Talk:Reg tech: Difference between revisions

Talk:Reg tech (view source)

Revision as of 19:58, 16 August 2021

1,314 bytes added , 16 August 2021

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,900

edits

@@ Line 39: / Line 39: @@
 ===More about substrates. A whole other level===
-But the transition from encoding in engineering to encoding on punch cards didn’t cause the information explosion: it happened in 1804. It took a further separating of information from substrate for that: the abstract digital information from its he physical medium in which the code is embedded to interact with the physical world.
+But the transition from ''encoding in engineering'' to ''encoding on punch cards'' didn’t, immediately, cause the information explosion: it happened in 1804. That took a further separation of the ''[[information]]'' as an intellectual concept ''in itself'' from the ''[[substrate]]'' in which the information is [[for the time being]] embedded.
-Now that would be the trick: if a machine could take the information, in an abstract sense, ''off'' the card, and copy it onto an internal storage system then you have separated the pure code from its physical articulation.
+Now that would be the trick: if a machine could take the information, in an abstract sense, ''off'' the card, and somehow hold onto it, away from the card, in some kind of conceptual internal storage system, then it would have separated the pure code from its temporal physical articulation. This sounds like a dualism, between a frail mortal body, and an enduring immaterial spirit, doesn’t it.
-Thus
-(a) the machine wouldn't thereafter need the card  –  it would have taken what it needs from it, copied it and stored it separately, and
-(b) having copied it once, the machine could copy it again, or you have the ability to replicate, splice, augment it, or adjust it. The machine ''itself'' can manipulate the code. The information on the card can contain contain instructions to overwrite itself.
-Note again: read, interpret, memory  –  these are poor metaphors because they humanise a process that is nothing like the human activity of reading, interpreting or remembering. Code processing is a far more mechanical and less complex undertaking than real reading, interpretation or memory.
-A machine recognises patterns in code, and while it can associate other values with those patterns, it assigns them no “meaning”.
-'''Computers can’t do metaphor'''.
+If we could just ''set the spirit free'', then our machine would no longer need the card on which it the information came. Having copied its the code in its abstract essence, the machine could re-copy it, or delete it, or splice it, or amplify it, or augment it, or adjust it. The machine ''itself'' could manipulate the code in unlimited ways, without human intervention.
-The manipulation of that abstract code didn’t happen all at once. In the 1940s memory and processing power was very expensive so even though machines could replicate code digitally they didn't. It was cheaper to reply on physical memory formats (tape, punched cards, disks). The code replication grew from the inside out. Machine outputs were all physical.  But machines began to be sequenced into networks. Communication of data between machines became a priority. Once machines could output abstract code (rather than by writing to disk) it was only a matter of time.
+This writable, readable storage place for the abstract essence of information we call “random access memory”. With it a machine can run, and build, [[algorithm]]s without external input.
+But note: “read”, “interpret”, “memory”  –  these are poor [[metaphor]]s. They humanise a process that is nothing like human reading, interpreting or remembering. running and building algorithms on code is a mechanical process. It is complicated, but not complex. A machine recognises patterns, and while it can associate values with patterns, it assigns no “meanings”.
+'''Computers can’t do [[metaphor]]'''.
+===The manipulation of abstract code===
+In the 1940s memory, and processing power, was expensive. Though machines could hold code abstractly, in working memory, they didn’t do it much: it was cheaper to read from and write to external physical formats (tape, punched cards, magnetic disks). (This is a sort of memory, but it is slow and clunky). Code replication grew from the inside out. Machine outputs were all physical. But machines began to be sequenced into networks. Communication of data between machines became a priority. Once machines could output abstract code (rather than by writing to disk) it was only a matter of time.
+It was only in the 1970s that digital code started to leave machine networks altogether. Before this, the only means of extracting information from substrate existed at the very edge  – punched card reader  –  at least somewhat digital in bearing, in that it assigned a single output from a single input and barring defect in the card or machine, it was reliable, or the human  –  analogue in every way: bringing its own cognitive architecture and narrative to the text to make sense of it. Here what the substrate contained and what the human took from it quite different things  –  the latter richer, augmented, but unpredictable. Humans ''can'' read like machines, but aren't good at it.
+They're slow, expensive, get distracted, and make mistakes.
-It was only in the late 1970s that digital code started to leave machine networks altogether. Before this, the only means of extracting information from substrate existed at the very edge  – punched card reader  –  at least somewhat digital in bearing, in that it assigned a single output from a single input and barring defect in the card or machine, it was reliable, or the human  –  analogue in every way: bringing its own cognitive architecture and narrative to the text to make sense of it. Here what the substrate contained and what the human took from it quite different things  –  the latter richer, augmented, but unpredictable. Humans can read like machines, but aren't good at it. They're slow, expensive, get distracted, and make mistakes.
 Important NB: at the edge of the network, that interpretative ambiguity remains. You cannot eliminate it. It is who we are.
-Disintermediation of the substrate: For the first time information in a process is bifurcated from the form of that process.
-Classic: email. The unit cost of a single communication went from paper, ink, envelope, stamp, postal system, and three days to zero, with total loss of access to the information encoded in the communication.
+===[[Disintermediation]] of the [[substrate]]===
-With email the information encoded in that letter was preserved in digital form
+For the first time, the [[information]] in a process — the ''content'' — became completely abstracted from the ''[[form]]'' of that process. This was a proper dislocation: a punctuation of the equilibrium. Overnight everything — operating protocols, institutions, economics, functions, parameters — were shot to hell.
-Dramatic reduction in the cost and increase in the fidelity of manufacture
-Example line 6 Pod. Combines 12 amplifiers, 10 speaker cabinets, reverb units and multi-effects into a single palm sized unit. Later, that became a plugin: no actual physical form at all: it didn't even need standalone software. But but but  –  the idea, once had, was not patentable, and easily replicable. Line 6 remains a significant amp emulator, but it has many competitors. It hasn't been able to dominate the market it established.
+Classic example: [[email]]. The unit cost of a single communication went from paper, ink, envelope, stamp, postal system, and three days to zero, with total loss of access to the information encoded in the communication. The entire distribution infrastructure built around written communication, which had evolved lazily over thousands of years, was ''vaporised'', and the information encoded in written communications was preserved in digital form.
+Another one: amplifier emulation. The faithful recording of a guitar amplifier required the amplifier, the speaker cabinet, the room, the microphones, the placement, and pre-and post- amplification signal processing. Each amplifier, microphone and room type had different tonal characteristics. This cost a lot of money, and took a lot of room. Along comes Line 6,<ref>https://reverb.com/news/past-is-present-amp-modeling-and-the-contemporary-player</ref> and released the “Pod”, a kidney-shaped device about the size of a kebab. It could emulate 12 amplifiers, 10 speaker cabinets, four microphones, five room types and an array of signal processing options reverb units and multi-effects into a single palm sized unit.
+Later, that became a plugin: no actual physical form at all: it didn't even need standalone software. But but but  –  the idea, once had, was not patentable, and easily replicable. Line 6 remains a significant amp emulator, but it has many competitors. It hasn't been able to dominate the market it established.
 Not just cheaper but more infinitely flexible. You record the dry signal. All signal processing can be adjusted post production. Want to switch out a close-miked Marshall for a Mesa boogie in a big hall after the recording? No problem.
 Note the change in cost. Each classic amp costs thousands of dollars. The studio would take up a large room the size of  – well, a recording studio. few home enthusiasts could afford the cost of renting that even for a day. For those who would want this kind of flexibility at all, there would be no choice but to rent it for the recording period. But a line 6 Pod cust a couple of hundred bucks.