= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Eh. In some subcultures people use that word in their own way. The more options you offer, the more people of various subcultures will be your clients.
What's the expected ROI for making all this effort to accommodate a tiny minority? And what of the ethical implications concerned with enabling what could very well be a mental illness?
In response to
The horrifying importance of domain knowledge
LWers try to figure things out from relatively simple principles
If you only do this you are going to fail. This is why Aristotle got physics so badly wrong, right? Reasoning has to be a cyclical process of compressing complex realities into sets of simple principles and only then are you licensed to decompress those principles into making statements about reality.
critical thinking is a buzzword
Atheism can be legitimately viewed as a lack of belief
Not quite, that goes by the name of agnosticism. An atheist answers the question "Do gods exist?" by saying "No".
You've probably tested your belief in the lethality of long drops partially by falling out of trees as a child
The results of all these tests point out that falls are not lethal, of course :-P
Provisionally accepting your distinction between atheism and agnosticism, in what way is the former useful and the latter not?
The results of all these tests point out that falls are not lethal, of course :-P
That's where an untested auxiliary belief figures in - "if something hurts in proportion to variable x (i.e. the height of the drop), experiencing that thing when x is very large will probably kill you".
That's basically the Duhem-Quine spiel right? Which is why strict falsificationism doesn't quite work. But that's not to say a weaker form of falsificationism can't work: a network of ideas is useful to the degree that nodes in the network are testable. A fully isolated network (such as a system of theology) is useless.
in order to qualify as a useful belief to hold, it must be testable.
Atheism..?
And if it's testable, you should test it.
I believe that jumping off tall buildings without a parachute is a bad idea. Should I test it?
Atheism can be legitimately viewed as a lack of belief, if you properly hedge your claims about whether or not it's possible for gods or other ethereal beings to exist.
Also testing a belief doesn't necessarily mean testing it in full. You've probably tested your belief in the lethality of long drops partially by falling out of trees as a child (or at least, I did).
In response to
Test Driven Thinking
What exactly separates this from general critical thinking?
In response to
Bayesian Reasoning - Explained Like You're Five
Explained like you're five, and high on the spice Melange.
In response to
comment
by
on
Should you write longer comments? (Statistical analysis of the relationship between comment length and ratings)
I think some of my most-researched comment / posts have gotten relatively few replies. The more thorough you are, the less room there is for people to disagree without putting a decent amount of thought in. On the other hand, if you dash out a post without much fact-checking, you'll probably get lots of replies :).
In response to
comment
by
on
Should you write longer comments? (Statistical analysis of the relationship between comment length and ratings)
If your comments are that watertight perhaps you should spin them into articles?
In response to
Should you write longer comments? (Statistical analysis of the relationship between comment length and ratings)
Upvotes are in my opinion a poor metric to measure the quality of a post. You're confusing information on how insightful, thoughtful or useful your writing is with information on how pleasing it is due to the upvoter due to providing social confirmation of their beliefs or entertaining them for other reasons.
A much more useful way to measure the quality of your own writing is to look at how interesting or thoughtful the replies you get are: this shows that people find your ideas worth engaging with. This is a subjective assessment however that can't be captured by the real line.
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
A lot of programmers believe they can parse HTML at all.
Go read the official W3C parser algorithm, I'll wait. First thing you'll notice is that there is no formal grammar - the spec is of the actual parser state machine. Then you notice each past-and-present HTML version has its own parser algorithm spec, and there is no official documentation on the differences between them, never mind rationale. Then you realize that HTML5 is now a "living spec", so the parser algorithm at that link occasionally changes, and past versions and changelogs are deliberately not published...
HTML is a parseable format like PHP is a programming language. There is no spec, there is only whatever bugs and quirks a particular browser version happens to contain.
(Oh, you thought browsers actually follow any of those published W3C specs? HAHAHAHAHA sob.)
HTML is indeed a turd of a standard.