memla

If the goal is to make it simple to run, why not support SQLite?

11 年前議論

Opera has built in tab hibernation that seems to work pretty well: http://www.reddit.com/r/operabrowser/comments/2vkdjr/tab_hib...

memla

12 年前議論

Look, i originally cited that identifying (P⊃◻Q, P) ∴ ◻Q as a fallacy in an argument is an example of refuting that argument without any data. I don't care about your struggles with some random article.

As i said, i don't really want to argue weather that is math or philosophy, especially when i see statements to the effect that affirming the consequent was once philosophy but math "swallowed" it so now pointing out that fallacy means you're doing math and things like that. Talk about imprecise and meaningless right there.

memla

12 年前議論

First example claims that "(p => q, p) so q" is a fallacy by closely squinting at word "must". Second example claims that p => q where ~q => ~p is assumed is also a fallacy because they claim that one word that q consists of spills out and covers whole statement

No it doesn't. You've formalized it incorrectly.

Doesn't matter, i might as well have said that the argument is affirming the consequent and we'd still have a problem since there is a deeper issue here. What you're saying is that the simple acts of either formalizing your arguments or precisely defining your premises somehow turns it into math and precludes it from being philosophy. Yet philosophers do exactly that all the time.

Is that the point you want to argue? Cause i am neither convinced or interested in pursuing it. It would seem to me like a pointless argument about definitions.

memla

12 年前議論

>>It's not that the discussion is simply derailed. It's that it can't even take place until both parties agree on the terminology.

On a theoretical level, this is true for every discussion in every discipline. On a practical level, how would you know that this is a special problem in philosophy if you admit that you haven't studied any?

>>That's the problem. Nearly every word is packed with meaning, which must be unraveled and argued for with... more words.

Just for the record. I did say that arguments are required and of course those arguments are composed of words (and symbols) but i never said that those arguments are about the meaning of words.

memla

12 年前議論

You can't refute an argument without data.

What if i point out that it commits a modal scope fallacy?

What data do you have to refute the statement: "A statement can be refuted without data"?

memla

12 年前議論

But in a philosophical debate, "right" would be quite ambiguous. One party, for example, could posit that the ideas of "right" and "wrong" are completely subjective. That, in the absence of some stated goal or constraints, what's "right" or "wrong", "good" or "evil" is no more valid a topic of debate than whether chocolate ice cream is better than vanilla.However, once you introduce said constraints, the discussion is no longer philosophically interesting.

So, what you're saying is that the problem of philosophy is that someone could derail a discussion concerning ethics by simply asserting meta-ethical subjectivism and that would be uninteresting or bad in some other way...

I don't quite understand this objection. Not to mention that this is exactly the opposite of what you would expect to find in a philosophical debate. The whole point of the discipline is that every position must be argued for and questioned and not just asserted. That of course includes subjectivism.

memla

12 年前議論

Well, holding fallacious beliefs prevents you from arriving at the correct answer. Since philosophers have refuted many fallacious arguments concerning that question they have, therefore, made some measurable progress.

memla

12 年前議論

That's sort of like reading this bash quote: http://bash.org/?574642 and saying "What's so funny about people being shot?!"

memla

13 年前議論

These complaints are ridiculous. Of course philosophy is going to deal primarily with philosophical discussions, and not with scientific ones, that's the job of science!

If you're trying to claim that only scientific ideas are worth entertaining, then the problem is that that claim itself is not scientific.

The commenter you're responding to does not even understand the problem if he thinks science can solve it, as others have pointed out.

memla

13 年前議論

Judging by that TL;DR people would think that there's an article with pages upon pages of what Facebook decided to eliminate from PHP, and not to make it easier but to make it possible to mantain their codebase. No such thing can be found in the provided PDF.

memla

13 年前議論

Things like this and some interesting developments from Facebook concerning them are mentioned in the presentation, so it would be nice if people would actually discuss that. Just a suggestion.

memla

13 年前議論

This already came up on their forum: http://ghost.org/forum/installation/23-is-there-a-quick-star...

memla

13 年前議論

No one who has commented so far seems to have read the article, let alone the more technical ones the author talks about.

memla

13 年前議論

I already answered this below. Anywhere you look in the framework you'll find that it is written in the same manner, so i couldn't possibly find any code that is comparable in style to the python codebase. Yet, it is a full-stack framework, so you can't say it doesn't have any "useful application functionality".

Since the point was to show what kind of code you'll be looking at depending on the choice of your language/framework i think that the examples are appropriate. Which application implements better design patterns is a discussion that goes a little beyond the point of this thread.

memla

13 年前議論

Well, wherever you look you'll find the same thing as the whole framework is written in the same way: specific classes with small methods. And you can't say that the framework as a whole does nothing.

I agree about the python code that it is reasonably readabale, but i still think it's ugly. Those two things are not the same.

memla

13 年前議論

Composer/Packagist[1] is exactly like npm. It's even mentioned in the article.

[1]: https://packagist.org/

memla

13 年前議論

That example is framework specific. Change the php framework to laravel and this:

    $topic = $this->get('model.Topic')->find($topic_id);
    $this->get('guardian')->ensureVisible($topic);

becomes this:

    $topic = Topic::find($topicId);
    Guardian::ensureVisible($topic);

memla

13 年前議論

That really depends on what you're writing and how you are doing it. How is this php[1] code uglier than this python[2] code?

[1]: https://github.com/laravel/framework/blob/master/src/Illumin... [2]: https://github.com/reddit/reddit/blob/master/r2/r2/controlle...

memla

13 年前議論

My statement wasn't meant as a general argument, but was just referring to this specific case - namely, inexpensive fast food. In order for the comparison between American and Yugoslavian work ethic to hold, you'd have to lower the American salaries to the point where they cannot afford McDonald's food. Let's see how that impacts their productivity.

投稿

Taking PHP Seriously [pdf]

コメント