[NTG-context] knuth

[NTG-context] knuth

[Hans Hagen via ntg-context]

Hi,

Probably some on this list already checked how well chatgpt answers 
questions about domains one knows well and then probably noted that in 
spite of impressive wording, one can run into quite incorrect answers.

One can get really stupid responses about tex and friends, but also can 
get impressive exmapled when asked for. (I'm still planning a wrap up of 
some.)

That said, one should read:

   https://cs.stanford.edu/~knuth/chatGPT20.txt

and this makes a pretty nice new sample file:

It's amazing how the confident tone lends credibility to all of that
made-up nonsense. Almost impossible for anybody without knowledge
of the book to believe that those "facts" aren't authorititative
and well researched.

(among some other remarks)

Hans

-----------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE
               Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands
        tel: 038 477 53 69 | www.pragma-ade.nl | www.pragma-pod.nl
-----------------------------------------------------------------
___________________________________________________________________________________
If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki!

maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / https://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
webpage  : https://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://context.aanhet.net
archive  : https://bitbucket.org/phg/context-mirror/commits/
wiki     : https://contextgarden.net
___________________________________________________________________________________

Re: [NTG-context] knuth

[luigi scarso via ntg-context]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1401 bytes --]

On Thu, 1 Jun 2023 at 11:45, Hans Hagen via ntg-context <ntg-context@ntg.nl>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Probably some on this list already checked how well chatgpt answers
> questions about domains one knows well and then probably noted that in
> spite of impressive wording, one can run into quite incorrect answers.
>
> One can get really stupid responses about tex and friends, but also can
> get impressive exmapled when asked for. (I'm still planning a wrap up of
> some.)
>
> That said, one should read:
>
>    https://cs.stanford.edu/~knuth/chatGPT20.txt
>
> and this makes a pretty nice new sample file:
>
> It's amazing how the confident tone lends credibility to all of that
> made-up nonsense. Almost impossible for anybody without knowledge
> of the book to believe that those "facts" aren't authorititative
> and well researched.
>


you can happily include the email that I have sent to you that declares
that *you* are the author of MFlua
and *I* have nothing to do with it (chatgpt3: as far as I know, the
overall number of  users+developers of MFLua in the entire solar system is
exactly 1 -- me -- at least from 10 years) .
For a moment  I was even convinced that it was true.

On the other hand, I am pretty sure that it will be able to
generate perfect lualatex files for articles, reports, and later books.
How and when  it's more a matter of  interest rather than capabilities.

--
luigi

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 2038 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 496 bytes --]

___________________________________________________________________________________
If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki!

maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / https://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
webpage  : https://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://context.aanhet.net
archive  : https://bitbucket.org/phg/context-mirror/commits/
wiki     : https://contextgarden.net
___________________________________________________________________________________

Re: [NTG-context] knuth

[Floris van Manen via ntg-context]

On 01/06/2023 12:32, luigi scarso via ntg-context wrote:
> It's amazing how the confident tone lends credibility to all of that
> made-up nonsense. Almost impossible for anybody without knowledge
> of the book to believe that those "facts" aren't authorititative
> and well researched.

Step by step.
First you tell them that your system is more convenient then reading the 
books yourself. Then you replace common sense with new daily 'facts'.

Nothing has really changed over the years; if you point out errors, the 
mere response is that it is still work in progress (see how great 
opportunities this has), for now it is good enough to entertain 
children. As if children do not deserve the best access to true 
knowledge and curiosity.

Divide & conquer (wie is er niet groot mee geworden ;-)

.F
___________________________________________________________________________________
If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki!

maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / https://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
webpage  : https://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://context.aanhet.net
archive  : https://bitbucket.org/phg/context-mirror/commits/
wiki     : https://contextgarden.net
___________________________________________________________________________________

Re: [NTG-context] knuth

[BPJ via ntg-context]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1982 bytes --]

Den tors 1 juni 2023 11:48Hans Hagen via ntg-context <ntg-context@ntg.nl>
skrev:

> Hi,
>
> Probably some on this list already checked how well chatgpt answers
> questions about domains one knows well and then probably noted that in
> spite of impressive wording, one can run into quite incorrect answers.
>
> One can get really stupid responses about tex and friends, but also can
> get impressive exmapled when asked for. (I'm still planning a wrap up of
> some.)
>
> That said, one should read:
>
>    https://cs.stanford.edu/~knuth/chatGPT20.txt
>
> and this makes a pretty nice new sample file:
>
> It's amazing how the confident tone lends credibility to all of that
> made-up nonsense. Almost impossible for anybody without knowledge
> of the book to believe that those "facts" aren't authorititative
> and well researched.
>
> (among some other remarks)
>

I wonder what Knuth would say about having ChatGPT write computer programs,
which I think can be outright dangerous. Either you get shitty code which
doesn't work, which is good, or you get shitty code which works which is
bad or Really Bad.


> Hans
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>                                            Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE
>                Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands
>         tel: 038 477 53 69 | www.pragma-ade.nl | www.pragma-pod.nl
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ___________________________________________________________________________________
> If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to
> the Wiki!
>
> maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl /
> https://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
> webpage  : https://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://context.aanhet.net
> archive  : https://bitbucket.org/phg/context-mirror/commits/
> wiki     : https://contextgarden.net
>
> ___________________________________________________________________________________
>

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 3490 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 496 bytes --]

___________________________________________________________________________________
If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki!

maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / https://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
webpage  : https://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://context.aanhet.net
archive  : https://bitbucket.org/phg/context-mirror/commits/
wiki     : https://contextgarden.net
___________________________________________________________________________________

Re: [NTG-context] knuth

[Hans Hagen via ntg-context]

On 6/2/2023 9:27 AM, BPJ wrote:

> I wonder what Knuth would say about having ChatGPT write computer 
> programs, which I think can be outright dangerous. Either you get shitty 
> code which doesn't work, which is good, or you get shitty code which 
> works which is bad or Really Bad.

He's pretty clear that he leave that to others and continues with TAOCP.

wrt you remark: to a large extend these are 'plagiarism' machines so one 
can wonder about more. I suppose it also depends on how original these 
programs are (or become). I don't see myself using such software, just 
like I don't use all these software coding tools (ide stuff). When I 
acn't remember what I'm doing, or need constant help popping up I should 
not code. I'm intrigued of course, and see valid applications, but wrt 
programming I'm just not that interested. I bet after a few years people 
get bored with the artificial stuff (painting, music, proze, movies, 
whatever; just hitting buttons doesn't make a creative person I guess), 
unless of course one wants to be zombified.

Hans

-----------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE
               Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands
        tel: 038 477 53 69 | www.pragma-ade.nl | www.pragma-pod.nl
-----------------------------------------------------------------

___________________________________________________________________________________
If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki!

maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / https://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
webpage  : https://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://context.aanhet.net
archive  : https://bitbucket.org/phg/context-mirror/commits/
wiki     : https://contextgarden.net
___________________________________________________________________________________

Re: [NTG-context] knuth

[Carlos via ntg-context]

On Fri, Jun 02, 2023 at 09:58:31AM +0200, Hans Hagen via ntg-context wrote:
> On 6/2/2023 9:27 AM, BPJ wrote:
> 
> > I wonder what Knuth would say about having ChatGPT write computer
> > programs, which I think can be outright dangerous. Either you get shitty
> > code which doesn't work, which is good, or you get shitty code which
> > works which is bad or Really Bad.
> 
> He's pretty clear that he leave that to others and continues with TAOCP.
> 
> wrt you remark: to a large extend these are 'plagiarism' machines so one can
> wonder about more. I suppose it also depends on how original these programs
> are (or become). 


Not original at all. One New Years' resolution ought to be «stop feeding
this whatever created by whoever» 

I've been trying to find a recent (just done a few months ago)
interactive session I had had with ChatGPT but I'm afraid I must have
dd'd the entire drive (just an honest mistake on the wrong drive at
the time while aiming primarily at fixing another drive and there
it went :(

But every interaction with it [chatgpt], was met/replied to with a
digression and paraphrasing on its part. i.e, sorry 'bout that. I
will not make that mistake again. I knew right away it was just
spitting out useless information. Grammatically correct but not
factual. Lacking substance.

I first brought up the invention of the printing press as a starting
point. And I asked it, to write me up an essay with the most interesting
parts

I remember that the point that chatgpt was trying to make, was in that the
printing press challenged the authority of the church. And I remember
I had to go back and forth with it and question that very verb/use of the
word challenging.

If anything seemed clear to me years ago. and also now, by reading
about the printing press and with the publication of the Bible and
later with the Book of Psalms and the first colophon in human hitory
and so forth, is that the invention of the printing press fostered
the establishment of the church. But I can't recall/just don't know
right now if by the time chatgpt had  decided to use ‹challenging›
was implying afterwards or after the establishment of the church, and
the excommunications that followed and so forth. All I know is that
it rewrote it with different paragraphs after I pointed it out. Very
well put nevertheless. But its main argumentative conclusion was the
challenging part rather than cementing/positioning/establishing/ one

Then I thought, heck, let's see if chatgtt is aware of the relatively
recent findings about the printing methods used by Gutenberg and so
forth. But it wasn't very clear on this either. As a matter of fact
it had no clue really about this for example, citing :

https://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/27/arts/has-history-been-too-generous-to-gutenberg.html

«Johann Gutenberg, the 15th-century German craftsman, has long been
believed to be the father of modern typography. But the secretive
inventor may have to share some of the paternity now. A physicist and
a scholar of rare books at Princeton University who jointly used new
technology to examine some of Gutenberg's texts say he may not have
created the seminal process after all, a finding could rewrite the
history of printing.

The two scholars contend that the metal mold method of printing
attributed to Gutenberg was probably invented by someone else about
20 years after Gutenberg printed his Bible. The method, which involves
punching a letter into a copper matrix that is filled with lead alloy
to create hundreds of identical letters, was the principal way of
printing until after World War II.»

«The discovery was announced on Monday by Paul Needham, the librarian
of the Scheide Library, a private library housed at Princeton, and
Blaise Agüera y Arcas, a 25-year-old graduate of Princeton with a
degree in physics, before a standing-room-only audience at New York's
Grolier Club, a club for book collectors founded in 1884.»

the above link was referenced at the following link  originally, which I had read before 

https://jikji.utah.edu/
 


> I don't see myself using such software, just like I don't
> use all these software coding tools (ide stuff). When I acn't remember what
> I'm doing, or need constant help popping up I should not code. I'm intrigued
> of course, and see valid applications, but wrt programming I'm just not that
> interested. I bet after a few years people get bored with the artificial
> stuff (painting, music, proze, movies, whatever; just hitting buttons
> doesn't make a creative person I guess), unless of course one wants to be
> zombified.
> 
> Hans
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>                                           Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE
>               Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands
>        tel: 038 477 53 69 | www.pragma-ade.nl | www.pragma-pod.nl
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> ___________________________________________________________________________________
> If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki!
> 
> maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / https://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
> webpage  : https://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://context.aanhet.net
> archive  : https://bitbucket.org/phg/context-mirror/commits/
> wiki     : https://contextgarden.net
> ___________________________________________________________________________________
> 

-- 
Function reject.

___________________________________________________________________________________
If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki!

maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / https://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
webpage  : https://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://context.aanhet.net
archive  : https://bitbucket.org/phg/context-mirror/commits/
wiki     : https://contextgarden.net
___________________________________________________________________________________

Re: [NTG-context] knuth

[Berend de Boer via ntg-context]

Hi Hans,

> Probably some on this list already checked how well chatgpt answers
> questions about domains one knows well and then probably noted that in
> spite of impressive wording, one can run into quite incorrect answers.

I've been using it for ConTeXt, and to be honest, it works amazingly
well. It hallucinates sometimes, but it's such a time saver.

-- 
All the best,

Berend de Boer
___________________________________________________________________________________
If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki!

maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / https://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
webpage  : https://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://context.aanhet.net
archive  : https://bitbucket.org/phg/context-mirror/commits/
wiki     : https://contextgarden.net
___________________________________________________________________________________

Re: [NTG-context] knuth

[Alan Braslau via ntg-context]

On 04/06/23 04/06/23, 15:57, Berend de Boer via ntg-context wrote:
>> Probably some on this list already checked how well chatgpt answers
>> questions about domains one knows well and then probably noted that in
>> spite of impressive wording, one can run into quite incorrect answers.
> 
> I've been using it for ConTeXt, and to be honest, it works amazingly
> well. It hallucinates sometimes, but it's such a time saver.

Maybe someone should try asking it to write documentation/manuals?

As a teacher, we are accustomed to seeing Google/Wikipedia/etc. 
cut-and-paste nonsense; now, this nonsense appears more polished, and 
our students are none the wiser. Saves them time, too! ;-)

Who said: "the best way to economize thought is not to think at all"?

Alan
___________________________________________________________________________________
If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki!

maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / https://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
webpage  : https://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://context.aanhet.net
archive  : https://bitbucket.org/phg/context-mirror/commits/
wiki     : https://contextgarden.net
___________________________________________________________________________________

Re: [NTG-context] knuth

[Carlos via ntg-context]

On Mon, Jun 05, 2023 at 03:09:02PM +0200, Alan Braslau via ntg-context wrote:
> 
> On 04/06/23 04/06/23, 15:57, Berend de Boer via ntg-context wrote:
> > > Probably some on this list already checked how well chatgpt answers
> > > questions about domains one knows well and then probably noted that in
> > > spite of impressive wording, one can run into quite incorrect answers.
> > 
> > I've been using it for ConTeXt, and to be honest, it works amazingly
> > well. It hallucinates sometimes, but it's such a time saver.
> 
> Maybe someone should try asking it to write documentation/manuals?
> 
> As a teacher, we are accustomed to seeing Google/Wikipedia/etc.
> cut-and-paste nonsense; now, this nonsense appears more polished, and our
> students are none the wiser. Saves them time, too! ;-)
> 
> Who said: "the best way to economize thought is not to think at all"?
> 
> Alan

Yeah. :) that's funny. Everybody uses chatgpt with lmtx

that's why everyone that uses it ends up in the mailing list asking to
resolve a problem that chatgpt couldn't resolve on its own. 

But here is the interesting part. The questions are answered by using chatgpt
too, rather than humans so nothing gets worked out in the end 

> ___________________________________________________________________________________
> If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki!
> 
> maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / https://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
> webpage  : https://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://context.aanhet.net
> archive  : https://bitbucket.org/phg/context-mirror/commits/
> wiki     : https://contextgarden.net
> ___________________________________________________________________________________
> 

-- 
If it has syntax, it isn't user friendly.

___________________________________________________________________________________
If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki!

maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / https://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
webpage  : https://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://context.aanhet.net
archive  : https://bitbucket.org/phg/context-mirror/commits/
wiki     : https://contextgarden.net
___________________________________________________________________________________

Re: [NTG-context] knuth

[luigi scarso via ntg-context]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1306 bytes --]

On Mon, 5 Jun 2023 at 15:18, Alan Braslau via ntg-context <
ntg-context@ntg.nl> wrote:

>
> On 04/06/23 04/06/23, 15:57, Berend de Boer via ntg-context wrote:
> >> Probably some on this list already checked how well chatgpt answers
> >> questions about domains one knows well and then probably noted that in
> >> spite of impressive wording, one can run into quite incorrect answers.
> >
> > I've been using it for ConTeXt, and to be honest, it works amazingly
> > well. It hallucinates sometimes, but it's such a time saver.
>
> Maybe someone should try asking it to write documentation/manuals?
>
> As a teacher, we are accustomed to seeing Google/Wikipedia/etc.
> cut-and-paste nonsense; now, this nonsense appears more polished, and
> our students are none the wiser. Saves them time, too! ;-)
>
> Who said: "the best way to economize thought is not to think at all"?
>


not all is bad: sometimes a textual description can replace a formalized
notation, e.g.
https://fosstodon.org/@tao@mathstodon.xyz/110250604086213386
I can imagine similar examples with tables.
Of course a very high level text is often ambiguous (as some kind of
formalized grammars, after all)
but  the example shows that in these cases  it is better to fix something
already almost ok than  to typeset it from scratch.

--
luigi

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 1919 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 496 bytes --]

___________________________________________________________________________________
If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki!

maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / https://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
webpage  : https://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://context.aanhet.net
archive  : https://bitbucket.org/phg/context-mirror/commits/
wiki     : https://contextgarden.net
___________________________________________________________________________________

Re: [NTG-context] knuth

[Alan Braslau via ntg-context]

On 05/06/23 05/06/23, 08:50, luigi scarso wrote:
> 
> 
> On Mon, 5 Jun 2023 at 15:18, Alan Braslau via ntg-context 
> <ntg-context@ntg.nl <mailto:ntg-context@ntg.nl>> wrote:
> 
> 
>     On 04/06/23 04/06/23, 15:57, Berend de Boer via ntg-context wrote:
>      >> Probably some on this list already checked how well chatgpt answers
>      >> questions about domains one knows well and then probably noted
>     that in
>      >> spite of impressive wording, one can run into quite incorrect
>     answers.
>      >
>      > I've been using it for ConTeXt, and to be honest, it works amazingly
>      > well. It hallucinates sometimes, but it's such a time saver.
> 
>     Maybe someone should try asking it to write documentation/manuals?
> 
>     As a teacher, we are accustomed to seeing Google/Wikipedia/etc.
>     cut-and-paste nonsense; now, this nonsense appears more polished, and
>     our students are none the wiser. Saves them time, too! ;-)
> 
>     Who said: "the best way to economize thought is not to think at all"?
> 
> 
> 
> not all is bad: sometimes a textual description can replace a formalized 
> notation, e.g.
> https://fosstodon.org/@tao@mathstodon.xyz/110250604086213386 
> <https://fosstodon.org/@tao@mathstodon.xyz/110250604086213386>
> I can imagine similar examples with tables.
> Of course a very high level text is often ambiguous (as some kind of 
> formalized grammars, after all)
> but  the example shows that in these cases  it is better to fix 
> something already almost ok than  to typeset it from scratch.

As an Artificial Intelligence machine, I cannot speculate why it is so 
hard to write correct LaTeX that does not need to be tweaked in order to 
give an aesthetic result. However, from monitoring the ConTeXt mailing 
list, I have observed that most problems seem to have an answer that 
work correctly when used correctly. In the rare case that ConTeXt users 
report something not working correctly, this usually is revealed to be a 
small typographic error in the macros appearing following a major 
internal code rewrite. I have recorded in all of these rare cases a 
pattern that reoccurs repeatedly with the phrase "fixed in next upload". 
I cannot speculate as to how such fixes appear so rapidly and so 
consistently. My analytical artificial intelligence is thrown off by 
seemingly irrelevant statements about listening to this or that CD. What 
could this possibly mean?

In supplement, I have not yet deciphered what is meant by the acronym 
MWE that also repeatedly occurs. This does not appear to fit with 
something that is reported as being broken.

(Written with the assistance of ChatGPT.)

Alan
___________________________________________________________________________________
If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki!

maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / https://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
webpage  : https://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://context.aanhet.net
archive  : https://bitbucket.org/phg/context-mirror/commits/
wiki     : https://contextgarden.net
___________________________________________________________________________________

Re: [NTG-context] knuth

[Carlos via ntg-context]

On Mon, Jun 05, 2023 at 04:50:53PM +0200, luigi scarso via ntg-context wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Jun 2023 at 15:18, Alan Braslau via ntg-context <
> ntg-context@ntg.nl> wrote:
> 
> >
> > On 04/06/23 04/06/23, 15:57, Berend de Boer via ntg-context wrote:
> > >> Probably some on this list already checked how well chatgpt answers
> > >> questions about domains one knows well and then probably noted that in
> > >> spite of impressive wording, one can run into quite incorrect answers.
> > >
> > > I've been using it for ConTeXt, and to be honest, it works amazingly
> > > well. It hallucinates sometimes, but it's such a time saver.
> >
> > Maybe someone should try asking it to write documentation/manuals?
> >
> > As a teacher, we are accustomed to seeing Google/Wikipedia/etc.
> > cut-and-paste nonsense; now, this nonsense appears more polished, and
> > our students are none the wiser. Saves them time, too! ;-)
> >
> > Who said: "the best way to economize thought is not to think at all"?
> >
> 
> 
> not all is bad: sometimes a textual description can replace a formalized
> notation, e.g.
> https://fosstodon.org/@tao@mathstodon.xyz/110250604086213386
> I can imagine similar examples with tables.
> Of course a very high level text is often ambiguous (as some kind of
> formalized grammars, after all)
> but  the example shows that in these cases  it is better to fix something
> already almost ok than  to typeset it from scratch.
> 
> --
> luigi

Not all is bad, no, except the company behind chatgpt  ought to pay its
users for feeding more data into it. It's a westernized company after
all. Lots of baggage. I'm surprised it hasn't applied for a patent yet
really.


> ___________________________________________________________________________________
> If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki!
> 
> maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / https://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
> webpage  : https://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://context.aanhet.net
> archive  : https://bitbucket.org/phg/context-mirror/commits/
> wiki     : https://contextgarden.net
> ___________________________________________________________________________________


-- 
You know you've been spending too much time on the computer when your
friend misdates a check, and you suggest adding a "++" to fix it.

___________________________________________________________________________________
If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki!

maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / https://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
webpage  : https://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://context.aanhet.net
archive  : https://bitbucket.org/phg/context-mirror/commits/
wiki     : https://contextgarden.net
___________________________________________________________________________________