bykovich

Bizarre that you'd speculate about what populations "go with their gut" based entirely on gut feeling.

lol do you call any attempt at a useful psychology "Freudian psychobabble"

Doesn't look like it, but it's besides (and in fact probably counter) to the point of the OS. Seriously, read that "Constructive Look at TempleOS" chx posted: http://www.codersnotes.com/notes/a-constructive-look-at-temp...

It's more interesting and probably more usable than Urbit.

Are monads an /advance/, or are they just a language feature that might be nice in some cases, pointless or harmful in others -- like any other feature?

Can you elaborate?

you guys love snitches, huh

thank u for not being a narc

This is a dumbfuck ethical theory.

It's not clear to me that category theory, functional programming, what have you, provide insight into why things work. In fact, it seems like they might cut the opposite way -- moving from vicissitudes to simple abstractions.

Mr. Rogers was kind in a way that's almost painful -- but exactly not because it's in any way accusatory.

I'm the guy who thinks that suffering and pleasure are additive inverses.

I agree that that is irksome. That being said, we're all victimized by commercial enterprises constantly -- it's difficult to see /this/ particular violation as uniquely worthy of outrage (although I confess that this is not a particularly good argument that FOSS violations are uniquely /un/worthy of outrage).

Man, defraud multibillion-dollar corporations all you want. I'm absolutely fine with that.

No, I benefit from free software every day. I'm glad that there's software that isn't encumbered by expensive licensing schemes. What I'm taking issue with is free software orthodoxy, or with the notion that there is some sort of "ethical" issue at play with software that is different from the ethical issues at play with the usage and distribution of /any/ kind of product. "Software freedom" is an odd end-unto-itself.

I gotta say that I think this is just not a big deal for most people. I understand that FOSS ideals have appeal, I understand why people would like them to be protected -- but at the end of the day, I do feel like FOSS advocates, as well-meaning as they are, are perhaps investing their concern in the wrong place. FOSS rhetoric is nice, but it just doesn't seem that important.

This sounds an awful lot like "I'm taking advantage of the assumption of tipping to avoid paying a fair price for the services I receive."

The Tractatus? Wittgenstein didn't believe that.

No, my point is that none of these disciplines have been remotely subsumed by their "rigorous" counterparts, because their subject matter is fundamentally different. All of these "rigorous" fields are, of course, fed by philosophy -- but they are not in a position to turn around and solve philosophy.

For example, linguistics -- understood as the science of language -- will never be able to, say, tell us what the connection is between the word and the world. How would it? And for all the promise of neuroscience, it is not one inch closer to telling us why there is a seeming difference between what physically occurs in a brain during an experience and what that experience is /like/.

There is certainly overlap between rigorous methodologies and philosophy. But the goal of philosophy is not to rigorize its way out of existence.

The top answer is extremely wrong.

Secondly, remember that broadly the point of philosophy is to make things not philosophy. In extremely simplistic historical terms, once natural philosophy becomes rigorous it becomes science, once philosophy of language became rigorous it became linguistics, and today we're seeing philosophy of mind turn to neuroscience.

This is absolutely not correct, and elucidates little but the prejudices of the answerer. Philosophy of language has /not/ become linguistics, philosophy of mind has /not/ become neuroscience, and only a subset of natural philosophy has become natural science.

The philosophical questions discussed by Socrates have elided the grasp of both dogmatic rigor and empiricism for twenty-four hundred years, and there seems to be absolutely no reason to expect this to change.

The answerer has either no actual grasp of the history or content of philosophy, or has simply decided, apparently by fiat, to discard all but the most narrow positivism-flavored slice as nonsense.

hey everybody, it's me, the utility humper

I'm gonna consume all your resources, bitch

why didn't you just talk to your favorite charities instead of deferring that judgement to Andreessen

The critical issue here is not something's value as a "collectible." We're not caddisfly larvae.

This is an atrocity.

Do your cousins want to code? Is it good for them to sit in solitude in front of a terminal instead of playing with other kids? Does it help them thrive to spend even more of their childhood staring at a screen than they already will? Will they be happier writing CSS than climbing a tree, or even reading a book or playing an instrument?

Please do not make your cousins learn to code.

Reserving a domain to publish this "investigation" seems unnecessary and somewhat troubling -- as does the extent of the investigation itself.

EDIT: I was mistaken -- this site is dedicated to ratting out cheating runners. Whatever floats your boat, I suppose.

That's an unconvincing response. The alternatives are not necessarily magic (it's terribly unclear what you mean by "magic" here, but I'm making some reasonable assumptions) -- but if they were, why would that be so terrible? You're certainly free to denounce whatever you want as "magic" -- but that doesn't tell me why it's bad.

Serious question: why does everyone love the hard, mathematical reductionism that currently prevails so much? It's plagued by serious explanatory difficulties and terribly limited philosophical support, and seems to really contribute nothing of great value -- what the hell is the appeal?