A truism of rhetoric

Repeating myself, there is a truism of rhetoric of the form:

Being in the same category is "excited" when both X and Y are mentioned and even more excited when three things from the same category are mentioned. The category remains dormant until at least two things from it are mentioned. 
Again: Truism 4 says "things remain the same" and this is applied to a comparison of past versus present; so the "thing" has assumed constancy in time. With the rhetorical truism, the impulse is the same as T4 but, in its case, "thing" is the next member of the category. So the assumed constancy is between members of the category. With eg the bird category and the migrates (yes/no) attribute, the attribute is not entirely independent of the category. If someone mentions terns migrating and swallows migrating then the next mention of a bird ("robin") carries with it the assumption that the subject matter is birds that migrate. Changing the scope from migrating birds to birds in general calls for the use of "but".
I am still trying to figure this out. "Things remain the same" applied to rhetoric, says that the scope of the topic remains the same. (First shivers in the direction of "context".)

I just won a Google prize

The one when you get a single search result:

Now we know, for example that Google does not index the journals where I publish...what were their names again?
Added: IOSR Journal of Engineering
Added: DuckDuckGo finds at least one relevant result and several more that are irrelevant.

Syntatic Truism 4

An example of a parallelism in rhetoric (quite similar to the semantic Truism(s) 4 a,b,and c) is the following:

The sky was red
The car was red
Her lipstick was red
But the blood was black against the snow

Wait, that's not right, isn't that just 4A? How about...

Artic Terns migrate
Swallows migrate
Robbins used to migrate
But now they are around all winter

With the use of "but" these clearly are using implicit assumptions of some kind. Is it just a byproduct of parallel phrasing or is it more? I am wondering about the sudden and spontaneous conversion of the word "migrate" into a category from which we can say the last line of the stanza is excluded.

Exclusion from a category is hardly the stuff of proto semantics. So for now let's go with this: parallel phrasing can create categories and a higher level truism accompanies the lower level Trusim 4: It says if "X in category" then also the next "Y in category".

I want voice activated keyboard shortcuts in Windows 11

I don't mean voice dictation, I mean voice enhanced typing. And I don't want to have to program macros either. I say this with no hope Microsoft is listening but, some basic keyboard improvements are right there for whoever can integrate them into Word. A redesign of the basic keyboard is imminent. The point is to solve these sorts of headache:

• swapping words
• putting words in quotes, after the fact
• fixing a recent typo

Generally these include marking a position, doing something, then returning the cursor to its original mark. Which suggests a little voice activated set of commands: "mark.. (select word1, select word2)...verb". Where the verb could be "swap", "quote", "fix".

To my reader from Florida

You are one of only two people who occasionally reads this blog. I know who the other is but who are you? Send an email or leave a comment.
And bye the way: thank you very much for visiting.

Oliver Wendell Holmes's "Free Speech" Limitation versus Fake News

I recall (maybe incorrectly) the OWH used the example of shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater where there is no fire, as a an example where speech should not be "Free".
I am not sure of the reasoning but clearly such "speech" causes harm and is equivalent to fake news stories that cause damage. Why then are the people who create Fake News not being prosecuted for negligent damage? are they?

Voice Enhanced Keyboards

For a long time I have been wrestling with the idea that the keyboard is a pain when it comes to slight edits to what you just typed. Two examples are: when I decide, afterwards, that a word should appear in quotes; or when I spot a typo several words back. It is a total pain to change small things like that and, generally, whatever you do takes about the same time as going back to the error and retyping everything. That is because typing words is much faster than correcting the typos. Moving the cursor around is so time consuming and may move the right hand back and forth from the keyboard to the mouse.
So I have been wondering about magic keystrokes or other things that could be embedded in conventional word processing that would solve the problem. Here is an answer: voice activated keyboard shortcuts and edits. So you might highlight a word with the mouse, hold the control key, and say "quote". Or hold the control key and say "end" or "end paragraph". This has lots of possible advantages in avoiding moving the right hand back and forth from the keyboard to the mouse - during edits. Or in keeping both hands on the keyboard for other operations.
I see that such things already exist. I am not surprised but I think some things, like quoting, are not easy to implement as a keyboard macro, so perhaps there is still room for some new ideas.