Nokia's problem was their UI, which was not controlled by Symbian, not the underlying OS. Hundreds of Symbian-OS based phones were on the market from 2001, including in the Japanese market which had the most testing. The p800 and p910 had a UI similar to iPhone and Android in 2003, 3 years before the iPhone, on 3G networks. The second version of the Symbian OS kernel from 2003 was real time i.e. a comms stack could be run together with the apps off the one CPU. Are the Linux kernel or iOS kernel real time now even?
Android OS and iOS are hacks of desktop OSes so are optimised for performance rather than battery life or memory usage; Symbian OS was designed as a mobile OS from the beginning optimising power and memory management.
It was the timing of Google's IPO which scuppered Symbian. Google were able to spend billions getting Android in place to capture Symbian's market share and customers as iPhone buzz grew the market.
No, the OS was a mess. The UI split was the root of the nightmare.
Nokia were "running" (perhaps should read ruining) Symbian well before they bought it. They were only one of the four or was it five co-owners, but they ran rings around the others when pressuring Symbian leadership. They were the only phone manufacturer with a dedicated product support org, and their pre-prod devices were available in core engineering teams unlike Moto et al. Nokia were the key players to create a Symbian OS core without a coherent UI (Techview lol), no TCP/IP stack, no telephony stack. They helped reduce Symbian OS to swiss cheese because they were so concerned with with recouping their investment from gen 1 SOS products and terrified their competitors at the time got a tiny leg up.
Indeed. So imagine doing performance profiling on a 90s UI framework from Psion and then getting feedback from S60 three months later after an integration cycle that you have a core perf or latency problem.
You are right that there were lots of Symbian manufacturers. Notable is that most of those were gone from the market by 2010. Windows CE eroded the market share and Nokia being so dominant meant most of its competitors did not want to be second in line for OS updates and influence. When Ericsson gave up being a phone manufacturer (they had their own UI platform for Symbian), the rest of them disappeared quickly.
By the time Nokia took ownership of Symbian, it was effectively the only company left still depending on it. The complex ownership of Symbian was one of the reasons it took many years to get operating system releases to market. Because first Symbian had to release a new version, which would only happen every few years or so and featured a lot of design by committee style decision making. And then it's users/owners would design products around that, which also took years.
It did not help that Nokia was a hardware company ran by electrical engineers that did not realize it was being bottle-necked on software. So, you would get new S60 products featuring bugs that had been fixed in other S60 products because they literally forked the same code base those were based on but before the bug had been patched. It was beyond stupid. And S60 was indeed a dumpster fire. One of the (many) issues with it was that it did not actually have any touch screen capability because Nokia killed that off around the time the rumors about the iphone started swirling. They then rushed out a version of S60 (v5.0) to "compete" with the iphone that re-created some of that. But then they also still had lots of v3.0 S60 products in the market for several years. Which did not help the messaging.
5.0 was a rush job and the initial products tanked hard. First there was the tube and then the N97. Both were products with lots of software issues. And subsequent efforts to fix it did not improve things. Most of the fixes amounted to too little too late.
Nokia did their best to kneecap other vendors using Symbian by fragmenting the base OS, which was a terrible strategy in retrospect.
But somehow they also managed to do it internally. The Series 90 Symbian UI could have been a real contender. This is a touchscreen smartphone from 2004:
But Nokia canned this advanced Symbian UI as soon as it shipped, and instead they started bolting features onto the already terrible keypad-driven S60 UI. Oh, and they also spun up a Linux touchscreen effort seemingly to ensure a total lack of focus and clarity about Nokia’s software strategy.
I imported a Panasonic x800 from japan to Canada in 2005.
Ran Symbian 2.0
I didn't even know Symbian was available on non nokia
Was very advanced for the time, everyone was impressed here as there werent any similar devices locally available.
This was my last phone before moving over to blackberry to get on the BBM bandwagon(after the x800 fell, and hit the push button opener and popped open the screen and cracked... With no locally available parts wasn't worth it to fix....).
Never had to do anything from the dev side, but the usability/functionality was steps ahead at the time
This paper is a good example of why mathematicians often ignore philosophy of maths.
"When a community of mathematicians is small then our modern standards of truth aren't necessary"
Proof is needed to provide confidence in the intuition. Lots of historical examples of mathematical intuition unsupported by rigorous proof going astray.
Also, on p11 it is not enough just to complete the square and derive the formulae for quadratic roots, the substitution on p12 is also necessary. Otherwise, one has just shown the possible form roots can take if they exist, but not that they exist.
i.e. showing A=>B is true, does not show that B is true.
To be fair, the paper is by a mathematician, not a philosopher. The question is valid - what /do/ mathematicians mean when they use the term 'morally'? It doesn't seem to have much to do with what most people (including philosophers) think it means. Rather, it appears from the examples given that it is equivalent to 'by my gut feeling' which we might call 'intuition' if that didn't have a more specific meaning wrt mathematics (though, ironically, intuitionism would seem to fit the author's position quite well, e.g. "The truth of a mathematical statement can only be conceived via a mental construction that proves it to be true, and the communication between mathematicians only serves as a means to create the same mental process in different minds." https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/intuitionism/). Nothing wrong with intuition as a starting point, but as you point out, it surely can't be a justification in and of itself - what happens when people's intuitions about what is right don't agree? I wonder what discipline tackles that kind of problem..?
I also wonder how the author would react if a philosopher had said they'd heard of this thing called 'Category Theory' and thought it would be interesting to apply a topological transformation to find the homomorphism between Kant and Nietzsche and then started talking about the influence of German beer on their thought? It would make about as much sense as this paper.
I think the terms used in Mathematics are a tad more precise than those in natural language e.g. 1 is fairly clear, "moral" is not as clear.
The reason Maths works is because it is based on intuitions (counting, space) that are presumably shadows of the physical world cast on the evolving brain via coarse perception. The effectiveness of Mathematics in Physics is probably not unreasonable at all.
To be extremely precise: 1 is the successor of 0. Anywhere that there is a natural numbers object, there's a semantics for this statement. What is socially constructed here is the choice of topos which hosts the natural numbers object!
Humans are what, about 99.9% similar to each other on average? So that gives me 3 nines belief that yes, if I can understand, then you can understand; we're just humans after all. I think that you're being sarcastic; once we define categories, Cartesian closed categories, and elementary topoi, then categorical set theory is a straightforward sequence of diagram schemata. But I understand your point!
You're super-close to a deep realization: all words are only sensical to certain subcultures. IOW there's no absolute meaning to any word. In that perspective, we're both right; "1" is meaningless and 1 is categorical, and it's just a question of pointers vs. names.
Another quick and deep corollary is that reality is socially constructed; whenever a quorum of humans is mutually intelligible during a conversation, then they are agreeing on the local nature of reality. Humans can't construct global maps of reality, though, since they can't observe the Universe all at once. Indeed global maps of reality are forbidden by the Kochen-Specker Theorem.
Edit: To clarify for the audience, I have no appeal to higher categories here, and the definitions of category theory are not some sort of categorization or classification process, but axiomatic definitions akin to set theory.
Heh, how did I know you are going to appeal to infinity-categories at some point?
"defining categories" and their respective categorisation rules is the process of classification. They don't account for the classifiers themselves.
You are super-close to a deeper realisation even.
If any notation is meaningful (even one that uses symbols like ∞), then it's Turing-recognisable.
Type-0 Chomsky grammar. In formal languages syntax is semantics.
In so far as understanding (comprehension?) goes, you could say that I subscribe to the axiom of unrestricted comprehension. It's rather un-Mathematical doing so.
These seem like fair points. So there's definitely plenty of room for improvement at NYT.
Do you mind me asking if you have a similarly prepared spiel for Fox News? Didn't they claim the American President wasn't actually American for years?
I know this is whataboutery, but I suspect NYT is one of the better media outlets in the US despite the failings you've pointed out.
I’ve don’t read or watch Fox News regularly so I don’t know. The NYT may be one of the better papers, but I don’t find it crosses the threshold of being worth reading.
I don’t really trust the news. I’ll read the Chicago Tribune or Bloomberg to get a general sense of what’s going on, and then try to research specific topics based on primary sources. I really like National Review. Unlike the NYT, NR is explicit about its viewpoint. So even though, for example, I support keeping the ACA, I can read an NR article on healthcare policy because the authors “show their work” in terms of how they perceive the facts to fit into their (generally conservative) take on the issue. That at least gives me a basis for researching things further. But with the NYT, I feel like I’m just constantly being manipulated, and because the NYT is so terrible about citing sources and data, I don’t even really have a starting point for further research.
This is an excellent point about transparency. Not just the NR which is very transparent, but on the other side you have mother jones and democracy now and the like. Those claiming to be purely objective and without bias, NYT for example, are the dangerous ones. Many of the readers don’t think there’s any bias in NYT coverage. Scary. As you said, good authors “show their work.”
"Except you were not replying to the nautilus article, you were replying to the one i posted by Grosz"
Good point - there are so many cranks around I lose track.
I had a look at the Grosz article. I have never seen such pure excrement in word form. Can I get a job at Duke if I publish used toilet paper?
I think the following waffle in the article is beyond the Standard Model and therefore contradicted by the physicist's argument:
"It will be my claim here that materiality, bare matter, matter not in its simplified form but before being animated by life, is nevertheless always involved in and invested by incorporeal forces, forces of potential sense, forces of virtual significance that living bodies, in elaborating their own ends or finality, affirm and develop"
"Many Neopagans worship Gaia... Gaia was the great mother of all... However, the goal-directed behavior of the biosphere, as explained by the Gaia theory, is an emergent function of organised, living matter, not a quality of any matter. Thus Gaia theory is more properly associated with emergentism than panpsychism... Panpsychism also plays a part in Hindu, Buddhist, Dzogchen and Shinto mysticism, and for that matter in most if not all Animistic Native Religions, and Mother Goddess Cults, like Pachamama, in the Andes, Rhea, for the Greeks, Durga, or Kali for the Hindus, Nerthus, for the Germanics, Dea Matrona, for the Gauls, Ninhursag for the Sumerians, Tuuwaqatsi for the Hopi, Nut, or Isis for the ancient Egyptians, etc. It will be hard to find a place on Earth were the ancient goddess has not being worship."
https://konekrusoskronos.wordpress.com/2013/01/26/gaia-panps...
These kind of silly ideas refuted here: http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/01/electrons-dont-thin...
Tl;DR only the physical properties of matter observed in the Standard Model can contribute to consciousness at the energy levels in the brain, apparently.
These kinds of problems are not going to be solved by "philosophers" who don't know enough neuroscience or physics, as any proposed ontology will have to fit with scientific observation.
When will cranks like the author of this article be booted out of the academy? The article is utter drivel.
Android OS and iOS are hacks of desktop OSes so are optimised for performance rather than battery life or memory usage; Symbian OS was designed as a mobile OS from the beginning optimising power and memory management.
It was the timing of Google's IPO which scuppered Symbian. Google were able to spend billions getting Android in place to capture Symbian's market share and customers as iPhone buzz grew the market.