Message from @Thomas the Sowell Train [USA]
Discord ID: 384816660223098891
>A paradox is a statement that, despite apparently sound reasoning from true premises, leads to an apparently self-contradictory or logically unacceptable conclusion.
this might appear like a paradox to someone who doesn't know the subject matter, but like I said, the conclusion to this algorithm is entirely expected for me
Probably every paradox can be reworded in a way that makes the contradiction in the question evident.
>Some paradoxes have revealed errors in definitions assumed to be rigorous, and have caused axioms of mathematics and logic to be re-examined. One example is Russell's paradox, which questions whether a "list of all lists that do not contain themselves" would include itself, and showed that attempts to found set theory on the identification of sets with properties or predicates were flawed.[7] Others, such as Curry's paradox, are not yet resolved.
I'd say that provided the wording of the supposed paradox includes the word "arbitrary" or equivalent, it's not actually a paradox
a paradox is always resolved, by my own definition of the word, like I said, so we don't really agree on the basics of the semantics
which is fine, and almost always the case, it just means I should not have said anything at the outset
So "your definition" of paradox says it's always resolved? No unresolved paradoxes?
I'm not sure why you're asking that now, I made this clear in my 2nd sentence
[1:26 AM] folk: to me, a paradox is when you start with a reasonable preposition or whatever, and then the conclusion is not what you'd expect
like I said, this is always a problem when you're discussing on a higher level than "beer", which is why I started my reply with a caveat or two, and laid out my definition immediately
I think you mean cultural enrichment rates in Sweden, you bigot
How long until filing police reports becomes a hate crime?
it already is in the UK
<:swedenistan:382988769298481152>
another bomb ass dank ass video by 1791L
this one even better than the usual
good lord, I guess Laurier issued a statement about how they "unequivocally" support freedom of expression. Every bit of damage control they've attempted just makes them look more pathetic.
You know what's really missing? A statement from the Canadian Human Rights Commission fessing up that indeed, even talking about it is "violence." Just so everyone can wake the fuck up and chop some heads off.
I love the comments on the video saying Laurier should invite Peterson. YES. DO IT.
Can someone tell me why Democrats are going into bat for John Conyers / Al Franken?
I mean I tend to find the pro-Roy Moore argument of 'well we need to defend him otherwise a Democrat will take his seat' kinda skeevy in of itself, but... If Conyers / Franken got the boot, they'd be overwhelmingly likely to be replaced by... *another Democrat*
Also, speaking of Moore, it kinda fucks the Dems argument against him if they behave exactly the same way that (some) Reps are behaving in regards to defending Moore
Tribalism.
dummyism
Abboism
They don't actually give a shit about women, it's all about political power
Yup
>ideologue
>actually care about people
Hmmm 🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔
Seems to strike on a few of the points I was talking about earlier today
Choice quote:
Here is what Google actually does. Google (and other large enterprises that deliver content to end users – think Netflix, Facebook) maintains its own global network infrastructure, and peers directly with ISPs at internet exchange points. Google explains this in more detail on their own website.
Google is connected to the New York International Exchange (NYIIX) and the London Internet Exchange (LINX). If you go to the websites of either one of these internet exchange points (New York, London) you can see their full list of members.
What does this mean?
This means that Google is not a customer of an ISP. Google simply connects to these internet exchange points, and here it peers with service providers.
This way, Google has far more control over how its content is delivered to users. If Google wants to treat YouTube video packets differently than the packets transferred for uploading Google Docs files, it can.
Net Neutrality laws will not affect Google because Google does not pay transit providers to deliver content to users. It peers with them.
"Google is privy to the fact that smaller companies, competitors, and start-ups bereft of the resources and capital available to build a global network infrastructure and peer with providers, must instead become customers of higher tier service providers to reach end users.
And what better way to stifle competition in the market, than have these smaller companies subject to a bevy of regulations you’re free of."
Ive been trying to get this this throught some peoples 5ft thick skulls recently but they just cant understand it.
No, Net Neutralities protection is for the consumer end of it
so AT&T, Comcast, etc etc, cant see a packet coming from google and say "hey, they arent giving us any money for this, lets slow them down"
be it via route