can say misleading things, like that the squirrel is thinking forward to next winter, and planning for having enough to eat when foraging becomes difficult.
The pictures in Xu Bing's book would have to be logograms rather than pictograms in order for the book to contain language.
A sequence of pictograms could be used to record a story (say of events shared by a group of people). Those pictograms could be used to stir their accurate recollection of the events, which they could talk about in language. But that's not the same thing as actually recording that language.
These are 'Hacker-friendly' pens. With most pens the nib and feed are glued in, but in the Noodlers pens they are push fit, so can be adjusted. You can adjust the amount of flex and flow independently.
You can also take out the entire filling mechanism, and use the whole pen body as a reservoir. Neat.
> 2. Vim It was a bold design concept to use 'modes', but it makes it so much more productive.
Vim got modal editing from vi, which stole it from Bravo...in 1976.
And actually, the "insert" mode was the innovation - previous editors were completely command-driven, being designed for use on teletype machines, where you could not have a usable "edit/append" mode.
Re 1. Almost all fountain pens are "hacker friendly". I have a couple of pens which are much more expensive than Noodler's and I have completely dismantled and then reassembled them multiple times while cleaning. Unless you are using some proprietary filling mechanism, both the nib, and feed are interchangeable.
Most fountain pens have the nib and feed as one glued unit (confusingly, informally called the 'nib'), so you can't adjust the flow. Compare the 'nibs' at the top and bottom of this page. https://www.gouletpens.com/replacement-nibs/c/294
The ones at the bottom can only be used in Noodlers pens.
The Noodler's also have the feed made of cutable ebonite instead of cheaper plastic, so you can carve out a deeper ink channel if you want.
I have never used a fountain pen with a glued together nib and feed. The ones on the top of the page aren't glued together, they are the screw on type. These are generally found in hand-tuned pens (like the Edison Noveau) or premium pens (like Pelikan MX00 series).
You can still adjust the flow of the nib without tampering with the feed by just using a brass strip and running it through the slit in the nib (to increase the flow). I have never wanted to decrease the flow of a nib unit.
What you are saying is true though. Ebonite feeds have their advantages, like you can heat tune them as well to fit to a certain nib shape.
The about section says that it's not a CSS framework, but it seems that it is. If you mean it's better than other CSS frameworks, you should just say so.
OT, but it's annoying the way The New Yorker writes cooperation 'coöperation' (ditto 'reëlect'). There's zero justification for this, etymologically or orthographically, it's just pure pretension.
Lol typical hacker news blowhard going off on something they have no idea about . "Orthographically" speaking there IS a justification and you would've found it if you spent three seconds of effort:
diaeresis (plural diaereses)
1. (orthography) A diacritic ( ¨ ) placed over a vowel letter (especially the second of two consecutive ones) indicating that it is sounded separately, usually forming a distinct syllable, as in the English words naïve, Noël and Brontë, the French haïr and the Dutch ruïne.
It makes perfect sense to use the diacritic in this way and it is part of their style guide, has been for some time.
You couldn't even spend the time researching what you're complaining about. Talk about pretension.
I'm well aware it's a diaeresis, and that it's part of their house style. That's exactly what I'm objecting to.
The diaeresis is obsolete modern English (with rare exceptions) and putting it in interrupts the flow of reading.
There is no excuse for it in 'cooperation', and only the only reason they do it is in order to show off they know about it - IOW pretension.
Yes, there is. A) it is a perfectly grammatically and orthographically correct usage of the di B) There is no prescriptive body which governs usage of American English - there's no need for an "excuse" to use an orthographic feature of the language as if it is some clause violated.
The reason they do it is because it's the New Yorker. It's their house style. It's what their readers expect and understand and it has become a tradition and perhaps even emblematic of the magazine and its brand. Complaining about the "pretentiousness" of the New Yorker is like complaining about the convoluted commands in eMacs or vim - it's not a problem, it's a feature.
Any deviation from the norms of English calls attention to itself, and distracts from the meaning. This can be done by great writers, but always with reason.
Good writing reveals something about the reader.
Bad writing reveals something about the writer.
However since you now seem to agree that it's pretentious, which was my original point, I'll leave it there.
I agree. And I say this with all due respect to tdk, unless you want to be a "typical Hacker News blowhard," don't make irrelevant critiques! It's this kind of stuff that gets me riled up about HN comments. This, and the classic "No. You're wrong..." brusque replies.
We get it, you don't like the style of the article (and you might not like the style of the New Yorker), but why does that matter? The article used paragraphs, was free of grammatical errors, and was highly readable.
The New Yorker is a magazine, not a broadsheet paper. I suppose you might have confused it with the New York Times, but the Times doesn't use the style rule in question and so the claim would be untrue about that publication, as well.
It's interesting how it does tend to be the second of two, because you never see it occur on thirds even where it "works", such as sequoïa, aqueöus, Hawaiiän, or Louïe.
It doesn't work in those, because the vowel marked does form a dipthong with the preceding vowel in two of them, and wouldn't ordinarily in the sequence of vowels in the other two.
Those "pretentious" dots are the difference between a chicken coop and a worker coöp. They're to completely different words, and the spelling makes this clear.
I'm anti-snob but I do like it when publications write "résumé" instead of "resume" for a job seeker's summary.
Those extra accent marks make it much more readable. Without them, I always mentally pronounce "employe resume" as "employee rezoom" and then backtrack to correct myself to pronounce it as "employee rayzoomay".
The comments below explain a bit of the reasoning, but I agree. In cases where there is no alternative meaning to the word, this makes for a confusing read, especially since ö is a letter with a completely different sound in several European languages (German, and I think Norwegian and Danish, and my local dialect of Slovenian :P), pronounced as "oe"
Oh it's total pretension, but there _is_ justification for this. The diaeresis separates out the second vowel. It's pronounced not "rehlect" but "re-elect".
Thanks for posting this. The TL;DR version of this article is:
> I was asked for my advice, there was a clear cut right answer, that would have been good for the company and good for the future of the internet, but would have upset my bosses.
> Instead, I kept my mouth shut to help my career. This makes me "grown as a person" and "politically and socially clueful".
No, it makes you a jerk.
> btw, running craigslist is a "public service" and makes me a "philanthropist".
So you've given away the $400 million you made off craigslist, then? No? Then you're a delusional jerk.
