3 ms·
This is vapid condescension. The comment you replied to made no statements about math or proofs. They made a statement about working in systems of non determin
by dpark 6mo ago
This is vapid condescension.
The comment you replied to made no statements about math or proofs. They made a statement about working in systems of non determinism effectively. Your statement seems to imply that this is dumb, as if working in a world of full determinism is an option.
- deleted 6mo ago[deleted]
- panarky 6mo agoThank you for "vapid condescension". I've wanted a term for this for decades!
- vrighter 6mo agowhen you do have the option of determinism, but intentionally eschew it in favour of a strictly inferior nondeterministic tool, then yes, it is kinda dumb.
- aspenmartin 6mo agoWhen you cling to determinism and call a clearly useful and powerful tool “strictly inferior” I would say this misses the point.
- vrighter 6mo agostrictly inferior != bad. It's relative. One tool will still give the output i intended long after I'm dead and decomposed, with the other might not at the very next time i run it.
- dpark 6mo agoWhat deterministic option are you referring to here? Humans certainly are not deterministic in how they interpret instructions and write code. If I asked you to implement a feature and a month later asked you to implement the exact same feature, you likely wouldn’t do it the same way again. Two different people certainly wouldn’t.