curious, with an in mind.

The human writer seems to promise locating principles for "good naming".

they have defined a set of
"problems" come "deficiencies" they fancy "fixing"
and promise that some principles will indeed fix.

Show thread

my question here is:
are humans cool on principle repeating?

Perhaps some kind of an - when it comes to repeating tasks - could do far more efficient job?

Why not write a book of principles for a bot or some such rather than humans?

Show thread

iws this to advocate writing for other than humans?

Not intentionally.

The thinking is more like writing for multiple sentiences (??!!).
Sure.. Each may read the other's, however, taking the naming example:
Some initial principles for .
The questions of how these principles were conceived - for humans?

this obviously supposes the is fab in repetitions and humans are fantastic when meta wondering and imagination come along..

Something seems disturbing about these thoughts.. not sure what ;)

Show thread
Sign in to participate in the conversation

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!