51 pointsby notem12 hours ago8 comments
  • dcre8 hours ago
    How exciting, I get to be the pedant: it’s “stream-of-consciousness,” not “stream-of-conscious.” Conscious is an adjective; there can’t be a stream of it.
    • psychoslave3 hours ago
      On the other hand English is highly imbued with lake of morphological inflection and other explicit lexicalization by grammatical type. So this is really just following the main stream tendency.
    • rendall3 hours ago
      I see your pedantry, and raise it one more!

      Through substantivization one can definitely have stream-of-<adjective>. Think "a stream of blue" or "a stream of the poor".

      People often shave off the tail of well-known expressions:

      “same difference” → “same diff”

      “no big deal” → “no big”

      “It’s no big.”

      “fair enough” → “fair”

      “Fair.”

      “good enough” → “good enough” → “good”

      “Yeah, that’s good.” (implies good enough)

      “I don’t know” → “dunno”

      • latexr43 minutes ago
        > People often shave off the tail of well-known expressions

        Though typically not in writing, that’s more of a speech thing.

    • globular-toast4 hours ago
      This is how British people feel every time we read "full-featured".
      • OJFordan hour ago
        And every other adverb! I often find myself shouting (not necessarily audibly) 'ly!' at American TV/movies/podcasts etc.

        It's 'real annoying'.

    • nofriend8 hours ago
      It's a noun too
      • fc417fc8028 hours ago
        I was about to object that the latter is not in fact a noun but was surprised to see that wiktionary lists it as such. However it provides no usage examples and I strongly suspect it is in error.
        • sheept7 hours ago
          I think it is occasionally used with "the," i.e. "the conscious" (referring to the conscious part of your body, for example). Adjectives sometimes become nouns this way, like "the poor"
          • thaumasiotes6 hours ago
            I searched the Corpus of Contemporary American English ( https://www.english-corpora.org/coca/ ) for 'conscious_n', which means the token "conscious" with a 'noun' part-of-speech tag.

            There are five results. All five of them are tagging errors:

            If we scan to get enough info, then model the cells well enough, and have enough computers to run the simulation of the models, then the input-output of the emulation of the brain will be the same as the input-output of the original brain. It will act like it is conscious. [adjective, modifying it]

            Well, first we work on working the body together, so that we can go places with both of us conscious. [adjective, modifying both of us]

            Lady Bertram looks barely conscious. [adjective, modifying Lady Bertram]

            In a few years, he believed, this institution would be needed in Ukraine, as new conscripts became more religiously conscious. [adjective, modifying new conscripts]

            It is in this sense that Rahner means that grace is conscious. [adjective, modifying grace]

            Examples 3 and 4 are so far from being nouns that they're being modified by adverbs.

            It seems safe to conclude that in fact there is no nounal use of the word "conscious".

            > Adjectives sometimes become nouns this way, like "the poor"

            That isn't actually what's happening in "the poor". The position occupied by the token poor in that phrase can be filled by all kinds of things:

            God loves everyone equally. The rich and the poor, the just and the unjust, the sane and the schizophrenic, the possessed-of-billions-of-dollars and the penniless...

            Do you want to argue that "possessed of billions of dollars" is a noun?

            We can apply our in-passing observation from earlier and contrast the fully-awake with the barely-conscious. Here, as above, it's impossible for conscious to be a noun, because it is being modified by an adverb. And it's... dubious... for barely conscious to be a noun phrase, because it is headed by conscious, which we know isn't a noun.

            • fc417fc8026 hours ago
              Nice dataset, I didn't know about that one.

              Is my impression correct, that in general "the {thing}" is a noun phrase without implying anything about {thing} itself?

              • thaumasiotes3 hours ago
                > Is my impression correct, that in general "the {thing}" is a noun phrase without implying anything about {thing} itself?

                Yes, with some minor caveats:

                1. Some people prefer to see "the {thing}" as a 'determiner phrase', where 'determiner' is the name for the part of speech to which the belongs. You can call it a 'noun phrase' without losing anything meaningful. 'Noun phrase' is definitely a better term if you're not deep in the technical weeds of grammatical analysis.

                2. There are conclusions you could draw about {thing}, but they're more complex than "it's a noun". It's fair to just not talk about them.

                3. In language, there are always problems somewhere for any analysis. (Which is why an unbroken chain of transmission can have Latin on one side and French on the other.) I wouldn't even say that a noun phrase with that structure exists at all in an example like "The more you say it, the more I think it". But that particular construction is weird enough that I'm perfectly comfortable saying it's just outside the scope of your qualifier "in general".

      • dcre5 hours ago
        No it isn't. Can you give an example?
        • jrflowers2 hours ago
          They call your subconscious sub- because it is below your conscious. Hth
        • LoganDark5 hours ago
          I am a conscious because I am conscious. Similar to how I am an autistic because I am autistic.

          I would argue, though, that doesn't make conscious a noun, but simply uses an adjective as a noun.

          • culopatin5 hours ago
            Isn’t it an adjective on both? Being conscious because you have consciousness. Otherwise you’re repeating the same thing. I’m happy because I’m happy. I’m pink because I’m pink? Disclaimer: ESL
          • dwb4 hours ago
            I’ve never heard that usage, it doesn’t sound right to me. (Relatedly, “an autistic” is generally considered dated / mildly offensive / just incorrect. Better is “an autistic person”, which makes it an adjective again. There does exist the noun “autist” which I do hear occasionally, but not from autistic people as far as I’m aware, so would probably avoid as well.)
    • efilife5 hours ago
      I think the same when I see "your subconscious". No, it should be "your subconsciousness"
      • MoltenMan3 hours ago
        But being 'conscious' of something is being aware of it; your 'subconscious' is the part of your brain 'below' your awareness (although it is true that it's also below your consciousness! So perhaps both would work)
      • 4 hours ago
        undefined
  • omoikane6 hours ago
    I think it's actually the last 10 lines of code, not 12. I just wrote these 10 lines:

       Remember A as forty-two
       Tell me about A
       Remember B as A
       Tell me about B
       Remember C as B
       Tell me about C
       Remember D as C
       Tell me about D
       Remember E as D
       Tell me about E
    
    And you can see how it plots the dependencies as a graph on the right, which is kind of neat. But when I add the 11th line:

       Remember F as E
    
    You see the graph being turned into a forest with no dependencies, because it has forgotten the root dependency A. Indeed, if you enter "Tell me about A", it will say it does not remember A.

    Another neat thing to try is:

       Remember x as zero
       Remember y as x
       Remember x as y
  • dlcarrier10 hours ago
    In my country, we call that an interactive shell.

    Fun fact, if you run Python from a command line, with no options, it defaults to such a shell.

    • moron4hire9 hours ago
      Most scripting languages are designed to present a REPL (read-eval-print loop) in such a scenario.
      • 38 minutes ago
        undefined
  • lexcamisa54an hour ago
    reminds me a
  • addaon6 hours ago
    Needs a compiler for the Mill architecture.
  • NooneAtAll37 hours ago
    why does the knob in the top right corner do nothing?
  • stitched2gethr9 hours ago
    This is intriguing.

    On another note, I do not understand how posts make it to the top of the front page with essentially no comments.

    • tomhow9 hours ago
      How do they get comments without being on the front page? :)

      A post just needs to get a handful of organic upvotes soon after submission, to get near the top of the front page. And submissions can easily stay on the front page for hours without much discussion. They just have to be interesting enough that people consider them worthy of an upvote.

  • lexcamisa544 hours ago
    [dead]