|
jre posted:Cool, assume for a second I don't have time to read all 73 pages of that. Can you summarise it for me. You are emphasizing "practical benefits" as if a theoretical advance doesn't count. But I'm talking mathematics, where all the benefits are in the development of theory. So I don't think you'll be satisfied by anything I say, especially if you aren't willing to even look at the sources I cite. Petri nets have wide application in chemistry and biology, and are employed in many ways. Baez shows how it is an example of a particular kind of category, and uses this to demonstrate theoretical relations to other fields, and a translation manual between them. The translation takes the following form:  And those 70 pages back the analogies up with mathematical analysis. I only understand a small piece of this (Baez himself says repeatedly that this stuff isn't well understood), but I understand more enough to warrant the claims I've made in this thread.
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 15:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Dec 14, 2025 08:17 |
|
|
I have never seen someone so tortuously misuse a word as you are using the word "tool". Although I will immediately agree that you are a tool. -EDIT- That's not true, actually. You've been misusing "discrimination" pretty badly as well.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 15:55
|
|
|
A man breaks into your house at night and threatens you with a gun. He gives you an option, either undergo complete gender reassignment surgery or else he'll take every last electronic in your home. Which do you pick?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 15:56
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:The skillful use of my body is a tool I've spent my entire life developing "I am a tool." -RealityApologist EDIT Dammit, Who What Now. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 16:01
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I didn't say "more important". I never said this was the most important thing, or more important than other things. I'm just saying this is also a thing. Beep boop. No, it isn't a thing. It's loving absurd. It shouldn't even be on the top ten of Serious Problems Facing Humanity. It's some tech-fetishist nonsense that ignores the reality of the vast majority of the people in the world.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 16:03
|
|
|
I remember when I came out as an Apple user. My mom was shocked, said it was gross and that she didn't want me bringing any iPhones into her house.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 16:06
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:You are emphasizing "practical benefits" as if a theoretical advance doesn't count. But I'm talking mathematics, where all the benefits are in the development of theory. So I don't think you'll be satisfied by anything I say, especially if you aren't willing to even look at the sources I cite. You are deliberately citing a source which is impenetrable to anyone who didn't study theoretical physics or high level maths in an attempt to distract from the fact you can't answer basic questions on any of your theories. Your inability to give an overview of it or talk it about it in any detail shows that either A. You haven't read it either. or B. You've read it and didn't understand it Either of which precludes you from using it a 'source' to back up your theories. Also having been shown up your lack of maths knowledge in the whole linear debacle perhaps you aren't in a position to be talking confidently about advances in maths theory?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 16:09
|
|
|
Wanamingo posted:A man breaks into your house at night and threatens you with a gun. He gives you an option, either undergo complete gender reassignment surgery or else he'll take every last electronic in your home. Which do you pick? Gender reassignment surgery is a process that takes months of preparation and cannot be done at the drop of a hat. It's been a consistent mistake in this thread to think that tools are optional in this way. The whole point of digital philosophy is to talk about the organization and integration of networks of activity, and the role that various components play in shaping the whole. My tools are obviously active components in shaping who I am and what I do. Different tools are more or less deeply integrated into my life, with more or less profound consequences on my identity. My gender is one of the more deeply integrated tools in my toolbox, which is why gender dysphoria is so important; my gender is certainly more integrated into my activities than any of the electronics in my house. But the depth of integration doesn't make it any less a tool. Many of my tools run very deep. I don't think the "gun to your head" approach is the best way to discern what is and is not essential to my identity. If I have a gun to your head and give you the choice of losing your right arm or right leg, does your response reveal which limb is a more important aspect of your identity? I think its a silly question, and born of an essentialist impulse that I reject from the start. There is nothing essential to who I am except the coordinated activity of my tools, whatever they are. No tool in that box is the essential self or expressed my true identity; there are just the tools and the cooperative activity they generate in their wake.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 16:12
|
|
|
Badera posted:No, it isn't a thing. It's loving absurd. It shouldn't even be on the top ten of Serious Problems Facing Humanity. It's some tech-fetishist nonsense that ignores the reality of the vast majority of the people in the world. http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/06/united-nations-declares-internet-access-a-basic-human-right/239911/
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 16:16
|
|
|
The tool, it is you.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 16:17
|
|
|
A lot of people just don't understand what it means to be bitechnical. They think that just because I have an iPhone means I use a Mac, own an iPad, watch AppleTV, and all sorts of stuff like that. I don't. But, because I use Windows, people also think I must own a Zune, too. I get told that I'm just doing it for attention, that I'm not really bitechnical, that I'm just a Windows user who's confused or an Apple user who hasn't figured it out yet, or that I'm just so tech starved that I'll use anything that's electronic. Why can't they understand what it's like?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 16:17
|
|
|
jre posted:You are deliberately citing a source which is impenetrable to anyone who didn't study theoretical physics or high level maths in an attempt to distract from the fact you can't answer basic questions on any of your theories. I also linked to a blog post written for a general audience, and quoted passages supporting my claim that had no math in it, and explained as best I can in my own words how I understand the implications of this work. You are attacking my credentials instead of attacking my argument. This is a form of an ad hominem attack, and demonstrates that you aren't engaging my claims themselves but only my right to make them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 16:20
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:Gender reassignment surgery is a process that takes months of preparation and cannot be done at the drop of a hat. "My hypothetical about magically being unable to wear clothes ever again is totally legit and should be taken seriously, but your hypothetical isn't well grounded in reality and can therefore be dismissed." Eprisa, could you at least be a little less transparent that you aren't arguing in good faith? -EDIT- Can you please define tool? Because you aren't using it correctly by any metric. Who What Now fucked around with this message at 16:22 on Apr 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 16:20
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:"My hypothetical about magically being unable to wear clothes ever again is totally legit and should be taken seriously, but your hypothetical isn't well grounded in reality and can therefore be dismissed." I didn't dismiss the question. I answered it explicitly. But I also explained why I think the question is grounded in poor assumptions, not as a hypothetical but in terms of our relationships to our tools. Which is the very point of the discussion. You and eXXon should seriously stop spamming this thread with braindead knee-jerk fallacies. You'll start making me look good.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 16:23
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I didn't dismiss the question. I answered it explicitly. But I also explained why I think the question is grounded in poor assumptions, not as a hypothetical but in terms of our relationships to our tools. Which is the very point of the discussion. You didn't answer it explicitly, you dodged the question completely by instead using two paragraphs to try and discredit the hypothetical as valid at all. So now you're outright lying.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 16:27
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I also linked to a blog post written for a general audience, and quoted passages supporting my claim that had no math in it, and explained as best I can in my own words how I understand the implications of this work. You are attacking my credentials instead of attacking my argument. This is a form of an ad hominem attack, and demonstrates that you aren't engaging my claims themselves but only my right to make them. I've asked you to explain specific details about the paper and you can't which shows you don't understand it. All you have done is give a vague incoherent overview which could be cribbed from the abstract, and linked to other peoples writing. If you don't understand the paper you can't begin to make a judgement on whether its any good or not. If you can't tell if the author is correct or not why are you citing it as a source? Pointing out that you don't understand the topic you are preaching about isn't an adhom. Do you now admit you were wrong about it being linear in the op ? Third time of asking: Is there a journal of "Digital Philosophy" ? (edit to fix broken sentence) jre fucked around with this message at 16:36 on Apr 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 16:30
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:"My hypothetical about magically being unable to wear clothes ever again is totally legit and should be taken seriously, but your hypothetical isn't well grounded in reality and can therefore be dismissed." A tool is an artifact of human[1] activity which has a functional or instrumental character. Some human artifacts are not tools, like atmospheric carbon or statues. Some tools are also "natural" objects, like bodily organs, or "abstract" objects like my vocabulary. My self identity (of which my gender is a component) is a natural, abstract tool. [1] The "human" part needs qualification, because nonhumans also use tools. The use of tools by nonhuman artifacts is, more or less, the subject of my dissertation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 16:30
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:You didn't answer it explicitly, you dodged the question completely by instead using two paragraphs to try and discredit the hypothetical as valid at all. So now you're outright lying. quote:My gender is one of the more deeply integrated tools in my toolbox, which is why gender dysphoria is so important; my gender is certainly more integrated into my activities than any of the electronics in my house. That's a direct answer.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 16:32
|
|
|
Uh, wow. Guys, I don't think that Eripsa is saying that tools is literally as important as gender for identity. He's also not saying that "cyborg discrimination" or discrimination based on tool usage is literally as important an issue as discrimination based on sexual orientation, race, class, etc. He's simply trying to point out that they have some similarities. At least, thats what I'm getting from all this. I'm not sure where people are reading the "People being hostile because I use google glass is one of the most important issues facing us today," thing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 16:37
|
|
|
Being a transtechite is a complicated thing for me. It's not like being a transtechual where you're born with the wrong user preference, like a lot of people seem to think. No, I was born a Windows user and I'm still a Windows user. It's just that, you know, sometimes I like to try out an iPhone or something. Sure, it's mostly just in the bedroom, but occasionally I'd like to take it out in public too. I'm sort of afraid, though. My area isn't the most progressive, and even now you hear news stories about people being beaten up for using the wrong device. I suppose it's not all bad, we at least Eddie Izzard as a high profile transtechite. Of course though, The Kinks wrote Out of the Techdrobe all the way back in 1978, and they sang about exactly all of the same problems we face today. Maybe we're not making as much progress as I'd hoped.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 16:41
|
|
|
Wanamingo posted:A man breaks into your house at night and threatens you with a gun. He gives you an option, either undergo complete gender reassignment surgery or else he'll take every last electronic in your home. Which do you pick? The gun is also a tool, like gender. Imagine all those generations of stone age men and women who were Technological-Americans but all they had were flint arrowheads instead of guns and iPhones. I've seen things you couldn't imagine: totemic iPads crafted from the scapula of a mammoth, revolvers made from fruit. All those identities lost, like tears in rain.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 16:44
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:You and eXXon should seriously stop spamming this thread with braindead knee-jerk fallacies. You'll start making me look good. That's really not charitable of you, buddy. What have I said that was a braindead knee-jerk fallacy? quote:artifact: any product of human construction (including nonfunctional products, like art, waste, atmospheric carbon, etc). Is my gender a product of human construction? Maybe you can argue part of my gender identity is a social construct or blah blah blah but I'm pretty sure that had I been born in a completely empty white room I would still be male, absent any human construction besides the walls. ryde posted:Uh, wow. Pointing out that something has a superficial similarity to something else isn't really very interesting in and of itself.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 16:46
|
|
|
jre posted:I've asked you to explain specific details about the paper and you can't which shows you don't understand it. All you have done is give a vague incoherent overview which could be cribbed from the abstract, and linked to other peoples writing. If you don't understand the paper you can't begin to make a judgement on whether its any good or not. If you can't tell if the author is correct or not why are you citing it as a source? My overview was perfectly coherent. Petri nets and electrical circuit diagrams are both symmetric monodial categories, and knowing this fact allows you to convert proofs from one diagrammatic framework to the other. This establishes a unifying framework for lots of scientific disciplines, as demonstrated in the conversion chart I posted. This explanation was perfectly clear. You are just being obstinate. quote:Pointing out that you don't understand the topic you are preaching about isn't an adhom. Yes, it is. It's not necessarily a fallacy, if your accusations do genuinely undermine my claims. But they don't. So it is. quote:Do you now admit you were wrong about op being linear ? I'm happy to admit to Slanderer that the coupling relation is broken, but that's where the nonlinearity occurs. He himself admitted that the balance caps are a (trivial) nonlinearity in the system. Slanderer's main objection now is about continuous/discrete timing and the coupling relations, and is not about linearity as such. I haven't had the time to address these issues yet, but I completely admit that they are outstanding issues. quote:Third time of asking: Is there a journal of "Digital Philosophy" Not that I know of, but there are plenty of Digital Humanities journals (it's a p hot thing atm), and plenty of publications on digital philosophy, in other journals, for instance: http://64.78.31.152/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/intro-to-DP.pdf
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 16:47
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:In fact, that was the first thing I did after the original Attention Economy threads I would say it didn't go well because rather than being simple, explicit and bottom-up, it's the exact opposite, with no explicit connections drawn between any of the topics, and no explanation of why these topics are essential. If a meaningful Strangecoin proposal would fill a book, the topics you touch on in that thread would fill an entire library. You should start with something you yourself completely understand and can explain without reference to anyone else's work given your current knowledge about complex systems. The promise of complex systems theory to be a vehicle for transdisciplinary research is extremely exciting, but it seems to me that you're getting ahead of yourself in trying to tackle these particular complex systems now. The devil is in the details, so I would strongly suggest starting smaller. If you want to talk about complex systems in general, start with a boring old prototypical example like a snowflake or sand pile, not a big mouthful like the economy. If you want to talk about using complex systems as a vehicle for bridging seemingly different areas of study, start with something well-understood like the HKB model to illustrate the principles and philosophical framework. I can't overstate how crucial keeping it simple and being explicit about every connection you make is! Using a simple and well-understood example will make any potential flaws, which would be obscured by a more complicated example, stand out like a sore thumb and easy to identify. Again, I would recommend SurgicalOntologist's thread on non-representational psychology as models (notice that these threads went incredibly well). Dogstoyevsky posted:I think you're making good points, but I want to push back on this a little bit. While it's true that math can be beneficial to the understanding of almost any problem and in many cases is essential to addressing those problems*, there are plenty of people studying complex systems who do so with little to no use of math, and certainly not using mathematical models. For example, histologists. I don't think that's pedantic at all, but I am completely ignorant of how histologists work, so I can't comment in detail. In my mind, histologists can very well talk to other histologists about histology without using math, so I suppose I should've said it's only an essential aspect when trying to bridge subjects by casting them as fundamentally connected complex systems. It seems that it would be, if not impossible, then at least very difficult to meaningfully talk about equivalences or invariances between the explanations for a histological phenomenon and an economic one without the use of math, but for all I know that could be an artifact of the work I've been exposed to. At any rate, I'm definitely not advocating to dive in math-first.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 16:48
|
|
|
eXXon posted:That's really not charitable of you, buddy. What have I said that was a braindead knee-jerk fallacy? Looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 16:50
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:Looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool QED You want a funny post? Here's one: your thesis, as it stands, in a blog post, because that's apparently what navel-gazing philosophers do. quote:artifact: any product of human construction (including nonfunctional products, like art, waste, atmospheric carbon, etc). Now I'm not a genius or anything, I just happen to do some coding and know a few things about galaxies, but it seems to me that you start by defining tools as a subset of machines, so arguing that some machines are not tools is semantically impossible and very likely the reason why you haven't graduated yet!
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 16:53
|
|
|
ryde posted:Uh, wow. I was gonna write up another bullshit paragraph about tech pride but I can't think of anything right now so instead I'll just say that to put cyborg discrimination in the same ballpark as LGBTQ issues, let alone directly comparing them, shows an utterly insane amount of privilege.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 16:56
|
|
|
Has anybody said Staincoin yet?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 17:01
|
|
|
Wanamingo posted:I was gonna write up another bullshit paragraph about tech pride but I can't think of anything right now so instead I'll just say that to put cyborg discrimination in the same ballpark as LGBTQ issues, let alone directly comparing them, shows an utterly insane amount of privilege. I'll quote myself here to say that this is what RealityApologist literally believes. RealityApologist posted:
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 17:04
|
|
|
Wanamingo posted:I'll quote myself here to say that this is what RealityApologist literally believes. Thanks, I was going to post that when I got home. When Eprisa says that he has never directly compared Cyborg Rights to LBGTA rights he is outright lying.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 17:10
|
|
|
So what are examples of cyborgs being discriminated against? We have that dude who had a meltdown in the Paris McDonalds. People have made disparaging comments towards Google Glass users at some point in the past. You can't text and drive. What else?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 17:10
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:Yes, it is. It's not necessarily a fallacy, if your accusations do genuinely undermine my claims. But they don't. So it is. Do you understand the paper you linked well enough to explain the specifics I asked for? If so why are you dodging the questions I asked? You absolutely avoid giving detailed answers because when you do it shows up your lack on knowledge and instead you accuse people of attacking you personally when ever you are tied down for specifics. Can you provide a paper you have had published which includes any proofs or formal reasoning ? If not what is the basis for your confidence in your own abilities? Why can't you admit that you made a basic error in your initial presentation and are resorting to embarrassing nonsense to try and claim that you didn't? quote:Not that I know of, but there are plenty of Digital Humanities journals (it's a p hot thing atm), and plenty of publications on digital philosophy, in other journals, for instance: http://64.78.31.152/wp-content/uplo...intro-to-DP.pdf The reason I'm labouring the point is that you have gravitated to a field which is just pseduo science and has no oversight or review of anything published which suits you. I mean for gently caress sake look at this pish in the linked 'journal article' quote:DP makes fundamental processes so simple and clear as to allow one to understand many such things perfectly and exactly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 17:13
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I don't know what you mean by "as bad as", or why that is relevant to the argument I make. Is DOMA or DADT as bad as Jim Crow? If not, does that mean we shouldn't care about the former? Way to stake your entire argument upon under-defined ethical relativism. This is your home court? Jim Crow (specifically anti-miscegenation laws) & DOMA/DADT both are concerned with the destruction of interpersonal relationships. Yet "cyborgs" are not a cultural or interpersonal creation, but rather the product of self-obsessed bougie scum attempting to enter in their own event in the oppression olympics. Should there ever be a 'cyborg' culture or 'cyborg'-to-non-cyborg relationship, there would then be real, actionable evidence on the social discrimination, or lack of it, faced by cyborgs. Getting your toys taken away is, like, the worst example when there are counter-examples of transgender individuals that are sacrificing everything- including things like the 'toys' that make up cyborg identity- in order to be identified in their chosen gender. I contend that it is impossible for a 'cyborg' to make sacrifices for their identity- as their identity is defined by having a huge amount of privilege and class structure. We do not apply queer theory to the pain and sacrifices of the aristocracy, after all. Gerund fucked around with this message at 17:20 on Apr 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 17:16
|
|
|
Dusseldorf posted:So what are examples of cyborgs being discriminated against? We have that dude who had a meltdown in the Paris McDonalds. People have made disparaging comments towards Google Glass users at some point in the past. You can't text and drive. What else? People silently judging you. Yes, really: RealityApologist posted:So we're clear, I don't think a theater asking you to shut off your cell phone before a movie is a form of cyborg discrimination. I think judging someone to be an rear end in a top hat because they use a particular device is. -EDIT- This example only applies if you bought the inter-neural thought visualizer upgrade in Chapter 2 before fighting the boss of that stage. Who What Now fucked around with this message at 17:21 on Apr 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 17:17
|
|
|
ryde posted:Uh, wow. You can interpret Eripsa's comparisons between LGBT rights and 'cyborgs' in a way that doesn't technically commit him to distasteful value claims just like you can interpret his comparisons between his work and the invention of chemistry without technically committing him to claiming to be any more than a minor crank doomed to be forgotten in the wake of those who did the real revolutionary work. But in both cases he blithely implies the conclusion people get up in arms about, and his willingness to do this is Exhibit B in the claims that he's either awful communicating or incredibly disingenuous (exhibit A is the OP of any of his threads). Peel fucked around with this message at 17:26 on Apr 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 17:22
|
|
|
Hey Eripsa you want to see some actual loving cyborg discrimination you sheltered lunkhead? How about the employment rate of war vet amputees with prosthetic limbs? You think maybe that's a little more real than me thinking you're an rear end in a top hat because you point Glass at me?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 17:22
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Hey Eripsa you want to see some actual loving cyborg discrimination you sheltered lunkhead? How about the employment rate of war vet amputees with prosthetic limbs? You think maybe that's a little more real than me thinking you're an rear end in a top hat because you point Glass at me? He would refuse to define people with prosthetics or cochlear implants as 'cyborgs', as they are not actually using whiz-bang app-fueled tools (only for rich people, naturally) that would be destructive to their identity if they were taken away; the former is rather just an example of the poors AKA the disabled.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 17:26
|
|
|
Zodium posted:If a meaningful Strangecoin proposal would fill a book, the topics you touch on in that thread would fill an entire library. It's worse than that, because many of the books required for such a library haven't been written, and some of the basic scientific research for writing it hasn't yet taken place. It was claimed in an earlier post that one of the characteristics of cranks is that they compare themselves to Copernicus or whatever, and since I've been talking about paradigm shifts it seems that I fit the mold. But in my analogy to alchemy, I didn't posture as Boyle, as a scientist making cutting edge discoveries that is changing the field. Instead I compared myself to a disgruntled alchemist who was waiting for the paradigm shift to come. I have a very hand-maiden view of philosophy: we're not the ones making the discoveries, we're the ones trying to interpret the results of science and their implications to the issues that matter to us. My model is of Kant commenting on the debates of Newton and Leibniz; although Kant's grasp of the physics was only just passable, the conclusions he draws from these debates represents a turning point in intellectual history. The virtue of Kant's system was how his big picture, comprehensive view spiraled out of these fundamental debates at the core of natural, science. Almost nothing about Kant's system works, and he's wrong about a lot of the science, and the whole framework has been superseded numerous times, and yet his tremendous intellectual labor continues to bear fruit. So I know the devil is in the details, and filling out that library will take generations of dedicated work from serious scientists. And I know that to generate an understanding of those details I have to put in that work. I have done some of that, again primarily in network theory and in agent-based modeling, and these biases are very clear on my work, and I have a long way to go. But I also think that enough of the library has been filled in, and there are enough parts on the table, that we can start thinking about the big picture view again: that genuinely comprehensive framework that unifies not just scientific practice but our knowledge and power itself. I think this trend towards unification, and the importance of networks as a fundamental explanatory device in this unification, is both suggested by the science I've cited but also plain as day in the social and cultural trends over the last decade. The rise of the internet and social networks has made us all a little more competent at thinking in terms of networks and their dynamics, and it is finding application in just about every domain of human life. When you say "keep it simple, stick to what you know, and don't get ahead of yourself"-- and don't get me wrong, that's good advice-- it also has the effect of saying "don't look at the big picture, keep your head down and cloistered with your provincial concerns, and stay in your place." And look, I'm all in favor of serious science and an intellectual division of labor but gently caress that. Everyone in this thread is right that I'm not capable of speaking on behalf of this library of developing knowledge, but no one else is either. And yet there it is, this massive global network that we're all suddenly attached to as if it has always been there. We all know it is there and that it is new and special, and we are all terribly uncertain about what it means or what to do about it. Most of us don't even know where to start to describe our condition; they are confused and bewildered and scared, and that makes them easy pickings for the Singularity theory and other simple myths that make the world seem like a simple place. I'm not interested in simple myths. This is the story of our first steps into the digital age as a global species. It is among the biggest stories we've every told, and it outstrips every one of us in our attempts to tell it. It is a song we all know a few words to, but we're struggling to find the melody to harmonize around. I know a verse or two, and if you hum a few bars I can fake some more, and I'm happy to perform them at open mic night for a general audience until the rest of us can catch the tune and sing along. By the time that happens it might be a different song entirely, and that's okay. It's a beautiful song.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 17:33
|
|
|
That was the worst metaphor I've ever had the displeasure of reading.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 17:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Dec 14, 2025 08:17 |
|
|
eXXon posted:Now I'm not a genius or anything, I just happen to do some coding and know a few things about galaxies, but it seems to me that you start by defining tools as a subset of machines, so arguing that some machines are not tools is semantically impossible and very likely the reason why you haven't graduated yet! The definitions come from the position I'm arguing against. If some machines are not tools, that's an objection to the terms as so defined. This is a knee-jerk, braindead response that shows absolutely no comprehension or effort on your part.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 17:38
|
|