smif

17 ms·

1.
by smif 3y ago
I think the point here is that it's subverting and redirecting Bentham's own utilitarianism against itself. How does the utilitarian decide which one of those has more utility? That's a rhetorical question and it's sort
2.
by smif 3y ago
It seems like 1.25 is a month and a half out from retirement, maybe it's related to that. Kubernetes 1.25 (in Danny Glover voice): I'm getting too old for this shit!
3.
by smif 3y ago
Your definition of loyalty sounds like it's more loyalty to yourself/your own values or an idealized/rose-tinted view of the company from the past rather than loyalty to what the company is at the present time, which is alway
4.
by smif 3y ago
> Re: ORMs, I respectfully disagree. I’ve come across many teams that treat their Python/Rust/Go codebase with ownership and craft, I have not seen the same be said about SQL queries. It’s almost like a 'tragedy of the com
5.
by smif 3y ago
> Could you share more specific details? Happy to look over / revise where needed. Sure thing! I'd say first off, the solutions may look different for a small company/startup vs. a large enterprise. It can help if you expl
6.
by smif 3y ago
It seems like the article is written by someone just starting to get into the data engineering subfield and they thought they were going to be writing python (pyspark is my guess) to support some kind of ML effort, but they got saddled with
7.
by smif 3y ago
I'm not saying that hardware shouldn't be open in some form or another (at least in a way that doesn't stifle innovation, maybe also taking another look at how the patent system works and such). I guess I'm just having t
8.
by smif 3y ago
How would opening up the hardware solve the issue for the average consumer? Let's say the official update channel goes dead on your smart fridge, the company has gone out of business. What would happen in that scenario for the average
9.
by smif 3y ago
I think I would agree with pretty much all of the above. There is a sort of hierarchy of belief, and quantum mechanics is probably close to the top of that. However, even so, it is still not infallible. It is possible for us to discover a r
10.
by smif 3y ago
I wouldn't reject objective facts, but I also wouldn't believe they exist any more than I would believe Santa Claus exists, unless someone can successfully argue for their existence. AFAIK this has yet to be done by philosophers (
11.
by smif 3y ago
If objective reality exists, which is still a pretty big if last time I checked, not only do we not know what it fully is, we don't even know what any part of it is. The best that we can do is get better and better at modeling it in wa
12.
by smif 3y ago
Yes it's a bold claim philosophically. How would you justify it? No, flat earth "theory", if you can call it that, has close to zero supporting evidence and AFAIK has no actual predictive power. Stick with consensus science i
13.
by smif 3y ago
> There are objective facts about the nature of reality This is a pretty bold claim and you would have to do a bit of work to make it more convincing. Besides, it's not really how science works. Different theories wax and wane over
14.
by smif 3y ago
I feel like that's where most people probably start, and then get some response like "we can't change the KPI's because blah blah" or get the runaround. Once you have established that you have no agency to change th
15.
by smif 3y ago
Not everyone, I still do not have this in mine and I have paternal haplogroup G-M201 which is related to Ötzi.
16.
by smif 3y ago
The paper seems to be paywalled so I have no clue about how they arrived here, but this: "That said, the results indicate that the probability we are alone (<1) in the galaxy is significant, while the maximum number of contemporary
17.
by smif 3y ago
What about a third option, "everything may or may not matter, but the answer to that question is currently inaccessible to us (and possibly may always remain inaccessible)"? In this way you could be led to a kind of inverted Pasca
18.
by smif 3y ago
What lay people mostly mean by 'relative' is subjective; ie., they're committing the genetic fallacy of the form: since understanding X requires a perspective in which to evaluate it, X itself must be a (inter)subjective phe
19.
by smif 3y ago
I've also found talking about what you just learned is very helpful. If you don't have an interlocutor available, ChatGPT is a good stand-in.
20.
by smif 3y ago
> It's exactly the other way around. It's lay people using 'relative' to mean 'subjective'. I've actually found the opposite - people will often use "subjective" when they really mean "re
21.
by smif 3y ago
This is true in everyday conversational English usage of the terms, but in the context of philosophy, they acquire additional meaning and connotations. It's kind of like how when we (programmers) say "functional programming"
22.
by smif 3y ago
No, we're talking about a completely different usage of the term here. Objectivism in this context has nothing to do with Rand's Objectivism. It's just the term being overloaded with multiple meanings in different contexts.
23.
by smif 3y ago
In the context of philosophy it's usually meant in contrast to objectivism. So a moral objectivist might say that there exist an objective set of universal morals that apply to everyone. In contrast, a moral relativist might say that
24.
by smif 3y ago
I think this is close, but I'd go even further and say that the problem is that with real debt anyone can see the money in black and white, they require no special training to be able to understand real debt and read the numbers off an
25.
by smif 3y ago
That's a fair point, but I don't think it's a problem with the blacksmith per se. You can't really expect every blacksmith to hold themselves to an arbitrary high standard and turn down work when they're possibly on
26.
by smif 3y ago
That's true, but that is an implementation detail. In abstract terms, you can think of an inner join like that. Also, while what you say is true in general for modern DB's, there are some implementations like old Oracle versions w
27.
by smif 3y ago
An inner join is a Cartesian product with conditionals added.
28.
by smif 3y ago
I don't know if it's necessarily bad programmers. Think about this analogy, there's a blacksmith that can make swords but if you want it done well, it's gonna take more time/money. That same blacksmith can choose to
29.
by smif 3y ago
That is one position, but here's the thing though - how does something like "F = ma" enter into your mind in the first place? It first has to enter your consciousness right? And then maybe you might need to make a focused eff
30.
by smif 3y ago
We don't understand most of it already though. We understand virtually none of it. This is why they're still looking for evidence in support of IIT and global workspace theory as talked about in the article.

More ›