In the 1900s, people used to think the mind (and body, in a way) worked like a steam engine. In part, the steam engine was used as the analogy because that was the nearest and most technologically advanced input/output closed system that was available. (And, importantly, that most people could grasp and talk about.)
Hence colloquialisms like I need to "let off steam" or "I am under so much pressure".
It turned out to be an analogy that was so far removed from reality, it was useless.
I wonder if we are making the same mistake with computers as we know them today?
From the Abstract: "...computational science 'is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes.'"
So when they say 'Computational' Neuroscience, they're not particularly referring to using computers, but analyzing neurological systems using computational analytical techniques.
A salient difference from astronomy is that computational neuroscience is typically concerned with describing neural systems in terms of information processing. Our principle technological example of an information processing system is the computer. So while there's a distinction between "computational" as (a) a tool used for analysis, (b) a methodology or model employed to describe a system, and (c) an statement about a property of the system under study, computational neuroscience refers to at least both ab and often abc. This isn't the case with astronomy, because we aren't typically using telescopes to study how stars bend and collect light like telescopes (although we of course sometimes do).
"Stress", "strain", and "tension" were all taken from mechanical physics.
Would I be burnt at the stake if I were to suggest that these concepts as we use them in psychology are more-than-just isomorphic to the way they're used in physics? That perhaps we are structures, and the stress occuring in our abstract social realm often manifests in the physical realm as creases on the forehead, and chewing of the fingernails.
I mean, we're made of matter just like the living tree is. Shouldn't we go through the same physical stresses at every level of our being?
We're the rube-goldberg-machines of structures, here. Really impressive skyscrapers that haven't quite yet noticed that they can be anything and everything, given the metaphor for it.
And so what's so different from a steam engine "letting off steam" and a load-bearing structure "letting off tension". Well, look up the Newtonian age formulas for calculating pressure and tension and you tell me the difference.
Not much of one, is there?
But we're talking about electricity here, right? Tooootaly different substance! Oh wait, there is voltage, however. How does that definition go again?
> One volt is the amount of pressure required to cause one ampere of current to flow against one ohm of resistance.
Oh my.. back in pressure land. Or was that psychology land?
I'm under a lot of voltage attempting to convey this vast homogony to you.
Anyway, my point is that yes, we're not computers, but also yes, we are computers.
I leave an open question for the one smarter than me: What is the "pressure" of data science?
It must be a ratio between a metaphorical force applied, and a metaphorical surface area on which to act.
Well, metaphors are like perspectives. The steam engine perspective has many useful aspects to it, even today. But it has more limits than the computer metaphor.
But if you want to use the metaphors to capture the core of what the brain does, then no, I don't think either are much good.
I would put much more emphasis on learning and surprise. Not the big kind of learning, like a new language. But learning what to expect in situational patterns. Making predictions of what might happen, and surprise when what really happened did not fit anything.
But that does not have a good metaphor from ordinary life.
Mattermark Daily - "A human curated newsletter that brings you the best perspectives, insights, and lessons learned from investors and operators in the startup ecosystem."
Indeed, they might even have exaggerated it. The computations are expensive and can take several seconds even on powerful MCUs. There are HomeKit chips that can accelerate this, but good luck getting your hands on one (or its manual).
You mean that HomeKit-compatible products all need to include some kind of HomeKit-chip with a pre-shared key or something? I'm completely unfamiliar and a quick search on homekit and pre-shared key didn't make me wiser :)
You don't even get to know what's inside HomeKit until you're an MFI-certified developer with Apple. And yes, there's a chip involved (again, which you can't even touch until you're an MFI licensee). The chip handles all the security protocols involved.
Well, it's pretty simple. If you want into Apple's ecosystem, you follow their rules. They've hardware-locked many other external things (dongles, charging cables, etc).
Cynics will say it's a money grab, proponents will say it greatly reduces or eliminates the risk of buying something that will not work right. Apple sells itself on the ability of their things working right out of the box.
> proponents will say it greatly reduces or eliminates the risk of buying something that will not work right.
IIRC, it's been shown that a massive percentage of the Apple chargers for sale on Amazon are difficult to spot counterfeits. Some of those use dangerous electronic designs.
Yeah, unfortunately Apple can't stop everyone from making bad 5VDC bricks with USB sockets. Perhaps the "approved" cables have some kind of overvoltage protection in them, but otherwise that's always been a weak point.
actually, i'd be surprised if apple had better ideas here than ikea. ikea is a home and furniture company and always has been. apple is neither, it's a luxury goods company at this point.
apple can definitely execute, though. it just has to execute the right thing.
www.littleflocker.com is down and my app is unable to update... I hope this means my $14.99 won't be going down the pan. It would be a shame to see Little Flocker cease, too.
I recommend the book Monetizing Innovation. It'll equip you well to talk about and think about pricing and value.
In my opinion, the hardest part of the problem is getting away from the psychology that pricing "uncomfortably high" is somehow cheating people. It isn't - your product is more often than not more valuable than the sum of its parts.
I know this doesn't apply to you, but thought others would find it interesting: in the U.K. the employer owns the rights to your inventions during employment, per the Employment Act, unless explicitly written otherwise.
Would that be a job that circumstantially for all intents and purposes requires you to sit down for 8+ hours a day. Is that a poor choice? Would that take away my healthcare subsidy?
Is playing American Football, or kickboxing a similarly poor choice?
Would - and here's where I get facetious in a hope of highlighting the issue with the way you raise your choices/free healthcare point - knowingly continuing the pregnancy of a child with Downs Syndrome be regarded as a poor choice?
This is exactly my point. When Sally has to pay the consequences for Joe's choices, she will have her own ideas about what Joe should do, and try to force him to do so using her vote.
This turns ordinary differences of opinion or culture into political fights.
If Sally doesn't have to pay for Joe's poor choices, Joe can figure out for himself what he feels is best, and that's called freedom.
