> These theories are flawed in the sense that they cannot account for subjective experience and agency, amongst other things.
That agency or free will exists outside of our subjective experience is an assumption; does any given theory need to explain agency, or is it sufficient to explain that we feel we have agency?
The point is that if you have a 10% chance of frying motherboard, at 10 a week, you might expect 1 fried p/w, but it could easily be more which may be catastrophic.
At 1000, the number of fried boards will be more predictable and therefore the risk to the business is lower, even if the long-run averages are the same.
Hypothetically speaking, if people in the last group were right, and that is the logical conclusion to be reached from careful evaluation of the evidence, wouldn’t the other positions indeed be ones of wilful denial of the state of the climate?
> This isn’t some hipster nostalgia trip or a flip phone for people who think the 90s were peak civilization. This is something way cooler. A phone that gives you back something we didn’t even realize we’d lost. The ability to actually, truly, shut the hell up.
> As an example: I'm autistic and I learn inside-out, building larger new concepts out of smaller existing ones; those with Asperger's on the other paw, learn outside-in instead, breaking down larger existing concepts into smaller new ones; both are part of the "autism spectrum", but differ very fundamentally.
This is a really interesting observation - can you expand on this a bit more, please? How did you first notice this distinction?
When, for example, learning a new concept in math or physics, what would outside-in look like vs inside out? Would you characterise neurotypical learning in one way or the other?
The problem (in my opinion) is that Python gives you the tools (and perhaps even encourages you) to write code that would benefit from typing.
It's perfectly feasible to write maintainable, well-designed code in a dynamic language. I've worked with some extremely robust and ergonomic Clojure codebases before, for example. However, in Clojure, the language pushes you into its own "pit of success".
That agency or free will exists outside of our subjective experience is an assumption; does any given theory need to explain agency, or is it sufficient to explain that we feel we have agency?