shadowlight

6 ms·

1.
by shadowlight 5y ago
Also unbelievably and unfortunately true. The arrogance of a statement has no bearing on truth. Keep your biases in check and examine the truth behind a statement rather then perceived arrogance. Look at https://www.google.com&#x
2.
by shadowlight 5y ago
I have little respect for "artists" who do UI because the job requires little skill. Sites and exposes like the parent of this entire thread serve to inflate the worth of people who do this stuff. Painting the mona lisa is talent.
3.
by shadowlight 5y ago
We're in the habit of blaming the police for everything. No. When there is a call for danger assume the worst. Not doing so could mean a life is lost. It is very rare for someone to die of a heart attack because of a swat. How about we
4.
by shadowlight 5y ago
I've hit this as well. There are a number of deep technical falsehoods believed by the industry that are very widespread. These falsehoods are so ingrained that pushing against these falsehoods even rationally or logically could land y
5.
by shadowlight 5y ago
Automated state tax generation. Historical house appreciation by state or even better, city. Option to account for income from money in sp500.
6.
by shadowlight 5y ago
All cultures have anti poor sentiments as well as empathetic attitudes towards the poor. What is "interesting" here is prejudice attitudes from people like you towards america. Also stop calling Americans "interesting."
7.
by shadowlight 5y ago
Why is there an implied assumption that only americans think being poor is a moral failure?
8.
by shadowlight 5y ago
As my retort to that common mentioned, he is wrong. That is still random. You are arbitrarily picking an encoding, (English) in this case. Why not a Russian programming language or Chinese? How did you *select* your encoding out of the set
9.
by shadowlight 5y ago
> ketralnis is right that this only terminates if an algorithm exists, so the claim that this terminates is equivalent to the axiom of choice. No my algorithm above will never terminate. There's a recursive call where the input neve
10.
by shadowlight 5y ago
You ever heard of Carbon based life? Guess where the carbon comes from. It's 100% converted into solid mass.
11.
by shadowlight 5y ago
>Nope, you don't need the axiom of choice to define the sequence of all algorithms. No. I'm saying selecting an algorithm out of the set of all algorithms. I'm not saying defining the set of all algorithms.
12.
by shadowlight 5y ago
Yes I know that's your point. I'm saying you can't enumerate algorithms without selecting an algorithm. One way of selecting an algorithm is to select a way to encode the algorithms. It's easy to see that this is t
13.
by shadowlight 5y ago
Yeah, this clarifies the logic. So because the algo above doesn't terminate it is not a proof. The axiom of choice is an assumption that is neither known to be true or false.
14.
by shadowlight 5y ago
Your own example used the word "alphabetical." So your example is false because it uses a "particular" encoding. Try to select an algorithm out of the set of all algorithms without using an encoding. If you must use an e
15.
by shadowlight 5y ago
Your assuming all algorithms are defined in terms of English that's how you can order them alphabetically. English is an arbitrary language that comes from human culture. Same with a programming language. You are defining a set in term
16.
by shadowlight 5y ago
This is the weird fuzzy part with math. I can say arbitrary stuff like the set of all sets with positive numbers but when I say the set of all algorithms written in English and C++ suddenly I'm getting too specific. Where is the line d
17.
by shadowlight 5y ago
So to simplify basically the algorithm I wrote above is bad because it's in spirit equivalent to this: def a(x): return a(x)
18.
by shadowlight 5y ago
Fermis paradox is garbage. He can't make such a statement about probability when the circumstances aren't even known. We don't even know how life forms so how can we even know what the probability of it forming is? How do we
19.
by shadowlight 5y ago
Yeah I think that's the problem.
20.
by shadowlight 5y ago
Can you iterate through a set without * selection *? I'm confused about this part. It seems to me in order to use an algorithm from the set of all algorithms you need to invoke the axiom itself. I think us programmers think in terms of
21.
by shadowlight 5y ago
The algorithm that executes an element from the set of all algorithms one at a time until an algorithm succeeds to select an element from a set will work on any set and itself? a = the algorithm A = set of all selection algorithms
22.
by shadowlight 5y ago
> I think it’s quite narrow minded and unfair to discard their contributions off-hand simply because you feel like 100% of the money you pay for an iPhone should go to the worker that pushed the button on the assembly line that put it to
23.
by shadowlight 5y ago
The economy is not a fixed pie but it's also not a source of unlimited riches. All production is limited by rate of available energy and/or available extraction of material. It is actually more accurate to say the economy is a fix
24.
by shadowlight 5y ago
These guys earn it. If I pay for a concert of I pay for a game I know I'm contributing to that celebrities salary because that person is responsible for a huge portion of the entertainment. I do so willingly. When I pay for a product I
25.
by shadowlight 5y ago
no. Unless the tree vaporizes or burns, none of it gets back into the air. It is for all intents and purposes a permanent lock up. Mankind is the gatekeeper of whether to unlock this carbon prison in our choice to burn oil or wood. Trees ar
26.
by shadowlight 5y ago
The topic of this conversation is two things. Free markets, and your background in relation to your opinion on free markets. If predictions I make about your character are wrong then just say it's wrong and tell me why. Instead one of
27.
by shadowlight 5y ago
>Calling them "precious" feelings sort of belies the idea that you're just talking facts in a forceful way. Feelings shouldn't be precious. They should be disregarded. When communicating a point, if disdain is felt it
28.
by shadowlight 5y ago
Yeah it isn't a big deal. That's why your able to call someone perplexing to their face on an internet forum. You're clearly not doing this in real life. >Some people see black and white everywhere. Very unlikely someone i
29.
by shadowlight 5y ago
This conclusion was arrived at because you found it perplexing that someone had a binary opinion on a topic and refused to consider a gradient. Why would someone having a binary opinion on a topic be perplexing? Binary things exist. Thus it
30.
by shadowlight 5y ago
Why isn't the person I responded to replying to what I wrote? Probably because he's been dominated. This post serves to win the game and lay out ammunition for others to use in the future. Every culture and conversational arena ha

More ›