这一定会是一场精彩的演出。换句话说，我很想听到这种声音。我写了几篇文章，内容涉及流行文化和语言变化的方方面面。我14岁的孙子用草书写一个句子有困难，因为不再需要了;人们说不出十个单词就会用到“喜欢”这个词;愚蠢的首字母缩略词取代了普通语言，因为它们写起来更快。权力下放,事实上……或者，超级简单可能会成为新的知识分子传奇?Hmmmmm……

一个句子应该定义完整性，这是一个我希望听简讲的笑话。

I look forward to this show as I do to a blog that would set its stage.

Wherever this show goes, there will be much to think about. Children will not be the subject or the originators I would posit. Humanity, and human agency, is the issue not democracy I would posit.

Who are these philosophers unnamed one? I'm interested and somewhat concerned.

Carry on.

The death of the sentence is a symptom of bigger problems, seems to me. I dashed this off this morning. Maybe you will get the drift---I don't know:

Process; Thought and Depersonalization in the Late Post-Modern Era

I have been thinking about what follows for some time. Probably since people began using the word 'process', in lieu of terms such as thought and thinking. So, this is an objection, aimed at incurably hip, post-moderns everywhere. Thought is a human capacity at the moment. AI proponents are pondering this, wondering if that capacity might be imputed into their subject matter. Processing, however, is a machine function, built in to machinery of all sorts. It is what machines are uniquely DESIGNED to do. Human beings analyze, evaluate and make value judgments about other people, places and things. This is what they are uniquely EQUIPPED to do.
读到这篇文章的人可能会认为我是一个脾气暴躁的人，或者更好的说法是，无知和与现实世界脱节。对此，我想反驳一下:“现实”世界中的后现代主义和流行文化正在使人类失去人格化。我不是要求任何人努力思考我认为我们应该更好地思考我要是告诉你怎么做这件事，那就太傻了。为什么?因为思考是非常私人的事情。我们每个人都有自己的做事方式。把处理过程留给专家吧。They are pretty good at it, being machines and all...
(Sorry about the scare quotes. But hey, I only used them once.)

It seems to me that what's being missed is that communication is really about what's received, whereas today there's entirely too much emphasis on sending. Sentence structure facilitates understanding by the recipient, whereas the current abbreviated short form may only be intelligible to the initiated.

我一直在想，随着对话和社会互动的日益匮乏，这一切都将走向何方?如果权力下放是下一个大事件，那么我们似乎已经在进化的尺度上走了一圈(不管这意味着什么)。然而，我们仍然在谈论人工智能、无人驾驶汽车，甚至在火星上插上美国国旗等复杂的话题。(见鬼，我们的总统如此热衷于成为有史以来最好的，我想知道他是否知道我们之前对这颗红色星球的探险?当然,他必须吗?)我在读一本哲学论文集，1989年的——也不是很久以前。有一篇文章是关于修辞学及其在当今世界的意义的，很大程度上是基于语言的进步。其中一个关键的观点是(转述):修辞无论如何都很重要。有人进一步发问:如果我们能走到今天，部分是因为我们称之为语言的能力，那么我们想象没有语言的进一步进步会是什么样子呢?如果修辞很重要，无论如何，其他的方式是什么? Or, put differently, what would speechless rhetoric consist of? Telepathy?

我同意参与者纽曼的1/9/20-post的观点:使用当代新颖的以消费者为基础的通信系统正在摧毁说话的能力，因为这是它设计的目的。如果你不能交流，剩下的就是信号的交换，作为同意或拒绝的功能，这样就不会传递任何内容，让用户更适应对消费者行为的操纵。类似的情况也发生在灯泡市场。如果你卖给人们比他们需要的更多的光，他们将失去看清楚的能力，使销售更明亮的光更有利可图。对过度照明区域和汽车前灯亮度增加的广泛不满似乎并没有影响到这个问题。这就是与参与者纽曼的论文所达成的协议在这里的解释:摧毁对话的能力被证明是一种为销售通信而设计的市场。人们自由参与讨论的能力越弱，他们就越愿意购买自己的沟通能力。

The death of the sentence seems to have educed little more than a soft whimper. A more pressing concern may be the inability of speakers and writers to pay attention. There is an ad (radio) for a healthcare provider, located in a small town east of where I live. The line goes like this: ...and, as always, we are currently accepting new patients... So, what is off about this? Well, the phrase, as always, stands alone if taken by itself. As does we are currently. But place them together, just so, and one cancels out the other. Or, at best sends a confusing message about whether one may become a patient with that practice. We hear inane redundancies and over-emphasis everyday, as though such explanation makes the originator sound smarter or more articulate. it does not. It makes him/her sound like poorly programmed artificial intelligence.
I tend to ignore acronyms and nonsensical captions. Just don't have time for that. If someone wants to give me useful information, I am all ears. If I have to solve a puzzle, I am not.

Assuredly the contrary is true. Without having to defer to a subjective and therefore unverifiable premise concerning where one's attentional preference may be directed, but based on the assumption of common capacities for perception, a safe assumption can be made that the ears are not removed upon puzzle-solving compulsion. For one can hear without listening, but not listen without hearing. It therefore follows that one who listens hears more from a few incomplete sentences than one who hears only does from many complete ones. Consider the following:

Seven sentences of various duration are uttered at different times, which can be represented as S1, S2, S3, S4, S5, S6, and S7, to which the following conditions apply:
a) S3 is uttered earlier than S2.
b) S2 is uttered earlier than S6.
c) S5 is of longer duration than S3, S6, and S7.
d) Only two sentences are uttered earlier that S1.
e) There is a minimum of four sentences longer than S2.
f) Sentence S4 is uttered most recently.
g) Only one sentence is longer than S4.
h) The shortest sentence is also uttered the earliest.

1) So, which sentence besides S5 and S7 can be the earliest?
2) If S3 is longer than S2, which one is the most recent?
3) Assuming that S5 is uttered earlier than S3, how many sentences were uttered earlier than S2?

Answer key:
1)' S3, because S1 is uttered later than two sentences and is not the shortest. In addition, S3 is uttered earlier than S2 which in turn is earlier than S4.
2) S7。首先，S5比S7、S3、S6更长;S2比S6更早发出。As S3 is earlier than S2 though, it is excluded on account of condition (h). From there the answer is elicited by a simple process of elimination of the remaining sentences:
a) S1 is more recent than two of the others.
b) S3 is both earlier and of longer duration than S2,
c) and S2 in turn is earlier than S6, leaving only S7.
3)' Four. S7 must be both the shortest and the earliest, since the operative assumption excludes S3 from being the shortest, and S2 has to be longer. S3 is earlier than S2, which is in turn earlier than S6. Because S4 is the most recent, and S6 is later than S2, that leaves S5 as the sentence which together with S7 fulfills condition (d). That's three sentences, S7, S3, and S5, to which S1 is therefore added, being stuck in third place after S5 and S7.

或者换一个问题:如果早于S4，晚于S6，哪句话最长(请回答)?我们可以想象一个实验，在这个实验中，单个单词可以代替句子的数字，这样整个句子就可以默认形成，按照它们的发音的时间顺序排列，以及给定单词的相同字母数量所代表的单词数量，这些字母是随机选择的，除了字符数量之外。在这种情况下，真正的倾听是可能的，还是仅仅听到它就足以判断它毫无意义?