memla

If the goal is to make it simple to run, why not support SQLite?

Opera has built in tab hibernation that seems to work pretty well: http://www.reddit.com/r/operabrowser/comments/2vkdjr/tab_hib...

Look, i originally cited that identifying (P⊃◻Q, P) ∴ ◻Q as a fallacy in an argument is an example of refuting that argument without any data. I don't care about your struggles with some random article.

As i said, i don't really want to argue weather that is math or philosophy, especially when i see statements to the effect that affirming the consequent was once philosophy but math "swallowed" it so now pointing out that fallacy means you're doing math and things like that. Talk about imprecise and meaningless right there.

First example claims that "(p => q, p) so q" is a fallacy by closely squinting at word "must". Second example claims that p => q where ~q => ~p is assumed is also a fallacy because they claim that one word that q consists of spills out and covers whole statement

No it doesn't. You've formalized it incorrectly.

Doesn't matter, i might as well have said that the argument is affirming the consequent and we'd still have a problem since there is a deeper issue here. What you're saying is that the simple acts of either formalizing your arguments or precisely defining your premises somehow turns it into math and precludes it from being philosophy. Yet philosophers do exactly that all the time.

Is that the point you want to argue? Cause i am neither convinced or interested in pursuing it. It would seem to me like a pointless argument about definitions.

>It's not that the discussion is simply derailed. It's that it can't even take place until both parties agree on the terminology.

On a theoretical level, this is true for every discussion in every discipline. On a practical level, how would you know that this is a special problem in philosophy if you admit that you haven't studied any?

>That's the problem. Nearly every word is packed with meaning, which must be unraveled and argued for with... more words.

Just for the record. I did say that arguments are required and of course those arguments are composed of words (and symbols) but i never said that those arguments are about the meaning of words.

You can't refute an argument without data.

What if i point out that it commits a modal scope fallacy?

What data do you have to refute the statement: "A statement can be refuted without data"?

But in a philosophical debate, "right" would be quite ambiguous. One party, for example, could posit that the ideas of "right" and "wrong" are completely subjective. That, in the absence of some stated goal or constraints, what's "right" or "wrong", "good" or "evil" is no more valid a topic of debate than whether chocolate ice cream is better than vanilla.However, once you introduce said constraints, the discussion is no longer philosophically interesting.

So, what you're saying is that the problem of philosophy is that someone could derail a discussion concerning ethics by simply asserting meta-ethical subjectivism and that would be uninteresting or bad in some other way...

I don't quite understand this objection. Not to mention that this is exactly the opposite of what you would expect to find in a philosophical debate. The whole point of the discipline is that every position must be argued for and questioned and not just asserted. That of course includes subjectivism.

Well, holding fallacious beliefs prevents you from arriving at the correct answer. Since philosophers have refuted many fallacious arguments concerning that question they have, therefore, made some measurable progress.

That's sort of like reading this bash quote: http://bash.org/?574642 and saying "What's so funny about people being shot?!"

These complaints are ridiculous. Of course philosophy is going to deal primarily with philosophical discussions, and not with scientific ones, that's the job of science!

If you're trying to claim that only scientific ideas are worth entertaining, then the problem is that that claim itself is not scientific.

The commenter you're responding to does not even understand the problem if he thinks science can solve it, as others have pointed out.

Judging by that TL;DR people would think that there's an article with pages upon pages of what Facebook decided to eliminate from PHP, and not to make it easier but to make it possible to mantain their codebase. No such thing can be found in the provided PDF.

Things like this and some interesting developments from Facebook concerning them are mentioned in the presentation, so it would be nice if people would actually discuss that. Just a suggestion.

This already came up on their forum: http://ghost.org/forum/installation/23-is-there-a-quick-star...

No one who has commented so far seems to have read the article, let alone the more technical ones the author talks about.

I already answered this below. Anywhere you look in the framework you'll find that it is written in the same manner, so i couldn't possibly find any code that is comparable in style to the python codebase. Yet, it is a full-stack framework, so you can't say it doesn't have any "useful application functionality".

Since the point was to show what kind of code you'll be looking at depending on the choice of your language/framework i think that the examples are appropriate. Which application implements better design patterns is a discussion that goes a little beyond the point of this thread.

Well, wherever you look you'll find the same thing as the whole framework is written in the same way: specific classes with small methods. And you can't say that the framework as a whole does nothing.

I agree about the python code that it is reasonably readabale, but i still think it's ugly. Those two things are not the same.

Composer/Packagist[1] is exactly like npm. It's even mentioned in the article.

[1] https://packagist.org/

That example is framework specific. Change the php framework to laravel and this:

    $topic = $this->get('model.Topic')->find($topic_id);
    $this->get('guardian')->ensureVisible($topic);

    $topic = Topic::find($topicId);
    Guardian::ensureVisible($topic);

That really depends on what you're writing and how you are doing it. How is this php[1] code uglier than this python[2] code?

[1] https://github.com/laravel/framework/blob/master/src/Illumin... [2]: https://github.com/reddit/reddit/blob/master/r2/r2/controlle...

My statement wasn't meant as a general argument, but was just referring to this specific case - namely, inexpensive fast food. In order for the comparison between American and Yugoslavian work ethic to hold, you'd have to lower the American salaries to the point where they cannot afford McDonald's food. Let's see how that impacts their productivity.

A monthly paycheck for these employees that were determined to quit was $170. In other words: if you worked at McDonald's, you couldn't afford to eat at McDonald's.

No amount of correlation seems to imply causation. Suppose there is some event X that always causes two other events, Y and Z. Let's also say that Y and Z are exclusively caused by X. Then Y has a 100% perfect correlation with Z, but ex hypothesi it is not caused by it.

I think this claim is just confusing descriptive and normative ethics. Probably the most common confusion about ethics there is.

True, descriptive ethics is almost entirely composed of various facts about human psychology and sociology, but no normative claim can be deduced from these facts alone.

No, but there is a question concerning moral realism. Since moral relativism is a type of moral anti-realism which is entertained by 27.7% of respondents, it follows that less than 27.7% philosophers are relativists.

> they are discontinuing work in their Dragonfly web inspector

Can i get a source on this?

Are you sure about that? I'm getting better performance with XCache, and it has everything that APC has plus some other useful features like deleting keys by prefix.

The docs don't say that you would update the framework via composer (though this may change when Laravel 4 is released) but they do say that you should just replace the "laravel" folder with a new version using whatever method suits you best, which can be even easier. It certainly seems easier than upgrading Rails, since then you can update your whole remote application code and framework in a single push.

The docs clearly explain that your bundles go to the "bundles" directory, controllers go to the "controllers" directory, views belong in "views" and so on. And your whole application resides in a directory called... "application". You'd actually have to be pretty advanced and amazingly stupid at the same time to make a functional app in the framework core folder and than destroy it by overwriting.

Rails docs don't tell me to unzip the framework and start hacking, but they do instruct me to run "gem install rails", wait a couple of hours till it's done, then run "rails new blog", "cd blog" and then start hacking. Neither set of docs tell me how to setup version control before i begin my work, and they shouldn't. That's not the job of the framework docs.

And of course you're gonna hack your application directly on the server, albeit a local one, as PHP applications are typically developed. This in no way prevents you from using version control and proper deployment techniques.

Actually, the difference between compiled C++ code, and the newest version of PHP with APC/Xcache is not that drastic, but facebook needs to squeeze out every bit of performance so they can to cut down on the number of servers.

For what it's worth, PHP 5.4(without APC) performed better than both Python and Ruby on that language shootout page: http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/u64/which-programs-a...

No. Everyone knows that you do not modify the framework files. Hell, everyone knew that you do not touch the framework system files years ago with older frameworks like CodeIgniter, so it makes me doubt that you have any experience with PHP frameworks at all.

You would upgrade your Laravel framework with composer, which runs on Git. And it'll most likely just work without any "Gem hell" that i've come to experience with some other languages.

There is some value in comments like yours. It brings to light just how many of these PHP bashing statements are biased and uninformed knee-jerk reactions, and therefore, should not be taken seriously by any rational person.