3 ms·

> I'm evaluating them using an objective metric, I don’t think the metric is at all reasonable, and the fact that it’s “objective” doesn’t make up for its othe

> I'm evaluating them using an objective metric, I don’t think the metric is at all reasonable, and the fact that it’s “objective” doesn’t make up for its other shortcomings. I don’t think we have a basis for agreement here—I think you’ve framed the argument in a way that supports a “calculus is hard” conclusion merely by defining “hard” in such a way that supports your conclusion from the start, but I think that approach is only useful as a way to win an argument, and we’ve failed to share ideas once you start using that tactic.

fluoridation 4mo ago
>I think you’ve framed the argument in a way that supports a “calculus is hard” conclusion merely by defining “hard” in such a way that supports your conclusion from the start It seems to me you're the one who first did that by equivocating what is easier to do and what is easier to make a machine do. >we’ve failed to share ideas once you start using that tactic Well, I certainly don't agree with that.