Hi, I don’t really code besides computation stuff in Python. You seem to be really knowledgeable, could I ask, what does the future of the web look like? Is it Rust and WASM? Or will JS and TS always have a place even a decade from now?
what was the difference for those of us who dont know, like andrew over here 😂
basic windows… does that entail windows N by any chance?
im almost convinced mozilla and by extension firefox is controlled opposition
nice, that’s what i was going for; appreciate the validation cde
Why does it appear what your saying is, the novelty and or uniqueness of the tragedy of the Holocaust is and for some short time will be, the awfullest and worst loss of human life in recent history? Where do you get the audacity to make a claim like that, do you realty think without asking others throughout the world you can even begin to make such a claim? It’s because you’re german and feel really bad and learned from your mistakes and of course are sorry and this gives you a keen insight over others who are not part of a culture or society where genocide is even on the table?
I for one cannot accept it prima facie. Why would my proximity and knowledge of awful terrible events be the demarcator between whether it is or is not the worst?? Why is the convenience of checks notes it happening within the lifetimes of my immediate ancestors a useful metric besides convenience?
It’s this disgusting platitudes and preposition of “having a keen insight” also called smugness or knowing better or speaking platitudes which foments the stage and discussion for such idealistic rhetoric, devoid of trivial empirical claims, which increases the preponderance of having your voice and others like it anywhere near the centre of the stage; where, what do ya know, it’s been for the last century-and-a-half.
Let others from cultures who have no genocide on their hands speak, you and your ilk have been tolerated and have said more than enough. You’re given an inch and take a mile.
I’m sorry, why do you in particular have some keen insight or experience or knowledge which allows you to speak for these folks anymore than the other commenter?
EDIT: I should clarify, it would be very very easy to not do this; there, I did it now, there I didn’t do it again, I can keep this going. Can you specify why in-and-of-itself supporting an unambiguous apartheid regime and settler-colonial state engaged in documented genocide over decades is not, again, in-and-of-itself enough to not support or write on or for it??
Yeah, I like it quite a bit. I wanted to have 3D models of stuff I designed what could be interacted with and I think the capability to integrate existing libraries is there but it’s beyond my skill atm.
The blogging part is neat, I’m a big fan and the nature integration with R Shiny and R Shiny for Python is great.
Fair enough, apologies for the vagueness.
I was referring to the first two sentences of your third paragraph. Relativism would look like a kind of correspondence theory of truth which is dependent on where you are geographically and who you interact with socially. Rather than something being true because it corresponds or appears (or is convenient I suppose) to be true as it relates to material phenomena; what is taken as or considered to be true is wholly dependent on what a group one is part of might think. This is relativism as it is 1. not contingent on the natural world, as in the empirical world, so basically stuff we get when we interact with our senses. It’s a bit problematic because one can believe whatever one wishes, this is clearly not a material outlook and can be presumed to bring erroneous thinking or erroneous conclusions somewhere along the line. Any kinds of fantastical thinking can enter the picture, it’s not problematic in itself, but you’ll see most philosophers shy away from it because there are all sorts of problems that come up. Part of the problem people have with postmodernist philosophy is related to this, I’ll leave the explanation out for now, though I recognize it is a lofty claim.
For 2. solipsism is more or less believing that you are the authority, you can’t be certain others really exist or are equivalent in their capacity as a conscious being as you are. People tend to say, “I can only really know that I exist” and point at Descartes and his maxim Cogito ergo sum, I think therefore I am which I think is a weird perversion. At any rate, if one takes what one feels or believes or wants to be true, to be true, and solely holds their conception as the only one which matters insofar as it lines up with what they believe, there are similar erroneous conclusions which can arise.
The link then between 1. and 2. is everything in the world is interpreted in a highly perspectival way in a way which must relate to you. One places themselves at the centre of the universe, thinks their thoughts are actually the way the world works as opposed to convenient heuristics or works-in-progress. An intrasocial network of information, i.e. one’s friends or group, can be the basis for such relativistic thinking, to the exclusion of others which is sorta where you see the tribalism part as well.
Hope some of that made sense, let me know if it didn’t I’m a bit drowsy from my night medicine, I tried my best to be coherent. Maybe other comrades can chime in and correct me wherever I may have said something wrong or unclear.
Another term for what you are describing which is philosophically untenable is relativism or if you are too far gone possible solipsism.
Christ, this makes me sick.
So am I :/ I pizza recently, I can’t justify ordering it again this soon…
Does it really play ball in the context of metaethics?
I’ll define morality and ethics as a normative system (operating on different levels of abstraction, with different targets as their focus, but maintaining the same kind of interaction) emergent from imperfect information transmission between any two points in space-time, i.e. the same body at t=n, t=m; or two different bodies at the same time (just to account for quantum stuff) which occur at level of complex life. I’ll say life is any system with the capacity to maintain or decrease entropy (Schrödinger is where I first saw this) for some period of time, and intelligent life meets some threshold for delay or non-direct determinants of information from outside the continuous body to manipulate its environment to a lower entropy state, one which does not as of yet have the same quality of decreasing or maintaining entropy as the intelligent lifeform does.
In this case, metaethics is a distinction in the realm of a type of interactions yet still a part of them. It’s like one pizza, you can cut it in half and say you have a left half and right each belonging to the meta and non-meta partitions. Or you can say that what we regularly refer to as morals or ethics is simply the toppings, metaethics is the dough which is frankly too frequently ignored in discussions of ethics and pizza-quality. The dough similarly provides the framework or support for the toppings, without which you would have a spread out cheesy and saucy salad (if veggies are a topping, otherwise you have what I make in the middle of the night when I don’t want the microwave to sound off to warm up food that would fill me up) which couldn’t be characterized as pizza.
Sorry I think I changed topic there, I hope some of the point comes across.
I’m probably in the Hume camp of skepticism and I like this meme :)
Yeah, in the unlikely event I was ever in such a position, advocating my hypothetical employees to unionize for their own interests against mine (no matter how much I may try to cede or be considerate) seems like the bare minimum. Other options would maybe include making it a workers co-op or something.
I think the long term commitment is there for everyone and it’s the only way to undeestand how focusing quarter to quarter by executives leads to this result.
Everyone is committed to profit.