Things I'll do differently for my next thesis
- Sources first, text second: I spent a lot of time polishing specific sentences etc., loosely linking relevant sources, but when needing to actually add sources finding a specific one to support a statement is hard, even if I have multiple ones supporting different parts of the statement or the spirit of it
-
- some people translate book names into English on Wikipedia, sourcing the Ukrainian one and the translation is right and they are awesome etc., but that was unexpected, hah
- and generally dealing with translations is hard
-
- English-language sources for common Ukrainian bits is hard
- the executed renaissance - two papers about it, both critical of it, but finding something that confirms that it’s a thing that exists is not trivial
- pro-ER: article on a website The Executed Renaissance: The Book that Saved Ukrainian Literature from Soviet Oblivion | Article | Culture.pl
- anti-ER: the only two published citeable sources I ound
- the executed renaissance - two papers about it, both critical of it, but finding something that confirms that it’s a thing that exists is not trivial
- Generally the approach should be as mentioned by I think Scott Alexander or someone in 231002-2311 Meta about writing a Masterarbeit: follow the sources wherever they lead, instead of writing something when inspired and then look for sources. You may be right but much less rephrasing if you do it starting from sources to begin with.
- Focus and prioritize
- the approach I do for tasks/theory/steps should have been done for the text as well. Ukrainian language history is the least relevant part, even if interesting to me.
- Added the ‘use pycharm earlier bit’ to 231207-1937 Note to self about OOP
- Spend less time on Ukrainian grammar and more on other eval harnesses and the literature, incl. other cool packages that exist
Nel mezzo del deserto posso dire tutto quello che voglio.