sls

Is there going to be a no-true-scotsman if I ask about the last time the US had a budget surplus (4 in a row iirc)?

For readers from outside the Buddhist context, it's worth noting that the above comment is written from an entirely Mahāyāna perspective. For example, it isn't true that "every Buddhist tradition agrees that all living beings possess Buddha nature," that's a very specifically Mahāyāna idea that arose centuries after the death of the mendicant Gotama who is known as the Buddha.

The concept of "religion" as it is meant in the modern context is only a few centuries old, as is the idea of "Buddhism", but to the extent that we can think of the teachings of the Buddha as a religion, it's probably most helpful to think of Mahāyāna and Theravāda as different "religions." I frankly think that the Vajrayāna subset of Mahāyāna probably is best thought of as a different "religion" as well, but it's not my area and I wouldn't suggest anyone take my thoughts on that topic with any great heft.

You cited a dead link. What I posted is the Internet Archive record of what was originally at that link.

https://web.archive.org/web/20000506214514/http://www.telepo...

It's not really misspellings, it's reanalysis, and it's not at all particular to English.

Your reference, NextDNS's discussion of their approach and how it differs from others, is from 2019 and no longer correctly represents how pihole works. Pihole has handled this since release 5.0.

I have in mind things like this [1]. I no longer have my undergraduate text or notes but I recall going through a similar exercise.

[1] https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0610121.pdf

Have you ever actually looked at the Schrödinger equation? [1] It's pretty simple. If you've had freshman physics, you can learn enough to derive it in a matter of days or at most weeks. There's not a lot of room in there for the kind of thing you are suggesting.

It's much more plausible that the uncomfortable human-centric thing we need to let go is the idea that our perceptions about macroscopic reality should be indicative of how things actually are.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrodinger_equation

I rarely bother to address this argument:

open source software is only free if your time and expertise are free

but since you seem to actually be trying to discuss this in a thoughtful way, please note that we're not given a choice between free software that takes time and expertise to use and maintain vs closed software that takes no time or expertise to maintain. To mimic your original phrase, Windows 10 Pro is only $199 if your time and expertise is free. Going further, in my experience it's often been the case that the free software takes less time and less expertise to use and maintain.

Also, it's worth mentioning that you are conflating two different things, open source software and free software, a distinction that often doesn't matter but is central when the point at hand is the ethics of free-as-in-freedom software vs non-free software, a distinction the term open source was deliberately created to elide. You are also conflating free-as-in-freedom with free-as-in-beer by opposing the "software is only freedom-free" with "your time and expertise are free-as-in-beer free".

Finally it's not clear to me why you went on to address the pragmatics of non-free hardware or the fact that human effort is necessary to build computers, maintain distros, write kernels etc. Is there a claim that it's unethical to try to run free software on the hardware that you have, or that free(dom) software must always be provide without cost on hardware that is both free(dom) and without cost? If not, then computer users can still spend a small amount of money, relative to utility, to buy a computer that runs free(dom) software.

I'm not disputing your claims that accessibility software on Windows or iOS is better than that on Linux, because I don't know the space. It's an unrelated argument, afaict. To illustrate this, simply imagine that some government or corporation had decided to make high-quality accessibility software available under a free license. (I am reminded of Intel's work supporting Dr. Hawking.) You wouldn't conclude from this that all your previous thoughts about free and open source software vs closed/commerical software were wrong, I assume.

  You have: 1500 mA * hours * 3.7 V
  You want: watt * hours
          * 5.55
          / 0.18018018

miniKanren is great. Here[1]'s Will Byrd on the difference between it and Prolog.

[1] http://minikanren.org/minikanren-and-prolog.html

You seemingly make a strong, baseless, and unscientific ontological claim, saying that we have one set of mathematical formalisms in our theoretical model that are "really real" and others that are not "really real". Surely the word "virtual" can no more be used to support this claim than the word "imaginary" can be used to distinguish the reality of real and complex numbers.

Copyright holder could give someone else authorisation to sue on their behalf, e.g., through a license.

They can't assign the bare right to sue. To have standing the plaintiff will need to hold at least one of the exclusive rights in 17 U.S. Code § 106 aiui. Cf Righthaven cases, Silvers v Sony Pictures

Not the person to whom you were speaking but their description reminds me of Scott Aaronson's work e.g. https://www.scottaaronson.com/democritus/lec9.html

which has been discussed on HN https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19161028

Thank you, I love this citation so much.

Charles Babbage recognized the performance penalty imposed by ripple-carry and developed mechanisms for anticipating carriage in his computing engines.

It's not at all unusual for loanwords to get different meanings when they are adopted. Wikipedia gives this lovely example:

The English word Viking became Japanese バイキング (baikingu), meaning "buffet", because the first restaurant in Japan to offer buffet-style meals, inspired by the Nordic smörgåsbord, was opened in 1958 by the Imperial Hotel under the name "Viking".

Marking things up 43% generally impacts sales.

https://forvo.com/word/coq/#fr

Noun

being (countable and uncountable, plural beings)

A living creature.

Apparently nothing to do with the Rete algorithm (fwiw). [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rete_algorithm

Do you think there's a difference between "Ashoka warred with Kalinga" (contemporary and/or near-contemporary evidence survives) and "Ashoka built 84,000 stupas" (for the sake of this discussion, let's assume that there is no historical evidence for this). Because that's the distinction being drawn above.

Can I Lose My Trademark Rights If I Don’t Sue Infringers?

The short answer is “No,” a trademark owner does not have to sue every single infringer, and the failure to do so in an isolated case of infringement will likely not result in abandonment.

https://www.dbllawyers.com/can-lose-trademark-rights-dont-su...

C-h ? will show you help on help, among them:

C-h a - apropos

C-h k <key sequence> - detailed docs on the command run by key sequence

C-h m - docs on current minor modes and major mode

C-h w <command> - what keystrokes will run command

There's a lot more as well.

That is by no means an apt metaphor. Mathematicians are in the business of creating new mathematics, not in studying the "language" in which mathematics happens to be written. Of course the history of mathematics is replete with contributions from physicists and others, particularly during the period when the educated could turn their hand to nearly any such discipline and find a problem on which progress could be made.

I just googled "what island nations have been submerged" and looked at the top six links. They are all about islands that have been submerged, are on the brink of being submerged, or will be submerged soon if recent sea rise trends continue for a very short time.

I've never turned down a request for PTO from someone who had some, including at a company with "unlimited" vacation. I don't see why my priorities about what one should do with their free time should apply to others. And if it were ever a problem that a person wasn't fulfilling their role adequately, it doesn't really matter why as long as we can get on a remediation plan.

No one is arguing that one cannot implement multiplication algorithms using addition. In fact, one can do it with just NAND. But the definition of multiplication isn't in terms of NAND or addition.

I am familiar with the constructivist family of ideas. Obviously I agree this a question of philosophy, specifically the philosophy of mathematics. (So not "rather than", since foundations of mathematics is a branch of mathematics.) And because adopting a constructivist approach to mathematics means adopting different ideas about what a mathematical definition _is_ or _can be_, I have to say that it's a bit disingenuous to introduce this context only after engaging in the above discussion.

For example, if someone asks you to explain Euclid's proof of the infinitude of the primes, and you say that Euclid did not provide any such proof and nothing more, I think it's quite disingenuous. It would be more proper to say, from a constructivist view, the argument Euclid made isn't a valid proof, and then either explain the proof in the logical context in which it was made or decline to.

In this case, the point of discussion was separating the definition of multiplication from an algorithm implementing it. It's quite unfair to silently take a position that a mathematical definition without an algorithm isn't valid or meaningful and then on that basis argue that only numerical approximations to transcendentals have meaning.

So many common mathematical concepts such as "the integers" have no meaning in a constructivist approach that it's not sensible to engage in mathematical discussion without establishing that one's fundamental basis of approach varies so widely from the common one.

I don't agree that a definition of multiplication that includes transcendentals such as pi must be numerical. In fact, to the extent that numerical approximations are approximations _of_ something, the thing they would be approximating is the actual value of the operation of multiplication being applied to pi and pi. The only reason we're talking about algorithms at all was to distinguish between them and definitions.

The comment to which you replied says that thinking about multiplication as "just" repeated addition is problematic, so let's look at that.

Consider 3 x 2. If we take that approach, it seems ok - we understand it to mean "add together 3 2's" - 2 + 2 + 2, which gives the correct answer of 6.

What about -3 * -2? What does it mean to add a negative number of times?

What about pi * pi? What does it mean to add something pi times?

What about the matrix M * the matrix N?

etc. The parent's point is that this repeated addition thing is just an algorithm one can use to calculate a multiplication for some operands, specifically whole numbers, not a general definition of the operation of multiplication.