If someone claims that X is "always"(!) the case, then giving just one example where X is not the case counts as a refutation. The statement that the GP quoted is just obviously false and there is nothing "bad faith" about pointing that out.
There’s not even much argument for it being true in most cases.
Artisan made tools compared to high end tools from a factory are more like a mechanical watch compared to an electronic one. It might be a cool mechanism and a more unique statement piece than an Apple Watch, but it sure won’t keep better time.
One some topics this is realized and praised on HN.
On other topics, the cognition flips.
This is the nature of evolved, culturally conditioned consciousness (one of the things most HN'ers like talking about from an abstract perspective, but really don't like talking about at the object level during discussions of certain controversial ideas, when heuristics have taken control of the mind).
For fun: observe the nature of comments in this thread from a meta perspective of a curious alien observer.
Most of the people here aren't biochemists, hence q "biochemistry = scary untouchable magic" POV. But for those that have done the chemistry in a university setting before and gone on to being professionals in the field, know the plant-based history of the field, as well as the history of synthesizing "stuff" and ingesting it, by certain individuals in the field.
it's important to get the chemistry right, but if you know the failure modes, it's far less of a black box and thus less scary.
Sure, but most people here have technical backgrounds and well above average skills in logic. But prompt them with specific topics, and skill in logic vanishes.
I think this phenomenon itself is very interesting and a huge deal (cognitive ability is what makes us the most dominant species, and is required just to maintain living standards), but also the secondary effect is interesting: the mind does not allow focus to be placed on it.
If you ask me, it is about as close to magic as you can get.
My college chemistry professor said never to ingest anything made in a lab. Thus far, I have followed this rule and I have been fine, not that I have been around any chemistry labs since college.
A chemist broke this rule on YouTube by turning styrofoam into cinnamon candy that he ate himself, but he went through an extreme amount of effort to make it safe:
Yeah! I love NileRed (and blue). To be clear, it's not safe for someone without a lot of training to ingest a chemistry project and even then. Hopefully it didn't read like I was endorsing anyone to do so. Just that there's a history of that which we've walked away from (for good reason!) and that we wouldn't be here without some brave chemists to do the insane thing.
The question if there is such a thing as “truth” (an universally true statement) is probably the hardest philosophical problem in humanities history- of course that is not what we were discussing and for that reason your argument here is also in bad faith
I don't see why the nature of truth is relevant here, unless you are claiming that we can't make deductive arguments about anything ever (I never used the word "truth" in my comment anyway). Also, constant accusations of "bad faith", i.e. dishonesty, are poor debate etiquette and just give the impression that you have no point to make on the object level.
> When doing operations between integers, Ruby will make sure to create a Bignum in case of overflow, to give a correct result.
> Now we can understand why Ruby is slower: it has to do this overflow check on every operation, preventing some optimizations. Crystal, on the other hand, can ask LLVM to optimize this code very well, sometimes even letting LLVM compute the result at compile time. However, Crystal might give incorrect results, while Ruby makes sure to always give the correct result.
> JavaScript took an interesting step by decoupling the core compute language in the JS specification from the IO and event loop which are provided by the host [...]. We take the same approach of decoupling the core compute language, BOSQUE, from the host runtime which is responsible for managing environmental interaction.
So it seems that Bosque doesn't do IO directly, but instead specifies how a given input is mapped to some output.
From what you're quoting and from what you're saying, it seems that Bosque (the core compute language) can indeed receive input from the outside world, even though it comes from the runtime (which Bosque considers the outside world).
Which means that some of the claims I quoted don't seem entirely accurate, and the other one only seems possible if the input (and possibly some state) is recorded...
A isn't making two statements. The (single) statement "I am a knave, but B isn't." is a conjunction that is false because it's right hand side is false.
I find the biggest challenge with these kinds of logic puzzles is in translating from the English (or other human language) into symbolic logic. It's not well-documented and bug-prone. Er, (not well-documented) /\ bug-prone. Not (not (well-documented /\ bug-prone)).
Like the famous Two Guardians riddle: one always lies, the other always tells the truth, you get one question, etc. There's a translation that starts "You have a wire and a NOT gate..." in which the puzzle becomes blindingly obvious. (Details omitted so as not to spoil the puzzle for anyone.)
Once you have developed a facility with the special jargon of logic puzzles and know Prolog, I've found that, while some puzzles become boring ( https://swish.swi-prolog.org/p/Boring%20Sudoku.swinb ), many are still interesting as an art form, much like le demo scene you could imaging puzzle scene and not be too far off metaphorically.
Right - but laws should be based on moral considerations. You can't claim that a certain moral problem is solved just because there is a law that applies to it.
