ajl666

6 ms·

1.
by ajl666 4y ago
That's not a rebuttal dummy. Do you want the legitimacy debate confers your position? Then debate. None of my points are any one else's talking points. That's a sign of a non-dogmatic thinker, dummy.
2.
by ajl666 4y ago
It's sad to see how easily westerners are mislead by our own leaders, who ape Soviet contempt for constituents and maliciously ignore voter inputs. You should at least make an effort to see things from the Russian point of view. To sa
3.
by ajl666 4y ago
The centralization has to do with cheap money. That appears to be a topic beyond your pay grade. Hacker News has a low skill base when it comes to economic understanding. VC funded enterprises all have a magic money aspect to them that prop
4.
by ajl666 4y ago
We're talking about advertising, not monopolies. That's your first fail. Second, you present a false binary that we have either the duopoly, or the self-starting individual. Marketing is a subset of Influence. Influence is a subse
5.
by ajl666 4y ago
You add more premises without first evaluating or addressing my point. You imitate the tone of rationality, but you cannot even follow the simple rules of debate. You need 2 premises to rebut my 1. In logic, we call that a f*kk up.
6.
by ajl666 4y ago
Advertising is a judgement. It is a synthetic definition (defined but it's relationship to other concepts), but you want it to be analytic (ex: the number 5). You completely dodge my point because it's a stake in the vampire heart
7.
by ajl666 4y ago
Law doesn't trump language when it comes to the truth. Nazis had laws too
8.
by ajl666 4y ago
How is that definition of advertising different from language and symbol? Would an Icelandic saga be considered an advertisement for murder? You really have not thought this through.
9.
by ajl666 4y ago
Hey downvoter. If the point is so weak, surely you can refute my moronic self with some cunning argument. Why are so many information scientists afraid of information?
10.
by ajl666 4y ago
Define advertising by segmenting off of Poetry, Prose, and Aphorism. You can't. I don't understand how so many engineers can't do basic logic.
11.
by ajl666 4y ago
It's too subtle a point. The argument here is not about logic, but about intellectual honesty. The parent you replied to believes everybody else is unduly influenced by 'asshats' and that his/her favored influencers are
12.
by ajl666 4y ago
Seems obvious. I agree. However I think you're not going to get through to those with central planning biases. By which I mean, the notion that perfect planning can beat the market. The Palace Economy central planner says, "give m
13.
by ajl666 4y ago
And this is why the West has failed. Because even in the most educated forum online, you prefer malicious decorum over crude logic.
14.
by ajl666 4y ago
Safety has become the battle cry of the fascist, the totalitarian, and it is the murderer of liberty. 'Safe' is as vulnerable to scrutiny as 'Game' or 'Good.'
15.
by ajl666 4y ago
You have identified the key issue: what does "safety" mean? Can it be misused? Yes. So we know it means _something_. Does it have a meaningful opposite? 'Danger?' Means imminent threat. Does 'safety' mean &#x27
16.
by ajl666 4y ago
Ah, the failure is yours, but the downvote is mine. And you wanted to converse in a philosophy thread? It's almost as if you are proving why programmers are on average poor thinkers. Too used to the computer and herd mentality to actua
17.
by ajl666 4y ago
Truth hurts, huh? Downvote without rebuttal means you admit I'm right & it makes you angry. Thanks.
18.
by ajl666 4y ago
You demonstrate that English is not an STD. Academia vs Discipline. One is institution one is practice. I understand it's the weekend but lay off the beer.
19.
by ajl666 4y ago
Safety is a trash concept and I don't even need to be Wittgenstein to prove it. What is absolute safety? You must answer with a synthetic concept. That's pure fail. It becomes a judgment, not a definition. But you want to play a c
20.
by ajl666 4y ago
You seem to have trouble with English, since you want to apply data inputs to refute a synthetic concept.
21.
by ajl666 4y ago
Article trash: premise surrounds the word "safety" and never explores the concept. What, you test software,but can't even be bothered to test a gdmf-ing word?
22.
by ajl666 4y ago
What is it about engineers that has so many assuming other disciplines comprised of lifetimes of scholarship are trash and can be replicated with the effort of one arrogant human's hobby efforts? Answer: conflation of academia's f
23.
by ajl666 4y ago
Explain why so much of the rest of the world passed redlined communities. Korea, Israel, Czech, Hungary, Poland, etc etc. The data strongly contradicts your implied thesis. But you think people born in what is one of the wealthiest cities i
24.
by ajl666 4y ago
Correlation is not causation. And I wouldn't ask you to explain why equally poor zips don't have the same murder rate, since it's obvious you've never considered controlling the data that way.
25.
by ajl666 4y ago
Degrowth is about omnicide, you dolt.
26.
by ajl666 4y ago
It's almost like you can't connect an energy crisis, food crisis, monetary crisis, and war crisis with the agenda set forth. It's almost as if you have no memory or ability to strategically connect trend dots on a function.
27.
by ajl666 4y ago
SF is a city occupied by a hostile government. Litigious morons are just pawns in the pension pirate hustle. Nothing gets fixed as long as the 45k city employee monkey is on the city's back. You CANNOT have responsible public planning
28.
by ajl666 4y ago
How about suing all the idiots who voted to make all city employees multi millionaires? Oh, they moved away to suburbs. Too bad about the liability. Then new idiots can move into town to litigate on behalf of the old idiots who left the cit
29.
by ajl666 4y ago
Why didn't you sign an operating agreement from the get go? You engineer automatic, axiomatic, algorithmic systems but failed to engineer your most important system for success. You're screwed. This kind of 'partner' isn
30.
by ajl666 4y ago
Klaus Schwab strikes again. This is not the professor's idea. This is astroturf. Beware the great reset propaganda.

More ›