The singularity is always just around the corner. It's like a whale in a casino. The big reward is always just around the corner. You need to drop a few more coins and soon you will be rich
166 karma · joined April 22, 2024
Such as? I think it really depends on the kind of company you are at (big enterprise, medium size, small company) and the field (web agency, startup, tech company, non-tech company, conglomerate etc). You can have abstractions in Java too.
What does that mean? The company on freefall? The company reversing WFH policies that are in your contract?
You have generalised a huge number of situations into one phrase and implied that employees should suffer it through. Would companies suffer it through "the moment things get difficult" with an employee if they had the chance of not suffering it through? No, they would just fire the employee.
You can only expect reciprocity in a business transaction. And that is what employment is.
- use arbitrary links between signifier and signified
- generate new linguistic tokens (new signifier and signifieds as well as links between them)
- refer to events and times beyond the current ones
- talk about the system of communication itself using the system itself
Then, you would have grounds to think that your cat uses a language in the linguistic sense. But until, then it is just a communication system no matter how sophisticated.
Your cat being a extremely well oiled operant conditioning system does not mean that it is able to think the way you can even if they are likely more intelligent than what we give them credit for because, as much as we would like to believe we do, we don't know what they think and any patterns that we see are just good old human pareidolia. Like hearing voices in the wind, faces on rocks, etc. Your feeling is real but the belief that feeling induces does not have grounds in reality as far as we know so far.
Is there linguistic creativity? ie. you can generate new words to describe things never encountered
Is there metalinguistic reflexion? ie. can you use the language to talk about the language itself?
Can the language allow displacement? i.e. talking about things that are not in the current spacetime point
These are some of the core requirements for a system of communication to be considered a language.
2. You don't need to understand the words to push the buttons. You could replace the English words with gibberish and it would still work as long as you always give the same thing when the same button is pressed. Many animals can do this. It is called positive reinforcement. Nothing to do with language
That's according to you. Just because a few apples disagree doesn't mean there is no consensus.
You might argue that the definition itself is arbitrary and coming from the same place that geocentrism, creationism and flat-Earth views come from. I can't argue for or against that.
I suspect things as more nuanced than the current definition that we have though, especially after the recent study from the Scientific American that heated up Hacker News in a way that only "Is CS a science" articles can.
My point was that your use of "bringing together" in the context of putting it as Columbus achievement when we all know what happened and what he did when he got there was insensitive. You realise that there are people still living under the consequences of that? People have been still been dying because of it in the 90s. It is not some small event that happened a while ago but a huge continent scale massive event that is still reverberating nowadays. In deference to people who are still alive and affected by it, "Connecting" is a neutral term that better conveys what happened without having to add your own moral viewpoint on whether what he did was good.
It was horrific and it would be nice if you acknowledged that the same way you acknowledge the systematic horrors that certain countries did in a certain large scale war the previous century even if science and lots of countries progressed socially, ethical and technologically as a result of it.
I can see this being the case if the codebase wasn't in a good state which is a problem of its own. But with proper separation layers. There is not much you have to update in a net framework 472 library project to move it to a net core library project which should contain most of your logic and be tech agnostic anyway. Most of the work is likely to be in the technology dependent projects (web projects and that kind). The common language features remain virtually unchanged. In a front-end project this is much harder, as that kind of abstraction is much harder to come across as the language and technology are tightly coupled.
In an ideal world, your component logic is tech agnostic and should work unchanged in React, Angular, Vue, etc. But in real life, you write your logic using the relevant tech and then when that tech breaks some keyword or how to do x, your app breaks in 50 components and you have to go and make the change manually in all those 50 components.
That's my point. By "common ancestor" I meant, common ancestor common to them only. That's what I find to be unlikely.
And yes, you are right about this. There is plenty of vids on YT that explain the math
2. You are purposely ignoring that: A) lots of them were unalived by the invaders and this has been going on on a more quieter manner until about 40-30 years ago which is not that long ago B)Columbus himself had to be arrested because even his resource-loving managers were horrified of the things he did there C) whole nations, tribes and cultures were wiped by the invaders D) the remaining natives in the northern bits lost of most of their lands and autonomy
None of this can be considered to be an inevitable result of trade. You can trade with a country without doing any of the above as can be seen by all the other countries that engaged in trade at that time. There is a moral element to all this that you are accidentally or purposefully ignoring. There is no need to compare it to any modern day conflict because even by today standards it was really evil and not all "inevitable".
"humanity coming together" is definitely a positive expression. The cambridge dictionary says "to help people or groups to become friendly or to do something together, especially when they would not usually do this".
And if you look at the user's text the act of "bringing people together" is framed as something morally good/worthy. In this context, our explorer faced many challenges but achieved something good (i.e. bringing people together).
Imagine if we used that term for other horrifying events in history where a group of people unalived a country's worth of another group of people
But we don't because additional precision is not always necessary and in a context of several sub-groups, you would seem to emphasise a difference between them (by referring to the sub-group name) rather than their common name (Christians).
It's just something that I notice a lot in anglo-saxon (see non-Catholics) contexts and almost never outside the anglosphere.
"Probably some kind protestant" surely, it would be Catholic as that's the largest denomination.
But my point is why you need to specify what kind of Christians are you talking about? Or why would you assume that you are talking about a subset of Christians only? Imagine talking about the weather in the western world in terms of city neighbourhoods. Sure, it helps knowing what specific area you are talking about but it seems oddly meticulous. I don't know if this is an anglo-saxon thing as I have seen Brits and North Americans talking in this way. But I haven't seen anyone from Germany, Italy or Spain talking in this way.
I suspect it might be a thing that people raised in non-Catholic countries say because in my experience, Catholics will see all Christians as Christians and not with some othering kind of word (see us-vs-them group dynamics in psychology). That othering emphasises the differences (often used by people that seek to distance themselves from them all despite the commonalities) while using the same word highlights the commonalities (often used by people that embraces them all despite the differences) I notice this non-Catholic pattern of us-vs-them othering in the context of Catalonia and Taiwan too so I suspect it might be an us-vs-them group dynamics thing.