@Capital_Room's banner p

Capital_Room

rather dementor-like

0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2023 September 18 03:13:26 UTC

Disabled Alaskan Monarchist doomer


				

User ID: 2666

Capital_Room

rather dementor-like

0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2023 September 18 03:13:26 UTC

					

Disabled Alaskan Monarchist doomer


					

User ID: 2666

Underlying our approach to this subject is our conviction that "computer science" is not a science and that its significance has little to do with computers. The computer revolution is a revolution in the way we think and in the way we express what we think. The essence of this change is the emergence of what might best be called procedural epistemology—the study of the structure of knowledge from an imperative point of view, as opposed to the more declarative point of view taken by classical mathematical subjects. Mathematics provides a framework for dealing precisely with notions of "what is". Computation provides a framework for dealing precisely with notions of "how to".

Harold "Hal" Abelson, Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs

Or then there's this piece (from one B. Jacobs) back in 2005: ""Computer Science" is Not Science and "Software Engineering" is Not Engineering"

If the software discipline is "science", then the scientific process should be available to settle arguments. But it seems to fail. Some suggest that instead it is "engineering", not "science". But engineering is nothing more than applied science. For example, in engineering, bridge designs are tested against reality in the longer run. Even in the short run, bridge models can be tested in environments that simulate reality. Simulations are a short-cut to reality, but still bound to reality if we want them to be useful. If a bridge eventually fails, and the failure is not a construction or materials flaw, then what is left is the engineering of the bridge to blame. An engineer's model must be tightly bound to the laws of physics and chemistry. The engineer is married to the laws whether he/she wants to be or not.

But we don't have this in software designs for the most part. We have the requirements, such as what the input and output looks like and the run-time constraints which dictate the maximum time a given operation is allowed to take. But there is much in-between these that is elusive to objective metrics.

So, if physical engineering is really science ("applied science" to be more exact), but software design does not follow the same pattern, then what is software design? Perhaps it is math. Math is not inherently bound to the physical world. Some do contentiously argue that it is bound because it may not necessarily be valid in hypothetical or real alternative universe(s) that have rules stranger than we can envision, but for practical purposes we can generally consider it independent of the known laws of physics, nature, biology, etc.

I don't particularly have one for much of anything cultural or political except "wait for our Augustus." But just because I, personally, don't have a specific plan for accomplishing the triumph of the Tragic Vision over the Utopian Vision, doesn't mean it can't happen.

Do you think scientific advances will stop?

Eventually, yes.

We have barely scratched the surface of what is possible.

How do you know that? How do you know we haven't already accomplished ~90% of what's possible?

In 10,000 years, assuming we don’t collapse our society and technology continues to progress

I, for one, think these are both big, unsupported conjectures.

Then Europe wasn't constantly "tearing itself apart in holy wars," but only doing so part of the time.

2. knows that the intent of the alleged misinfo was to deceive or bullshit.

AIUI, this is the characteristic of disinformation. From dictionary.com "“Misinformation” vs. “Disinformation”: Get Informed On The Difference":

Misinformation is “false information that is spread, regardless of intent to mislead.” Put a flag in the second half of this definition; it will be important later.

The spread of misinformation happens often in our everyday lives. We human beings—news flash—are not perfect. We can all make mistakes. We all forget things. We mishear or misremember details. We tell our friends something we heard on TV or saw on social media that wasn’t really true. If you are spreading around information that is wrong but you don’t know it is wrong, then you are, well, technically, spreading misinformation.

Disinformation means “false information, as about a country’s military strength or plans, disseminated by a government or intelligence agency in a hostile act of tactical political subversion.” It is also used more generally to mean “deliberately misleading or biased information; manipulated narrative or facts; propaganda.”

So, disinformation is misinformation that is knowingly (intentionally) spread. Our first definition of this word gives one major reason why a person or group might want to spread wrong information, but there are many other nefarious motivations lurking behind the creation of disinformation.

My personal favorite in this area, though, is "malinformation."

So, the smaller post-Reformation conflicts leading up to the Thirty Years War?

What about the many, many centuries before the Reformation? Europe wasn't exactly "tearing itself apart in holy wars" then, now was it? It still looks to me like Europe has spent a minority of the last couple millennia in "holy wars" — certainly not enough time to deserve the term "constantly."

Would you be opposed to this in your city/town

Yes, because I live in Anchorage, Alaska; the length variation in the solar day across the year is just too big. It's also why DST is kind of pointless for us in the summer. For example, the official sunrise and sunset times (AKST) for Dec. 15 this year are 10:00 AM and 3:40 PM — If you work a 9-5 job, you don't see the sun. Go half a year to June 15, and with DST you've got dawn at 4:21 AM and sunset at 11:40 PM — without DST, these would be 3:21 AM and 10:40 PM.

Wouldn't the counter-argument be that, prior to the invention of liberalism, Europe was constantly tearing itself apart in holy wars?

Other than the Thirty Years War (1618-1648), what other "holy wars" do you have in mind, such that "Europe was constantly tearing itself apart"?

Till now I have not actually seen any lefties consider that maybe the unwashed normie masses had actually listened to what the left had been saying nonstop since 2016, and that the message was rejected on its own merits.

I have been seeing this in online circles — by people who consider anyone who understands and knowingly rejects the democrat party message is a Fascist in need of reeducation:

Maybe its the way i speak and act but like i dont think tumblr liberals realize that re education camps, or rehabilitation of you want a less scary word is like the least extreme way to deal with nazis, fascist and right wingers. As ive said before, if you cant reeducate fascists and right wingers then you have to get rid of them. Now there are many ways to get rid of facists and roght wingers but i would advocate for firing squad because if you let them live then they will become a problem again.

If you cant convince facists and right wingers to not be Fascists and right wingers, then you got to deal with them in other more permanant ways. Think on that.

Where do you think the word "Roma" came from?

From Sanskrit or a related Indo-Aryan language, possibly from an earlier Dravidian or Munda borrowing. From here:

From Romani roma, plural of rom (“man, husband, Romani man”). The latter probably comes from Sanskrit डोम्ब (ḍomba, “lower-caste person working as a wandering musician”), which may have been borrowed from a Dravidian language.[1] Folk etymology pointed to a legend that the ethnic group were an exiled people from Imperial times.

And from "Romani:"

From Romani romani, feminine form of romano (“of or pertaining to the Roma”), from rom (“man”). See also Roma.[1]

Not related to Romanian.

See also the related Domari and Lomavren languages, spoken by the Dom and Lom ethnic groups (the former "scattered across the Middle East and North Africa," and the latter in the Caucasus), with "Dom" and "Lom" both cognate to Romani "Rrom/Řom/Rom" (spelling systems vary) — it comes down to how the respective languages changed the Indo-Aryan retroflex stops.

Here, I find myself linking Wikipedia's page on "antitheatricality" and noting that it wasn't just the Romans, but a perennial bit of wisdom "as old as theater itself." And, while Wikipedia limits itself to the West, I recall periods of Chinese history with similar attitudes, as well as some interesting bits in the history of kabuki in Japan.

Not sure what's up with the bizarre censorship of God to make it look like a swear word.

This is, IME, a habit of many Jews, and also some varieties of Protestant Christians, in line with the "thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain" commandment.

(And a quick check confirms that Benioff is indeed Jewish.)

But, in reply to your general point, I'd hold that this is all just "vibes," and vibes aren't terribly meaningful. I'll point primarily to Keith Edwards's "Delay, Leak, Disobey: How to Counter Trump 2.0 from Within," but also Yarvin's three pieces "It's easy from here," "It's not easy from here," and "Chevron and the professional Republicans," on why Trump's second term will not be much more successful than his first.

If you want you can try Bostromian Simulation Argument big-tent syncretism

Even more ridiculous than classical theism, and more useless than classical Deism, which, IIRC, a number of 18-19th century thinkers pointed out was a sort of "gateway religion" to outright atheism (because a god who doesn't answer prayers might as well not exist).

If I imagine that I didn't know that a church is more responsive than the government

It would be more responsive for you, as someone returning to a childhood faith. But if you were an atheist who'd grown up atheist, would it still be "more responsive"?

I hope I don't need to point out that this is a hard sell to anyone in the information age.

I'd say you do, actually. Are you familiar with Thomas Sowell's A Conflict of Visions? Because what I'm describing is part of Sowell's "Tragic Vision," which he holds as defining the right, in contrast to the left's "Utopian Vision." And even now, 37 years after that book was published, there are still plenty of people who hold the Tragic Vision.

It's not everyone, but I get plenty of "you don't seem like the type" and incredulity.

And I'm saying I've never seen this, ever.

I'm not referring to any sort of legally required reasoning defense.

I didn't think you were. I'm saying that in my experience, there's absolutely no reason you'd ever need to even socially defend your gun ownership to anyone, and there's no need to ever be "a closeted gun owner," because here in Alaska, nobody is going to give you shit for owning a gun.

Sorry about that; trying to get Youtube links out of my browser history (Safari) can be a pain at times, with the way the queue ends up working. Hopefully fixed this time. Thanks for pointing it out.

People facing up to the reality of what that means would look a lot more radical than people whining about whores on X. Historically speaking.

What sort of historical examples do you have in mind here?

But we will never stop dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good.

Why not? Were people in the Middle Ages doing so? Or did they hold that

The rich man in his castle, The poor man at his gate, God made them, high or lowly, And ordered their estate.

And that the world is fallen, we are barred from Eden by the sin of Adam, the poor we will always have with us, and perfection will only be in the Kingdom to come?

People have always worked to make things a little better, but they accepted that some things are just facts of life, that cannot be changed, only endured. Only with the "Enlightenment" did the West really start trying to immanentize the eschaton.

Why can't we reverse this? Why can't we get back to people accepting that parts of life, including the government from time to time, are simply going to suck, and that's just how it will always be?

Much as with the medieval era, it seems like a total civilizational collapse back into barbarism and pre-industrial technology would probably do the trick, so why not something less extreme?

What is it like to be a bat? Why unique to brains at all? What is it like to be a tree?

Impossible to know. We cannot ever know the experience of being any sort of thing other than our particular selves.

Connect two or more "conscious" information systems

The only known "conscious" information systems are human minds, and there's no real way to "connect" them — except imperfect channels like language — such as to form a "resulting system."

And none of this undermines materialism or points to the existence of any kind of higher power, nor any kind of afterlife.

Fact remains that there exists a coherent group of the online right that is more "woke" than it is "right"

Yes, but that's not who I see the "woke right"/"woke fascist" label being aimed at. Plus, as Parvini particularly pointed out in going over the Lindsay Triggernometry video, much of what Lindsay describes as "woke" is simply doing politics, and further, that several of the positions he criticizes the "woke right" for holding are ones that are supported by his own past writings (particularly the way modern academia crushes dissent).

Is there anything stopping you from passably faking a Christian reawakening?

Well, first, it would need to be a "Christian awakening" that I'd need to fake, not a "reawakening."

But more directly, the same thing that kept me from passably faking being left-wing, no matter how much it might have improved various prospects in my life — being too much on the autism spectrum to believably fake feelings and conceal my true beliefs. That and integrity, like @KingOfTheBailey says.

and the lower end of his strike zone is about 32 as of today.

Yeah, that's a big point I have to keep reiterating and try to get people to understand, whenever they come at me with the "you're a man, you're never biologically too old to become a father the way a woman ends up being" bit.

You don't have the capacity for religious belief?

I am an atheist materialist. There is no God, no "soul," no afterlife; just spacetime, quantum fields, etc. And none of the apologetics I've read, nor religious people I've talked to, have ever convinced me otherwise. I'm saying I'm not capable of perceiving the universe in any other way.

Kind of rules out any religion I've ever heard of, no?

Your purpose is to fix this. Are you sure there's nothing else you could be doing to improve your standing with regards to these problems?

This is something I've gone over in this forum plenty of times, and I'm sure the regulars are all pretty tired of it.

US governments offer a pretty good safety net to anyone who is willing and capable of (a) accurately filling lots of forms, (b) letting go of all of one's earthly possessions, and (c) waiting up to several years if necessary.

As someone on said safety net, can confirm.

My atheism in particular, and my non-belonging-to-a-church in general, are luxuries indicative of a life lacking in severe shocks.

Perhaps, but you are also "fortunate" here in having a church to "return" to. Imagine growing up irreligious, with parents who don't attend a church of any kind. Would "church first, then government safety net" still be your ordering in seeking help?