> Note that philosophy is distinct from the history of philosophy. If you care about what is true, and not the historical development of ideas, there's not much point in reading things written before, say, 1900, or even 1950. So no Hume or Hegel or whatever. In general these texts are poorly written and unclear compared to modern ones. And of course, they can't treat the developments that have taken place in the intervening years. Consider an analogy: you would not read Newton's original manuscripts to learn calculus.
This type of view is extremely common amongst students of analytic philosophy. The "problem" approach to philosophy.
IMO Reading Plato, Aristotle, Hegel, Heidegger, etc. and other thinkers deemed outdated and unworthy is absolutely a good use of time for anyone interested in Philosophy. This post is actually the first time I've ever heard anybody suggest not reading Hume.
Well, yeah, it was an analytic department. I also happen to think that's the "right" view.
To clarify, I don't think reading the original texts is a bad use of time if you're already in deep, just that it's not good for a first introduction (for the reasons I mentioned). Plato was simply confused about a ton of things and makes egregious errors while reasoning through ideas. We don't read him because he was right, we read him for other reasons.
I can't possibly see reading Hegel being a good idea for a beginner. It'll just lead to thinking philosophy is intentionally obtuse. He's basically impossible to parse without taking a philosophy course. http://existentialcomics.com/comic/281
Yes, as a philosophy major, I also agree that anything that is not 20th century philosophy is not really that helpful. It can be interesting academically, to trace the evolution of philosophy, but it won't really scratch that itch of engaging in the big questions.
The biggest value I got out of being a philosophy major was building reading concentration skills - being able to read dense passages takes a lot of commitment and practice, and that can build thinking skills. The internet teaches us to skim and do fast/shallow reading, which doesn't lead to deep thinking. Reading older philosophy is a great way of building those deep reading skills, even if the actual content of those texts is not applicable to modern life.
To the OP, if you see this, I would suggest looking into Experimental Philosophy. It's a branch of philosophy that focuses on using neuroscience to understand how we think about the world. Books like Thinking Fast and Slow may be much more interesting to you.
I seem to perhaps be in the minority here, but I got onto the slow ring just for WSL2 and it has been excellent so far. I am primarily a Ruby developer and things just work.
You deserve to be at the bottom, because how dare you!?
It is known that buying and going through the 4 week anti-procrastination program from deprocrastination.co instead of doing real work for 4 weeks helps you not procrastinate. Dothraki choir: "it is known".
Dinit has been booting my own system for a long while, and other than a
few hiccups on odd occasions it’s been quite reliable.
Ok, compared to Systemd it lacks some features. It doesn’t know anything
about Cgroups, the boot manager, filesystem mounts, dynamic users or
binary logging. For day-to-day use on my personal desktop system, none
of this matters, but then, I’m running a desktop based on Fluxbox and
not much else; if I was trying to run Gnome, I’d rather expect that some
things might not work quite as intended (on the other hand, maybe I
could Elogind and it would all work fine… I’ve not tried, yet).
On the plus side, compared to Systemd’s binary at 1.5mb, Dinit weighs in
at only 123kb. It’s much smaller, but fundamentally almost as powerful,
in my own opinion, as the former.
I applaud the OP for writing a new init system, and in light of that, the few paragraphs above serve as a good counterpoint to everyone writing how systemd does too much, is doing everything etc. In the past several years it really has been insufferable to be in the vicinity of any discussion related to systemd/init systems.
Integrity teams at FB are teams that handle abuse on the platform, and other bad things (fake accounts, spam, malicious developers, malicious ads, ...). Why integrity? Bunch of teams (not all) that did abuse had integrity in their name (like site integrity, platform integrity), so I guess that the name just sticks.
And what does VP of integrity do? Manages organization that handles abuse on the platform.
Nah, I would think he's their friend as his role is likely to mostly involve promoting "company culture" in all-hands meetings and via the corporate blog.
It's facts that they all avoid or diligently rework to fit their version of the truth.
You know how banks have someone who's job title is something like "Head Of Fraud"? Who's role is to work out what a "reasonable" allowable amount of fraud is, small enough that it can be de-risked and budgeted for, but not so small it becomes "more expensive that it's worth" to fight it? An then to put processes in place to monitor fraud and ensure no more fraud occurs that planned for?
That's what _I'm_ imagining a "VP of Integrity" at Facebook does.
But there are implementations of knuth-plass in js, only they are usually not used, as the speed trade-off is not worth it for the web. If you are only using chromium to render a PDF then the speed stops being a dealbreaker.
I wouldn't call Lisp a functional language. Historically it's not functional, and in practice it usually isn't functional either.
When I hear "functional", I usually interpret it to mean languages influenced or derived from the ML family of languages. Notable features of these languages include algebraic data types, match expressions, emphasis on monadic operations (fold, scan, map, etc), support for TCO, and a expressive static type system (though unfortunately not necessarily supported higher kinds), and a discouragement of mutations.
Common Lisp doesn't really emphasize any of those things, and Scheme only a couple.
Just because you need a red annotation doesn’t mean they don’t have TCO. Most people consider Scala to have TCO, and you need rec annotations as well. Also I said mutation is discouraged for ML languages, not that it hard. Point taken about the imperative control structures, though.
Lisp, while somewhat functional.in preferred style, is an impure functional language and, as such, supports, fairly easily, imperative code with mutable state, with all the pitfalls that involves.
It's also usually untyped, and I think the hard to write bad functional code line is mostly true of statically typed pure functional code.
