Comment Re:This is ugly (Score 1) 162
Ugh... You really just don't get it.
Ugh... You really just don't get it.
Misogyny is all the rage in tech, gaming, and rationalist communities. I have no idea why, but I wish they'd tone it down.
Yet RoR is a notoriously poor choice for high-traffic sites.
I think Grishnakh is on to something here...
There really isn't any other reason to get excited about RoR.
I thought that fad was dead?
When did I ever say that being an atheist necessitates additional qualities?
You wrote:
A religious person lacks much of the reasoning ability that scientists require
Which implies that non-religious people do not lack those abilities. But it looks like you got over it, as you contradict that here:
Netwon is arguably on of the smartest men to have ever existed. Newton's religious beliefs do not detract from his brilliance
any opinion I have has to be carefully scrutinized because I understand my brain is not very good at being rational.
I can't argue with that.
A religious person lacks much of the reasoning ability that scientists require
If Slashdot is any indication, most atheists lack that ability as well.
Even your post indicates that you, despite implications to the contrary, have very poor reasoning skills! It's pretty clear that the parent pointing out some very obvious facts that made you uncomfortable, and possibly a little angry. (Look at your first line, how ridiculous does it look to you now?)
Let's be honest here. You just want to feel superior to a majority class. Not only does it make you feel important, it provides you a wonderful excuse for why you're not more famous/successful/whatever: It's those darn religious people keeping superior beings like yourself down! We rationalists should rule over the ignorant masses! Things won't turn out like they did during French Revolution at all! (Those guys weren't true rationalists.)
Being an atheist obviously necessitates no additional qualities, though you irrationally refuse to accept that simple fact. You don't have a special brain, neither are you more rational or more intelligent simply because you're an atheist. Get over it and face reality.
Histories greatest scientists have been predominantly theists, you know. I'll bet you have an impressively twisted explanation to force that fact in to your comforting delusion.
I'm not justifying this "circular" reasoning, just pointing out that it's a core component of "beliefs" for science
Then why make the argument at all? After all, it completely undermines your point!
Why not simply explain that science is necessarily built on a set of assumptions? If you needed to, for your example, you could explain the limits of induction.
This whole thing makes it look like you personally need to justify your acceptance of the principle of the uniformity of nature (though science requires no such justification) even if that means accepting what you presumably know is faulty reasoning. (Why else would you repeat it?)
Assuming that you're perfectly sane, is it that you're just trying to avoid drawing negative attention from the scientifically illiterate "defenders of science"?
Atheism offers shit for consolation on the issue of death. Friends, loved ones, family, parents, children, all of them are just gonna die and turn to dirt. That is a real shit sandwich atheism gives you right there
Atheism gives you no such thing! Though that's what many atheists happen to believe, the simple belief that no gods exist implies nothing about life after death.
Piling on dogmas like that is a sure-fire way to turn atheism in to a religion in its own right.
This belief continues to be born out by an ever-widening body of evidence, but technically it's still just a belief (with an impressive track record).
It looks like you're justifying the uniformity of nature inductively, even though induction depends on the uniformity of nature.
You've clearly read Hume, so you know this already -- and should know better!
Yes, computationalism is long dead. Now, can we stop using the term AI? Keeping the term around serves only to further confuse the general public and decision-makers both public and private. I'd go as far as to say that the continued misuse of the term is precisely what has kept the cranks and con artists in business!
This old chestnut? Really? My dad used to peddle this bullshit to me when I was kid, and I didn't buy it then either.
How long has that joke been going over your head?
Gender is not a monolith, and treating it as such leads to discriminatory indictments lobbed carelessly in both directions (I'm looking at you, feminists).
Oh, you're one of those people. Why am I not surprised?
That's why I keep the bedside clock plugged in to a UPS.
What is alive and well is people who don't understand things so they use an logical fallacy to dismiss it. Yes, I am looking at you.
You should probably look up the term "logical fallacy".
It was a joke, in case you didn't notice. You felt the need to tell me how long you've been doing web development; which I immediately quoted. It's not an uncommon gag. It's particularly funny as you made an obviously absurd statement, to which one would assume that you were new and simply didn't know any better.
Without things like jquery you would be stuck with whole page refreshes just because you wanted to add a row to a form.
See how absurd that statement is? It's not even a tiny bit true! Rather than tell you what I presume you already knew, I made a lighthearted joke. Should I not have done that? Should I have just assumed you were a moron and explained in detail why your statement was foolish?
since you have just gone though all my posts replying to them all seperately
I should reply to them as a group? I don't even know what your expectations would be!
What's your objection anyway? You don't think that jQuery Mobile is too slow for real-world use? You really like jQuery and think that its performance problems aren't a big deal? Or is it that you just like jQuery and think everyone should ignore all the problems?
Whatever else you may say you cannot possibly miss that jquery let you do the same thing but with far few characters being typed.
Savign a few seconds worth of typing isn't exactly a good reason to use a library! If the physically typing code is a bottle-neck in your development process, I'd love to know where you hire!
Most users know fuck all, and even if they do they don't pay the bills in web development, the client does.
They know when an app is slow and clunky. That's why you don't use jQuery Mobile. Of course, it looks like you hate users, so I'm not surprised that you're not concerned about their experience. I'll let you work out the ethics.
I have never had any performance issues with the stuff I have been creating
You'd be the first. Well, or you just haven't noticed.
Maybe if you were having Jquery performance issues it was with very old versions or you were not writing decent code?
I do have objective data to support that assertion. Very simple tasks take significantly longer in jQuery vs. vanilla JS. You can find any number of performance tests online, or even test for yourself with a profiler. You do use a profiler, don't you? If not, start using one!
"Look! There! Evil!.. pure and simple, total evil from the Eighth Dimension!" -- Buckaroo Banzai
