I've thought the same thing, haha. I was thinking about going the other way though, with dor for and/or and or for xor. We already have doff and don, which for some reason seem like similar constructions.
For me that sounds like you would include WWII, just like if you counted up to 20.
> Describe the events leading up to WWII
Then I would agree, that would be "explain the set of events on which WWII depended" so that would include all prior events which are relevant to WWII, without including WWII itself, but also missing out any events not relevant to WWII, so not e.g. "OK so the ice age was before WWII, so let's start there".
In my experience, spoken English is relatively fault tolerant, which probably makes speaking it less challenging than it first appears. To become proficient, you slowly learn the rules.
Not sure how this compares to other languages. I’ve only observed other people learning the language. As a typical American, I only speak American English. If you mentioned the boot of a car, I’d probably ask if you meant the tires. ;)
I think the difference in this case is that we naturally parenthesize the sentences differently:
(Count up) to 20.
and
Describe the events (up to) WWII.
Because "count up" and "count down" have precedence over "up to" in the linguistic order of operations, so to speak. There's of course no "describe up" or "events up", so "up to" has precedence in the second case.
I suggest "ecks-or". This developed in university CS labs, as a result of exchanges like "OK are we going to finish the shell project tonight or shall I just slam my head into the desk until I fall unconscious?" "Yes"
Yeah, but the "everyday meaning" of AND is different too. Everyday meaning: you can have A and also B, but you don't have to; boolean logic: you have to have A and B, otherwise you don't have anything.
There is a finite number of hours in a day and a finite number of possibilities to combine different activities during these hours. Even with best of intentions and very decent techniques, it's impossible to have a XOR life with too many things at once without getting exhausted and burned out and getting a temporarily NOT life as a result.
We tend to invest too much time into activities when we limit ourselves. You can work out, bone up your knowledge, eat healthy, work efficiently, and have time for recreation and a family. It take investing time into planning, which feels wasteful when you're overwhelmed. And it might mean you timebox certain activities to limit burning the ocean.
In this context: forcing a choice in activities between one option or other when both are meaningful to a person. That's not to say you should never abandon activities, only that folks tend to over-do it.
Instead of identifying yourself in bounded categories, characterise yourself by affinity.
Haraway calls for a revision of the concept of gender, moving away from Western patriarchal essentialism and toward "the utopian dream of the hope for a monstrous world without gender," stating that "Cyborgs might consider more seriously the partial, fluid, sometimes aspect of sex and sexual embodiment. Gender might not be global identity after all, even if it has profound historical breadth and depth."
Would love gender-by-affinity rather than gender-by-bimodal-physical-characteristics. It'd be neat to try on having boobs, especially if it's e.g. temporary to feed my child or something, and still do and be seen with all the guy characteristics I currently identify as.
I wonder how improving technology will affect perceptions of of these concepts. Right now, transitioning genders physically is hard, for many reasons, and quality of outcomes is dependent on many factors.
What if you could just pop into a genetic resculpting pod and it could literally physically edit you to be biologically the other gender? What if it was fast and easy enough that someone could do it habitually during a day or week? Be one gender at work and one gender while at home?
I suspect that enough generations will pass that the gradual decoupling of physical biology from our sense of identity will make this a less interesting smooth change with no big-bang, but I'd be kind of interested in reading a short story exploring what our world would look like if this star-trek-tier sophisticated body-modding was invented tomorrow.
Yeah see, that'd be neat. I've heard a lot of unpleasant bra stuff and it'd be cool if women could just not have them if it was such a hassle. (I've heard from women doctors generally refuse breast reduction unless its considered medically necessary or has written permission from a male long-term partner.)
Lactation is the product of a dynamic system of organs in the body. It's more than just "trying on boobs". It actively responds to the baby's needs through chemical signalling.
What if I want to live an AND life AND an OR life?
This post finds reasonable fault with false dichotomies as "OR life" then reifies the structure of false dichotomy in the title and proposition as positivist thinking.
I think the constructive equivalent is "When life gives you lemons, make lemonade". Or at least be mindful of the false binary trap, even in your personal life...
I landed on a "flexible OR" life. I've found that focusing on fewer things (OR) without being dogmatic (eating healthy can mean cake sometimes) brings me a lot more satisfaction than focusing on many things and not enjoying any of them fully.
It's quite silly in hindsight how we invent false choices (I am A XOR B) to "escape" the daily responsibility of real decisions, i.e. whether to spend this moment working on A or B.
Any article that features art in the style of that header image? Why exactly? That seems like an unnecessarily uncompromising attitude, no? I get that we all have our own heuristics and signals we rely on, but maybe the author here just didn't think through what image to use very deeply at all and just threw something on there last second before clicking to publish? Dismissing the entire post out of hand just based on that seems a bit rash.
It's definitely irrational on my part, but as you said, it's one of the heuristics I base spending my time on. If a friend or someone I respect tells me otherwise, I'll read it though.
Binary thinking limits. Control is an illusion or at best minimal. You are not your emotions. There are seasons in life. Let the river carry you to the ocean. It's up to you how that process feels.
Ultimately it's an article of faith. A leap. If it helps, here's a metaphor: you're in a vessel in the middle of a vast, swift river. You have a paddle. Do you have control? Yes. Can you control the outcome? No. More pithily, "Man plans, and God laughs."
58 comments
[ 0.17 ms ] story [ 148 ms ] threadMaybe we should start saying xor as though it is a normal English word, pronounced "zor"?
Which in this article is called "AND" (which logically requires both, rather than allows both).
This kind of ambiguity really drives us logical people nuts. :)
> Count up to 20
Is a prompt to count up to, and include, twenty.
> Describe the events up to WWII
Is a prompt to describe the events leading up to WWII, but leave out the war itself.
> Describe the events up to WWII
For me that sounds like you would include WWII, just like if you counted up to 20.
> Describe the events leading up to WWII
Then I would agree, that would be "explain the set of events on which WWII depended" so that would include all prior events which are relevant to WWII, without including WWII itself, but also missing out any events not relevant to WWII, so not e.g. "OK so the ice age was before WWII, so let's start there".
(Native English speaker, from UK).
Not sure how this compares to other languages. I’ve only observed other people learning the language. As a typical American, I only speak American English. If you mentioned the boot of a car, I’d probably ask if you meant the tires. ;)
(Count up) to 20.
and
Describe the events (up to) WWII.
Because "count up" and "count down" have precedence over "up to" in the linguistic order of operations, so to speak. There's of course no "describe up" or "events up", so "up to" has precedence in the second case.
nothing in between.
We tend to invest too much time into activities when we limit ourselves. You can work out, bone up your knowledge, eat healthy, work efficiently, and have time for recreation and a family. It take investing time into planning, which feels wasteful when you're overwhelmed. And it might mean you timebox certain activities to limit burning the ocean.
Some resources you might find useful
[1] https://www.artofmanliness.com/skills/how-to/weekly-plan/
[2] Todoist/Trello are great for kanban tasks lists for the must-get-dones
[3] Set reasonable goals and milestones -- and be honest with yourself! (see 1)
[4] For larger targets, https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/strategic-planning-kit/...
Planning this way has hallmarks of Agile, when actually done well not the BS we see a lot of.
Probably most important is to give yourself a bit of grace and flexibility.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Cyborg_Manifesto
Instead of identifying yourself in bounded categories, characterise yourself by affinity.
Edit:
Found it: https://www.amazon.com/Milker-Now-Men-Can-Breastfeed/dp/B00B...
What if you could just pop into a genetic resculpting pod and it could literally physically edit you to be biologically the other gender? What if it was fast and easy enough that someone could do it habitually during a day or week? Be one gender at work and one gender while at home?
I suspect that enough generations will pass that the gradual decoupling of physical biology from our sense of identity will make this a less interesting smooth change with no big-bang, but I'd be kind of interested in reading a short story exploring what our world would look like if this star-trek-tier sophisticated body-modding was invented tomorrow.
This post finds reasonable fault with false dichotomies as "OR life" then reifies the structure of false dichotomy in the title and proposition as positivist thinking.
I think the constructive equivalent is "When life gives you lemons, make lemonade". Or at least be mindful of the false binary trap, even in your personal life...
Funny, he never seemed to have met up with the techno witches Onoffon and Offonoff.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_Memphis
though I've also heard it called Alegria, and I'm not sure the exact difference.
edit: Alegria was Facebook's style specifically, Linus Boman has a great video which briefly discussed its place in history of clip art:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XfLlpxE6AYM
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_Memphis
Yes.
No.
Time to do something else entirely.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-valued_logic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Oak_and_the_Reed
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karnaugh_map
Returning on topic, like others have stated, some times you need to be an OR, others an AND, others a NOT and some others combinations of all.