qqq

The one true syntax for type definitions is: don't have special syntax for them. Totally unnecessary. A good general syntax can handle them without a special case.

It's because some people don't like s-expressions, so they've been making up a bunch of other stuff.

There should be :(

but who's counting?

So you're just going by his reputation? I have read about some of his ideas and formed the opinion that they are bad (apart from the one i mentioned).

OK looking them up. Kripke's wikipedia entry is full of stuff about logic. I don't really have a problem with logicians. I don't think they are in the primary philosophy tradition pg was criticizing (and which I don't like). If he learned something about logic from wittgenstein, then great i guess.

Anscombe wiki has:

For years, I would spend time, in cafés, for example, staring at objects saying to myself: "I see a packet. But what do I really see? How can I say that I see here anything more than a yellow expanse?"

I think that stuff is a dead end. We should solve problems we have, not question all traditions simultaneously for no particular reason.

By the way, I do think there are good philosophers, who made useful progress, but they are largely neglected. e.g. xenophanes, godwin, burke, feynman. (neglected as philosophers)

ok. hey i don't seem to have written anything in my profile. how'd u figure that out?

Can't think of anything that sounds impressive and fits in 2 sentences?

But he writes nonsense. What did he ever get right? Besides the obvious point that "we learn language by copying sentences" can't explain where new sentences come from.

Your post had no content. It made a bald assertion that ignored what had been said before. I would genuinely like it if you posted some actual content, and I hoped to indirectly encourage you in that direction. The tone is from a book I've been reading today (The Diamond Age).

That's wonderful. Perhaps you, as a Wittgenstein buff, would be so kind as to explain how the Wittgenstein quote I gave above, which at first glance appears to be nonsense, is in fact respectable and worthwhile thinking? I don't get it; enlighten me.

How did his nonsense contribute to other people writing sense? Who was influenced by Wittgenstein then wrote sense?

You're saying Wittgenstein is part of reformed philosophy, not bad philosophy?

I don't know about that:

http://www.uweb.ucsb.edu/~luke_manning/tractatus/tractatus-j...

1 The world is everything that is the case. * 1.1 The world is the totality of facts, not of things. 1.11 The world is determined by the facts, and by these being all the facts. 1.12 For the totality of facts determines both what is the case, and also all that is not the case. 1.13 The facts in logical space are the world. 1.2 The world divides into facts. 1.21 Any one can either be the case or not be the case, and everything else remain the same.

Ah, the scrollbar gets centered vertically on the current line. Got it.

250 to change top bar color

Could you explain ^L more clearly? I tried it and nothing happened.

Help! My screen is inverted now, but he didn't include an undo command. What do I do!? I already tried cmd-z. Do I have to restart?

Gonna read more Feynman and Popper.

You say jsomers is defending analytic philosophy in this section.

Later jsomers says philosophy was bad but has reformed.

So on the one hand he defends old philosophy. And on the other he claims philosophy was bad, but is OK now because it has reformed. These defenses are incompatible.

The guy says:

"The simplest flaw in PG’s account is its scope: it implicates most philosophers up to the present"

That's what he's trying to argue with, and that is PG's claim (not that all philosophy is worthless). But then he simply concedes at the end, like he forgot his own thesis.

How is it well argued? He concedes that pg is right about most philosophy in the conclusion section. He protests, protests, protests, then concedes. lol. His conceding does come with an assertion that philosophy came clean recently, but he doesn't bother giving some citations for that. Which philosophers admitted philosophy was mostly junk? Who came clean? What did they do to fix it?

What does that mean?

Claims philosophers do useful stuff but doesn't mention the best example: Karl Popper (who most philosophers don't like because he had the audacity to actually solve a philosophical problem!)

Meanwhile, fails to distance himself from Wittgenstein, and responds to pg's claim that philosophers argue semantics by defending it! (BTW Popper is one of the philosopher who does not argue semantics.)

ruby syntax can be a little confusing. e.g. you can usually leave out parenthesis, but not always, and sometimes you get warnings but it works anyway.

My first day of programming in college I read the syllabus and told the teacher I'd already done everything on it. They let me switch to the next class.

you didn't even write it in all lowercase.

Props on content-limited trial. Time-based trials suck. With time trials, half the time I download it, use it for a day, then want to try it again 3 months later but can't.

"The only hard and fast requirements for consideration are a strong programming background (any language(s)) and some experience in AI and/or machine learning."

We only need 0.01% of the population to make changes, and not very fast, and they will eventually transform the world to the point it's hard for others to ignore.

If people knew they would live for millions of years, I'm confident some of them would get around to changing their policies a bit to allow for some gradual changes.