Join Platy’S Readwise Highlights
A batch of the best highlights from what Platy's read, .
In the early 19th century, the OED says, English speakers began using “man” as a colloquial interjection “to express surprise, delight, disbelief, amazement, etc. (freq. in oh man!), or to give force to the statement which it introduces. man alive!”
The Grammarphobia Blog: What’s Up, Man?
grammarphobia.com
This is a “virtual AR” device, so it’s easy to be fooled into thinking that it’s “just” displaying the camera feed, as Quest does. But it also gathers mesh and lighting information about the room, and it uses that to *transform* the internal projection of the environment in certain cases.
• For instance, [the film player bounces](https://developer.apple.com/wwdc23/10072?time=1046) simulated emissive light from the “screen” onto the ceiling and floor, while “dimming” the rest of the room.
• Controls and interface elements [cast shadows](https://developer.apple.com/wwdc23/10072?time=879) onto the 3D environment.
Vision Pro
Andyʼs working notes
Reading this description a few years ago, I felt at last that I had a term that described my mind: it’s not “empty”; my thoughts are just unsymbolized. But Hurlburt’s work suggests that it’s a mistake to ascribe to oneself a definitive cast of thought. Most people, he’s found, don’t actually know how they think; asked to describe their minds pre-beeper, they are often wildly off the mark about what they’ll report post-beeper. They’re prone to make “faux generalizations”—groundless assertions about how they think. It’s easy for me to assume that most of my thinking is unsymbolized. But how closely have I examined it? In truth, the textures of our minds are subtle and variable. There’s a reason James Joyce needed eighteen chapters to describe the mind in “Ulysses.” Even within a single head, thinking takes many forms.
How Should We Think About Our Different Styles of Thinking? | The New Yorker
Joshua Rothman
...catch up on these, and many more highlights
Readwise