This morning’s forecast:
Actual conditions:
Apparently, they don’t teach Cromwell’s Rule in meteorology school. (HT to Steve, a statistics major in college, for the reference.)
We have lots of interesting, usable metadata; we have algorithms; we have prototypes; we have ideas for lots of cool, implementable features. The question is, are we able to write applications that just combines what is needed from all this treasure to provide the right interface(s) for our base(s) of users?Most of the back-end code is already implemented in Python, and I'm thinking of putting it together into a working prototype for a new concept of a file manager. This could be even implemented quickly, if someone joins me who is good at:
Debora is 34, working as a web designer in a small enterprise. She has a laptop running Debian which she uses both for work and at home. She likes Debian for the wide range of software, that allows her to be always able to access the best tools for the job, even in a highly changing environment like the one of web design. At home she enjoys the various tools for photo editing and management, and of course, having a husband and a 6 years old son, the selection of games.The tasks
/(usr/)?s?bin/ and they must have manpages.
For packages that are tagged as interface::3d, interface::text-mode or
interface::x11, allow to run them directly from the interface.
Also show the contents of /usr/share/doc/pkgname and
/usr/share/doc/suggested-and-recommended-pkgnames and allow to open
documentation with the appropriate software. If there is an html directory
which contains an index.html, only show that and not all the other
HTML files.
Find info documentation and allow to open it into a proper info browser.
If there are manpages that don't have a corresponding executable, show them as
extra documentation.
What was that nice package I installed yesterday?
List installed packages sorted by when was the last time they have been
installed.
Let's get rid of the cruft
<OLD> in the local popcon scan (and then, by
increasing atimes): those are the packages that are installed but are not
being used.case "any": $filter = "'!role::shared-lib'"; break;
case "gui": $filter = "'!role::shared-lib && role::program && (interface::x11 interface::3d)'"; break;
case "devel": $filter = "'!role::shared-lib && devel::*'"; break;
case "game": $filter = "'!role::shared-lib && role::program && game::*'"; break;
default: $filter = ""; break;
debtags search '!role::shared-lib'
debtags search '!role::shared-lib && role::program && (interface::x11 interface::3d)'
debtags search '!role::shared-lib && devel::*'
debtags search '!role::shared-lib && role::program && game::*'
There is so much really cool stuff to be written, just within reach.So?
If nutritional scientists know this, why do they do it anyway? Because a nutrient bias is built into the way science is done: scientists need individual variables they can isolate. Yet even the simplest food is a hopelessly complex thing to study, a virtual wilderness of chemical compounds, many of which exist in complex and dynamic relation to one another, and all of which together are in the process of changing from one state to another. So if you re a nutritional scientist, you do the only thing you can do, given the tools at your disposal: break the thing down into its component parts and study those one by one, even if that means ignoring complex interactions and contexts, as well as the fact that the whole may be more than, or just different from, the sum of its parts. This is what we mean by reductionist science.And muses on the effects of this narrow path:
No one likes to admit that his or her best efforts at understanding and solving a problem have actually made the problem worse, but that s exactly what has happened in the case of nutritionism. Scientists operating with the best of intentions, using the best tools at their disposal, have taught us to look at food in a way that has diminished our pleasure in eating it while doing little or nothing to improve our health. Perhaps what we need now is a broader, less reductive view of what food is, one that is at once more ecological and cultural. What would happen, for example, if we were to start thinking about food as less of a thing and more of a relationship?.
Eat less is the most unwelcome advice of all, but in fact the scientific case for eating a lot less than we currently do is compelling. Calorie restriction has repeatedly been shown to slow aging in animals, and many researchers (including Walter Willett, the Harvard epidemiologist) believe it offers the single strongest link between diet and cancer prevention. Food abundance is a problem, but culture has helped here, too, by promoting the idea of moderation. Once one of the longest-lived people on earth, the Okinawans practiced a principle they called Hara Hachi Bu : eat until you are 80 percent full. To make the eat less message a bit more palatable, consider that quality may have a bearing on quantity: I don t know about you, but the better the quality of the food I eat, the less of it I need to feel satisfied. All tomatoes are not created equal.There is no doubt that the article is advocating, very strongly, a point and he is not being all impassioned and neutral as may happen with a purely scientific rendition of the the topic. This will no doubt cause debate and reaction, which I am sure is what he was aiming for. And whether you end up agreeing or not with his critique, it makes for one fascinating read. Along with this piece is another engrossing, somewhat older one piece by Carl Elliot: A New Way to be Mad that examines the ethical complexities of what seems to be a relatively new phenomenon: Body Integration Identity Disorder (which he may have helped fuel a little via his very article and it is this issue of looping, first discussed by the philosopher of science, Ian Hacking that Carl Elliot nicely captures). Since the article is not available for free, here is another one, also by Carl Elliot, that addresses the same topic Unlike Pollan, Elliot does not have any clear cut answers or a really trenchant critique. More than anything he serves up a tasty meal that will in all likelihood be new to many readers, and the flavors he adds are those that make us confront the many interesting moral quandaries that this case presents.
Next.