I'm surprised that so many folks here (obv not everyone) have so readily accepted the word "brutalist" to apparently mean "simple, functional, and minimal", because that's definitely NOT what brutalism entails in the architectural world!
I really like a lot of brutalist architecture, but much of it is far LESS functional/useful/practical than other styles. Brutalism was an aesthetic, largely a reaction to existing forms--many of which were characterized by their utility! A lot of brutalist architects were rebelling against the bourgeois notion of a building as merely (as they saw it) "a place intended for humans to live, work, and play", and instead asserting the notion of a building as an artistic form in its own right, which often meant intentionally disregarding or downplaying the importance of the building's utility for the humans who interacted with it! Anyone who has lived or worked in a brutalist building can aver this truth: if the building served its function w/r/t humans, it was often DESPITE its artistic intentions, which prioritized almost everything else instead.
Thoughtful Machine Learning by Matthew Kirk is the closest thing I've seen. It's several years old by now (2014). That said, I don't see many people trying to use this approach in practice.
I wouldn't normally say this, but since you appealed to authority first... are you aware of how absolutely dismal ASU's reputation is in academia in general?
I am the same as you. Way worse, actually. When things get really bad (e.g. 500+ open tabs in Firefox), I spend ~20 minutes closing as many obviously "left-over" and otherwise uninteresting tabs, and then I save all of the remaining tabs to a new folder of bookmarks, then close the window. It's not ideal, but it does make sure that "potentially interesting" things I've seen don't get lost forever in the internet ether.
Good observation, gaming is absolutely a post-modern phenomenon. Any creative works with which audience actively engage and interact (rather than just observe)--and especially those that by necessity require the audience's engagement, or blur the line between the creator and the audience--are by nature post-modern.
Right? It's so weird that the dudes that rail against postmodernism fundamentally fail to understand that it's not a single assertive ideology, it's just a simple observation of the way things are in the world around us. It's not like anybody has ever set out to "make postmodernism happen", it's just a condition that has arisen via historical consequence. So when people attack "postmodernists", it's like--you realize that these philosophers did not "create" postmodernism, right? They just describe what they're seeing in the world.
Hm, I think I disagree with this. The famous statistician and scientist RA Fisher said "To consult the statistician after an experiment is finished is often merely to ask him to conduct a post mortem examination. He can perhaps say what the experiment died of." and less-statistically-inclined researchers in academia have often observed this to be true: when statistical/analytical/"data" related considerations are not taken into account during the early stages (design, planning) of a project, it is very difficult (and time and money consuming) to "bolt them on" after the fact. If "AI" (or whatever you want to call it) is going to be a fundamental feature of a product, data scientists (or whatever you want to call them) should be involved right from the very beginning.
