diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'Master/texmf-dist/doc/context/sources/general/manuals/musings/musings-children.tex')
| -rw-r--r-- | Master/texmf-dist/doc/context/sources/general/manuals/musings/musings-children.tex | 1253 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 1253 deletions
diff --git a/Master/texmf-dist/doc/context/sources/general/manuals/musings/musings-children.tex b/Master/texmf-dist/doc/context/sources/general/manuals/musings/musings-children.tex deleted file mode 100644 index b814675bbd4..00000000000 --- a/Master/texmf-dist/doc/context/sources/general/manuals/musings/musings-children.tex +++ /dev/null @@ -1,1253 +0,0 @@ -% language=uk - -% naming-nature.jog - -\startcomponent musings-children - -\environment musings-style - -\definedescription - [presomething] - [headstyle=\bold, - alternative=hanging, - width=fit, - hang=1] - -\startchapter[title={Children of \TEX}] - -\startsection[title={The theme}] - -Nearly always \TEX\ conferences carry a theme. As there have been many -conferences the organizers have run out of themes involving fonts, macros and -typesetting and are now cooking up more fuzzy ones. Take the Bacho\TUG\ 2017 -theme: - -\startnarrower[left,8*right] \startpacked -\startpresomething {Premises} - The starting point, what we have, what do we use, what has been achieved? -\stoppresomething -\startpresomething {Predilections} - How do we act now, how do we want to act, what is important to us and what do - we miss? -\stoppresomething -\startpresomething {Predictions} - What is the future of \TEX, what we'd like to achieve and can we influence - it? -\stoppresomething -\stoppacked \stopnarrower - -My first impression with these three P words was: what do they mean? Followed by -the thought: this is no longer a place to take kids to. But the Internet gives -access to the Cambridge Dictionary, so instead of running to the dusty meter of -dictionaries somewhere else in my place, I made sure that I googled the most -recent definitions: - -\startnarrower[left] \startpacked -\startpresomething {premise} - an idea or theory on which a statement or action is based -\stoppresomething -\startpresomething {predilection} - if someone has a predilection for something, they like it a lot -\stoppresomething -\startpresomething {prediction} - a statement about what you think will happen in the future -\stoppresomething -\stoppacked \stopnarrower - -I won't try to relate these two sets of definitions but several words stand out -in the second set: idea, theory, action, like, statement and future. Now, as a -preparation for the usual sobering thoughts that Jerzy, Volker and I have when we -staring into a Bacho\TEX\ campfire I decided to wrap up some ideas around these -themes and words. The books that I will mention are just a selection of what you -can find distributed around my place. This is not some systematic research but -just the result of a few weeks making a couple of notes while pondering about -this conference. - -\stopsection - -\startsection[title=Introduction] - -One cannot write the amount of \TEX\ macros that I've written without also liking -books. If you look at my bookshelves the topics are somewhat spread over the -possible spectrum of topics: history, biology, astronomy, paleontology, general -science but surprisingly little math. There are a bunch of typography|-|related -books but only some have been read: it's the visuals that matter most and as -there are no real developments I haven't bought new ones in over a decade, -although I do buy books that look nice for our office display but the content -should be interesting too. Of course I do have a couple of books about computer -(related) science and technology but only a few are worth a second look. -Sometimes I bought computer books expecting to use them (in some project) but I -must admit that most have not been read and many will soon end up in the paper -bin (some already went that way). I'll make an exception for Knuth, Wirth and a -few other fundamental ones that I (want to) read. And, I need to catch up on deep -learning, so that might need a book. - -My colleagues and I have many discussions, especially about what we read, and -after a few decades one starts seeing patterns. Therefore the last few years it -was a pleasant surprise for me to run into books and lectures that nicely -summarize what one has noticed and discussed in a consistent way. My memory is -not that good, but good enough to let some bells ring. - -\startplacefigure[location=top] - \startcombination[nx=4,ny=1,width=\textwidth,distance=0pt] - {\externalfigure[covers/sapiens.jpg] [height=5cm]} {history} - {\externalfigure[covers/homo-deus.jpg] [height=5cm]} {futurology} - {\externalfigure[covers/children-of-time.jpg] [height=5cm]} {science fiction} - {\externalfigure[covers/superintelligence.jpg][height=5cm]} {informatics} - \stopcombination -\stopplacefigure - -The first book that gave me this \quotation {finally a perfect summary of -historic developments} feeling is \quotation{Sapiens} by Yuval Noah Harari. The -author summarizes human history from a broad perspective where modern views on -psychology, anthropology and technical developments are integrated. It's a follow -up on a history writing trend started by Jared Diamond. The follow up \quotation -{Homo Deus} looks ahead and is just as well written. It also integrates ideas -from other fields, for instance those related to development of artificial -intelligence (Dennett, Bostrom, etc.). - -Another inspiration for this talk and article is the 50 hour lecture series on -behavioral biology by Robert Sapolsky of Stanford University, brought to my -attention by my nephew Bram who visited a few \TEX\ conferences with me and who -is now also forced to use \TEX\ for assignments and reports. (How come -self|-|published books used at universities often look so bad?) - -The title of this talk is inspired by the book \quotation {Children of Time} by -Adrian Tchaikovsky that I read recently. There are science fiction writers who -focus on long term science and technology, such as some of Alastair Reynolds, -while others follow up on recent development in all kind of sciences. One can -recognize aspects of \quotation {Superintelligence} by Bostrom in Neal Asher's -books, insights in psychology in the older Greg Bear books, while in the -mentioned \quotation {Children of Time} (socio)biological insights dominate. The -main thread in that book is the development of intelligence, social behaviour, -language, script and cooperation in a species quite different from us: spiders. -It definitely avoids the anthropocentric focus that we normally have. - -So how does this relate to the themes of the Bacho\TEX\ conference? I will pick -out some ways to approach them using ideas from the kind of resources mentioned -above. I could probably go on and on for pages because once you start relating -what you read and hear to this \TEX\ ecosystem and community, there is no end. -So, consider this a snapshot, that somehow relates to the themes: - -\startnarrower[left,8*right] \startpacked -\startpresomething {premise} - Let's look at what the live sciences have to say about \TEX\ and friends and - let's hope that I don't offend the reader and the field. -\stoppresomething -\startpresomething {predilection} - Let's figure out what brings us here to this place deeply hidden in the woods, - a secret gathering of the \TEX\ sect. -\stoppresomething -\startpresomething {prediction} - Let's see if the brains present here can predict the future because after - all, according to Dennett, that is what brains are for. -\stoppresomething -\stoppacked \stopnarrower - -At school I was already intrigued by patterns in history: a cyclic, spiral and -sinusoid social evolution instead of a pure linear sequence of events. It became -my first typeset|-|by|-|typewriter document: Is history an exact science? Next I -will use and abuse patterns and ideas to describe the \TEX\ world, not wearing a -layman's mathematical glasses, but more from the perspective of live sciences, -where chaos dominates. - -\stopsection - -\startsection[title={The larger picture}] - -History of mankind can be roughly summarized as follows. For a really long time -we were hunters but at some point (10K years ago) became farmers. As a result we -could live in larger groups and still feed them. The growing complexity of -society triggered rules and religion as instruments for stability and -organization (I use the term religion in its broadest sense here). For quite a -while cultures came and went, and climate changes are among the reasons. - -After the industrial revolution new religions were invented (social, economic and -national liberalism) and we're now getting dataism (search for Harari on youtube -for a better summary). Some pretty great minds seem to agree that we're heading -to a time when humans as we are will be outdated. Massive automation, interaction -between the self and computer driven ecosystems, lack of jobs and purpose, -messing around with our genome. Some countries and cultures still have to catch -up on the industrial revolution, if they manage at all, and maybe we ourselves -will be just as behind reality soon. Just ask yourself: did you manage to catch -up? Is \TEX\ a stone age tool or a revolutionary turning point? - -A few decades ago a trip to Bacho\TEX\ took more than a day. Now you drive there -in just over half a day. There was a time that it took weeks: preparation, -changing horses, avoiding bad roads. Not only your own man|-|hours were involved. -It became easier later (my first trip took only 24 hours) and recently it turned -into a piece of cake: you don't pick up maps but start your device; you don't -need a travel agent but use the Internet; there are no border patrols, you can -just drive on. (Okay, maybe some day soon border patrols at the Polish border -show up again, just like road tax police in Germany, but that might be a -temporary glitch.) - -Life gets easier and jobs get lost. Taxi and truck drivers, travel agents, and -cashiers become as obsolete as agricultural workers before. Next in line are -doctors, lawyers, typesetters, printers, and all those who think they're safe. -Well, how many people were needed 400 years ago to produce the proceedings of a -conference like this in a few days' time span? Why read the introduction of a -book or a review when you can just listen to the author's summary on the web? How -many conferences still make proceedings (or go for videos instead), will we -actually need editors and typesetters in the future? How much easier has it -become to design a font, including variants? What stories can designers tell in -the future when programs do the lot? The narrower your speciality is, the worse -are your changes; hopefully the people present at this conference operate on a -broader spectrum. It's a snapshot. I will show some book covers as reference but -am aware that years ago or ahead the selection could have been different. - -\stopsection - -\startsection[title=Words] - -Words (whatever they represent) found a perfect spot to survive: our minds. Then -they made it from speech (and imagination) into writing: carved in stone, wood, -lead. At some point they managed to travel over wires but no matter what -happened, they are still around. Typesetting as visualization is also still -surrounding us so that might give us a starting point for ensuring a future for -\TEX\ to work on, because \TEX\ is all about words. There is a lot we don't see; -imagine if our eyes had microscopic qualities. What if we could hear beyond -20KHz. Imagine we could see infrared. How is that with words. What tools, similar -in impact as \TEX, can evolve once we figure that out. What if we get access to -the areas of our brain that hold information? We went from print to screen and -\TEX\ could cope with that. Can it cope with what comes next? - -The first printing press replaced literal copying by hand. Later we got these -linotype|-|like machines but apart from a few left, these are already thrown out -of windows (as we saw in a movie a few Bacho\TeX's ago). Photo|-|typesetting has -been replaced too and because a traditional centuries old printing press is a -nice to see item, these probably ring more bells than that gray metal closed box -typesetters. Organizers of \TEX\ conferences love to bring the audience to old -printing workshops and museums. At some point computers got used for typesetting -and in that arena \TEX\ found its place. These gray closed boxes are way less -interesting than something mechanical that at least invites us to touch it. How -excited can one be about a stack of \TEX\,Live \DVD{}s? - -\stopsection - -\startsection[title=Remembering] - -Two times I visited the part of the science museum in London with young family -members: distracted by constantly swiping their small powerful devices, they -didn't have the least interest in the exhibited computer related items, let alone -the fact that the couch they were sitting on was a Cray mainframe. Later on, -climbing on some old monument or an old cannon seemed more fun. So, in a few -decades folks will still look at wooden printing presses but quickly walk through -the part of an exhibition where the tools that we use are shown. We need to find -ways to look interesting. But don't think we're unique: how many kids find -graphical trend|-|setting games like Myst and Riven still interesting? On the -other hand a couple of month ago a bunch of nieces and nephews had a lot of fun -with an old Atari console running low|-|res bitmap games. Maybe there is hope for -good old \TEX. - -If indeed we're heading to a radically different society one can argue if this -whole discussion makes sense. When the steam engine showed up, the metaphor for -what went on in our heads was that technology, It's a popular example of speakers -on this topic: \quotation {venting off steam}. When electricity and radio came -around metaphors like \quotation {being on the same wavelength} showed up. A few -decades ago the computer replaced that model although in the meantime the model -is more neurobiological: we're a hormone and neurotransmitter driven computer. We -don't have memory the way computers do. - -How relevant will page breaks, paragraph and line breaks be in the future? Just -like \quotation {venting off steam} may make no sense to the youth, asking a -typesetter to \quotation {give me a break} might not make much sense soon. -However, when discussing automated typesetting the question \quotation {are we on -the same page} still has relevance. - -Typesetting with a computer might seem like the ultimate solution but it's -actually rather dumb when we consider truly intelligent systems. On the large -scale of history and developments what we do might get quite unnoticed. Say that -mankind survives the next few hundred years one way or the other. Science fiction -novels by Jack McDevitt have an interesting perspective of rather normal humans -millennia ahead of us who look back on these times in the same way as we look -back now. Nothing fundamental changed in the way we run society. Nearly nothing -from the past is left over and apart from being ruled by \AI{}s people still do -sort of what they do now. \TEX ? What is that? Well, there once was this great -computer scientist Knuth (in the remembered row of names like Aristotle |<|I just -started reading \quotation {The Lagoon} by Armand Leroi|>| Newton, Einstein, his -will show up) who had a group of followers that used a program that he seems to -have written. And even that is unlikely to be remembered, unless maybe user -groups manage to organize an archive and pass that on. Maybe the fact that \TEX\ -was one of the first large scale open source programs, of which someone can study -the history, makes it a survivor. The first program that was properly documented -in detail! But then we need to make sure that it gets known and persists. - -\startsection[title=Automation] - -In a recent interview Daniel Dennett explains that his view of the mind as a big -neural network, one that can be simulated in software on silicon, is a bit too -simplistic. He wonders if we shouldn't more tend to think of a network of -(selfish) neurons that group together in tasks and then compete with each other, -if only because they want to have something to do. - -Maybe attempts to catch the creative mindset and working of a typesetter in -algorithms is futile. What actually is great typography or good typesetting? -Recently I took a look at my bookshelf wondering what to get rid of \emdash\ -better do that now than when I'm too old to carry the crap down (crap being -defined as uninteresting content or bad looking). I was surprised about the -on|-|the|-|average bad quality of the typesetting and print. It's also not really -getting better. One just gets accustomed to what is the norm at a certain point. -Whenever they change the layout and look and feel of the newspaper I read the -arguments are readability and ease of access. Well, I never had such a hard time -reading my paper as today (with my old eyes). - -Are we, like Dennett, willing to discard old views on our tools and models? When -my first computer was a \RCA\ 1802 based kit, that had 256 bytes of memory. My -current laptop (from 2013) is a Dell Precision workstation with an extreme quad -core processor and 16 GB of memory and ssd storage. Before I arrived there I -worked with \DECTEN, \VAX\ and the whole range of Intel \CPU{}s. So if you really -want to compare a brain with a computer, take your choice. - -I started with \TEX\ on a 4 MHz desk top with 640 MB memory and a 10 MB hard -disk. Running \CONTEXT\ \MKIV\ with \LUATEX\ on such a machine is no option at -all, but I still carry the burden of trying to write efficient code (which is -still somewhat reflected in the code that makes up \CONTEXT). In the decades that -we have been using \TEX\ we had to adapt! Demands changed, possibilities changed, -technologies changed. And they keep changing. How many successive changes can a -\TEX\ user handle? Sometimes, when I look and listen I wonder. - -\startplacefigure[location=top] - \startcombination[nx=4,ny=1,width=\textwidth,distance=0pt] - {\externalfigure[covers/the-mind-in-the-cave.jpg] [height=5cm]} {paleontology} - {\externalfigure[covers/the-ancestors-tale.jpg] [height=5cm]} {evolutionary biology} - {\externalfigure[covers/the-good-book-of-human-nature.jpg][height=5cm]} {anthropology} - {\externalfigure[covers/chaos-and-harmony.jpg] [height=5cm]} {physics} - \stopcombination -\stopplacefigure - -If you look back, that is, if you read about the tens of thousands of years that -it took humans to evolve (\quotation {The mind in the cave} by Lewis|-|Williams -is a good exercise) you realize even more in what a fast|-|paced time we live and -that we're witnessing transitions of another magnitude. - -In the evolution of species some tools were invented multiple times, like eyes. -You see the same in our \TEX\ world: multiple (sub)macro packages, different font -technologies, the same solutions but with an alternative approach. Some -disappear, some stay around. Just like different circumstances demand different -solutions in nature, so do different situations in typesetting, for instance -different table rendering solutions. Sometime I get the feeling that we focus too -much on getting rid of all but one solution while more natural would be to accept -diversity, like bio|-|diversity is accepted. Transitions nowadays happen faster -but the question is if, like aeons before, we (have to) let them fade away. When -evolution is discussed the terms \quote {random}, \quote {selection}, \quote -{fit}, and so on are used. This probably also applies to typography: at some -point a font can be used a lot, but in the end the best readable and most -attractive one will survive. Newspapers are printed in many copies, but rare -beautiful books hold value. Of course, just like in nature some developments -force the further path of development, we don't suddenly grow more legs or digits -on our hands. The same happens with \TEX\ on a smaller timescale: successors -still have the same core technology, also because if we'd drop it, it would be -something different and then give a reason to reconsider using such technology -(which likely would result in going by another path). - -\stopsection - -\startsection[title=Quality] - -Richard Dawkins \quotation {The Ancestor's Tale} is a non|-|stop read. In a -discussion with Jared Diamond about religion and evolution they ponder this -thread: you holding the hand of your mother who is handing her mother's hand and -so on till at some point fish get into the picture. The question then is, when do -we start calling something human? And a related question is, when does what we -call morality creeps in? Is 50\% neanderthaler human or not? - -So, in the history of putting thoughts on paper: where does \TEX\ fit in? When do -we start calling something automated typesetting? When do we decide that we have -quality? Is \TEX\ so much different from its predecessors? And when we see -aspects of \TEX\ (or related font technology) in more modern programs, do we see -points where we cross qualitative or other boundaries? Is a program doing a -better job than a human? Where do we stand? There are fields where there is no -doubt that machines outperform humans. It's probably a bit more difficult in -aesthetic fields except perhaps when we lower the conditions and expectations -(something that happens a lot). - -For sure \TEX\ will become obsolete, maybe even faster that we think, but so will -other typesetting technologies. Just look back and have no illusions. Till then -we can have our fun and eventually, when we have more free time than we need, we -might use it out of hobbyism. Maybe \TEX\ will be remembered by probably its most -important side effect: the first large scale open source, the time when users met -over programs, Knuth's disciples gathered in user groups, etc. The tools that we -use are just a step in an evolution. And, as with evolution, most branches are -pruned. So, when in the far future one looks back, will they even notice \TEX ? -The ancestor's tail turns the tree upside down: at the end of the successful -branch one doesn't see the dead ends. - -Just a thought: \CD{}s and media servers are recently being replaced (or at least -accompanied) by Long Play records. In the shop where I buy my \CD{}s the space -allocated to records grows at the cost of more modern media. So, maybe at some -point retro|-|typesetting will pop up. Of course it might skip \TEX\ and end up -at woodcutting or printing with lead. - -\stopsection - -\startsection[title=What mission] - -We rely on search engines instead of asking around or browsing libraries. Do -students really still read books and manuals or do they just search and listen to -lectures. Harari claims that instead of teaching kids facts in school we should -just take for granted that they can get all the data they want and that we should -learn them how to deal with data and adapt to what is coming. We take for granted -that small devices with human voices show us the route to drive to Bacho\TEX, for -instance, although by now I can drive it without help. In fact, kids can surprise -you by asking if we're driving in Germany when we are already in Poland. - -We accept that computer programs help physicians in analyzing pictures. Some wear -watches that warn them about health issues, and I know a few people who monitor -their sugar levels electronically instead of relying on their own measurements. -We seem to believe and trust the programs. And indeed, we also believe that \TEX\ -does the job in the best way possible. How many people really understand the way -\TEX\ works? - -We still have mailing lists where we help each other. There are also wikis and -forums like stack exchange. But who says that even a moderate bit of artificial -intelligence doesn't answer questions better. Of course there needs to be input -(manuals, previous answers, etc.) but just like we need fewer people as workforce -soon, the number of experts needed also can be smaller. And we're still talking -about a traditional system like \TEX. Maybe the social experience that we have on -these media will survive somehow, although: how many people are members of -societies, participate in demonstrations, meet weekly in places where ideas get -exchanged, compared to a few decades ago? That being said, I love to watch posts -with beautiful \CONTEXT\ solutions or listen to talks by enthusiastic users who -do things I hadn't expected. I really hope that this property survives, just like -I hope that we will be able to see the difference between a real user's response -and one from an intelligent machine (an unrealistic hope I fear). Satisfaction -wins and just like our neurological subsystems at some point permanently adapt to -thresholds (given that you trigger things often enough), we get accustomed to -what \TEX\ provides and so we stick to it. - -\stopsection - -\startsection[title={Intelligence versus consciousness}] - -Much of what we do is automated. You don't need to think of which leg to move and -what foot to put down when you walk. Reacting to danger also to a large extent is -automated. It doesn't help much to start thinking about how dangerous a lion can -be when it's coming after you, you'd better move fast. Our limbic system is -responsible for such automated behaviour, for instance driven by emotions. The -more difficult tasks and thoughts about them happen in the frontal cortex (sort -of). - -\startplacefigure[location=top] - \startcombination[nx=4,ny=1,width=\textwidth,distance=0pt] - {\externalfigure[covers/death-by-black-hole.jpg] [height=5cm]} {astronomy} - {\externalfigure[covers/the-formula.jpg] [height=5cm]} {informatics} - {\externalfigure[covers/hals-legacy.jpg] [height=5cm]} {future science} - {\externalfigure[covers/lucky-planet.jpg] [height=5cm]} {earth science} - \stopcombination -\stopplacefigure - -For most users \TEX\ is like the limbic system: there is not much thinking -involved, and the easy solutions are the ones used. Just like hitting a nerve -triggers a chain of reactions, hitting a key eventually produces a typeset -document. Often this is best because the job needs to get done and no one really -cares how it looks; just copy a preamble, key in the text and assume that it -works out well (enough). It is tempting to compare \TEX's penalties, badness and -other parameters with levels of hormones and neurotransmitters. Their function -depends on where they get used and the impact can be accumulated, blocked or -absent. It's all magic, especially when things interact. - -Existing \TEX\ users, developers and user groups of course prefer to think -otherwise, that it is a positive choice by free will. That new users have looked -around and arrived at \TEX\ for good reason: their frontal cortex steering a -deliberate choice. Well, it might have played a role but the decision to use -\TEX\ might in the end be due to survival skills: I want to pass this exam and -therefore I will use that weird system called \TEX. - -All animals, us included, have some level of intelligence but also have this hard -to describe property that we think makes us what we are. Intelligence and -consciousness are not the same (at least we know a bit about the first but nearly -nothing about the second). We can argue about how well composed some music is but -why we like it is a different matter. - -We can make a well thought out choice for using \TEX\ for certain tasks but can -we say why we started liking it (or not)? Why it gives us pleasure or maybe -grief? Has it become a drug that we got addicted to? So, one can make an -intelligent decision about using \TEX\ but getting a grip on why we like it can -be hard. Do we enjoy the first time struggle? Probably not. Do we like the folks -involved? Yes, Don Knuth is a special and very nice person. Can we find help and -run into a friendly community? Yes, and a unique one too, annoying at times, -often stimulating and on the average friendly for all the odd cases running -around. - -Artificial intelligence is pretty ambitious, so speaking of machine intelligence -is probably better. Is \TEX\ an intelligent program? There is definitely some -intelligence built in and the designer of that program is for sure very -intelligent. The designer is also a conscious entity: he likes what he did and -finds pleasure in using it. The program on the other hand is just doing its job: -it doesn't care how it's done and how long it takes: a mindless entity. So here -is a question: do we really want a more intelligent program doing the job for us, -or do those who attend conferences like Bacho\TEX\ enjoy \TEX ing so much that -they happily stay with what they have now? Compared to rockets tumbling down -and|/|or exploding or Mars landers thrashing themselves due to programming errors -of interactions, \TEX\ is surprisingly stable and bug free. - -\stopsection - -\startsection[title={Individual versus group evolution}] - -After listening for hours to Sapolsky you start getting accustomed to remarks -about (unconscious) behaviour driven by genes, expression and environment, aimed -at \quotation {spreading many copies of your genes}. In most cases that is an -individual's driving force. However, cooperation between individuals plays a role -in this. A possible view is that we have now reached a state where survival is -more dependent on a group than on an individual. This makes sense when we -consider that developments (around us) can go way faster than regular evolution -(adaptation) can handle. We take control over evolution, a mechanism that needs -time to adapt and time is something we don't give it anymore. - -Why does \TEX\ stay around? It started with an individual but eventually it's the -groups that keeps it going. A too|-|small group won't work but too|-|large groups -won't work either. It's a known fact that one can only handle some 150 social -contacts: we evolved in small bands that split when they became too large. Larger -groups demanded abstract beliefs and systems to deal with the numbers: housing, -food production, protection. The \TEX\ user groups also provide some -organization: they organize meetings, somehow keep development going and provide -infrastructure and distributions. They are organized around languages. According -to Diamond new languages are still discovered but many go extinct too. So the -potential for language related user groups is not really growing. - -Some of the problems that we face in this world have become too large to be dealt -with by individuals and nations. In spite of what anti|-|globalists want we -cannot deal with our energy hunger, environmental issues, lack of natural -resources, upcoming technologies without global cooperation. We currently see a -regression in cooperation by nationalistic movements, protectionism and the usual -going back to presumed better times, but that won't work. - -Local user groups are important but the number of members is not growing. There -is some cooperation between groups but eventually we might need to combine the -groups into one which might succeed unless one wants to come first. Of course we -will get the same sentiments and arguments as in regular politics but on the -other hand, we already have the advantage of \TEX\ systems being multi|-|lingual -and users sharing interest in the diversity of usage and users. The biggest -challenge is to pass on what we have achieved. We're just a momentary highlight -and let's not try to embrace some \quotation {\TEX\ first} madness. - -\stopsection - -\startplacefigure[location=top] - \startcombination[nx=4,ny=1,width=\textwidth,distance=0pt] - {\externalfigure[covers/3-16.jpg] [height=5cm]} {art} - % {\externalfigure[covers/dirt.jpg] [height=5cm]} {history} - {\externalfigure[covers/the-winds-of-change.jpg] [height=5cm]} {history} - {\externalfigure[covers/pale-blue-dot.jpg] [height=5cm]} {astronomy} - {\externalfigure[covers/the-third-chimpanzee.jpg][height=5cm]} {history} - \stopcombination -\stopplacefigure - -\startsection[title=Sexes] - -Most species have two sexes but it is actually a continuum controlled by hormones -and genetic expression: we just have to accept it. Although the situation has -improved there are plenty of places where some gender relationships are -considered bad even to the extent that one's life can be in danger. Actually -having strong ideas about these issues is typically human. But in the end one has -to accept the continuum. - -In a similar way we just have to accept that \TEX\ usage, application of \TEX\ -engines, etc.\ is a continuum and not a batch versus \WYSIWYG\ battle any more. -It's disturbing to read strong recommendations not to use this or that. Of the -many macro packages that showed up only a few were able to survive. How do users -of outlines look at bitmaps, how do \DVI\ lovers look at \PDF. But, as -typesetting relates to esthetics, strong opinions come with the game. - -Sapolsky reports about a group of baboons where due to the fact that they get the -first choice of food the alpha males of pack got poisoned, so that the remaining -suppressed males who treated the females well became dominant. In fact they can -then make sure that no new alpha male from outside joins the pack without -behaving like they do. A sort of social selection. In a similar fashion, until -now the gatherings of \TEX ies managed to keep its social properties and has not -been dominated by for instance commerce. - -% So, maybe should focus on acceptance and tolerance and then make sure that that -% we keep what we have and let it not be influenced too much by sectarianism. It -% makes a nice topic for a meeting of the context (sub)group, that actually has a -% women as driving force. How can we preserve what we have but still proceed is a -% legitimate question. Where do we stand in the landscape. - -In the animal world often sexes relate to appearance. The word sexy made it to -other domains as well. Is \TEX\ sexy? For some it is. We often don't see the real -colors of birds. What looks gray to us looks vivid to a bird which sees in a -different spectrum. The same is true for \TEX. Some users see a command line -(shell) and think: this is great! Others just see characters and keystrokes and -are more attracted to an interactive program. When I see a graphic made by -\METAPOST, I always note how exact it is. Others don't care if their interactive -effort doesn't connect the dots well. Some people (also present here) think that -we should make \TEX\ attractive but keep in mind that like and dislike are not -fixed human properties. Some mindsets might as well be the result from our -makeup, others can be driven by culture. - -\stopsection - -\startsection[title=Religion] - -One of Sapolsky's lectures is about religion and it comes in the sequence of -mental variations including depression and schizophrenia, because all these -relate to mental states, emotions, thresholds and such (all things human). That -makes it a tricky topic which is why it has not been taped. As I was raised in a -moderate Protestant tradition I can imagine that it's an uncomfortable topic -instead. But there are actually a few years older videos around and they are -interesting to watch and not as threatening as some might expect. Here I just -stick to some common characteristics. - -If you separate the functions that religions play into for instance explanation -of the yet unknown, social interactions, control of power and regulation of -morals, then it's clear why at \TEX\ user group meetings the religious aspect of -\TEX\ has been discussed in talks. Those who see programs as infallible and -always right and don't understand the inner working can see it as an almighty -entity. In the Netherlands church-going diminishes but it looks like alternative -meetings are replacing it (and I'm not talking of football matches). So what are -our \TEX\ meetings? What do we believe in? The reason that I bring up this aspect -is that in the \TEX\ community we can find aspects of the more extremist aspects -of religions: if you don't use the macro package that I use, you're wrong. If you -don't use the same operating system as I do, you're evil. You will be punished if -you use the wrong editor for \TEX ? Why don't you use this library (which, by the -way, just replaced that other one)? We create angels and daemons. Even for quite -convinced atheists (it's not hard to run into them on youtube) a religion only -survives when it has benefits, something that puzzles them. So when we're -religious about \TEX\ and friends we have to make sure that it's at least -beneficial. Also, maybe we fall in Dennett's category of \quotation {believers -who want to believe}: it helps us to do our job if we just believe that we have -the perfect tool. Religion has inspired visual and aural art and keeps doing -that. (Don Knuth's current musical composition project is a good example of -this.) - -Scientists can be religious, in flexible ways too, which is demonstrated by Don -Knuth. In fact, I'm pretty sure \TEX\ would not be in the position it is in now -if it weren't for his knowledgeable, inspirational, humorous, humble, and always -positive presence. And for sure he's not at all religious about the open source -software that he sent viral. - -I'm halfway through reading \quotation {The Good Book of Human Nature} (An -Evolutionary Reading of the Bible) a book about the evolution of the bible and -monotheism which is quite interesting. It discusses for instance how transitions -from a hunter to a farmer society demanded a change of rules and introduced -stories that made sense in that changing paradigm. Staying in one place means -that possessions became more important and therefore inheritance. Often when -religion is discussed by behavioral biologists, historians and anthropologists -they stress this cultural narrative aspect. Also mentioned is that such societies -were willing to support (in food and shelter) the ones that didn't normally fit -it but added to the spiritual character of religions. The social and welcoming -aspect is definitely present in for instance Bacho\TEX\ conferences although a -bystander can wonder what these folks are doing in the middle of the night around -a campfire, singing, drinking, frying sausages, spitting fire, and discussing the -meaning of life. - -Those who wrap up the state of religious affairs, do predictions and advocate the -message, are sometimes called evangelists. I remember a \TEX\ conference in the -\USA\ where the gospel of \XML\ was preached (by someone from outside the \TEX\ -community). We were all invited to believe it. I was sitting in the back of the -crowded (!)\ room and that speaker was not at all interested in who spoke before -and after. Well, I do my share of \XML\ processing with \CONTEXT, but believe me: -much of the \XML\ that we see is not according to any gospel. It's probably -blessed the same way as those state officials get blessed when they ask and pray -for it in public. - -It can get worse at \TEX\ conferences. Some present here at Bacho\TEX\ might -remember the \PDF\ evangelists that we had show up at \TEX\ conferences. You see -this qualification occasionally and I have become quite allergic to -qualifications like architect, innovator, visionary, inspirator and evangelist, -even worse when they look young but qualify as senior. I have no problem with -religion at all but let's stay away from becoming one. And yes, typography also -falls into that trap, so we have to be doubly careful. - -\stopsection - -\startplacefigure[location=top] - \startcombination[nx=4,ny=1,width=\textwidth,distance=0pt] - {\externalfigure[covers/from-bacteria-to-bach-and-back.jpg][height=5cm]} {philosophy} - {\externalfigure[covers/the-lagoon.jpg] [height=5cm]} {science history} - {\externalfigure[covers/chaos.jpg] [height=5cm]} {science} - {\externalfigure[covers/why-zebras-dont-get-ulcers.jpg] [height=5cm]} {behavioral biology} - \stopcombination -\stopplacefigure - -\startsection[title=Chaotic solutions] - -The lectures on \quotation {chaos and reductionism} and \quotation {emergence and -complexity} were the highlights in Sapolsky's lectures. I'm not a good narrator -so I will not summarize them but it sort of boils down to the fact that certain -classes of problems cannot be split up in smaller tasks that we understand well, -after which we can reassemble the solutions to deal with the complex task. -Emerging systems can however cook up working solutions from random events. -Examples are colonies of ants and bees. - -The \TEX\ community is like a colony: we cook up solutions, often by trial and -error. We dream of the perfect solutions but deep down know that esthetics cannot -be programmed in detail. This is a good thing because it doesn't render us -obsolete. At last year's Bacho\TEX, my nephew Teun and I challenged the anthill -outside the canteen to typeset the \TEX\ logo with sticks but it didn't persist. -So we don't need to worry about competition from that end. How do you program a -hive mind anyway? - -When chaos theory evolved in the second half of the previous century not every -scientist felt happy about it. Instead of converging to more perfect predictions -and control in some fields a persistent uncertainty became reality. - -After about a decade of using \TEX\ and writing macros to solve recurring -situations I came to the conclusion that striving for a perfect \TEX\ (the -engine) that can do everything and anything makes no sense. Don Knuth not only -stopped adding code when he could do what he needed for his books, he also stuck -to what to me seems reasonable endpoints. Every hard|-|coded solution beyond that -is just that: a hard|-|coded solution that is not able to deal with the -exceptions that make up most of the more complex documents. Of course we can -theorize and discuss at length the perfect never|-|reachable solutions but -sometimes it makes more sense to admit that an able user of a desktop publishing -system can do that job in minutes, just by looking at the result and moving -around an image or piece of text a bit. - -There are some hard|-|coded solutions and presets in the programs but with -\LUATEX\ and \MPLIB\ we try to open those up. And that's about it. Thinking that -for instance adding features like protrusion or expansion (or whatever else) -always lead to better results is just a dream. Just as a butterfly flapping its -wings on one side of the world can have an effect on the other side, so can -adding a single syllable to your source completely confuse an otherwise clever -column or page break algorithm. So, we settle for not adding more to the engine, -and provide just a flexible framework. - -A curious observation is that when Edward Lorenz ran into chaotic models it was -partially due to a restart of a simulation midway, using printed floating point -numbers that then in the computer were represented with a different accuracy than -printed. Aware of floating point numbers being represented differently across -architectures, Don Knuth made sure that \TEX\ was insensitive to this so that its -outcome was predictable, if you knew how it worked internally. Maybe \LUATEX\ -introduces a bit of chaos because the \LUA\ we use has only floats. In fact, a -few months ago we did uncover a bug in the backend where the same phenomena gave -a chaotic crash. - -In chaos theory there is the concept of an attractor. When visualized this can be -the area (seemingly random) covered by a trajectory. Or it can be a single point -where for instance a pendulum comes to rest. So what is our attractor? We have a -few actually. First there is the engine, the stable core of primitives always -present. You often see programs grow more complex every update and for sure that -happened with \ETEX, \PDFTEX, \XETEX\ and \LUATEX. However there is always the -core that is supposed to be stable. After some time the new kid arrives at a -stable state not much different from the parent. The same is true for \METAPOST. -Fonts are somewhat different because the technology changes but in the end the -shapes and their interactions become stable as well. Yet another example is \TEX\ -Live: during a year it might diverge from its route but eventually it settles -down and enters the area where we expect it to end up. The \TEX\ world is at -times chaotic, but stable in the long run. - -So, how about the existence, the reason for it still being around? One can -speculate about its future trajectory but one thing is sure: as long as we break -a text into paragraphs and pages \TEX\ is hard to beat. But what if we don't need -that any more? What if the concept of a page is no longer relevant? What if -justified texts no longer matter (often designers don't care anyway)? What if -students are no longer challenged to come up with a nice looking thesis? Do these -collaborative tools with remote \TEX\ processing really bring new long term users -or is \TEX\ then just one of the come|-|and|-|go tools? - -\stopsection - -\startsection[title=Looking ahead] - -In an interview (\quotation {World of ideas}) Asimov explains that science -fiction evolved rapidly when people lived long enough to see that there was a -future (even for their offspring) that is different from today. It is (at least -for me) mind boggling to think of an evolution of hundreds of thousands of years -to achieve something like language. Waiting for the physical being to arrive at a -spot where you can make sounds, where the brain is suitable for linguistic -patterns, etc. A few hundred years ago speed of any developments (and science) -stepped up. - -\TEX\ is getting near 40 years old. Now, for software that {\bf is} old! In that -period we have seen computers evolve: thousands of times faster processing, even -more increase in memory and storage. If we read about spaceships that travel at a -reasonable fraction of the speed of light, and think that will not happen soon, -just think back to the terminals that were sitting in computer labs when \TEX\ -was developed: 300 baud was normal. I actually spent quite some time on -optimizing time|-|critical components of \CONTEXT\ but on this timescale that is -really a waste of time. But even temporary bottlenecks can be annoying (and -costly) enough to trigger such an effort. (Okay, I admit that it can be a -challenge, a kind of game, too.) - -Neil Tyson, in the video \quotation {Storytelling of science} says that when -science made it possible to make photos it also made possible a transition in -painting to impressionism. Other technology could make the exact snapshot so -there was new room for inner feelings and impressions. When the Internet showed -up we went through a similar transition, but \TEX\ actually dates from before the -Internet. Did we also have a shift in typesetting? To some extent yes, browsers -and real time rendering is different from rendering pages on paper. In what space -and time are \TEX ies rooted? - -We get older than previous generations. Quoting Sapolsky \quotation{\unknown\ we -are now living well enough and long enough to slowly fall apart.} The opposite is -happening with our tools, especially software: it's useful lifetime becomes -shorter and changes faster each year. Just look at the version numbers of -operating systems. Don Knuth expected \TEX\ to last for a long time and compared -to other software its core concept and implementation is doing surprisingly well. -We use a tool that suits our lifespan! Let's not stress ourselves out too much -with complex themes. (It helps to read \quotation {Why zebras don't get ulcers}.) - -\stopsection - -\startsection[title=Memes] - -If you repeat a message often enough, even if it's something not true, it can -become a meme that gets itself transferred across generations. Conferences like -this is where they can evolve. We tell ourselves and the audience how good \TEX\ -is and because we spend so many hours, days, weeks, months using it, it actually -must be good, or otherwise we would not come here and talk about it. We're not so -stupid as to spend time on something not good, are we? We're always surprised -when we run into a (potential) customer who seems to know \TEX. It rings a bell, -and it being around must mean something. Somehow the \TEX\ meme has anchored -itself when someone attended university. Even if experiences might have been bad -or usage was minimal. The meme that \TEX\ is the best in math typesetting is a -strong survivor. - -There's a certain kind of person who tries to get away with their own deeds and -decisions by pointing to \quotation {fake news} and accusations of \quotation -{mainstream media} cheating on them. But to what extent are our stories true -about how easy \TEX\ macro packages are to use and how good their result? We have -to make sure we spread the right memes. And the user groups are the guardians. - -Maybe macro packages are like memes too. In the beginning there was a bunch but -only some survived. It's about adaptation and evolution. Maybe competition was -too fierce in the beginning. Like ecosystems, organisms and cellular processes in -biology we can see the \TEX\ ecosystem, users and usage, as a chaotic system. -Solutions pop up, succeed, survive, lead to new ones. Some look similar and -slightly different input can give hugely different outcomes. You cannot really -look too far ahead and you cannot deduce the past from the present. Whenever -something kicks it off its stable course, like the arrival of color, graphics, -font technologies, \PDF, \XML, ebooks, the \TEX\ ecosystem has to adapt and find -its stable state again. The core technology has proven to be quite fit for the -kind of adaptation needed. But still, do it wrong and you get amplified out of -existence, don't do anything and the external factors also make you extinct. -There is no denial that (in the computer domain) \TEX\ is surprisingly stable and -adaptive. It's also hard not to see how conservatism can lead to extinction. - -\startplacefigure[location=top] - \startcombination[nx=4,ny=1,width=\textwidth,distance=0pt] - {\externalfigure[covers/the-epigenetics-revolution.jpg] [height=5cm]} {genetics} - {\externalfigure[covers/dark-matter-and-the-dinosaurs.jpg][height=5cm]} {physics} - {\externalfigure[covers/the-world-without-us.jpg] [height=5cm]} {history} - {\externalfigure[covers/what-we-cannot-know.jpg] [height=5cm]} {science} - \stopcombination -\stopplacefigure - -\stopsection - -\startsection[title=Inspiration] - -I just took some ideas from different fields. I could have mentioned quantum -biology, which tries to explain some unexplainable phenomena in living creatures. -For instance how do birds navigate without visible and measurable clues. How do -people arrive at \TEX\ while we don't really advertise? Or I could mention -epigenetics and explorations in junk \DNA. It's not the bit of the genome that we -thought that matters, but also the expression of the genes driven by other -factors. Offspring not only gets genetic material passed but it can get presets. -How can the \TEX\ community pass on Knuth's legacy? Do we need to hide the -message in subtle ways? Or how about the quest for dark matter? Does it really -exist or do we want (need) it to exist? Does \TEX\ really have that many users, -or do we cheat by adding the users that are enforced during college but don't -like it at all? There's enough inspiration for topics at \TEX\ conferences, we -just have to look around us. - -\stopsection - -\startsection[title=Stability] - -I didn't go into technical aspects of \TEX\ yet. I must admit that after decades -of writing macros I've reached a point where I can safely say that there will -never be perfect automated solutions for really complex documents. When books -about neural networks show up I wondered if it could be applied (but I couldn't). -When I ran into genetic algorithms I tried to understand its possible impact (but -I never did). So I stuck to writing solutions for problems using visualization: -the trial and error way. Of course, speaking of \CONTEXT, I will adapt what is -needed, and others can do that as well. Is there a new font technology? Fine, -let's support it as it's no big deal, just a boring programming task. Does a user -want a new mechanism? No problem, as solving a reduced subset of problems can be -fun. But to think of \TEX\ in a reductionist way, i.e.\ solving the small -puzzles, and to expect the whole to work in tandem to solve a complex task is not -trivial and maybe even impossible. It's a good thing actually, as it keeps us on -edge. Also, \CONTEXT\ was designed to help you with your own solutions: be -creative. - -I mentioned my nephew Bram. He has seen part of this crowd a few times, just like -his brother and sister do now. He's into artificial intelligence now. In a few -years I'll ask him how he sees the current state of \TEX\ affairs. I might learn -a few tricks in the process. - -In \quotation {The world without us} Weisman explores how fast the world would be -void of traces of humankind. A mere 10.000 years can be more than enough. Looking -back, that's about the time hunters became farmers. So here's a challenge: say -that we want an ant culture that evolves to the level of having archaeologists to -know that we were here at Bacho\TEX\ \unknown\ what would we leave behind? - -Sapolsky ends his series by stressing that we should accept and embrace -individual differences. The person sitting next to you can have the same makeup -but be just a bit more sensitive to depression or be the few percent with genes -controlling schizophrenic behaviour. He stresses that knowing how things work or -where things go wrong doesn't mean that we should fix everything. So look at this -room full of \TEX ies: we don't need to be all the same, use all the same, we -don't need some dominance, we just need to accept and especially we need to -understand that we can never fully understand (and solve) everything forever. - -Predictions, one of the themes, can be hard. It's not true that science has the -answer to everything. There will always be room for speculation and maybe we will -always need metaphysics too. I just started to read \quotation {What we cannot -know} by Sautoy. For sure those present here can not predict how \TEX\ will go on -and|/|or be remembered. - -\stopsection - -\startsection[title=Children of \TEX] - -I mentioned \quotation {Children of time}. The author lets you see their spidery -world through spider eyes and physiology. They have different possibilities -(eyesight, smell) than we do and also different mental capabilities. They evolve -rapidly and have to cope conceptually with signals from a human surveillance -satellite up in the sky. Eventually they need to deal with a bunch of (of course) -quarrelling humans who want their place on the planet. We humans have some -pre|-|occupation with spiders and other creatures. In a competitive world it is -sometimes better to be suspicious (and avoid and flee) that to take a risk of -being eaten. A frequently used example is that a rustle in a bush can be the wind -or a lion, so best is to run. - -We are not that well adapted to our current environment. We evolved at a very -slow pace so there was no need to look ahead more than a year. And so we still -don't look too far ahead (and choose politicians accordingly). We can also not -deal that well with statistics (Dawkins's \quotation {Climbing Mount Probability} -is a good read) so we make false assumptions, or just forget. - -Does our typeset text really look that good on the long run, or do we cheat with -statistics? It's not too hard to find a bad example of something not made by -\TEX\ and extrapolate that to the whole body of typeset documents. Just like we -can take a nice example of something done by \TEX\ and assume that what we do -ourselves is equally okay. I still remember the tests we did with \PDFTEX\ and -hz. When \THANH\ and I discussed that with Hermann Zapf he was not surprised at -all that no one saw a difference between the samples and instead was focusing on -aspects that \TEX ies are told to look at, like two hyphens in a row. - -A tool like \TEX\ has a learning curve. If you don't like that just don't use it. -If you think that someone doesn't like that, don't enforce this tool on that -someone. And don't use (or lie with) statistics. Much better arguments are that -it's a long|-|lived stable tool with a large user base and support. That it's not -a waste of time. Watching a designer like Hermann Zapf draw shapes is more fun -than watching click and point in heavily automated tools. It's probably also less -fun to watch a \TEX ie converge towards a solution. - -Spiders are resilient. Ants maybe even more. Ants will survive a nuclear blast -(mutations might even bring them benefits), they can handle the impact of a -meteorite, a change in climate won't harm them much. Their biggest enemy is -probably us, when we try to wipe them out with poison. But, as long as they keep -a low profile they're okay. \TEX\ doesn't fit into the economic model as there is -no turnaround involved, no paid development, it is often not seen at all, it's -just a hit in a search engine and even then you might miss it (if only because no -one pays for it being shown at the top). - -We can learn from that. Keeping a low profile doesn't trigger the competition to -wipe you out. Many (open source) software projects fade away: some big company -buys out the developer and stalls the project or wraps what they bought in their -own stuff, other projects go professional and enterprise and alienate the -original users. Yet others abort because the authors lose interest. Just like the -ideals of socialism don't automatically mean that every attempt to implement it -is a success, so not all open source and free software is good (natured) by -principle either. The fact that communism failed doesn't mean that capitalism is -better and a long term winner. The same applies to programs, whether successful -or not. - -Maybe we should be like the sheep. Dennett uses these animals as a clever -species. They found a way to survive by letting themselves (unconsciously) be -domesticated. The shepherd guarantees food, shelter and protection. He makes sure -they don't get ill. Speaking biologically: they definitely made sure that many -copies of their genes survived. Cows did the same and surprisingly many of them -are related due to the fact that they share the same father (something now trying -to be reverted). All \TEX\ spin|-|offs relate to the same parent, and those that -survived are those that were herded by user groups. We see bits and pieces of -\TEX\ end up in other applications. Hyphenation is one of them. Maybe we should -settle for that small victory in a future hall of fame. - -When I sit on my balcony and look at the fruit trees in my garden, some simple -math can be applied. Say that one of the apple trees has 100 apples per year and -say that this tree survives for 25 years (it's one of those small manipulated -trees). That makes 2.500 apples. Without human intervention only a few of these -apples make it into new trees, otherwise the whole world would be dominated by -apple trees. Of course that tree now only survives because we permit it to -survive, and for that it has to be humble (something that is very hard for modern -Apples). Anyway, the apple tree doesn't look too unhappy. - -A similar calculation can be done for birds that nest in the trees and under my -roof. Given that the number of birds stays the same, most of energy spent on -raising offspring is wasted. Nevertheless they seem to enjoy life. Maybe we -should be content if we get one enthusiastic new user when we demonstrate \TEX\ -to thousands of potential users. - -Maybe, coming back to the themes of the conference, we should not come up with -these kinds of themes. We seem to be quite happy here. Talking about the things -that we like, meeting people. We just have to make sure that we survive. Why not -stay low under the radar? That way nothing will see us as a danger. Let's be like -the ants and spiders, the invisible hive mind that carries our message, whatever -that is. - -When Dennett discusses language he mentions (coined) words that survive in -language. He also mentions that children pick up language no matter what. Their -minds are made for it. Other animals don't do that: they listen but don't start -talking back. Maybe \TEX\ is just made for certain minds. Some like it and pick -it up, while for others it's just noise. There's nothing wrong with that. -Predilection can be a user property. - -\stopsection - -\startsection[title={The unexpected}] - -In a discussion with Dawkins the well|-|spoken astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson -brings up the following. We differ only a few percent in \DNA\ from a chimp but -quite a lot in brain power, so how would it be if an alien that differs a few -percent (or more) passes by earth. Just like we don't talk to ants or chimps or -whatever expecting an intelligent answer, whatever passes earth won't bother -wasting time on us. Our rambling about the quality of typesetting probably sounds -alien to many people who just want to read and who happily reflow a text on an -ebook device, not bothered by a lack of quality. - -\startplacefigure[location=top] - \startcombination[nx=4,ny=1,width=\textwidth,distance=0pt] - {\externalfigure[covers/live-as-we-do-not-know-it.jpg][height=5cm]} {astrobiology} - {\externalfigure[covers/life-on-the-edge.jpg] [height=5cm]} {quantumbiology} - {\externalfigure[covers/rare-earth.jpg] [height=5cm]} {astrophysics} - {\externalfigure[covers/austerity.jpg] [height=5cm]} {economics} - \stopcombination -\stopplacefigure - -We tend to take ourselves as reference. In \quotation {Rare Earth} Ward and -Brownlee extrapolate the possibility of life elsewhere in the universe. They are -not alone in thinking that while on one hand applying statistics to these -formulas of possible life on planets there might also be a chance that we're the -only intelligent species ever evolved. In a follow up, \quotation {Life as we do -not know it} paleontologist and astrobiologist Ward (one of my favourite authors) -discusses the possibility of life not based on carbon, which is not natural for a -carbon based species. Carl Sagan once pointed out that an alien species looking -down to earth can easily conclude that cars are the dominant species on earth and -that the thingies crawling in and out them are some kind of parasites. So, when -we look at the things that somehow end up on paper (as words, sentences, -ornaments, etc.), what is dominant there? And is what we consider dominant really -that dominant in the long run? You can look at a nice page as a whole and don't -see the details of the content. Maybe beauty hides nonsense. - -When \TEX ies look around they look to similar technologies. Commands in shells -and solutions done by scripting and programming. This make sense in the -perspective of survival. However, if you want to ponder alternatives, maybe not -for usage but just for fun, a completely different perspective might be needed. -You must be willing to accept that communicating with a user of a \WYSIWYG\ -program might be impossible. If mutual puzzlement is a fact, then they can either -be too smart and you can be too dumb or the reverse. Or both approaches can be -just too alien, based on different technologies and assumptions. Just try to -explain \TEX\ to a kid 40 years younger or to an 80 year old grandparent for that -matter. Today you can be very clever in one area and very stupid in another. - -In another debate, Neil deGrasse Tyson asks Dawkins the question why in science -fiction movies the aliens look so human and when they don't, why they look so -strange, for instance like cumbersome sluggish snails. The response to that is -one of puzzlement: the opponent has no reference of such movies. In discussions -old \TEX ies like to suggest that we should convert young users. They often don't -understand that kids live in a different universe. - -How often does that happen to us? In a world of many billions \TEX\ has its place -and can happily coexist with other typesetting technologies. Users of other -technologies can be unaware of us and even create wrong images. In fact, this -also happens in the community itself: (false) assumptions turned into -conclusions. Solutions that look alien, weird and wrong to users of the same -community. Maybe something that I present as hip and modern and high|-|\TEX\ and -promising might be the opposite: backward, old|-|fashioned and of no use to -others. Or maybe it is, but the audience is in a different mindset. Does it -matter? Let's just celebrate that diversity. (So maybe, instead of discussing the -conference theme, I should have talked about how I abuse \LUATEX\ in controlling -lights in my home as part of some IoT experiments.) - -\stopsection - -\startsection[title=What drives us] - -I'm no fan of economics and big money talk makes me suspicious. I cannot imagine -working in a large company where money is the drive. It also means that I have -not much imagination in that area. We get those calls at the office from far away -countries who are hired to convince us by phone of investments. Unfortunately -mentioning that you're not at all interested in investments or that multiplying -money is irrelevant to you does not silence the line. You have to actively kill -such calls. This is also why I probably don't understand today's publishing world -where money also dominates. Recently I ran into talks by Mark Blyth about the -crisis (what crisis?) and I wish I could argue like he does when it comes to -typesetting and workflows. He discusses quite well that most politicians have no -clue what the crisis is about. - -I think that the same applies to the management of publishers: many have no clue -what typesetting is about. So they just throw lots of money into the wrong -activities, just like the central banks seem to do. It doesn't matter if we \TEX -ies demonstrate cheap and efficient solutions. - -Of course there are exceptions. We're lucky to have some customers that do -understand the issues at hand. Those are also the customers where authors may use -the tools themselves. Educating publishers, and explaining that authors can do a -lot, might be a premise, predilection and prediction in one go! Forget about -those who don't get it: they will lose eventually, unfortunately not before they -have reaped and wasted the landscape. - -Google, Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft and others invest a lot in artificial -intelligence (or, having all that virtual cash, just buy other companies that -do). They already have such entities in place to analyze whatever you do. It is -predicted that at some point they know more about you then you know yourself. -Reading Luke Dormehl's \quotation {The Formula} is revealing. So what will that -do with our so|-|called (disputed by some) free will? Can we choose our own -tools? What if a potential user is told that all his or her friends use -WhateverOffice so they'd better do that too? Will subtle pressure lead them or -even us users away from \TEX ? We already see arguments among \TEX ies, like -\quotation {It doesn't look updated in 3 years, is it still good?} Why update -something that is still valid? Will the community be forced to update everything, -sort of fake updates. Who sets out the rules? Do I really need to update (or -re|-|run) manuals every five years? - -Occasionally I visit the Festo website. This is a (family owned) company that -does research at the level that used to be common in large companies decades ago. -If I had to choose a job, that would be the place to go to. Just google for -\quotation {festo bionic learning network} and you understand why. We lack this -kind of research in the field we talk about today: research not driven by -commerce, short term profit, long term control, but because it is fundamental -fun. - -Last year Alan Braslau and I spent some time on \BIBTEX. Apart from dealing with -all the weird aspects of the \APA\ standard, dealing with the inconsistently -constructed author fields is a real pain. There have been numerous talks about -that aspect here at Bacho\TEX\ by Jean|-|Michel Hufflen. We're trying to deal -with a more than 30|-|year|-|old flawed architecture. Just look back over a curve -that backtracks 30 years of exponential development in software and databases and -you realize that it's a real waste of time and a lost battle. It's fine to have a -text based database, and stable formats are great, but the lack of structure is -appalling and hard to explain to young programmers. Compare that to the Festo -projects and you realize that there can be more challenging projects. Of course, -dealing with the old data can be a challenge, a necessity and eventually even be -fun, but don't even think that it can be presented as something hip and modern. -We should be willing to admit flaws. No wonder that Jean|-|Michel decided to -switch to talking about music instead. Way more fun. - -Our brains are massively parallel bio|-|machinery. Groups of neurons cooperate -and compete for attention. Coming up with solutions that match what comes out of -our minds demands a different approach. Here we still think in traditional -programming solutions. Will new ideas about presenting information, the follow up -on books come from this community? Are we the innovative Festo or are we an old -dinosaur that just follows the fashion? - -\stopsection - -\startsection[title=User experience] - -Here is a nice one. Harari spends many pages explaining that research shows that -when an unpleasant experience has less unpleasantness at the end of the period -involved, the overall experience is valued according to the last experience. Now, -this is something we can apply to working with \TEX: often, the more you reach -the final state of typesetting the more it feels as all hurdles are in the -beginning: initial coding, setting up a layout, figuring things out, etc. - -It can only get worse if you have a few left|-|over typesetting disasters but -there adapting the text can help out. Of course seeing it in a cheap bad print -can make the whole experience bad again. It happens. There is a catch here: one -can find lots of bad|-|looking documents typeset by \TEX. Maybe there frustration -(or indifference) prevails. - -I sometimes get to see what kind of documents people make with \CONTEXT\ and it's -nice to see a good looking thesis with diverse topics: science, philosophy, -music, etc. Here \TEX\ is just instrumental, as what it is used for is way more -interesting (and often also more complex) than the tool used to get it on paper. -We have conferences but they're not about rocket science or particle -accelerators. Proceedings of such conferences can still scream \TEX, but it's the -content that matters. Here somehow \TEX\ still sells itself, being silently -present in rendering and presentations. It's like a rootkit: not really -appreciated and hard to get rid of. Does one discuss the future of rootkits other -than in the perspective of extinction? So, even as an invisible rootkit, hidden -in the workings of other programs, \TEX's future is not safe. Sometimes, when you -install a Linux system, you automatically get this large \TEX\ installation, -either because of dependencies or because it is seen as a similar toolkit as for -instance Open (or is it Libre) Office. If you don't need it, that user might as -well start seeing it as a (friendly) virus. - -\stopsection - -\startsection[title=Conclusion] - -At some point those who introduced computers in typesetting had no problem -throwing printing presses out of the window. So don't pity yourself if at some -point in the near future you figure out that professional typesetting is no -longer needed. Maybe once we let machines rule the world (even more) we will be -left alone and can make beautiful documents (or whatever) just for the joy, not -bothering if we use outdated tools. After all, we play modern music on old -instruments (and the older rock musicians get, the more they seem to like -acoustic). - -There are now computer generated compositions that experienced listeners cannot -distinguish from old school. We already had copies of paintings that could only -be determined forgeries by looking at chemical properties. Both of these -(artificial) arts can be admired and bring joy. So, the same applies to fully -automated typeset novels (or runtime rendered ebooks). How bad is that really? -You don't dig channels with your hand. You don't calculate logarithmic tables -manually any longer. - -However, one of the benefits of the Internet is watching and listening to great -minds. Another is seeing musicians perform, which is way more fun that watching a -computer (although googling for \quotation {animusic} brings nice visuals). -Recently I ran into a wooden musical computer made by \quotation {Wintergatan} -which reminded me of the \quotation {Paige Compositor} that we use in a \LUATEX\ -cartoon. Watching something like that nicely compensates for a day of rather -boring programming. Watching how the marble machine x (mmx) evolves is yet -another nice distraction. - -Now, the average age of the audience here is pretty high even if we consider that -we get older. When I see solutions of \CONTEXT\ users (or experts) posted by -(young) users on the mailing list or stack exchange I often have to smile because -my answer would have been worse. A programmable system invokes creative -solutions. My criterion is always that it has to look nice in code and has some -elegance. Many posted solutions fit. Do we really want more automation? It's more -fun to admire the art of solutions and I'm amazed how well users use the -possibilities (even ones that I already forgot). - -One of my favourite artists on my weekly \quotation {check youtube} list is Jacob -Collier. Right from when I ran into him I realized that a new era in music had -begun. Just google for his name and \quotation {music theory interview} and you -probably understand what I mean. When Dennett comments on the next generation -(say up to 25) he wonders how they will evolve as they grow up in a completely -different environment of connectivity. I can see that when I watch family -members. Already long ago Greg Bear wrote the novel \quotation {Darwin's -Children}. It sets you thinking and when looking around you even wonder if there -is a truth in it. - -There are folks here at Bacho\TEX\ who make music. Now imagine that this is a -conference about music and that the theme includes the word \quotation {future}. -Then, imagine watching that video. You see some young musicians, one of them -probably one of the musical masterminds of this century, others instrumental to -his success, for instance by wrapping up his work. While listening you realize -that this next generation knows perfectly well what previous generations did and -achieved and how they influenced the current. You see the future there. Just look -at how old musicians reflect on such videos. (There are lots of examples of youth -evolving into prominent musicians around and I love watching them). There is no -need to discuss the future, in fact, we might make a fool of ourselves doing so. -Now back to this conference. Do we really want to discuss the future? What we -think is the future? Our future? Why not just hope that in the flow of getting -words on a medium we play our humble role and hope we're not forgotten but -remembered as inspiration. - -One more word about predicting the future. When Arthur Clarke's \quotation {2001: -A Space Odyssey} was turned into a movie in 1968, a lot of effort went into -making sure that the not so far ahead future would look right. In 1996 scientists -were asked to reflect on these predictions in \quotation {Hal's Legacy}. It -turned out that most predictions were plain wrong. For instance computers got way -smaller (and even smaller in the next 20 years) while (self|-|aware) artificial -intelligence had not arrived either. So, let's be careful in what we predict (and -wish for). - -\stopsection - -\startsection[title=No more themes] - -We're having fun here, that's why we come to Bacho\TEX\ (predilection). That -should be our focus. Making sure that \TEX's future is not so much in the cutting -edge but in providing fun to its users (prediction). So we just have to make sure -it stays around (premise). That's how it started out. Just watch at Don Knuth's -3:16 poster: via \TEX\ and \METAFONT\ he got in contact with designers and I -wouldn't be surprised if that sub|-|project was among the most satisfying parts. -So, maybe instead of ambitious themes the only theme that matters is: show what -you did and how you did it. - -\stopsection - -\stopchapter - -\stopcomponent |