lngnmn

21 ms·

151.
by lngnmn 10y ago
Because a brain has been evolved for dealing with crude appearances which are supplied to its centers by imprecise and unreliable sense organs and for sloppy thinking, good-enough for successful survival and reproduction (and necessary comp
152.
by lngnmn 10y ago
What is wrong with dismissing entire decade's worth of superstitions, astrology, alchemy, metaphysics and theology?
153.
by lngnmn 10y ago
This has nothing to do with philosophy, which was and still is the endeavor to unveil what is - to see things as they are.
154.
by lngnmn 10y ago
Math, as the science of patterns, captures some patterns of what is. There is absolutely nothing extraordinary about it. There is some necessary order, which physicists and philosophers are truing to grasp, and the language of choice to des
155.
by lngnmn 10y ago
> it is because it does not depend on the real world Nothing does not depend on the real world, to begin with. Especially, products of the mind conditioned by senses and a language.
156.
by lngnmn 10y ago
Which, along with infinity, does not exist. The ability to produce an infinite series of numbers (by adding another one) does not constitute a proof of existence of anything infinite outside one's mind. Good philosophers, like Leibniz
157.
by lngnmn 10y ago
SEEKING WORK, South Asia, remote only. * Old-school system administrator (Linux, FreeBSD, Solaris, etc). * Troubleshooting, performance tuning skills. * Know how to bootstrap a distro from sources. * Not mere DevOps. I know it i
158.
by lngnmn 10y ago
Sell it to Trump.
159.
by lngnmn 10y ago
Yes, consciousness is a product of various behavioral traits, but its presence could be empirically tested. There are simple quick medical procedures which could tell whether a man (or even a dog) is conscious or not, and there is an ultima
160.
by lngnmn 10y ago
> Merely saying that consciousness is a product of the brain is like proving dark matter by saying it's a product of the universe. This statement is nonsense. The presence or absence of consciousness could be empirically verified an
161.
by lngnmn 10y ago
Oh, please, cut this cosplay out. In every surgery room of the whole world you could see how chemical compounds administered to patients would turn them unconscious and back. This implies that the consciousness is a product of the brain, no
162.
by lngnmn 10y ago
I did.
163.
by lngnmn 10y ago
Every single morning one could see how it changes the states. For proper experimental evidences visit any hospital.
164.
by lngnmn 10y ago
That could be linked to cheaper and better smartphones, better and more available video-games, raise of streaming and shitty TV shows or increase of traffic to 4chan.
165.
by lngnmn 10y ago
Weak attempt. The mind is what the brain does. The very same way your browser appears on your screen. Good philosophers, mostly eastern ones, tried very hard to establish a distinction between products of imagination and adequate representa
166.
by lngnmn 10y ago
You can observe nothing but the fact that mass distorts light. Everything else is imagination.
167.
by lngnmn 10y ago
Nothing exist unless experimentally proven and replicated. The way they proved the fact that DNA is the genetic molecule.
168.
by lngnmn 10y ago
Again, statistics applied to a partially observable and partially understood phenomena yield nonsense. If not all the variables are controlled or not all possible causes has been taken into account the result will be a mere aggregation of o
169.
by lngnmn 10y ago
It is pthreads which are fundamentally broken indeed, not epoll.
170.
by lngnmn 10y ago
Yeah, async is madness. The part of asynchronous and reactive mass-hysterias. Very few applications really require AIO and/or coroutines, and spawning a coroutine for each I/O request is a madness indeed. Last but not least, such
171.
by lngnmn 10y ago
> But a language that checked this property statically would give an error before execution even started. Like C or C++ does. But you are right - I shouldn't use 'in principle'. It was rather a decorative idiom here, becau
172.
by lngnmn 10y ago
Let them run 5 km.
173.
by lngnmn 10y ago
> doesn't do list.sort(), it's still sorted(list). WHY???? Because sorted() is a non-destructive sorting - it returns a new list.
174.
by lngnmn 10y ago
> does more for you than the equivalent dynamically typed code. It's _not_ the same result. Yes. It does more checking at the cost of imposing restrictions, such as forcing homogeneous containers and conditionals and having less gen
175.
by lngnmn 10y ago
> what methodology did it follow? http://erlang.org/download/armstrong_thesis_2003.pdf http://norvig.com/java-lisp.html http://arclanguage.org/ http://old.ycom
176.
by lngnmn 10y ago
Why you are ignoring the fact that one have to type so much less for the same result? ;) Filter is the canonical example of a truly generic function. Suppose I wish to filter out something from a stream or a port. Then all I shall do is to
177.
by lngnmn 10y ago
It not "appears", it is generic. As generic as it could be. This particular line is also a generator comprehension which produces a lazy sequence. Run-time errors and so-called null-propagation are well-known issues and once code
178.
by lngnmn 10y ago
Not sure if a hipster's magazine could be an authoritative source. The first paragraph told me that I should stop reading and what kind of Stoicism I would find below.
179.
by lngnmn 10y ago
But I nevertheless would argue that this (item for item in iterable if predicate(item)) is vastly superior idiom and the principles behind dynamically-typed languages, which makes this idiom possible, are sound. filter(P, []) -
180.
by lngnmn 10y ago
The both statements you have quoted are still valid. Moreover, if you would think a bit you would realize that the world around you is duck-typed. At least at the level of proteins. One more thing. Every ontological attempt to use naive cat

More ›