Konohamaru

Published on April 2nd because I am no fool.

Yes.

Axiology is intrinsic and therefore not relative. That means there are right answers and there are wrong answers to the question of which goods are greater and which goods are lesser.

Jean-Yves Girard really let it go.

I think Programming Language One is the same type as Eureka Seven.

It's really type resonant that you used COBOL (IN ALL CAPS) for your high school project. Makes for good high school memorabilia. I hope you used Greek gods for all of your variable names.

Blocking the contents of banned users, by far, is the rudest policy I ever saw an internet forum implement.

Neither is correct, in that neither gives the actual objective truth.

Then why call them estimations?

Estimate presupposes estimating something in objective reality. Because the verb "to estimate" takes a direct object. Therefore if there are two estimates, and they differ, one is closer to objective reality than the other.

Why does Frequentism and Bayesianism give slightly different answers? Could someone look through every logistics involving tanks in history and see whether the Bayesian or Frequentist approach is closer, thereby gaining evidence for which interpretation is the correct one?

is some kind of instrumentality, be it evolution, quantum electrodynamics, or anything else

Where can I learn more about instrumentality (besides Neon Genesis Evangelion)?

Thank you for the correction!

It was neither ignorance nor dishonesty, my friend. It was measuring Tesla according to the beliefs of the Roman Catholic Church at his time in history.

And I mentioned "atomism as a theory of science" under the instrumentalism part of my comment. In Catholic Theology, philosophy always means "ontological interpretation". That section you quoted is saying that Catholics are allowed to believe in atomism as an instrumental model, but not as the ultimate interpretation of how the Universe works.

Atomism is a philosophically offensive position to those of Tesla's personality type. Catholic Encyclopedia has an entry against it (while barely admitting an instrumental interpretation of atoms for chemistry). It's almost as bad as evolution!

Superlatively cool.

I remember Bram Moolenar as the guy who had the "Help Children in Uganda!" button in the GUI version of Vim. Were it not for that, surely I would not have remembered the man: he would have just been an anonymous open source software developer.

Milton Friedman was correct: because the true minimum wage is $0.00 (unemployment), he was correct to compare wage increase to the null hypothesis. The potshot in the opening paragraph ("Milton feels bad about the unemployed but good about his theory.") is simultaneously an appeal to emotion and a presumptuous ad hominem.

"The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. Take boots, for example. ... A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while a poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet." - Terry Pratchett

The fact that being poor is expensive is, in fact, the root cause of why it is so difficult to escape poverty.

Not everything has to be bad, or a set up for something worse to happen. Sometimes, even when there is an overall line with negative m, good things can happen.

Rust works because the Rust type system and development environment are tutors. They train up the developer like magic nannies until they learn how to correctly manage memory.

So the power of Rust comes from the the cooperation of the developer with the compiler and development environment willing to work through their severe instruction.

Developers in general unwilling to learn how to manage memory walk away from Rust based devteams.

I don't think there's a truly safe programming language. When I was an undergraduate talking to somebody at the C. S. department (I was not a C. S. student, but I talked with many C. S. students) somebody there said that the risk of segfaults in C and Java, when the program approaches hundreds of kloc, are about equal. It's only in small, ungeneralizable programs where Java's GC guarantees safety.

Some people know how to manage memory and others don't. If you know how to manage memory, even C is a safe language. If you don't, not even the most formally-verified garbage-collected language can save you.

This is good news. The idea of the delayed fungal evolution hypothesis was this:

"Before trees grew wood that was unable to rot and so became coal but after fungus came now wood is ruined and it's impossible to make coal again."

Understanding that coal formation is a reversible process and that a new agent didn't permanently ruin the process, is a sigh of relief.

Generative grammar is extremely nativist. The truth is, people will learn anything society forces them to learn. In Piraha society nobody is forced to learn recursion and consequently nobody thinks recursively or in numbers.

The global languages of A.D. 2023 (English, French, etc...) are probably stuck in a similar "Chomsky tarpit" as Piraha, but because we're so globalized and together nobody is brave enough to look out of this tarpit.

I am constructing a conlang codename LXX (because it has 70 phonemes, 15 vowels and 55 consonants, but they were carefully chosen to be learnable to pronounce unlike Ithkuil) for the purpose of getting at least one human society out of this tarpit.

You misinterpreted what I wrote. I did not say it was a failure of mathematics. I said it was a failure of mathematical logic. Mathematics is a very successful project. Mathematical logic is a new project (invented in the 19th century by Frege) and was killed by Gödel in 1931.

Maybe there is no "grade inflation". Maybe the next generation just becomes smarter and because the standards are constant more end up justly deserving higher grades. The idea that someone has to lose in order to justify the prestige of the winners is an evil belief.

While the space of possible sentences might be digital infinity, words aren't. Unfortunately, there are only a finite number of words that can be formed before the brain stops processing the word as a word and opts for seeing it as a procession of letters of the alphabet (Mark Twain).

Fair point. 99% of the pain of C and Java comes from their clunky build system.

Dynamic typing and garbage collection are kind of inherent to being a lisp. Without those you just have C or Java but with sexprs.

Did it succeed in that regard? Gödel said that first-order logic powerful enough to capture Peano Arithmetic does not have a sound proof theory (incompleteness = not onto = unsound), meaning human imagination is still the limiting reactant.

If the goal of formal mathematical logic is to capture the subconscious patterns of thinking humans use, then by that standard, it is a colossal failure.