regarding keyboard presence, this is one of the things that irks me about Mac keyboards is the absence of the # character. I write little programs and scripts on my mac infrequently enough that I have to look up how to type it every blasted time. That, and how to take screenshots. The "Print Scrn" key on PCs spoils me.

    X = Y x Z

    B = T ^ F v T

    P = Q n R u S

    C = U cross V

    D = U dot V

    Area = Width by Height

    L . R -> L dot R

    L dot R -> Dot[L, R]

--------

Related:

In Haskell, any 2-argument function can be used (or defined) infix by surrounding it with backticks, eg:

    add 2 3

    2 `add` 3

And you can use this to cleanly write curried functions (often predicates) with their arguments flipped, eg:

    vowelCount = length . filter (`elem` "aeiou")

Note that functions named with punctuation characters are infix by default, and one can be used/defined prefix by surrounding it with brackets, eg:

    (<$>) = fmap
    toUpper <$> "aeiou"    # => "AEIOU"

It's also convenient for resolving a subset of one of the harder problems in computer science: naming things. For a 2-argument function, use it infix and read it as a phrase in english. Which is clearer:

    ".jpg" `isSuffix` url

    ".jpg" `isSuffixOf` url

But unicode in code is terser. Instead of `elem`, we could use ∈ [U+2208].

To flip parameters, we could use the bidi-mirrored glyph, i.e. ∋ [U+220B, the bidi-mirror of U+2208]. In fact we could even make it a feature of the language grammar to automatically detect whether a mirrored glyph is being used, and perform the transformation.

We could even automatically detect and transform canonically equivalent graphemes using the non-spacing version of `not`, e.g. ∉ [U+2209, canonically equivalent to U+2208,U+0338], and ∌ [U+220C, mirror of U+2209 and equiv to U+220B,U+0338].

http://parkernet.com/applepro/images/wireless-british.jpg

Everything is alien before it becomes familiar, I think a condensed guide to get people up to speed on the symbols is all that's necessary.

APL doesn't feel like a weird throwback, it feels like it is from the future.

When you say full-APL do you mean in one leap? Then I agree it's not a good idea, but how about going to APL in stages? First introduce just some operators (e.g. × ∧ ∨ ∈ ≥ ≤ ≠ → ⇒ only), then introduce more gradually until all APL operators are in use? Then keep on introducing other symbols from Unicode not in APL.

I wrote my comment precisely because it has become a cliché to say what you're saying – how small, ignorant and insignificant we are in relation to the universe, how we compensate by being arrogant. Taking a different view, that human brains are really quite extraordinary compared to everything we can see out there, is not necessarily egotistic. The more I feel a sense of wonder at the preciousness and privilege of human life, the more I want to spend mine being helpful, nurturing, productive.

:)

Somewhere between vary close to 0% and vary close to 100%.

What is the maximum percentage of all the matter in the universe that is organized into conscious beings?

Somewhere between vary close to 0% and vary close to 100%.

Regardless of whether life is common or rare on other planets, it is certainly vanishingly scarce overall.

That makes plenty of rather large assumptions life may or may not only consisting of organic life on planets. For example, as our view of the universe is hobbled by the speed of light most of the planets in existence may have been transformed into Dyson spheres by AI (as one possibility) and we have no way of knowing. Or to bring up a classic idea the observable universe may be an influentially small part of a larger organism.

PS: Now, I suspect your probably more or less correct. However, just because something seems to be the most likely possibility does not make it the only option.