It really shows you directly how it’s okay for the people in power to wield violence, but it’s not okay to even defend yourself from it, doesn’t it?

And yes, I know the definition of a state. It’s just so incredibly blatant

Everything is, or will be, available in torrents. Once it’s spread, we are all Anna’s archive

You can’t kill a decentralized entity. What matters is just getting the information out there by any way possible, and thus it will stay out there

Pretty sure it’s like insanely bad for you. It might straight up cause brain damage

So yeah, just smoke weed instead

While you’re right, it’s also funny to say that god was a software developer under deadline pressure

That’s a diagram from the same article, actually

At least, assuming there is a future, they will be vindicated. Future generations will greatly appreciate finding archives such as this.

Yeah, users might get a bit upset about “abrasive devs” but like, as you said, it’s devs that give their free time and energy into developing the project. Users honestly ought to respect that a lot more

The big bang part is interesting, because, if humans become successful and manage to somehow make some sort of long-lasting archive that would survive on universal scales, we would be the ancients with old revelations to a potential future species. Able to impart knowledge that would have been undetectable for them, and an ancient map of the stars containing visions of countless other galaxies, and a peek into the very beginnings

Though, realistically, it’s likely that a hypothetical hyper-advanced technological species would have their ways of prodding the true nature of our universe, despite the greater challenges

Quick question, are you disabled yourself?

Wich turned it basically into an US exclusive product, and pretty much impossible to get outside of there

Maths is so much more malleable and abstract than what you think it is. You really do not understand maths as well as you think you do, and I feel a bit sad for any student of yours that would wish to explore some deeper revelations of maths, just to be told “nope! That’s just how it is!” with no further thinking at all.

A lot of maths is chosen. Choices with good motivation, but choices nonetheless. So long as there not being contradictions or paradoxes, the formulation of a form of math is valid. Which is why you have different forms of maths with different rules.

And you really could use some more humility, it’s obnoxious when you act all so high and mighty and arrogant, with no interest in questioning your assumptions. Devolving into ridiculing the person you’re discussing with and a general vibe of “omfg I’m right you fucking idiot because I’m right how dumb can you get??”

Like, what is it that you want here, a book from the 700s of the one dude that invented arithmetics and told clearly “I chose this.”? You are making your arguments effectively unfalsifiable by just going “Nuh uh” all the time.

Get some humility and learn a bit about the foundations of maths. Like. Down to set theory. See for yourself what actually is the foundation. And, spoiler, it’s not a high school textbook. Hopefully I do not need to tell you how concepts are simplified for younger students, instead of overwhelming them with the complete knowledge of a subject.

I mean, it is pretty clear here that you do not really understand the purpose of notation, nor what maths is. Notation is just a constructed language to convey a mathematical idea, it’s malleable

And yeah, it’s easy to just say “this page is wrong!” without any further argument. Nothing you referenced proved the convention as law, and neither is there any mathematical basis for any proof, because it simply is nonsensical to “prove” a notation. Have another source for this being convention https://www.themathdoctors.org/order-of-operations-why/ or https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/884765/mathematical-proof-for-order-of-operations. If you want a book about this, then there’s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronshtein_and_Semendyayev that is cited by wikipedia. I’m sure you could also find stuff about this in a set theory book. Though good luck understanding them without sufficient experience in high-level maths

Really though, maths is so much more than “3+5=8 because that’s the correct answer!” But why is it the correct answer? In what context? What is the definition of addition? How can you prove that 1+1=2 from fundamental axioms? This is harder to answer than you might think.

That’s a very simplistic view of maths. It’s convention https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_operations

Just because a definition of an operator contains another operator, does not require that operator to take precedence. As you pointed out, 2+3*4 could just as well be calculated to 5*4 and thus 20. There’s no mathematical contradiction there. Nothing broke. You just get a different answer. This is all perfectly in line with how maths work.

You can think of operators as functions, in that case, you could rewrite 2+3*4 as add(2, mult(3, 4)), for typical convention. But it could just as well be mult(add(2, 3), 4), where addition takes precedence. Or, similarly, for 2*3+4, as add(mult(2, 3), 4) for typical convention, or mult(2, add(3, 4)), where addition takes precedence. And I hope you see how, in here, everything seems to work just fine, it just depends on how you rearrange things. This sort of functional breakdown of operators is much closer to mathematical reality, and our operators is just convention, to make it easier to read.

Something in between would be requiring parentheses around every operator, to enforce order. Such as (2+(3*4)) or ((2+3)*4)

The rules are socially agreed upon. They are not a mathematical truth. There is nothing about the order of multiple different operators in the definition of the operators themselves. An operator is simply just a function or mapping, and you can order those however you like. All that matters is just what calculation it is that you’re after

I mean, dogs and cats can have mental illnesses or disorders, it’s just that they tend to be less impactful due to them being, well, pets. They have no responsibilities

From what I know, they can have traits reminiscent of human autism

It is life, but it’s not a multicellular life. Aka, it’s no more advanced than a single bacteria

Be kind as a starting point, but don’t force yourself to be kind if they’re not kind back. Tit-for-tat game strategy

But starting out with kindness is crucial. As well as being kind again if they start being kind. You must give people the benefit of the doubt

It’s no coincidence that this game theory strategy is highly effective in practice. You could even say that this is the foundation of human society and success

I’m pretty similar to this. And I also didn’t expect to follow relationship anarchy

In the end, I was just following along towards the logical conclusion of what I thought of relationships, and what felt right to me. And maybe it’s because I already look at the world from an anarchist lens, but as you said, if there’s any issue with a partner, then that is between them and me, and I don’t feel like it’s necessarily relevant for me what is happening between them and someone else (so long as they’re like, decent enough people that I’m okay associating with)

Paradoxically, it makes me feel safer in a relationship. I know they’re not just with me out of a sense of obligation, but because they genuinely enjoy bring with me, same way a friend is. They’re not beholden to some social contract, and are perfectly free to pursue another connection in addition to ours if they feel it’s right. And same for me. It means that I don’t have to feel like I have to artificially stop myself if I meet someone I like. It’s liberating. It’s what I could describe as a feeling of freedom. But of course, freedom does not mean freedom from responsibilities. It doesn’t give you the right to neglect people

Then there’s things like, not having all your eggs in your basket, or having people who engage with different aspects of yourself, and so on. Though that’s less central

But of course, there’s practical limits. We don’t have infinite time or energy. Freedom only goes so far. But it’s important to me that I don’t feel restrained by social concepts of how a relationship should look like, but rather from simply what me and a partner would want in one. And freedom does have a price. It’s not freedom for everyone, and it is less stable. It’s just that for me it’s worth it, and feels quite right

We have discovered over 6000 exoplanets in total, and over 100 in this year. I’d be surprised if you knew of all of them

God I wish discord just stuck to being a straightforward app without any of the fancy fluff that’s just not needed. I hate the super-flashy things that obscure visibility and divert your attention so much

But it’s what they sell to people, and a minority seems to really like so