diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'doc/context/sources/general/manuals/musings/musings-children.tex')
| -rw-r--r-- | doc/context/sources/general/manuals/musings/musings-children.tex | 1253 |
1 files changed, 1253 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/doc/context/sources/general/manuals/musings/musings-children.tex b/doc/context/sources/general/manuals/musings/musings-children.tex new file mode 100644 index 000000000..b814675bb --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/context/sources/general/manuals/musings/musings-children.tex @@ -0,0 +1,1253 @@ +% 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 |