USB-C has a mode to run analog audio over its cable, called "Audio Adapter Accessory Mode." It uses the D+ and D- pins for Right and Left, and SBU1 and SBU2 for Mic and Ground.
Texas Instruments explains the scheme in a document, "tidub66.pdf."
I know USB-C connectors aren't quite what you had in mind, but they are smaller and more rugged than the 3.5mm connector (in my opinion).
Downside is it is not widely supported, but it is possible. The host device needs to support a way to detect the analog USB-C audio cable (recognized through four shorted pins) and then to split off the analog audio signals before they hit the internal USB transceiver chip.
From the site: "The cathode ray tubes that I am describing here are crude and they are relatively easy to make at home. They are in fact, much easier to build than most technically minded people would ever imagine."
Between this, and icon-only toolbars and ribbons, I think we're reinventing Chinese, badly. Ideographic characters can often convey meaning succinctly.
My vote is to either go back to picture icons, or use Chinese characters with localized pronunciation, so 車 or 车 is car, and so on.
Just like most software icons are not legible without prior knowledge like arrow down mean to save, a circle with a line mean power on/off, etc. Both are ideographic, and I guess some software icons might be a bit more pictographic (like a cogwheel meaning settings because you are interacting with the machine).
Incidentally, the largest group of Chinese characters are phono-semantic e.g. encode both meaning and pronunciation. Over half of all Chinese characters are in that bucket. That actually allows speakers to have some ability to guess both pronunciation and meaning of characters they have never seen. There are rules to guide this.[0]
In Classical Chinese actually. Mandarin, which I assume you mean, is not the language these characters were designed for. But it is related enough that the phonetic hints often (but not always) help.
Classical Chinese had a much larger phonemic inventory than modern Mandarin, and notably no tones. Below are a collection of Classical Chinese reconstructions in IPA that are all pronounced yì in Mandarin today. (like "ee" for English speakers). The creation of tones and other sound changes were fairly predictable, so as you say, the hints often still help today.
Nit point (I'm not sure it's relevant), but we don't know to what degree Old Chinese did or dit not have tones. The very first work to say anything at all about pronunciation is a Middle Chinese text from ~600AD, which already did have a system of 4 tones, albeit a different 4-tone system than Mandarin. Old Chinese pronunciation is a reconstruction from very limited data, not unlike proto-Indo-European, despite being considerably closer to the present.
I just looked it up and the phonetic markers are only like 20-30% reliable. I am shocked at this number as in my experience I would have thought it higher (I would have guessed 60-70%), but it is definitely hit-or-miss. I've never found tones to be predictable.
That might be a better word to use, maybe. But I'm not sure there was an adequate word for the point I was trying to make.
The linguistic definition of ideographic is that it is a language which uses symbols to represent concepts, rather than just literal pictures (pictographic) or sounds (alphabet or syllabrie).
Linguistics textbooks as far as I'm aware do not define symbol in this context, but generally a symbol seeks to represent the concept. Emoji are great symbols - you see an emoji and you largely understand its meaning, even if you have never seen it before.
The modern Chinese writing system is so abstracted that even an otherwise highly educated person that just lacks exposure to Chinese written script would have absolutely no idea what any of the characters mean. 一, 二, 三, sure. Beyond that, no fucking clue.
So yeah, they wouldn't be legible. Because as symbols, they objectively suck until you learn the basic components, structure, and patterns of organization of the characters.
So to the extent that an ideographic language conveys words as ideas through symbology, and to the uninitiated these symbols lack all meaning, it's not really ideographic is it?
But yeah, not legible might have gotten the point across better.
> So to the extent that an ideographic language conveys words as ideas through symbology, and to the uninitiated these symbols lack all meaning, it's not really ideographic is it?
If I write math equations in an unfamiliar and inscrutable notation does that somehow make them "not math"?
I don't think ideography is in the eye of the beholder but rather the creator. Using the uninitiated as your standard doesn't seem to work very well for most things beyond the absolute basics.
The key observation here with relevance to the original topic would probably be that icons that are legible to the uninitiated are likely to be of benefit. Even if you don't really care to accommodate them it's still going to help you to get your choices adopted.
Thus an amusing thought occurs to me. If we did want to switch to Chinese characters for icons it would probably make sense to do so gradually, one app every six months or so.
Many characters aren't ideographic at all. Nothing at all about the structure of 的 (genitive case marker), 是 (be), or 有 (have) hints towards their meaning. A number of others like 好 (good) are ideographic only through convoluted and unintuitive etymologies.
Icon - Ideographic character is a really interesting connection I've never seen made before that seems to capture what is going on. Don't agree with your conclusion to "use chinese characters" though. I don't think it's easy to tell what they depict.
"Remembering the Kanji," by James Heisig, will set you up real good. I recommend this to anyone who starts in with the 3000+ character thing. It is fundamentally different from rote memorization that they would have you do at school, instead using mnemonics and stories.
You're on to something. I tried this too, a few months ago, with offline Ollama/Magistral on Mac. "You're a dungeonmaster for a single player adventure game, with me as the player..."
It lost track of things almost immediately. But the foundation was there.
Maybe if we had a MUD-tuned model...
If it has an approximate way to track state, and a "pre-caching" method where it can internally generate an entire town all at once, room by room, so hallucinations are rarer... actually starts to sound like a traditional DM's method of world building for a campaign.
+1; thanks from another satisfied user. I have an annual SOLIDWORKS plan, but SolveSpace is my go-to for quick stuff. It makes CAD fun. There is a clarity of design behind the software that gives it a zen-like feel.
Well disk (or tape) images are as old as 'dd' and 'tar', that's not the revolutionary part. If the disk is writeable the state is still constantly mutating, so you're fighting a war of attrition (it's configuration management at that point, which is terrible). But a read-only disk that doesn't accrue changes, and only needs a reboot to fix, that's the revolutionary part. Anybody who ran thin-terminals can tell you how reliable and easier to manage those are than a full-blown OS.
At some point in the future people are going to realize that every system should work that way.
Oh yeah I’m subscribed to that channel and have been following along. That has some characteristics I’m interested in, but using my own hardware lets me make different decisions, like adding the leap keys I mentioned, and use full sized keys.
A keyboard with the keys pulled and replaced in the Dvorak "LH" (left hand) layout might be worth a try. Years ago, I had a hand injury for several weeks and this got me through. Took about a week or two to type reasonably well. It remaps the number row to one side for maximum use of the keys on the strong side.
August Dvorak developed these "LH" and "RH" layouts for amputees. The layouts are well thought out IMHO. It feels like typing on a numeric keypad.
I used Dvorak when I injured my dominant hand. It took me about two weeks to feel comfortable with it. My hand healed a long time ago, but I still use Dvorak (the two handed version mostly) because I think it is easier than Qwerty. I highly recommend this solution.
I struggled for years with touch-typing on QWERTY. I remember the "hovering" action that you described.
After switching to Dvorak, within months, I naturally began touch-typing. I suspect it is due to it being home-row-heavy, with all vowels on the left and most common consonants on the right.
I'm going to be adding additional keyboard layouts to https://www.typequicker.com/practice soon for the keyboard visualization. This might help people who are starting to learn it.
Dvorak seems to be mentioned frequently on this thread alone - I was surprised how many folks use this layout.
Texas Instruments explains the scheme in a document, "tidub66.pdf."
I know USB-C connectors aren't quite what you had in mind, but they are smaller and more rugged than the 3.5mm connector (in my opinion).
Downside is it is not widely supported, but it is possible. The host device needs to support a way to detect the analog USB-C audio cable (recognized through four shorted pins) and then to split off the analog audio signals before they hit the internal USB transceiver chip.