3 ms·

One functioning engine will get this aeroplane off the ground. Zero functioning engines will not. Yeah, pretty easy to count.

jiggawatts 5y ago
Define “functioning”. An engine with one bad cylinder may still get a plane off the ground. An engine that explodes backwards at the right time might momentarily achieve flight also. Etc… Reality is much more squishy than you might think.
- yakshaving_jgt 5y ago
  That’s a fairly impressive mental contortion you’ve arranged to establish a contrarian position, but that’s all it is. If there is indeed a point you’re trying to make, I think it’s lost on me.
  - jiggawatts 5y ago
    Engine-rich exhaust can still provide thrust. People like their idealised models of the world, but they're fundamentally still just idealised and models. It's somewhat illuminating to learn that all abstractions are leaky. For example, you can't reliably represent "sex" using a "bit" type in a database. It's not just "M" or "F". You can have "unknown" (of course), "known but not willing to say" (whatever), intersex of all sorts, transexuals, genetically XY but physiologically female, etc... The world is complicated and messy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XY_gonadal_dysgenesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XY_gonadal_dysgenesis Similarly, there's no clear demarcation between species in many cases. There's no such thing as a "tree" either: https://eukaryotewritesblog.com/2021/05/02/theres-no-such-thing-as-a-tree/ https://eukaryotewritesblog.com/2021/05/02/theres-no-such-th... I could go on and on.
    - yakshaving_jgt 5y ago
      > It's somewhat illuminating to learn that all abstractions are leaky You appear to be presenting these ideas as though they would be new to me, which they aren't. In fact, these ideas are essentially pop-science[0]. Incidentally, the rhetoric you are employing is also used by Flat Earthers[1], so well done for that, I suppose. > For example, you can't reliably represent "sex" using a "bit" type in a database This example you've swiftly jumped to is a little too on the nose for me to not read it as bait. Did you think you'd found a bible-bashing Trump-voting conservative to argue against? > I could go on and on. Yes, I can see that. I will however once again invite you to try and articulate a point that you're trying to make. [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhwcEvMJz1Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhwcEvMJz1Y [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnwTtr_JYCM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnwTtr_JYCM

jiggawatts 5y ago

Define “functioning”. An engine with one bad cylinder may still get a plane off the ground. An engine that explodes backwards at the right time might momentarily achieve flight also. Etc… Reality is much more squishy than you might think.

yakshaving_jgt 5y ago
That’s a fairly impressive mental contortion you’ve arranged to establish a contrarian position, but that’s all it is. If there is indeed a point you’re trying to make, I think it’s lost on me.
- jiggawatts 5y ago
  Engine-rich exhaust can still provide thrust. People like their idealised models of the world, but they're fundamentally still just idealised and models. It's somewhat illuminating to learn that all abstractions are leaky. For example, you can't reliably represent "sex" using a "bit" type in a database. It's not just "M" or "F". You can have "unknown" (of course), "known but not willing to say" (whatever), intersex of all sorts, transexuals, genetically XY but physiologically female, etc... The world is complicated and messy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XY_gonadal_dysgenesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XY_gonadal_dysgenesis Similarly, there's no clear demarcation between species in many cases. There's no such thing as a "tree" either: https://eukaryotewritesblog.com/2021/05/02/theres-no-such-thing-as-a-tree/ https://eukaryotewritesblog.com/2021/05/02/theres-no-such-th... I could go on and on.
  - yakshaving_jgt 5y ago
    > It's somewhat illuminating to learn that all abstractions are leaky You appear to be presenting these ideas as though they would be new to me, which they aren't. In fact, these ideas are essentially pop-science[0]. Incidentally, the rhetoric you are employing is also used by Flat Earthers[1], so well done for that, I suppose. > For example, you can't reliably represent "sex" using a "bit" type in a database This example you've swiftly jumped to is a little too on the nose for me to not read it as bait. Did you think you'd found a bible-bashing Trump-voting conservative to argue against? > I could go on and on. Yes, I can see that. I will however once again invite you to try and articulate a point that you're trying to make. [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhwcEvMJz1Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhwcEvMJz1Y [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnwTtr_JYCM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnwTtr_JYCM