0db532a0

It is not too hard to install a remote ignition system or have one installed.

I would say that ‘herbal tea’ is a valid term, but that whatever is a ‘herbal tea’ is generally not viewed as ‘a type of tea’, and rather, as ‘a type of herbal infusion’. ‘a type of tea’ is generally viewed as ‘type of tea plant and its dried leaves’.

The title could do with more punctuation.

The problem is that because young people in places like London and New York normally live in abject shitholes, they are forced to go out to socialise, which implies drinking and expensive food.

I’ve temporarily moved away from London to somewhere a lot smaller, but I live in a much nicer and bigger place for less than half the price.

I invite people over and am invited over. We talk and things, or sometimes watch something and talk about that. I can make a cup of tea or maybe even coffee, and I don’t have to pay through the nose for it. I can cook for a group for less than the price of a single meal outside.

No one gives a fuck if you’re not drinking in your own home. I’ve been drinking a lot less. It’s a sobering experience.

These are generally known as herbal infusions or tisanes, and not tea.

I don't view it is a refutation either. I meant that the proof destroyed the greater feeling of romance I had towards mathematics.

It would be interesting to see an analysis where the most fundamental results in mathematics are looked at under the light of their discoverers' ideological beliefs and psychologies.

I wonder whether Gödel would have pursued the Proof if he did not believe in an omnipotent god.

Nietzsche pulled his books from his publisher after finding that it published anti-semitic books.

Gödel’s Proof, by Nagel & Newman gives a good explanation for the semi-layman or undergrad coming across this for the first time.

Before picking up this book as an undergrad in pure maths, I still had romantic ideas about a separate platonic universe and the divine authority of mathematics to explain all human thought.

This book, along with studying the various geometries, each with a different choice of axioms not necessarily based in ‘reality’, destroyed the majority of that romance.

I regret being so cynical about this post and the book I mentioned.

It's a really nice book. Lots of beautiful illustrations and interesting ideas with code snippets for generating those illustrations. I found it fascinating as a kid. The message wasn't too important for me, and I didn't really have the background to draw my own conclusions from it anyway.

Someone on IRC, who was a big fan, introduced it to me.

I actually started programming with this very book, copying the examples from it into Python and then Scheme (introduced to me by that same guy) and Common Lisp. I respect Wolfram's dedication. It's the type of dedication that brings us things like Mathematica and TempleOS.

The guy who introduced me to this book and then Scheme had contacts at Wolfram Research and later sorted me out with a free copy of Mathematica. I could never have afforded that with my pocket money, and I wasn't at university yet. He was a big underdog in the community and had his own problems too. What a great guy.

He's still going strong today: http://xahlee.org/

There's something to be taken even from book like this. It would be good to revisit and re-evaluate the book as someone who now has a semblance of an education in the area. I wish I didn't sell it.

Is there anything similarly anonymous with a similar culture on the light or dark web? I guess there is/was Usenet, but that seems to have dried up somewhat. IRC is anonymous, but doesn't have the memory aspect.

Paradigm-shifting ideas. Thanks for posting. Sounds like this could be A New Kind of Science.

Actually I just realised that you avoided the question again, and pulled another of those “no character depth” and “no plot” tricks. I guess it’s a lost cause at this point.

How insensitive and solipsistic of you to assume my time zone. It’s morning here.

McCarthy and the pinkos then, your lot and the alt-right now. Same shit, different bucket. Enjoy it while it serves you.

On the book reviews comment: If you read a few books and also a few book reviews, you'll find two things: These two types of review are most common, and they are written when the author has nothing positive or negative to actually add on the subject of the book. The author just can't be arsed.

The commonality is that these cheap jibes really add no information, they are aimed at derailing a discussion someone doesn't like. You know that, though.

I had never heard of NRx until you mentioned it. I generally try to stay away from selling my identity to a single word, or a set of words.

Yes, I am not a social marxism conspiracy theorist at all. Right and left, it's all the same. You've missed the whole point I have tried to make.

I will rephrase in a more literal way for you to understand, in a way more difficult to avoid: Without resorting to claims of crackpotness, conspiracy theory, sympathising with vocal minorities and Nietzsche's ideas' supposed negative consequences on society, what exactly do you disagree with about using Nietzsche to understand our moral psychology, and specifically about the sources I have given in this post and in my other submissions?

I envy you like I envy god-believers. It must be nice to believe and fit in.

Validating them in the sense of using the ideas as a model to understand our own psychology, and the origins of our moralities. Showing that certain ideas that Nietzsche held around free will and the nature/nurture debate hold up to scientific scrutiny.

What the fuck is NRx, mate? Do you even Wittgenstein [1]? Check you nextly!

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_game_(philosophy)

Easiest trick in the book: Associate any idea you disagree with, with "certain vocal minorities". Works wonders on here and Twitbook. I put this in the same bag as I put book reviews which go along the lines of "characters have no depth", and "no plot".

Is the fact that Nietzsche is still studied and cited in a positive light, that books are written on his works by academics at leading universities including Oxford still not sufficient for you, or is it only Frankfurt types you'll openly associate with?

I suppose really though that this isn't important enough for you to look into; rather you'd prefer to run the party line and maintain your job at Googsoft.

You're right in one respect. I wouldn't expect any different from the mods.

I think I'm going to turn the other cheek on this discussion.

Validation of Nietzsche's ideas in more of a modern, scientific context. Thinking about a person's morality as originating from a person's psychology.

Yeah, just like Einstein and nuclear weapons.

Maybe you should look at the book Moral Psychology with Nietzsche: https://global.oup.com/academic/product/moral-psychology-wit....

The Premium Mediocre Life of Maya Millennial (https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2017/08/17/the-premium-mediocre-l...) was a favourite from Ribbonfarm.

Thanks for posting. I posted the Wikipedia page mainly as a basis for discussion. I am going to have a read. I didn't find such a prescriptive or constructive element in the Wikipedia page, though. See final paragraph in the "Society" section.

Contextualise, under Nietzsche's master-slave moralities, the following topics over which there is an abundance of articles and discussions on HN, posted by people who frequent HN:

Gender/racial equality, language games over gender, rights to be called one name or another, the elusive one percent, supposed rights to privacy and free speech, the right not to incriminate oneself, the pornification/glorification of work, the hustle, start-up culture, premium mediocrity etc.

Have a look into Nietzsche's master-slave morality distinction, and how Christianity falls into it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master%E2%80%93slave_morality. This page is a very short read.

You're right to an extent. I absolutely believe in the utility of humour and satire as ways of illustrating certain ideas and forcing people to think. People on HN especially are much too prudish. These forms can be a lot more effective than a long piece of text.

What I mean, though, is that there's only so much information that a piece of humour or a comic strip can convey.

Also, you have to consider the crowd that xkcd caters to, and the crowd that typical American geek humour such as Big Bang Theory caters to in general.

Existentialism/Nihilism are common themes in geek humour, but negatively: these ideas are quick to be dismissed as edge-lording, and as 8-chan-incelling.

Geek culture and morality relies wholly on the self-supporting idea of science as the one and only source of truth. The geek's first reaction will of course be to dismiss any claim to the contrary, in humour and otherwise.

Gets me thinking: I wonder how good Intel CPUs are with dealing with this sort of thing. Can the CPU detect repeated jumps to comparators and in-line them from there? I’d be interested to see a comparative benchmark.