Re: class wide iterable (and indexable)

["Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>]

On 2019-01-06 19:29, George Shapovalov wrote:
>> [*] Except that may be we can,
> I guess I better clarify those last parts (especially the [*] and [**]).
> 
> My point is that some (and increasingly more) problems are intrinsically complex. And our comprehension capacity is limited [*]. Short of developing a "higher intelligence entity" or (even better) becoming one (I mean here beyond natural selection progression which, at fixed traits accumulation rate measured in centuries and the need for periodic ecosystem crises to force selection, is too slow to cope with present information inflation), we cannot significantly affect the balance between increasing complexity of the tasks we face and our development capacity. Thus the need for sane and well designed tools and, perhaps, faster standard review process. But I suspect this last suggestion will cause even more grief than all other technical ones :) (nor is it realistic in present situation).

Software developing tools add and multiply complexity. Each tool is an 
indicator of some or someone's defeat.

> [*] I would even go as far as claiming that we are already approaching upper limit learning capacity of an unmodded brain. With people "at the top" spending over 50% of their life daily concentrating on some specific topic to reach "significant" level already, we can expect increase of maybe few more times in efficiency, but hardly an order of magnitude or more. Besides, a lot of the recent increase (past few decades) came from information availability. But at this point we already seem to be bottlenecked by our individual ability to process this information.

That depends on the structure of the information. The amount of 
information required to solve the same task in Assembler and in Ada is 
quite different.

> Thus the proliferation of all these recent popular services of "suggestive info preprocessing" initiated by Google, but rather ubiquitous by now. Mostly targeted at masses at the moment, but more useful and specialized services being developed too (and rather essential in order to just stay on top of all the developments in any given domain).

This is well advertised snake oil. Most of the software is. We sell 
people solutions for non-existent problems in order to create new, even 
more imaginary, problems, for which we will sell solutions too...

> But I would like to see it taken to yet another level, with a more effective exchange protocols, going beyond mere verbal communication. This is however is yet ways off, as it depends on installing another common layer of direct-to-brain data exchange first and standardizing it (with a huge potential for abuse of course).

Not in the near future. So far we know basically nothing about our 
brain. It is like taking IR images of the motherboard while compiling 
Ada program...

> But now this is getting deep into bioengeneering, way away from the original subject or even this group focus..

Eugenics, you mean... (:-))

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de