Errata and notes.txt

Notes on the audio overview, "Computation is Merge and Collapse" 

Scroll is pronounced "skrole" not "strole". Although I do call my multilayer palimpsest reading table a "sproll reader". 

My name is pronounced Flyxion (Flicksy-on or Fliction) not Flixiton or flick-sixion.

They say the date was "a couple of days ago", but it's today.

The say "spherepop" is a horrible name, 'cause it sounds like a soda, not a programming language or a calculus, which was a little insulting. But it did inspire me to make an image of it as a beverage (spherepop-soda.png), based on Orbitz, a defunct Canadian drink which had little floating balls inside, widely considered a flop, but it was delicious. I guess Canadians were not ready for Bubble Tea.

The comparison to the game "Guess Who" is brilliant, I've used this analogy before exactly to explain how computation is selecting from the possibility space of all possible options by choosing or excluded by selection, which continually narrow down the optionality. It is therefore a contragrade process as opposed to increasing the number of possibilities that lead to the same conclusion, akin to the idea of entropy as the number of ways to slice a system and get the same results. That is to say entropy is a reduction in the number of constraints, where negentropy or contragrade potential is an increase. Although this hasn't been immediately apparent to everyone. According to Prigogine, dissipative structures become locally ordered by exporting the entropy to the environment. They create order locally but still always increase the total amount of entropy overall, in the whole system.

It's funny how much they sound like they disdain lambda calculus, calling it "the bane of computer science students everywhere" and use "the c-word" to refer to category theory.

They say, "every good story needs a villain". And they call mutation the enemy of reason. They define pure function deterministic replay or referential transparency, which they identify as the  hero. I'm not sure I could have been this concise, although it is implicit in my arguments. They describe it as a historian with an append-only event log. Which is to say it is an immutable data structure. They really seem to understand how mutability. 

They say "chapter seis" not six, and "the jedded m-word". I assume they meant dreaded but I'm not sure if there is any consensus on such a word. The also pronounce code as cud. 

It really shows that this essay contains arguments in Distributed Centrality, Manufacturing Stability, Semantic Architecture, and The Mortality of Computation

The bumper sticker summary as "Computation is Geometrical" is pretty good. "Structure precedes Symbol" is also very good. They call it a cheap label that we stick on afterwards, which is similar to my arguments about aphantasia and anendophasia with visualizing or audiolizing as being added on after a thought, although it would provide a surface for iterative development, The description of merge as adding clay and collapse as sculpting it away is brilliant. 

The call me "a time traveler from the future, a alien intelligence, or a very bored PhD student in a basement somewhere" non of which is entirely accurate. 

It is awkward and fourth-wall breaking when they call themselves "us monkeys" since I'm not sure a computer program can make that claim.

I like the rejection of the algorithm as a series of steps like a recipe. Which are similar to the arguments made in Karl Fant's Computer, Science Reconsidered. The refer to the acronym CPS, by which I assume they meant "continuation-passing style" which is brilliant but I'm not sure if I explicitly mentioned this, although it is exactly how I have been defining pure functional programming avoiding side-effects.

I'm not sure I used the metaphor "buckets of colored blocks" for region or sphere, but it is a good one, and similar to what Hume called "a bundle of traits", and I what called a "semantic ladle".