I just finished reading all 9,535 bytes of Bjarni's e-mail, and I still don't have a single idea what he's talking baout... =(
On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 at 13:10, Bjarni Ingi Gislason <[email protected]> wrote: > Title: \} considered as macro argument regarding register .$ > > > The reported bug (#42675) is a panic one. > > (Later I checked the whole earlier "discussion" on the "groff" list. > The whole shows me such a lack of thinking; it is just reacting and > "don't think about it, neither before and especially not after"; "don't > do experiments to verify your possible lies".) > > 1) The land is "legacy", so their laws prevail > > 2) The example does not work in legacy-land. > There the result is an emptiness. > > 3) No comparison is provided between legacy-land and the GNU-land > > 4) When the example has been translated to the legacy-language the > result there (SUN 5.10) is: > > 1 1 1 2 > > which is correct (if you know the legacy-language) > > 5) The example in GNU-land shows: > > 0 1 1 2 > > which is correct (if you know the GNU-language) > > The shown result in the bug report (1. 1 1 2) is corrupt. > > 6) If the example is from the legacy-land, the interpreter in > GNU-land has to know that, to get the translation right, so > > the interpreter has to switch to legacy-language, and it then says: > > 1 1 1 2 > > which is correct. > > > So there is no bug in the computer software, just "panic", or > unwillingness to solve the problem in the reporter's own time. > > There is no need for an extra explanation. It is in the legacy > "Troff User's Manual". The real bug for this perceived bug is in the > brain-software of people. > > Summary: > > Such reports do not fulfil some criteria to be accepted, so should > be rejected with the possibility to carry on if the lacking elements > are provided and accepted (just like articles submitted to a ((computer > ) science) journal). > > The current procedure "Need info" could be used with a time limit > to deliver them. The submitter should know, or learn in his own time, > what to provide. > > These "panic" reports are a time theft. > > N.B. This whole mess shows that "style" matters, some do create bugs > or pseudo bugs, while others aim at avoiding that altogether. > > Too many prefer (automatically follow) the former: legacy, custom, > house rules, same style in the same file, tradition; and reject, oppose > the latter and of cause without any evidence for their "style" being > better in all (even any) cases, or better in any possible future. > > N.B. "groff -Wall ...", for people to keep them clueless, surrounded by > (mental) fog, ignorant ... > > ### > > On the Cruelty of Really Teaching Computing Science > > Edsger W. Dykstra (Dijkstra) > > SIGCSE Bulletin 1989, 21(1), pp. xxv-xxxix. > > Also "www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/" > > ### > > Know yourself, and the kinds of errors you make. Once you have > found and fixed a bug, make sure that you eliminate other bugs > that might be similar. Think about what happened so you can > avoid making that kid of mistake again. > > Brian W. Kernighan, Rob Pike "The Practice of > Programming". Addison-Wesley. 1999. P. 137. > > # > > Herman Rubin in the Usenet forum "misc.education.science": > > Is a good artist a good teacher of art? Do the best players > in a given sport make even good coaches? Or does the coach even > need to have been a player in that sport? > > What is good teaching? One can teach manipulations without > understanding; the present students have had so much of this > that they almost demand that this be done in at least all of the > "elementary" courses. This is encouraged by the present > elementary and secondary schools. The products of such > education no longer have their original thinking abilities. > > # > > The present method of "integrated" subject matter discourages > thinking; we should not teach students how to apply one subject > to another, but expect them to. If they cannot, they have not > understood the subject to be applied. > > # > > >A doctor diagnoses an illness on the basis of memorized facts. > > We need NOW doctors who can do MUCH better than this. This > almost assumes that one does not have libraries, data banks, > etc. Facts can be supplied by these; the ability to think > cannot. > > # > > But a large proportion of college students have had the ability > to think about what they are doing destroyed. Should we teach > students to act like machines? This is how they have been > taught what the schools call "mathematics", but which does not > make it any easier for them to understand mathematical concepts > than when they started out, AT BEST. > > # > > Dewey was an outright socialist, and made no bones about it. > Here are a couple of quotes from him. > > "The children who know how to think for themselves, spoil the > harmony of the collective society that is coming, where everyone > (would be) interdependent." 1899 > "Independent self-reliant people (would be) a counterproductive > anachronism in the collective society of the future [...] > (where) people will be defined by their associations." 1896 > John Dewey, educational philosopher, proponent of > modern public schools. > > I have seen a quote from him, which I do not have in my files, > that anyone who starts to think threatens people. > > I do not believe in a society where the thinking is done by those > in the government apparatus. We need non-conformists for society > not to stagnate. > > # > > The important part of research, which I describe to my > students as "seeing the obvious", and as it has otherwise been > put: > > "Scientific research consists in seeing what everyone else has > seen, but thinking what no one else has thought" > > -A. Szent-Gyorgyi > > This ability can be encouraged or suppressed, but it cannot be > taught, and a bright student in a group with those who cannot > see is going to have too many problems with his groupmates to > have the right type of environment. > > The educationists' idea that anything can be taught is wrong. > > Working as a team toward a common goal has value when the goal > is to produce something not present. In a class, the goal is > for EACH student to learn, whether or not the others manage to > do so. Classes should be for that purpose only. > > And if the schools had not demotivated them in the first place, > it would not be necessary to remotivate them. Small children > want to learn. Any teacher who makes a child sit there while > others are being taught what the child already knows is > attempting to destroy that desire. > > # > > Education and training are almost totally different. > Education provides the understanding to handle UNTAUGHT > situations. Trained teachers will, and should, be replaced by > machines. An educated teacher will not persist in the same > explanation if a child does not get it the second time, and > often even if it is not gotten the first time. An educated > teacher will not teach the same course in the same way > repeatedly. This is for robots, not humans. > > >I agree, but that isn't the real point, Herman; the point is do the > >vast majority of the population give a damn?! Would they sit still > >and listen to it and take the time to learn it, or would they decide > >that it had no relevance for them and tune it out? You continue > >to think only in terms of the desires, abilities, and interests of a > >relative handful of students. > > If they are taught to think from the beginning, to consider why > rather than how, the proportion will be greater. If the schools > would do as they used to, especially in the early grades, take > the attitude that learning is not for today, or even for > tomorrow, but for years down the line, this will not be so much > of a problem. Once you get a child thinking only about the > short run, a mind is in danger of being destroyed. > > # > > >I've administered many multiple choice tests in my time, and I never > >cease to be amazed at how frequently the questions are answered with > >the wrong answer. > > That they are answered with the wrong answer is not the > problem. That the answer does not show the thinking is > the problem. > > # > > Some of us have posted that we would ONLY give problems > on our examinations, and not too many of them. If your > attitude is typical of what goes on in the present > schools, and I think it is, it becomes clear that there > is no place in the public schools for those who want to > teach children to think instead of to become machines. > > # > > However, I consider the person who cannot use precise thinking > as a major danger as a voter. How can such a person consider > the long-term effects of a policy, and long-term need not be > 100 years in the future, but often as little as five. The > problems are complicated enough that even short-term situations > require careful formulation and calculation, as one of the > points which should be taught and stressed is that, when even > a few of the aspects are considered, what looks obviously true > is actually false. There are many clear examples only involving > a little algebra, or even "pre-algebra", with the calculations > being done by others or by machines. The ability to formulate > long word problems is the mathematical equivalent of writing > declarative sentences and paragraphs. > > # > > It is not working harder which matters; it is thinking. > It is understanding, not memorization. It is education, > not training. > > # > > >I know people who can pass tests and get full scholarships to college who > make > >bad decisions. I don't think the ability to puke information onto a > bubble > >sheet is going to help a person make a decision. > > I agree. Making decisions requires thinking, and this is not > developed my memorization and routine manipulations. What is > needed is getting general principles, and having to decide when > and how to apply them in situations other than those in class > or in the textbooks. > > -- > Bjarni I. Gislason > >
