[tw5] [Slightly OT] Jeremy speaking at CodeMesh, London 8/9th November 2018

[Jeremy Ruston]

Joe Armstrong has kindly invited me to speak with him on "Intertwingling the Tiddlywiki with Erlang” at the CodeMesh conference in London on November 8/9th 2018. For those that may not know, Joe is the eminent creator of Erlang, a computer language that has become dominant in real time telecoms systems over the last 30 years. Joe has been interested in TiddlyWiki for a few years, and recently we’ve been collaborating on ideas that emerge from mixing the concepts of Erlang with those of TiddlyWiki.

I’m afraid it’s a commercial conference with a hefty price tag, but may be interesting for anyone with a supportive employer who funds conference attendance. If it’s not recorded I think Joe and I can undertake to repeat the talk for posterity at some point.

https://codesync.global/conferences/code-mesh-2018/ <https://codesync.global/conferences/code-mesh-2018/>

I don’t normally seek out opportunities for public speaking, but I’m quite excited about this one. It’s been fascinating to see how Joe thinks about TiddlyWiki, and encouraging to have some mainstream interest.

Best wishes

Jeremy.

[@TiddlyTweeter]

Jeremy Ruston wrote ...

<snip> ... It’s been fascinating to see how Joe thinks about TiddlyWiki,
and encouraging to have some mainstream interest.

IMO this is good to get TW more notice. TW's Flexible Utility is, I think,
quite unusual. Interested to learn about what happens, how its
presented/received.

Best good luck,
Josiah

[Alex Hough]

Jeremy,

I have an idea!

Could we make a separate artefact with you and Joe. I am kick starting a
not-for-profit project, it has a Code Club as part of it.

Thanks to Joe's Tweet mentioning Sonic Pi and TiddlyWiki as great starting
points for learning to code, we are planning an event using Sonic Pi

maybe we could take this converstaion off line before reporting back to the
TiddlyWiki community...

best wishes

Alex

Post by Jeremy Ruston
Joe Armstrong has kindly invited me to speak with him on "Intertwingling
the Tiddlywiki with Erlang” at the CodeMesh conference in London on
November 8/9th 2018. For those that may not know, Joe is the eminent
creator of Erlang, a computer language that has become dominant in real
time telecoms systems over the last 30 years. Joe has been interested in
TiddlyWiki for a few years, and recently we’ve been collaborating on ideas
that emerge from mixing the concepts of Erlang with those of TiddlyWiki.
I’m afraid it’s a commercial conference with a hefty price tag, but may be
interesting for anyone with a supportive employer who funds conference
attendance. If it’s not recorded I think Joe and I can undertake to repeat
the talk for posterity at some point.
https://codesync.global/conferences/code-mesh-2018/
I don’t normally seek out opportunities for public speaking, but I’m quite
excited about this one. It’s been fascinating to see how Joe thinks about
TiddlyWiki, and encouraging to have some mainstream interest.
Best wishes
Jeremy.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"TiddlyWiki" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywiki.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/
msgid/tiddlywiki/A79BC829-DC1B-481F-8F9F-77B2B8FC32F1%40gmail.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/A79BC829-DC1B-481F-8F9F-77B2B8FC32F1%40gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[b***@gmail.com]

Definitely, take TW wherever it can be taken to.

[@TiddlyTweeter]

I was surprised. Its more interesting than I thought it would be! :-)

Jermolene and Jo Armstrong are developing some ideas that are both
interesting and kinda look doable.

Various concepts were discussed. Here are couple of several ...

I found interesting the general idea around ENTROPY REDUCTION. Meaning
there is too much unneeded repetition in lots of knowledge stores. The
point was something like the SEMANTIC UNIT in TW better corresponds to the
section of text (paragraph-ish) that is such a unit than is the case in
word-processors--where documents subsume semantic fragments into "coerced
wholes" that need "difficult decomposition" to "un-discombobulate" (my
three phrases). This could have useful implications for writing more
efficiently in TW ... for example ...


1. Why on earth would I want to write a Tiddler about a Toothbrush
Inicident if Mark S. has written about it already? ...
2. In writing my Deep Thoughts I'd like to know IF they have been
written already. I'm of the mind to Save Energy rather than repeat what has
been done before.


Another thing was what I now think of as non-centralised-TAG-HARMONISATION.
They called it "tag inference". I think their point was if you combine or
co-ordinate wiki from different authors they likely used different tags to
organise Tiddlers. The idea was some kind of algorithem to help
co-ordinate them (Bayesian statistics seemed most successful in their early
tests, which is itself interesting, though perhaps still not accurate
enough.)

One thought would be that every tag could be peer-shared to form a
THEASAURUS OF TAGOLOGY (my rubic) that maybe drew on existing online
resources like VisualTheasaurus to offer options live as you create tags...

[image: Capture.PNG]
Best wishes
Josiah

Hi,

have fun!
mario

[@TiddlyTweeter]

One of the things that interests me a lot that, that the talk raised a bit,
and which no one seems to know how to answer is ... :-)

WHAT exactly is an SU (Semantic Unit) in TW writing (or computing writing
In General, for that matter)?

There is a kind of rule of thumb "its maybe a paragraph"? But, of course
that won't quite work for the one-sentence brevity of a Nietzsche.

Its obviously highly context dependent. And I doubt much of that context
lives on the computer itself.

The idea in TW towards writing "the shortest semantic whole possible" (the
word "fragment" here that is thrown around has muddied waters; they are not
fragments so much as whole-parts-of-wholes) allows for later
re-combinations to form more complex semantics.

However, I think its bit of an, ultimately, moot and mute point, in the
sense that human meaning is often an interaction with technologies of
expression themselves (though no where ever fully defined by them). So its
an area of intuited understanding, not formal logic? On the other hand,
who's offering the horse which water?

Josiah

Hi,
http://youtu.be/Uv1UfLPK7_Q
have fun!
mario