Shameless plug: I put together a Jupyter notebook walking through the use of Herbrand Universes for a semi-decision procedure for first order logic: https://github.com/aetilley/harrison-rust/blob/main/Herbrand...

> "sidewalks are empty, because if you had any money you would be driving."

Not sure this makes me feel safer. I'm guessing you're not suggesting that everyone has money, so why are the sidewalks empty exactly?

Also would you say that Detroit is "walkable"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galton_board

at the (I think) Boston Science Museum when I was a kid. They have some pretty cool videos on Youtube if you're curious.

So no we do not deem a blind person to be unintelligent due to their lack of being able to drive without sight. But we might judge a sighted person as being not generally intelligent if they could not drive with sight.

Why would I have to use cash if I gave up my smartphone?

Interesting. So the practice of (these schools) of Buddhism requires that there be non-Buddists?

I mean I supposed every transaction leaves someone poorer of something and richer in something else. I'm not sure of the point though.

I concede that if the ad companies are willing to forgo collecting X dollars in exchange for showing you an ad then it must be worth >=X dollars to the ad company for the person to see the ad.

But it remains true that the poor person has no way to convert their attention directly into X dollars, and all that taking away the free tier does is make it so that someone who would have made a trade (of their attention for a service) cannot do so.

It doesn't matter how much you think my attention is "really worth". If I want the service now, have no cash, but can pay with my attention, I am strictly more enabled than if the service only accepts cash.

Not really the same as systematically bringing into existence a species with behaviors you find objectionable, keeping them in your proximity so you can experience said behaviors, and then slaughtering them with the excuse that they are all assholes is it?

> "Then we can discuss where is the cutoff line for enough assholishness to go for a slaughter"

When you say that roosters cross this line do you mean with respect to their behavior towards you? I'm guessing this can't be that bad since you're much more powerful than they?

Or do you mean towards other chickens? If so, and if it's really that bad, then surely the best thing is to just not bring them into existence in the first place (not systematically breeding them with the intent of slaughtering them)?

What a relief that we don't generally take this policy toward asshole humans.

At any rate, it's one thing to eat one asshole chicken and another to systematically farm asshole chicken to be killed.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43510431

Points: 2

# Comments: 0

Sorry, what? This is an extraordinary claim.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/ucb-police-seek-...

"The five people were part of a group of about 200 protesters, who on Feb. 26 broke down the door of Zellerbach Playhouse and smashed a window to prevent Israeli lawyer Ran Bar-Yoshafat from addressing a group of Jewish students. Danielle Sobkin, co-president of Bears for Israel, one of the campus groups who invited Bar-Yoshafat, said after the protest that members of the mob grabbed a student trying to attend the event, called him a “dirty Jew” and spat on him."

I think they mean "audiation".

I'm using the term broadly to include "play money" markets such as Metaculous. (I know Metaculous just did a bunch of hiring, but I was too late).

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36902288

Points: 3

# Comments: 0