koningrobot

12 ms·

61.
by koningrobot 15y ago
12. Use meaningful names for methods. The name must specify the exact action of the method and for most cases must start with a verb. (e.g. createPasswordHash) This depends. My classes often have side-effect-free methods that just return
62.
by koningrobot 15y ago
Your examples reveal that you don't get the point. Using a for loop instead of a higher-level abstraction like reduce or sum is a lot like using lambda calculus instead of a summation in mathematics. We're trying to climb out of the Turin
63.
by koningrobot 15y ago
With reader macros, reading can be made arbitrarily complex: (read-from-string "#.(print :foo)")
64.
by koningrobot 15y ago
I didn't assume that; what you seem to assume is that death penalty cases more often lack due process than other cases. You may well be right (I have no idea), but that would still only be a weak argument against the death penalty and a st
65.
by koningrobot 15y ago
How is this the lack of due process an argument against the death penalty? It doesn't follow.
66.
by koningrobot 15y ago
Please read http://blog.izs.me/post/2353458699/an-open-letter-to-javascr... again, especially the restricted production part. Using semicolons everywhere doesn't cover your ass in those cases. Granted, I've never ever encountered these,
67.
by koningrobot 15y ago
I see at least two implications of what I said, one being that freedom is an absolute zero, the other being that shifting freedom around is a zero-sum game. Maybe these two are related in some game-theoretic way, I'm not sure. The only fu
68.
by koningrobot 15y ago
Nothing, the problem is not with reality (of course :-). The problem is that most people seem to think about freedom as something positive. You can only create freedom for Joe by coercing Jane to not violate it. This enables the kind of
69.
by koningrobot 15y ago
This is because of the nature of freedom. Freedom is to constraints as silence is to sound. Constraints are the things that positively exist, freedom only exists as the negative space. This is also why the concept of free will is so probl
70.
by koningrobot 15y ago
There's nothing for humans to do in "other places to live" either. We accomplish nothing by being here. In fact it would be better if we gave up already. A human is born in need of air, water, food, and pastime, and the best we can do is
71.
by koningrobot 15y ago
That's what I was saying -- neither is more important than the other.
72.
by koningrobot 15y ago
They are not more important; without the sounds there wouldn't be the intervals of silence.
73.
by koningrobot 15y ago
What do you mean by "balance"? Is it that which you and the culture that conditioned you would consider "normal"?
74.
by koningrobot 15y ago
<i>That is to say, people want children, even though its not in their self interest.</i> It certainly isn't in the children's interest either, because they can't be benefited by being brought into existence (they are not wai
75.
by koningrobot 16y ago
Are you (aside from your main point) saying that the calories in meat and vegetables come from elsewhere than carbohydrates and fats? There is lots of protein in lean meat, but protein is poisonous -- you can't depend on it alone for energ
76.
by koningrobot 16y ago
From the article: "Parents who don't impose anything on their children, you are blessed." I agree with this, but realize that there is no such thing as a parent who does not impose anything on their children. Creating a child is an imposi
77.
by koningrobot 16y ago
Ostensibly, if I want to learn two languages, I write an interpreter for the one in the other. In reality, I try to make a habit of using it whenever I need to do anything small (from simple arithmetic to implementing some graph algorithm
78.
by koningrobot 16y ago
I saw that post and was going to ask why people were downvoting it, but then I figured it was borderline offtopic, so I didn't bother. If you're looking for some rarely like-minded people, come live the good life at http://www.antinatalis
79.
by koningrobot 16y ago
You say that I want to reduce suffering at all costs. This is misleading because there is no significant cost. The cost might be unfulfilled childwishes or no one to take care of the elderly. What is not a cost is the happiness these u
80.
by koningrobot 16y ago
No, you have it precisely the wrong way around. The harm done by birth is harm because the victim is still around to suffer it. Compare this to the harm done by death, where there is no such victim anymore. As I said before, the question
81.
by koningrobot 16y ago
I challenge you to back up your implicit assertion that this is all in my head with an actual argument. Show me that I'm wrong.
82.
by koningrobot 16y ago
Thanks sincerely for the advice, but I already know these things. As I said, they have no bearing on whether it is acceptable to create new persons.
83.
by koningrobot 16y ago
I don't know much about philosophy. Negative utilitarianism (minimizing harm) seems to fit me fairly well, but I would call myself a philantropic antinatalist.
84.
by koningrobot 16y ago
The point is not arbitrary because it is my life and I get to choose what I do with it. I do seek contentment in spite of it, and I find it in "the zone". But this is irrelevant. You say it's not your business whether or not I pass on my
85.
by koningrobot 16y ago
You are confusing the right to continue one's own life with the right to create someone else's life. If individual beings want to continue their lives, then that is just fine. It is unethical, though, to create new lives. Where is the pr
86.
by koningrobot 16y ago
The need for joy is a fact of life. Joy, no matter how plentiful, cannot justify imposing on someone the need for joy, just like heroin, no matter how plentiful, cannot justify imposing on someone the need for heroin. Surely everyone agre
87.
by koningrobot 16y ago
I don't believe for a second that you like suffering. Would you want to spend the rest of your life at the hands of a skilled torturer? I don't think so. Therefore, you don't like suffering. What you do like is a combination of sufferi
88.
by koningrobot 16y ago
Yes, it would be best (in the sense of "least bad") if no sentient being existed at all. Whether already existing people like life is like asking whether already addicted people like heroin. You can't use the result to justify forcibly add
89.
by koningrobot 16y ago
Yes. Possibly irrationally (reality is not that simple), I choose to stay alive. It is my life after all. The problem is with creating new lives. Birth inflicts both a life sentence and a death sentence on the newborn, without their cons
90.
by koningrobot 16y ago
There has been continuous suffering and pain since the first prokaryotes came into existence several billion years ago. I can't speak for the grandparent, but yes, I am planning to put a halt to it. There is all the reason to do so, and

More ›