kerkeslager

23 ms·

271.
by kerkeslager 2y ago
> Clojure people don't know anything else, and say things like [I'm paraphrasing typical rhetoric]: "Lisp provides a functional paradigm based on operations on immutable sequences represented by persistant data structures&
272.
by kerkeslager 2y ago
> I doubt you can find a single Clojure-is-not-Lisp person who denies that McCarthy's LISP 1 and 1.5, MacLisp, BBN Lisp, Interlisp, Lisp Machine Lisp, ZetaLisp, Portable Standard Lisp, Emacs Lisp, XLisp, VAX Lisp, ISLisp, EuLisp and
273.
by kerkeslager 2y ago
Did you read past the first few paragraphs? I think I explained why I disagree with Deutsch pretty thoroughly.
274.
by kerkeslager 2y ago
> Science is a conscious and self referential effort Is this supposed to be a meaningful sequence of words? > it has nothing to do with animals learning how to survive in their environment. As an animal who would have died in childbir
275.
by kerkeslager 2y ago
Okay, what's your explanation for how we can trust science?
276.
by kerkeslager 2y ago
Learning from observation is the basis of science, and invertebrates certainly do that. A lot has changed since invertebrates started doing that. Not only have we evolved more senses than the first invertebrates, we've also developed m
277.
by kerkeslager 2y ago
eadmund probably means that Closure is not Common Lisp. Common Lispers often refer to Common Lisp as just "Lisp". This makes sense in Common Lisp circles because it's obvious which Lisp they're talking about. However,
278.
by kerkeslager 2y ago
The scientific method may at one time have been conceived by philosophers, but we are centuries away from that time, and in recent centuries, all the refinements and improvements to science have been done by scientists. The roots of the sci
279.
by kerkeslager 2y ago
Since you've provided no basis for saying that, I guess we'll just have to take your word against my explanation. :shrug:
280.
by kerkeslager 2y ago
He's a theoretical physicist whose most notable is in quantum computing, philosophizing about experimental physics. Essentially his work has more to do with math/logic than science, and as far as I can tell you're simply inco
281.
by kerkeslager 2y ago
If you look up what Deutsch actually did, I think you'll find that he worked on quantum algorithms, making him more of a mathematician than a scientist since he never actually did any experimental work that I can see. But it's sor
282.
by kerkeslager 2y ago
Agreed--in fact, science doesn't rely on philosophy at all. If the entire field of philosophy disappeared, science would go on functioning just fine. In fact, science has generally been hindered by philosophy--it's seemingly imp
283.
by kerkeslager 2y ago
Inasmuch as the entire field of epistemology isn't useful, sure, science was doing just fine without philosophers attempting to describe it. I mean, what were you planning to use it for? What does the word "useful" mean to yo
284.
by kerkeslager 2y ago
That's missing the point--philosophy as a whole is not required for science. Invertebrates were adjusting their beliefs to observations (science) long before the first philosopher. I'm not confusing Bayesian models with Bayesian e
285.
by kerkeslager 2y ago
Did you read the very next sentence, or did you just stop at the first thing you found to disagree with? I said: > Where Popper's critique becomes important is if we keep decreasing the probabilities of all the hypotheses in the set
286.
by kerkeslager 2y ago
Popper did not do anything of the sort. First, I think Popper did not fundamentally disagree with the Bayesian approach: ultimately his critique of Bayesianism is a small adjustment to Bayesianism. When presented with a set of competing hyp
287.
by kerkeslager 2y ago
Doctor Oz was at one time a doctor, too, but he's also been a blight on society, spreading medical misinformation for decades. A lot can go wrong with a person's brain between the publication of Deutsch-Josza (1985, 1992) and the
288.
by kerkeslager 2y ago
It's a bad explanation because the sun (probably) IS powered by nuclear fusion. Deutsch is confused by this situation because he doesn't have the scientific background to understand the usefulness of negations of hypotheses. Histo
289.
by kerkeslager 2y ago
Bullshit like this is exactly why I think scientists are better philosophers than philosophers are. The text you've quoted, is, frankly, not the writings of an intelligent person. The reason I'm being very blunt about this, is bec
290.
by kerkeslager 2y ago
Blame is certainly going to be part of the introspective process if you've ever experienced any trauma caused by anyone else.
291.
by kerkeslager 2y ago
> Was that what you are thinking I'm advocating for? No, I'm just pointing out that even a "fair" analysis of Go is going to catch some pretty serious design mistakes. > Assuming that you are not going all in speci
292.
by kerkeslager 2y ago
People are speaking faaaaar too broadly in this thread. "Normies", just like neurodivergent people, are a pretty wide group and don't all think alike--certainly they don't all put any importance on "shifgrethor&quot
293.
by kerkeslager 2y ago
Why do people feel the need to point out this obvious straw man as if it's some gotcha? Can we not drag the conversation down to this level, please? No one is saying you should calmly explain to your child that they should move because
294.
by kerkeslager 2y ago
That's a pretty broad statement. Obviously you need to gauge whether your child is engaged in what you're saying. Maybe you have some experience that leads you to believe this, but I would encourage you to stop speaking for all
295.
by kerkeslager 2y ago
> That's not how neuroatypical children operate. Explaining whys will just disconnect them. Given "neuroatypical" encompasses a pretty wide variety of neurologies, it's pretty clear that you're speaking far too b
296.
by kerkeslager 2y ago
> Parenting is hard, right or wrong are always in far future’s hindsight. The idea that we can't possibly know what good parenting is until some time in the future, is an absurd abdication of your responsibility as a parent. Parenti
297.
by kerkeslager 2y ago
Blaming yourself for things that aren't your fault is also a sign of depression, not productive, and doesn't lead to solutions to the problem at hand. I think we probably agree that blame just isn't the ideal way to approach
298.
by kerkeslager 2y ago
> As a neuroatypical parent of a neuroatypical children, I still have to guide them understanding the structures and expectations of society, and I see often time that she resents me for it, as the autor resent their upbringing. I think
299.
by kerkeslager 2y ago
Vanilla vim still exists and still works just fine. It's my daily driver, and I haven't touched my .vimrc in probably 2 years. I still spend a lot of my time learning, I just am not learning how to use my editor any more. Which is
300.
by kerkeslager 2y ago
I mean everything you just said about Go applies to Python except the "consumes tiny amounts of resources"--it's certainly my most productive language, and the code looks a lot like the pseudocode people write when they'

More ›