conciselyverbose

I just don't enjoy his writing style at all. I only ended up doing a couple chapters and probably won't go back.

Maybe part of it is the translation, but it feels like a huge slog. The only translated series I can really think of that I really loved is Millennium (Lisbeth Salander/Girl with the Dragon Tattoo). I think translation can be a challenge, because you're trying not to vary from the author's intent, but different language choices in a book are made for different choices at different times, so even a really great translator can be constrained by the original work. It's hard to match both the flow and intent of native writing.

The fact that the vast majority of quality mobile apps in existence are iOS only, because development and distribution on Android are complete and utter dogshit.

Why would they provide physical controllers on the early version when the mass market won't have physical controllers?

Apple's dev tools are fine. It's not dumb luck that's the reason iPhone's software ecosystem takes a giant shit all over android's.

My favorite is that everyone sends you a silly preview saying "we'll have your stats soon".

Just send one.

They were a $3500 dev-kit to enable some base level of preparation when the costs come down. They were never going to be mainstream.

If it's not re-defining the term then I'm using it like the paper is defining it.

Because just understanding words to respond to them, ignoring all the sub-processes that are also part of "thought" and directly impact both your internal narration and your actual behavior, takes more than 10 bits of information to manage. (And yeah I do understand that each word isn't actually equally likely as I used to provide a number in my rough version, but they also require your brain to handle far more additional context than just the information theory "information" of the word itself.)

Information is information. Everything can be described in binary terms.

Binary digit is how actual brain scientists understand bit, because that's what it means.

But "brains aren't binary" is also flawed. At any given point, a neuron is either firing or not firing. That's based on a buildup of potentials based on the input of other neurons, but it ultimately either fires or it doesn't, and that "fire/don't fire" dichotomy is critical to a bunch of processes. Information may be encoded other ways, eg fire rate, but if you dive down to the core levels, the threshold of whether a neuron hits the action potential is what defines the activity of the brain.

Yes.

Science is built on a shared, standardized base of knowledge. Laying claim to a standard term to mean something entirely incompatible with the actual definition makes your paper objectively incorrect and without merit.

Binary digit, or the minimum additional information needed to distinguish between two different equally likely states/messages/etc.

It's same usage as information theory, because information theory applies to, and is directly used by, virtually every relevant field of science that touches information in any way.

Actual neuroscientists do not create false definitions for well defined terms. And they absolutely do not need to define basic, unambiguous terminology to be able to use it.

The paper is not entitled to redefine a scientific term to be completely incorrect.

A bit is a bit.

Because actual neuroscientists understand and use information theory.