[akhilcacharya]

If you know about Yarvins other beliefs, the fact that t seems obfuscated makes quite a bit of sense in my view. I think it's a superiority thing for him.

At its core? I think it's kind of interesting. Would have been more useful if he had made it simpler to understand/develop in. In its current form, it seems like a vanity project to me.

[eggy]

Discounting Yarvin feeling superior, or others perceiving that, I am in favor of the 'start from scratch' here. Worst-case scenario it fails, and only drags a few bleeding edgers with it. If it succeeds, we have a whole new way to proceed without necessarily abandoning the old.

Just at the hardware level, we are forever, it seems, stuck in the von Neumann architecture with some recent hops to vector processing on GPUs and FPGA/ASIC/GPU hybrids. We need software for these new platforms if they divorce from the von Neumann machine. I am not calling for reincarnating Lisp Machines, but maybe its time to build and test new (not the same old) hardware and software,to see how it competes with this path we're on. Why not? Experimentation is fruitful one way or the other; you learn from your mistakes too.

I am interested in Urbit, and I can separate myself from Yarvin's political writings, the same way I could still concede that 1 + 1 = 2, even if Hitler had written a paper saying so without any of his views contained therein.

Yarvin admits the obfuscation by using different terms, or swapping 1 and 0 from their current boolean understanding, 'may hold water' per the bootleg YouTube video of the talk he just gave. I personally think when you are trying to usher in something different, it is helpful to shed old terms. So much weight is carried by words, good and bad. It sometimes helps to freshen up the lingo with the new or slightly-altered concepts. After having read a little Wittgenstein and the late Umberto Eco's works on semiotics, I am convinced language or signs carry significant biases that are useful to put aside or rename if it helps you to think of an old concept in a new light.

[bcbrown]

>After having read a little Wittgenstein and the late Umberto Eco's works on semiotics

Do you have any suggestions on good starting points? I found Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus to be a rough introduction to Wittgenstein. I'm also curious what Eco you'd recommend; I've only read his novels and essays.

[eggy]

I've only read two of Eco's fictional works: The Name of the Rose, and Foucault's Pendulum. I loved them both, but then I picked up The Island of the Day Before, and didn't finish it. I have also read his essays.

The book I was referring to was Theory of Semiotics by Eco. I picked it up in 1982 or 83, after having read The Name of the Rose, and I honestly didn't know what Semiotics meant until I spent 20 minutes reading it in the bookstore (no Googling then!).

I had read Tractatus Logico-Philosphicus around the same time, 1983 or so. I read most of it, some pages multiple times, but I didn't finish it. I only grasped enough to know I wasn't going to change my major to Linguistics. I was hopping off of references in the bookstores the way I now follow links down rabbit holes.

I should revisit these works now that I have some more years on me!

[msutherl]

Wittgenstein only really published two works: The Tractatus and Philosophical Investigations, in which he completely revises his approach. Read the latter.

[trentmb]

Ironically non-inclusive, elitist language is a mainstay for leftists too.

EDIT: Read Marxists.org, it's incredibly unapproachable to the layman that didn't complete high school let alone middle school.

[allengeorge]

Elitist language can be used by any group to partition themselves from others. I'm sure many groups (formal and informal) do it.

That said, I believe there has to be a floor to the language level you choose, and it's reasonable to use "high school English" as that floor. Besides, I checked out that link (history section) and didn't see anything that screamed "overly clever"...

[morsch]

The comparison to marxist texts is more pointed if they were unapproachable not just to the layman, but to people proficient in (non-marxist) political economics -- which is arguably the case.

[mikeash]

I'm not sure why that's ironic. Extremists tend to have a lot in common in their overall approaches, even if they may be violently opposed on the specifics.