We're downvoting you because you're confidently (and obviously) incorrect.
1,658 karma · joined March 6, 2016
Love his "What [course of action] did for [country]" videos.
E.g. What eating the rich did for Japan.
Oh, so centuries later? Right, just as I said.
> those continental philosophy (as opposed to analytic philosophy).
W. V. O. Quine, one of the most influential analytic philosophers (and mathematician, responsible for an early attempt to formalize mathematical axioms), still felt the need to write against Kant in one of his most influential papers ever (Two Dogmas of Empiricism), well into the 20th century.
> only if we constrain it to formal axiomatc proofs
Umm, no. Inferential systems need not be axiomatic. I was explicitly speaking about inferential systems, not axiomatic.
> there are proofs by example
No, there aren't. There are proofs by contradiction, wherein the truth of a proven statement refutes the candidate-truth of some other hypothetical candidate-truth. But there's no such thing as "proof by example".
> proving by non-axiomatic argumentation and fuzzy evidence (as in a court)
Again, no. Not even judges refer to this as "proof". Evidence is not proof. You're (maybe on purpose?) conflating "deduction" in particular with "reasoning" in general.
> Leibniz's/Russel's/Hilbert's axiomatic mathematical proofs are not the only game in town, nor do they exhaust human reasoning.
Ahhh, there it is. You're mixing up several concepts here. I suspect because you seem to think your pride (i.e. ability to prove things) is on the line. But it isn't. I'm just an autistic spectrum person, trying to make sure people use words in ways that make sense and follow well-established precedent. It appears we have two wildly different projects.
He was born around the same time as the invention of analytical geometry (i.e. the idea that it is possible to do geometry using algebra), and "vector math" (or linear algebra) came several decades later.
So, his vector math was non-existent.
This is shown to be false by the historical record. Kant was, unquestionably, the most influential thinker of his day.
Centuries later, Einstein himself felt that it was necessary to write about how Kant was wrong (given modern physics and general relativity), which shows how convincing and influential Kant's arguments were; there's no point to debunking things no one believes.
You're probably looking at Kant with contemporary eyes, thereby deciding that he's obviously wrong and completely unconvincing. But no one looked at Kant with contemporary eyes until contemporary times, and there's a very long road of extremely important and influential scientists/mathematicians/philosophers replying to Kant; which is how our contemporary perspective came to exist.
>> Some things (even true ones!) are simply unprovable
> Within the context of a system with certain algebraic properties.
Right, that's what "provable" means. There's no such thing as a proof, outside of formal inferential systems.
You're right that Plato was the first to write that there are non-mathematical relationships, and to try to formalize them, but what he meant by "non-mathematical" basically meant "non-geometric"; recall that we're talking about a few hundred years before the invention of algebra.
This laid the seed for Aristotle to formally declare that logic is its own discipline, rather than just the method used in geometry, and this is when we see these projects extend to everything, but no longer as axiomatic pursuits.
You didn't understand correctly. "Rationalist", in the OP, is a historical label which can retrospectively be applied to a specific set of thinkers, who defended specific beliefs, from the 16th to the 18th centuries.
None of them were claiming they were the only people who thought "rationally"; rather, they were mostly claiming that only rational thought could reach truth, and empirical evidence need not factor into it.
In modern parlance, the Rationalists believed that all knowledge would end up being deductive, like math.
> Gödels theorems are hardly ever relevant to most of mathematics and not in the least to computers (which are finite).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
> I also doubt that industrialism has anything to do with Leibnitz or Hume. That part of history is most likely fuelled by greed for money, not for philosophical thought.
In this time period, the intellectual circles that Leibniz and Hume frequented are exactly the circles that gave rise to modern economics, the ability to measure longitude at sea, the ability to calculate rates of change over time, using steam to power machines, etc. In other words, we're literally talking about all of the intellectual developments that directly led to the industrial revolution.
More distant than that. It all comes from Euclid. Who, you know, was actually tremendously successful in that project.
Dignity is a floor; it is very difficult to lower a floor.
SV doesn't build software for people anymore, and this is one of the greatest tragedies in history. We built a huge industry, based on the most efficiency-increasing technology ever, and what came of it? Every human interaction has been captured and monetized, to the extent that younger generations can't even conceive of a mode of interaction that isn't mediated by apps.
I really hope that app adoption falls off drastically, in general, so maybe our industry can refocus on actually being helpful to people's rational objectives, instead of being enslaved to people's base desires.
It's certainly better than any savings account or investment.
For the pilot and co-founder, yes, he deserves the award. For the passengers, I predict lawsuits. But apparently the contract included a clause about accidental death.
The guy who brought his son also probably deserves a Darwin award.
For every ten meters of descent, pressure increases by 1 atmosphere. At 4000 meters, that's 400 atm, or ~40 Mega Pascals, which is significantly higher than the pressure caused by the bomb that leveled a building in Oklahoma.
The hull shattered catastrophically, and the pressure wave liquified the occupants instantly. It's horrifying, but at least it was painless.
I genuinely think that the current inheritors of Usenet are private group chats; trust based, relatively small groups.
The age of abandonware[0] is over. The promise of future earnings from streaming/downloads means all major content producers will lock down even out-of-print works, like consoles from previous generations.
This is just another casualty of the fight we were having 20 years ago, re: copyright. We lost. It's over.
That matches the impressions of TSMC and Apple. The reason I recall is the unreliability of the infrastructure.
I'm currently working on something, "using AI" (read: the ChatGPT API), and it's coming out perfect in a way I couldn't have done without this API, but I also couldn't have done at work; there are too many efficiencies involved when you're making software for yourself.
For one thing, the feedback loop between implementation, UI and UX is a dot instead of a loop. For another, I'm infinitely willing to sympathize with my user, and will take all of their suggestions as if they were gospel. And my budget, while not infinite or even large, is extremely generous.
I guess it's also worth mentioning people whose recent pet projects became their main project, the most salient of whom, for me, is AngeTheGreat on YouTube (https://m.youtube.com/@angethegreat).
There's something to be said for dogfooding first, then releasing something.
I'm with you, but we'll always have AOSP. And the cellphone market is now segmented enough that we'll probably also always have rootable phones.
And let's not forget the last time a technology came around that could "fool history"; how many people still believe the moon landing was shot on a sound stage?
The notion that historians only care about images, without caring about their provenance, is absurd.
And of American culture and its people. You might re-evaluate some ideas you'd grown up with, becoming a more cosmopolitan/adaptable/understanding person, capable of having deeper relationships with a larger proportion of the Earth's population.
But it probably won't make you better at tests of cognitive capacity.
This is the real genius beyond the manufacturing (which other comments are correctly praising). Lego was/is the only brand that gets to make, e.g. both Mikey Mouse and Bugs Bunny, both Marvel and DC, etc. By making Lego versions of those properties, they've convinced those enormous IP holders that this does not compete with other products; Disney can't make Lego Star Wars themselves.
Lego's corporate accomplishment is to have elevated themselves to the status of a platform. And doing so while their product isn't software or hardware is pretty unique.
The glut of PhD's is at such a level that the last teaching jobs available to industry professionals have all gone to boomers who will stay at those jobs until they die.