bazoom42

28 ms·

541.
by bazoom42 3y ago
Fair enough - I promise I won’t call dang a thug if he removes my comment!
542.
by bazoom42 3y ago
Nobody will care about your stick figures. 1960s underground comix did all that 50 years ago when it was still edgy.
543.
by bazoom42 3y ago
Using “brownshirt” for anyone in authority is clearly missing the point entirely. There is a reason the brownshirts were eliminated after the nazis came to power. They were violent gangs of nazi thugs operating outside the law to terrorize
544.
by bazoom42 3y ago
Plenty of Disney characters like Snow White or Cinderella have been public domain all the time without it hurting Disney.
545.
by bazoom42 3y ago
It is difficult to measure productivity, but what would be unethical about it?
546.
by bazoom42 3y ago
Some people are incapable of understanding context and trade-offs. Every rule must be either “always” or “never”. Always use inheritance! Oh, it caused fragile code in this instance. Lesson learned - never ever use inhertance! And so forth
547.
by bazoom42 3y ago
Tables just works - as long as you know when and how to use the 1x1 transparent spacer gif.
548.
by bazoom42 3y ago
When I get stuck I use “what is the simplest thing that could possibly work?”
549.
by bazoom42 3y ago
There is nothing mysterious about any of that. It is just a list of arguments used by the conspiracy theorists, and they are all easily debunked. Just take the argument that because Shakespeares mother possibly was illiteral (which we don’t
550.
by bazoom42 3y ago
> it was a closely guarded Egyptian piece of knowledge, apparently. Apparently no more closely guarded than they told it to some Greek guy who told it to a famous author who put it a book. Apparently the Egyptians hadn’t learned the secr
551.
by bazoom42 3y ago
Worth noting Atlantis wasn’t some widely known legend like Troy. We literally only know it from Plato, who used it as a moral fable. No Greek historian mention Atlantis. No Greek myth or epic mention Atlantis. We might also ask where the fa
552.
by bazoom42 3y ago
What is the mystery?
553.
by bazoom42 3y ago
> much more expressive and scientific. While I agree English can be inconsistent and weird (esp. pronouncuation), I doubt any other language could be more expressive or “scientific”, whatever that means. Unless by “scientific” you mean r
554.
by bazoom42 3y ago
It is important to understand the limitations of logic and maths. They are fundamentally tautological systems - they can’t give you genuinely new knowledge about the world. Logic can’t tell you if purple swans exist or whether planetary orb
555.
by bazoom42 3y ago
Maybe you are thinking of a different principle? What you are saying sounds reasonable, but it is just not Occams Razor. Occams Razor litterally just says that you should eliminate unnecessary entities from an explanation. It is a philosoph
556.
by bazoom42 3y ago
> The point of applying the razor is that, if there's no evidence to support one model over other, your best bet is to chose the simpler one now, because when new evidence comes to light that will favor one over other, it's mor
557.
by bazoom42 3y ago
That is not what occam razor means. It doesn’t say anything about probabilities. It says that if two models give the same predictions, you should chose the simpler. If the models make the same predictions, neither can be said to be more tru
558.
by bazoom42 3y ago
Labelling it fiction is more respectful than labelling it baloney. But if the belief is non-falsifiable or outrigth falsified, then it is baloney. People should be allowed to belive whatever they want, but that does not mean other should ha
559.
by bazoom42 3y ago
> Really? Let's determine if a program halts, that can't be trivial can it. I don’t know if you are trolling, but the halting problem is the problem of an algorithm to detemine whether any arbitrary program halts.
560.
by bazoom42 3y ago
Yeah, I can see how this can be confusing.
561.
by bazoom42 3y ago
Pronouns refer back to some previous noun phrase. Saying “she is coming over to my house later” would also be a weird and confusing thing to say without first establishing who you are talking about. In technical writing you might say someth
562.
by bazoom42 3y ago
Can you give an example where it would be confusing? I know it is controversial, but to me it seems very convenient when referring to an unspecific person.
563.
by bazoom42 3y ago
> my local library was full of books from the 50's I had never heard of and was reluctant to read. Ok but whose loss is that? Tolkien did not write for people who were afraid of old books. If he had wanted to reach the largest audie
564.
by bazoom42 3y ago
Who was the “good guys” in the US-Vietnam war, according to your criteria? Is it really that easy to tell?
565.
by bazoom42 3y ago
Yes, but at least it provides some actual value to the user. Alternatively I guess you could look up the mx record?
566.
by bazoom42 3y ago
Why not reject invalid top level domains then? This is going to catch a vastly larger amount of typos (including foo@gmailcom) without eliminating any valid emails.
567.
by bazoom42 3y ago
The vast majority of common typos result in a syntactically valid email address anyway. A regex is just not an appropriate tool for email validation.
568.
by bazoom42 3y ago
Of course, since there isn’t a top level domain called gmailcom. But a regex cant tell you that.
569.
by bazoom42 3y ago
Even foo@bar may be a vaild email.
570.
by bazoom42 3y ago
These are not examples of euphemisms.

More ›