Chances are that you spend more time than that feeling resentful that the big bad strangers on the internet don’t feel even a pang of shame just because you told them to.
> but I can’t understand deciding it’s ipso facto irrelevant because you’re a programmer.
The negation of “everyone should know this” is not “no one should know this”. I can understand that someone would protest to a claim about how “everyone should X” by giving a blanket statement like “no I shouldn’t”, but I interpret that as hyperboly in this case.
Chomsky has explained that the counter-culture of the 60’s was viewed as the “crisis of democracy” by the Trilateral Commission. An excess of democracy: special interests like women, the elderly, environmentalists, ethnic minorities, and so on were trying to enter the public arena. In short: the general population.
(What is a non-special interest? Business interests.)
It is completely illogical to immediately conclude that people who are complaining and pointing out that things are not right are necessarily themselves the cause of all that strife. Maybe they were responding to antecedent causes?
> EDIT: I think the guy who started Huawei said something to the effect of when you are a millionaire, you only care about yourself, but when you are a billionaire, you are all the sudden responsible for a lot of people. I wish that attitude permeated our business schools and boardrooms.
That’s what the poors need; noblesse oblige oligarchy.
Cost to whom? Imagine all the lost revenue if people would have a rational basis to trust each other more. Less transactions due to more informal exchanges must mean lost revenue to someone.
> You may speak as you will, I do not deny that the current usage of the word “man” has acquired a secondary meaning of “adult male human” opposed to it's historical meaning of “human" and if you wish to use it as such, then I'm confident I can usually discriminate by context.
Not terribly pertinent, then. One is more likely to fall into conversations about mundane topics with uneducated people than to stumble upon existential conversations with educated philosophers, even though the latter might produce a large corpus.
One would also think that “man is evil” would be preferred by the erudite philosopher to the more ambigious “men are evil”, although one can never overestimate the fondness that an educated person might have towards pedantry, frankly.
Shooting yourself and then later going out to lunch is simply impossible; it is not a paradox.
A paradox is when two contradictory things are true at the same time.
The grandfather problem is a paradox if time travel is possible. If it isn’t possible then it is simply an impossibility.
> And for largely the same reason: both scenarios violate causality, so the universe can't be shaped that way.
So you agree that time travel is impossible. Great... we agree. However I was discussing this with someone who apparently thinks that it is concievable... I wasn’t merely making up impossible scenarios; I was demonstrating how their theory gives rise to paradoxical scenarios.