thesmokingman @ thesmokingman @programming.dev

Posts

1

Comments

630

Joined

2 yr. ago

Whoah there bud, you’re lumping me into some groups I’m not a part of. Your standard of “if it gets brought up that’s great because it can come back stronger” is not a good one. By that logic, you’re either really stoked that women will have zero autonomy or you’re on so many antidepressants and anti anxiety meds you shouldn’t be operating any machinery. The news cycle exists for coverage, positive or negative. Biden’s team, just like every other high-level politician, takes advantage of that It’s being manipulated. If the last eight years haven’t taught you how that works, maybe this comment will. Either way, idgaf. You’ve got me pegged as something I’m not and your immediate response is ad hominem so you’re not worth my time.

Right now there is absolutely no news because this is nothing more than a proposal. It’s not bad news because the proposal is great for most folks. It’s not good news because, just like every other time the hype train starts for any kind of financial reform, it still has to make it out and remain unchallenged long enough to actually affect lives. It’s just another news cycle talking about shit we have no control over (unless you’re in the high 7 digits or more; I’m not).

Think before you attack someone.

Why are 1 and 3 the correct options? Why are they even correct? Why is 2 wrong? You don’t seem to realize any of the foundation you’re building on and you’ve done nothing other than say “if I provide evidence,” that’s enough.

Here’s a thought experiment. I take you into a closed room, put purple film over a window, and tell you the sky is purple. You’ve now got irrefutable proof that the sky is purple. But wait, you say! I can go outside and find different evidence, so clearly having evidence alone is not enough. We could even sidestep the problem by saying that the sky is colorless; it’s the refraction of the light that makes the color. Different frame; different counter.

So why are you right? Why is your frame correct?

If it is so self-evident, you should be able to explain why your faith in evidence trumps anyone else’s faith in anything else. You don’t know why you believe what you believe and you’re completely incapable (so far, based on the evidence you’ve provided) of doing anything beyond “James Randi says it so it must be true.” You seem to blindly believe anything anyone in a position of authority states (courts, insurance always right provided they have a modicum of evidence to support their claim). You pound the “evidence trumps everything” pulpit yet can’t explain why, logically, that might make sense.

You remind me of the evangelicals I’m also not a fan of.

You can’t explain logic so I’m not sure you have an understanding of the arguments you’re attempting to make. I’m not seeing any justification other than “I think it’s it right.” I’ve seen no counters to the quantitative philosophical propositions and a general lack of understanding of any of the things that underpin your belief system. You still haven’t explained why your system is right.

You haven’t shown that an insurance decision is correct. You also didn’t show that a court decision is right. You’re not seeing the forest for the trees.

Your faith is that evidence trumps all. That is a baseless claim unless you can prove it without the structures of evidence-based discourse. You are using logic to prove your statements which is logically equivalent to “god said so.” You argue your beliefs trump theirs; you are equivalent using your foundation. Your religion is logic which, as I have pointed out many times without comment from you, is just as made up as any religion and more importantly has the introspective capabilities to prove so.

This is a fairly straightforward epistemological argument; I’ve run out of ways to say it. Good luck!

All of this continues to go past you. You want to attack the metaphysical for its belief system yet you completely miss when you make the same logical leaps for yours. How can insurance companies prove something? Why are they right? If a court makes a decision, is that the correct one? Prove it. Only you can’t use logic or anything that comes from logical systems because, based on your attacks on religion, you’re not allowed to use the faith to prove the faith.

You’re very focused on religion and seem to be missing all of the points about logic.

not saying that … pretty agnostic

Cool, we’re on the same page.

If someone makes a claim… it needs… evidence

This is problematic without a rigorous definition of evidence. I’m assuming you mean something along the lines of repeatable and independently verifiable since you won’t take a claim at face value. If you’re going to rigorously define evidence, you’re going to need to create a system that can’t contradict itself. Per your quotes, either there is a ball in my hand or there isn’t.

This is called a consistent system. We agree on a set of axioms that we will achieve results from. If we have a consistent system and build a bunch of results on top of that, eventually we’ll run into things that are true but we cannot prove. We know this because of a famous result I’ve already mentioned. In other words, we must take central results on faith. A common one that, several decades ago, was met with ridicule because it was “so illogical” mathematicians had “suspend reality in order for it to make any sense” is the axiom of choice.

In other words, you can’t use logic and reason to say those that believe in religion are idiots because you have just as much proof as they do (just faith) if we accept the basic axioms that drive our logical system.

doesn’t exist because it doesn’t exist… isn’t circular logic

You’re conflating a tautology with circular reasoning. Circular reasoning boils down to “A because B; B because A;” and you’ve said “A because A” without any support for A. The lack of something in your hand is not necessary and sufficient to prove the ball’s existence. The only claim we can make is that your hand is empty.

Here is a metaphysical claim for you to chew on: it is possible to know whether or not it is possible to prove a claim.

Again, fundamental misunderstanding of Russell’s Teapot. You’re attempting to talk about proof, using the language of logic, to make sweeping claims that logic cannot make.

If you’re saying we can neither prove nor disprove the metaphysical, we’re on the same page.

If you’re saying the metaphysical doesn’t exist because no one has proved it and they have to prove it first, you don’t understand how logic, as we understand it today, works.

Edit: to highlight your issues a little, “it doesn’t exist because it doesn’t exist” isn’t logically sound. Unlike Russell’s Teapot, circular logic is an actual, provable fallacy rather than a rhetorical tool that is not a result of logic. More importantly, you’re depending on logic as a system of faith, just like religion, unless you’ve found some results that contradict Gödel and company. We’ve made all of it up and, with our understanding today, it is not objective.

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of Russell’s Teapot. If someone claims there is a teapot floating in space, cool, they need to prove its existence and the rest of us can go around as if one doesn’t exist. If someone claims there isn’t a teapot floating in space, now the burden of proof is on them. We can quickly exercise some critical thinking and realize that, while there might be a teapot in space someone brought with them and left, it’s not going to be beyond the asteroid belt.

Now do every belief system with empirical evidence. You can’t, primarily because belief in the logic used to prove that empirical evidence is the best evidence is itself a belief system. Changing any one of the axioms that underpin your methodology completely changes the methodology (eg parallel lines meet at infinity turns geometry into hyperbolic geometry). Furthermore, we can extend Gödel's incompleteness theorems to any formal system, like you’re attempting to employ, and show that they can’t prove themselves.

In other words, we must take things on faith if we want to use logic and pull out statement related to logic like “burden of proof is on the positive.” You can believe whatever the fuck you want; you just can’t prove it and, in most metaphysical cases, you can’t disprove it either.

It never hurts to pack a battery-powered carbon monoxide detector when you’re experimenting with something like this.

The letter cites an ADL study that conflates antisemitism with anti-Zionism and doesn’t differentiate attacks on someone for being Jewish from valid criticism of Israeli apartheid. I’m not entirely clear how they reach their 73% number unless it’s the summation of several categories. If we remove Israel from the equation, there’s still a large percent, >40%, experiencing antisemitism and that’s not okay. I do think there’s something to look at here, given that the number of Jewish students feeling safe actively declined. I also think everyone will continue to conflate criticism of the Palestinian genocide with bigotry.

The universities I’ve physically attended have had dedicated computer labs with Linux. My undergrad math department was all Linux, come to think of it. Easier IT and not a huge need for Word.

I have attended or been involved with five different state universities and a few different community colleges. For computer science, aside from one glaring exception, the default has been some flavor of Linux. The earliest for me at a school was Fedora 7. I think they had been running Solaris in the late 90s; not sure what was before that.

The only glaring exception is Georgia Tech. Because of the spyware you have to install for tests, you have to use Windows. Windows in a VM can be flagged as cheating. I’m naming and shaming Georgia Tech because they push their online courses hard and then require an operating system that isn’t standard for all the other places I’ve been or audited courses.

In fairness to Kagi, if you’re seeing a lot of it on Lemmy and Mastodon, that’s because nerds are gonna nerd. There’s a huge concentration of tech folks in those spaces and there’s a huge culture of prostelytization, “I know best so I must educate,” and “I just found this cool thing!” within the tech community. People remix the intros they got with their spin. Until the communities in these spaces significantly diversifies, you’ll see a ton of that. Kagi might be paying for some guerilla marketing; I chalk it up to tech oversharing.

In all fuck you to Kagi, Brandon Eich is the last person you want to attach your cart to for solid results. We should now expect explicitly paid results worse than Google that materially improve Eich, crypto bullshit through the roof, and a complete lack of privacy to Kagi who won’t share it so it’s totally cool guys.

If you want more grimdark and it has to be fantasy, check out Warhammer horror especially the vampire Genevieve. If you’re okay with grimdark science military science fiction, a good chunk of the Warhammer 40k and Horus Heresy lines will fit your bill.

I feel like Hobb is much lighter. For whatever reason I always think of Tad Williams and the Dragonborn Chair as connected to Hobb. I suspect it’s from the Legends anthology but they were only together in Legends II with a different Hobb trilogy setting and Otherland for Williams. Both are great starting points to find authors that have huge bodies of work that could hook you. They were how I found George RR Martin back in the early aughties.

He added a midquel, Port of Shadows, in 2018, and there are some really good shorts you can find in his Best of collections that are also recent. I’ve found a lot of folks who read them back when have missed these!

I feel like this is a great rec because The Witcher is pretty grimdark and Cook is a grimdark progenitor. Good pick!

The reason this is a meme is not Star Citizen but rather the article. That’s it. That’s the whole article. It just links to a couple of tweets.

Edit: I forgot the second paragraph:

Star Citizen, which remains in alpha, has crowdfunded over $650 million from fans since 2012.

Tweets have more characters than this has words.

I was also expecting something more from the article. This is 100% posting tweets on your website so you can drive engagement there by linking your article in a tweet on Mastodon.

The top comment has it right (for me that’s getting internal leaks). Getting a disaffected employee would be rad. I turned down CGI during the pandemic because, while I was really interested in seeing just how fucked it was on the inside, I could not justify wasting six+ months of my life siphoning money off whales making something going absolutely nowhere.

I think this would be viable if it had MagSafe. It blows my mind that the company hypes all its design and engineering experience and has a very high case price point yet failed to add a couple of magnets.