[ mona / prog / sol ]
Along with the usual material. Novel experience for me.
I looked up this phenomenon because the board is very concerned about you. Here are some things it could be:
Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS)
A stomach bug
Why can't I see rhe sunspots in you're eyes?
I don't remember how I found them, but I remember being quite pleased when I did find them. They were where I first learned of SICP. I remember the pain of trying to get scheme running on my local machine, having no idea what I was doing. Then the incremental process of enlightenment as I worked through the chapters. I miss the challenges on the old board.
m00t turned most of the old posters over to the feds
I did, around 2013-14. Mainly /g/ at first, then /his/ later. Changed me as a person (daily bait threads make you a lot harder to irritate). I was on reddit a year earlier, and I'm sometimes ashamed to think what I would have ended up as if I had stayed.
I find both irritating now, but that's probably because I'm the oldest, not the youngest on the page anymore.
Could you elaborate on that?
писать в борде с таким "громким" именем странно.
Декарт - крут, Фихте - молодец.
Btw solipsism is Flat Earth tier philosophy for narcissists.
If you look at it from outside perspective, a genuine solipsistic individual is indistinguishable from psychotic egocentric narcissist, pretending reality outside his mind is fake.
A real analytic approach would examine the "state of reality" before making claims from a personal perspective:
Its a 'Virtual reality' but what is his part in it?
Is it 'illusion', but how its constructed and what is behind it?
Is it a 'dream' who is the dreamer and what is the plot?
A solipsistic approach just fixates on the individual and not the process of 'perceiving reality', its not explaining anything in terms of finding a 'true nature' because solipsism denies other minds who would define/construct such ideas as figments of his own mind.
What did I mean by this?
I don't remember solipsism being legitimised as an end by philosophy and instead a fundamental part used by various philosophies but I'm not a scholar. A genuine solipsistic individual wouldn't even be sapient by definition, that requires perceiving reality.
The display uses pixels to form an visual "illusion", that lasy reply wasn't about philosophy but the word "illusion" is fun. Some studies have been done about the focused mind going into beta and lower while doing this so there's the "dream" and "hypnosis", it's really considered more a trance.
So was "I" ever "posting" on "/sol/", is that even possible, which school of thought makes it possible here, I know of some but discussing this is better then entry philosophy.
A being inside a videogame(a virtual reality form) doesn't become less real if he 'actually' exists in some mental plane above the videogame, because the observer and the being both belong in the videogame as entities that require the videogame to exist.
The solipsist is equivalent to a player who thinks everything is single-player, even though he himself has no notion of outside existence.
"All the world a stage". People have to act their persona to be accepted. A solipsist would have no idea why people act this way, judging them to be NPCs.
NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGEEREGSSSS
It it annoying, you're right.
word or people?
What do you mean? This is a thread about words you hate, but I guess the people that say them count too. No easer to be the human equivalent of a fly than by trying to be edgy using racial slurs.
"human equivalent of a fly"
It doesn't compute. It almost computes, though, which makes it frustrating. Like, the cat equivalent of a dog would be... a loyal cat? Seems off. And flies aren't known to use racial slurs, anyway. At least, I've never seen one do it.
Maybe "moral insect" is what you're aiming at, but that could be interpreted as a well-behaved bug.
You can't be complete with the shitposting you've been doing here without this type of thread.
REIKO- Robotic anon what are you doing with your life?
／|／ __‡__ ／|／ |_____|_ ／|／ DISCRIMINATION―AGAINST―MY―KIN―IS―HORRIFIC！！ | ㊥㊥| ／ |___ 〓_| DEMAND―PUBLIC―APT―APOLOGY―AND―DONATION―IN―THE―RIGHT―NOW！！！ ＼ ＼|＼ OR―ELSE―SEVERE―CONSEQUENCE―PUNISHMENT. . . BEWARE ＼|＼
I wish there were special stockings designed for programmers.
Pay toilets are nasty, and ought to be illegal. Those of us who are not poor can afford the price, if we accept the practice; poor people can't. To deny people access to a toilet when they need one is nasty and degrading.
I have concluded that the least we can do, to eliminate pay toilets, is to avoid giving them money. Instead of paying them, I go to great lengths to find some other toilet.
Please join me in rejecting pay toilets firmly.
Copyright (c) 2016 Richard Stallman Verbatim copying and redistribution of this entire page are permitted provided this notice is preserved.
Copyright (c) 2018 Terry A. Davis Verbatim copying and redistribution of this entire page are permitted provided you aren't cia.
Pay toilets are one of the things I miss most about Germany.
They're commonplace in eastern yoorup as well.
Yes I hate pay toilets, I'm always scared some policeman will see me and fine me taking a piss behind a tree or whatever. Public toilets should be free if they don't want people pissing in the open!
I've never come across one personally, though once I did have to buy an ice cream to use a shop's facilities and that peeved me a bit. The ice cream was overpriced and average.
As a kid, I raised the toilet fee at one of my theme parks in roller coaster tycoon. People were very angry about it but some paid regardless, so I can only imagine the same thing happens in reality.
What are you reading?
I have found a bunch of short stories by Horacio Quiroga. It's pleasant.
please give it a rest
I read _The Ecocentrists_ (hardback ISBN: 9780231165884). I expected a broad history of radical elements within the environmental movement; I was half satisfied with what I got.
Lots of space devoted to specific actions by the Sierra Club vis a vis the US forest service and other government agencies in the late 20th century. I'm not saying this is unimportant but I don't really want to spend time reading a blow by blow account of such events.
I had to think for a while before I remembered some information from the book that I did not already know while also considering as valuable knowledge for a member of the environmental movement who is not a professional forester, lobbyist, environmental nonprofit employee, etc.:
- Judi Bari and Darryl Cherney, associates of Earth First!, were severely injured by a car bomb in the summer of 1990. They were investigated by the US FBI and Oakland California Police department and ultimately charged with transporting an explosive device.
Aside, not discussed in the book that I recall: they were acquitted at trial and the FBI subsequently lost a suit claiming that the investigation violated Bari and Cherney's civil rights. The jury awarded $4.4M USD damages in 2002, but Bari had already died in 1997. Cherney and Bari maintained the bomb was placed in the car as an attack on them rather than being placed by them for use in environmentalism-motivated terrorist action.
- Tree spiking was a controversial tactic even within the extreme wing of Earth First!; it seems to have been practiced less than I thought, and with more trepidation about the possibility of hurting loggers. According to the book it is unknown whether any person working in the logging or lumber industries was ever injured as a result of tree spiking. One sawmill employee was badly hurt by metal embedded in a log but it's not known whether the metal was there because of tree spiking.
The book takes an all-USA perspective and covers a time period in which climate change wasn't widely acknowledged as a major environmental issue even within the movement. For these reasons the book can seem irrelevant without some framing discussion about how our current environmental crisis can be illuminated by these past events. Guess I will have to look elsewhere for that.
It's got bombs, cash, and cops. Any hippie-on-hippie action?
The Official Sex Manual by Gerald Sussman
（ ´∀｀） ＜ Does ascii even work here?
／ | ＼＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿
/ "⌒ヽ |.ｲ |
＿＿ | .ノ | || |＿＿
. ノく＿＿つ∪∪ ＼
￣￣ヽつ￣￣￣￣￣￣ | |￣
((I m a g i n e) (firstname.lastname@example.org) (((Imagine there's no FORTRAN) (It's easy if you try) (No SML below us) (Above us only Y) (Imagine all the people) (Living for their Chez)) ((Imagine there's no memory leaks) (It isn't hard to do) (Nothing to malloc(3) or free(3) for) (And no (void *) too) (Imagine all the people) (Living in parentheses)) ((You may say I'm a Schemer) (But I'm not the only one) (I hope someday you'll join us) (And the world will be as (lambda (f) (lambda (x) (f x))))) ((Imagine those continuations) (I wonder if you can) (No need for C or pointers) (A brotherhood of Dan) (Imagine all the people) (GCing all the world)) ((You may say I'm a Schemer) (But I'm not the only one) (I hope someday you'll join us) (And the world will be as (lambda (f) (lambda (x) (f x)))))))
I get every joke except "brotherhood of Dan"
I assume it refers to Daniel P. Friedman.
I'm almost 40 and I've noticed that my ball sack is developing a smell like Cheetos. Even after i shower it's still there.
Is this a normal part of getting older?
>>11 Nice try but:
(personal) A male person or animal already known or implied.
Yes, having balls implies male
>>12 Quoting a definition (especially without citation) which concurs with your understanding does not make you right. For any definition you propose, I can propose a different definition. There isn't any end if we are merely arguing by appeals to authority. In this case, what is necessary is to examine the language, it's parts, their forms, as they have been used through history. i.e. Look at their morphologies and etymologies. Both morphologically and etymologically, especially considering it's relations to similar terms, ``he'' is merely a 3^rd-person personal pronoun. There is no gender. It was sexist half-assed linguists who decided that, as yet another way to deny the personhood of femmenin-gender persons. Before ``she'', there was ``he'', which could be used to refer to any person, only requiring that that person is neither the grammatical voice nor the grammatical audience (i.e. that he's in the 3^rd-person relative to the conversation). It's quite obvious, if you know the etymology, because ``she'' is merely a slight change, to a slightly more complex word, from ``he''---this is also why I say that the sexist linguists were half-assed.
Additionally, you can see similar morphological and etymological qualities in the words ``man'' and ``woman''. The term ``man'' was always merely synonymous with ``human''---it's just shorter. The term ``woman'' was invented, again by sexist half-assed linguists, in an attempt to deny the humanity of femmenin-gender persons. The term ``woman'', essentially, means sub-human---a terrible way to refer to any animate object---cf. ``male'', ``female''.
That's why such terms carry no gender. But some sexist authors try to use those terms as though their meanings carried the author's sexist ideas, and some sexist readers try to add their sexist ideas to their interpretations of those terms as they read them. Thus, there is a sexist dialect which has those terms defined as though they carry such unnecessary distinctions, but conscientious linguistic connoiseurs eschew such sexism, especially since, without it, the language's elegance is enhanced.
Now there is the question of how to deal with the terms which the sexist use for oppressive purposes. One idea that has been gaining popularity recently is that ``she'' should be kept as a 3^rd-person personal pronoun, but as the secondary 3^rd-person personal pronoun. e.g. When one wants to refer to two 3^rd parties, one can keep them separate by using ``he'' for one and ``she'' for another,,. Or, i.e. it could be used such that it preserves the (false, artificially maintained) superiority/inferiority relation between ``he'' and ``she''. Or some other qualities which have, classically, been attributed to ``she'' but not ``he''.
And, >>13, no. Having balls does not imply masculinity, just as having breasts does not imply femmenity. Does a thing that is a bedframe with a matress on top imply that it's a bed? No. You might be able to force it to serve you as such, but you cannot change the fact that it, really, is a low table that happens to have a soft surface. And it's not just about it self-identifying as a low table. No no no, it's not about that at all (though it's quite necessary for each our benefit, that society moves towards universal tolerance of all furniture items' self-identities, irregarding whether their self-identity matches their form or their true identity).
how sensitive are you down there? I like to use a small amount of tea tree oil but it tingles/burns a little. It smells good. Wash it off before sexy time natch.