“I realize me trying to use terms I don’t know the meaning of in an argument makes me look stupid now to people who actually have knowledge about the subject, so I’m going to make a short and quippy comment to avoid trying to address my incompetently made claims and hope the other person lets me have the last word, or else I’m going to continue arguing because it would hurt my ego if they got to have the last word.” That is how you look to everyone else. Ancaps are very predictable. How many times have you tried to mic drop people today so far?

In my language what I said looked fine in this context and I’d be understood.

Haha no fucking way you’re trying to use “in my language it’s different” in this context. What language? What language could you possibly even be referring to? Is this language in the room with us right now?

Since I well know what lazy evaluations are, I am using them correctly, for the analogy that another person should have separated two arguments I’ve made. So it is clear for any spectator, competent or not, that you are a fool. Except some of them are the same.

You saying “I’m right and your wrong because… because I know I’m right!” is certainly an argument. I guess I was correct about you not being able to come up with actual reasoning for the bullshit you tried pulling.

I also think you are incompetent at your job, because people use informal language all the time to talk about concepts.

What kind of pseudointellectual oral diarrhea is this? “Informal language”? You think anyone actually believes the bullshit you’re making up about “lazy evaluation” being “informal language” for something else in your language?

Are you in 10th grade or something? You sound so unbelievably dumb right now trying to make justifications for your stupidity up on the fly and failing horribly.

Actually whatever lemmy.world admins use to auto-ban malfunctioned and was banning a bunch of users for “URL Blacklist” coincidentally when I posted the comment. I’m glad that you thought it was a long ban though and that I wouldn’t be able to respond because now I can point and laugh at what you just said

but laziness in functional programming is not limited to lazy iterators. I meant lazy evaluations, as in Lisp.

Man you really just fucking Googled “laziness programming definition” and regurgitated words from the first Wikipedia article you saw? I’m curious how you’re going to try to weasel your way of of that and somehow connect lazy evaluation to however you were responding to that person. Because if you actually knew what the hell lazy evaluation was then you would know how stupid you sound right now. Let me guess, you won’t even attempt to because you realize trying to explain would make you look even more clueless.

What is obvious is that you saw the words “functional programming” online one time and thought “you should learn functional programming” sounded like a fancy way of saying “you should learn logic” so you used it without having a clue as to what you were even talking about. The most stereotypical ancap pseudo-intellectualism I’ve seen!

LOL no fuckin way you ever learned “quite a lot of them” (not even a logical response/conclusion following the comment) and then “forgot” everything about functional programming, but randomly spouted it out because you thought it was somehow relevant. You don’t know what you’re talking about at all and it shows. And you’re crying “other people think they’re intelligent”… do you have no self-awareness? How do you rationalize that you get a pass for saying and believing stupid shit, “I know I’m right and they’re wrong, science and logic says otherwise but I know that means logic is just liberal propoganda! Grrr!”

Let me guess, you coded a shitty notepad in Python one time or vaguely heard some people on r/ProgrammerHumor mention C++ pointers and Haskell and think you’re a “master hacker” now. Lmao

You “meant laziness”? What are you trying to pull out of your ass right now man? Have you even touched a piece of modern technology in your life?

My entire job is using Scala, Rust, and Haskell, and I can guarantee that you have no fuckin idea what you’re on about. Like what even is that supposed to mean lmfao, you think monads will save your capitalism? Will you utilize lazy iterators to destroy the left wing? Did you just want to sound intellectual by using a random math term?

Every capital G Gamer is repulsed by real women, based on their reactions to realistic women in media. But they definitely aren’t asexual, so logically, they’re gay

and for people unfamiliar with the field it has always been a term synonymous with AGI.

Gamers screaming about the AI of bots/NPCs making them mad beg to differ

Lol what? How did you conclude that if 9x = 5 then x = 1? Surely you didn’t pass algebra in high school, otherwise you could see that getting x from 9x = 5 requires dividing both sides by 9, which yields x = 5/9, i.e. 0.555... = 5/9 since x = 0.555....

Also, you shouldn’t just use uppercase X in place of lowercase x or vice versa. Case is usually significant for variable names.

Pi isn’t a fraction (in the sense of a rational fraction, an algebraic fraction where the numerator and denominator are both polynomials, like a ratio of 2 integers) – it’s an irrational number, i.e. a number with no fractional form; as opposed to rational numbers, which are defined as being able to be expressed as a fraction. Furthermore, π is a transcendental number, meaning it’s never a solution to f(x) = 0, where f(x) is a non-zero finite-degree polynomial expression with rational coefficients. That’s like, literally part of the definition. They cannot be compared to rational numbers like fractions.

Every rational number (and therefore every fraction) can be expressed using either repeating decimals or terminating decimals. Contrastly, irrational numbers only have decimal expansions which are both non-repeating and non-terminating.

Since |r|<1 → ∑[n=1, ∞] arⁿ = ar/(1-r), and 0.999... is equivalent to that sum with a = 9 and r = 1/10 (visually, 0.999... = 9(0.1) + 9(0.01) + 9(0.001) + ...), it’s easy to see after plugging in, 0.999... = ∑[n=1, ∞] 9(1/10)ⁿ = 9(1/10) / (1 - 1/10) = 0.9/0.9 = 1). This was a proof present in Euler’s Elements of Algebra.

We don’t call that gambling, no, no, we call that LOTTERY! In Georgia at least.

The American spelling “matte” probably comes from the spelling “mate” derived from French “mate”, and doubling the “t” to differentiate it from “mate”. The British spelling “matt” was probably primarily influenced by the German word “Matt” considering the UK tended to have more German influence.

Alternatively, either (or both) may be an etymological spelling from Latin “mattus” (which means “drunk” but likely became a word for “pale” in French).

While I am a linguist, I only deduced this from a bit of Googling and a lot of speculating, so don’t take my word for it…

is it that difficult to look up the answer from a reliable source?

With the current state of search engines and their content (almost completely unrelated garbage and shitty blogs make in like 3 minutes with 1/4 of the content poorly copy-pasted out of context from stackoverflow and most of the rest being pop-ups and ads), YES

SEO ““engineers”” deserve the guillotine

All that to say that taking the position that you have a right to tell others how to live is an asshole position.

Yeah no not at all when they literally only exist to endanger the lives of others. This is like saying it’s an “asshole position” that neo-Nazis and the KKK can’t rally and fire guns in public spaces because they have a right to live how they want. After all, they totally aren’t a danger to literally everyone who’s not a right-wing white guy, they’re just living how they want. Although you apparently listen to Joe Rogan so I wouldn’t be surprised if you are a neonazi collaborator.

“Science has its limits” is no reason to entertain seemingly schizophrenic beliefs in the divine. We have actual facts, they have their fake God.

If you think “communication devices can be used by pedophiles” is anywhere comparable to “this specific type of vehicle is literally killing thousands of children and polluting the environment and is one of the greatest threats to you in your everyday life” then you’re unable to be reasoned with. They have a choice to literally just use a sedan or even a van or something that isn’t superbly effective at murdering pedestrians, but they choose to blow a hundred thousand on a fancy orphan-crushing tank.

Also…

You can’t prove why two people in love… You can’t scientifically explain why.

YOU LITERALLY CAN DO EXACTLY THIS. This is a matter of technological advancement and the fact that human brains have an inconceivable amount of complex data in them for our current observation methods and have a lot of plasticity, not whether it’s possible. You can already use biochemistry/neurology to accurately predict this kind of stuff, even exact responses to environmental stimuli, in some simpler creatures. It is scientifically possible to do the same thing for humans, it is just physics/chemistry. You’re gonna need a lot better argument than “[obviously complex thing in science] isn’t solved yet so science and religion are equally as rational”. It’s like saying we shouldn’t trust mathematics because we haven’t solved the Riemann Hypothesis. We already have real, reproducable proof that physics, chemistry, and all that are objective and accurate to reality and can be used to accurately tell the future, even if we haven’t completely solved them. There is no such thing for religion.

You also can’t measure “consciousness” because “consciousness” doesn’t mean anything. It’s a completely subjective word that wildly changes based on who you ask. There is no “having consciousness” or “not having consciousness” or “having 50% consciousness” or something. It’s a ways we try to think of our perception/responses to the environment, which you can measure.

“Rationalism” doesn’t mean believing in shit some guys made up vaguely based on other shit guys made up a long time ago and saying it can’t be any more absurd than science. You wanna know what Rationalism is?

a belief or theory that opinions and actions should be based on reason and knowledge rather than on religious belief or emotional response.

And you wanna know what empiricism is?

view that all concepts originate in experience, that all concepts are about or applicable to things that can be experienced, or that all rationally acceptable beliefs or propositions are justifiable or knowable only through experience.

Neither of these are fond of religious garbage. They are both ways of interpreting science, and they aren’t a complete dichotomy because scientists use both. Religion is just emotional, illogical, completely subjective, and not based in reality.

Schizophrenic people may often believe the delusions in their head are real. It’s excusable because it’s not really their fault, but I can’t excuse religious people for the same thing because they choose to believe this garbage, sometimes even well into adulthood. It is irrelevant that you think it is real or that schizophrenic people and people with dementia think their delusions are real. Or that children think the tooth fairy and santa are real. That doesn’t make it any more up for consideration to actually rational people. The logical conclusions from data are far more important than the make-believe of the Pope.

if Kagi were open source sure, but it’s $10 a month and the CEO is kind of an asshole. And a generative-AI-bro (please don’t make me call them GAI-bros)

I’d rather stick to FOSS solutions

Religious beliefs aren’t real, they’re delusions, and being gay or some other random “sin” isn’t at all comparable to what I’m speaking of. Cars are the #1 cause of death in the US other than health complications, most of those SUVs, they are demonstratably extremely harmful to society even if you don’t consider how their dominance destroys our infrastructure design, increases stress, and how they pollute the Earth a ton.

It’s silly to cater to people who believe in Christianity or something similar when we have actual problems that we have proven solutions for, like getting rid of car-dependent infrastructure. Compared to say, being gay or uttering the words “oh my God”, which according to Christian belief are equally as bad as murder, slavery, and rape or even worse than it on the sin scale. If a religion believes in a hell, especially when believing in an omniscient and omnipotent future-seeing God, it’s worth immediately disregarding everything from.

Even entertaining the idea that the Christian ideas of morality have any basis in reality, especially putting it on the same level as actual science, is unbelievable.

Generally when tires are deflated it’s people who are in ultra expensive and dangerous SUVs which are basically just killing machines and nothing else. But people deflating tires is a very small amount in the community regardless, although I could see people deflating the tires of those who endanger others very realistic.

Yank tanks (unreasonably gigantic and dangerous SUVs which are almost always American, named so because other countries have started being infected by them and now the rest of the world is mad at us) are just bad. Owning one is bad, using one is especially bad, they only exist to be the bigger vehicle so they can “win” car crashes and crush pedestrians like a tank (and because they cna bypass emissions regulations). It isn’t a matter of “I want to live this way so you have to live this way”, it’s “you’re endangering the lives of everyone around you beyond a tolerable amount”. So no, it’s not relevant at all.

Honestly your argument kind of sounds like someone against no-smoking zones because “let people smoke, just because you don’t want to doesn’t mean they can’t”. Second hand smoke endangers the health of a lot of people around you, it has nothing to do with other peoples’ not wanting to smoke – same goes with SUVs, they’re one of the largest causes of death that isn’t a chronic health problem, they are a danger. If smoking at, say, a middle school were legal, and someone did it with kids around, I’d have no issue with stealing their smokes and chucking them into a trash can, even if what they were doing wasn’t illegal it’s still immoral. Even if it caused them serious issues and withdrawal and stuff, what they’re doing endangers others and I’m fine if someone takes it into their own hands to put a stop to it. You can apply that same logic to yank tanks.

car-centric infrastructure destroys cities and residential areas, you’re stupid if you think r/fuckcars is relevant to this meme. most people on r/fuckcars have a car

Idk man conservatives in recent history have a pretty consistent track record of assassinations and assassination attemps on liberal and leftist politicians in the US based on their politics. Tommy Burks was outright killed by his Republican opponent less than a month before the election (Burks was one of the most conservative Democrats at the time, but he was certainly killed by a lot more conservative Republican), Clementa Pinckney (targetted in a white supremacist shooting at a primarily black church that he was the pastor of), Gabby Giffords (shot in the head by an anti-government right-wing conspiracy theory consumer).

When Republican politicians are killed now, it’s pretty much only by personal enemies/drama that is unrelated to liberal or leftist politics, or by schizophrenic/criminally insane people who also weren’t doing it over politics. Like Linda Collins (her friend killed her after being confronted for stealing money), Mike McLelland (he was killed by a former lawyer who’s theft case he prosecuted). Hell, even Ronald Reagan was shot over an actress, not over the guy’s personal political views. Ironically, Republican John Roll was killed by the right-wing terrorist targetting Gabby Giffords, he was caught in the cross-fire. I don’t think there’s even an in-office conservative Republican politician that was assassinated by a Democratic rival this century, or even a single instance of a conservative Republican being assassinated by a liberal over politics recently.

I want you to think of how frequently you hear of terrorist attacks which were committed in the name of white supremacy, christian nationalism, dicrimination against LGBT, or some other far-right bullshit, and then think of how frequently you hear of terrorist attacks committed in the name of progressive beliefs like, oh idk universal healthcare and better public transport. it’s gotta be at least like a 20 to 1 ratio, and that’s me being conservative with the amount of conservative attacks.

So I take it you’re against the government subsidizing science research in general? “The government shouldn’t fund new technology” is a stupid and destructive position. We’d be living in the 1800s if it were up to solely the capitalistic market. I mean, the first broadly effective antibiotics that are responsible for saving probably hundreds of millions of lives at least only exist because of people working in government-funded labs, under government-funded universities, for the government. Why should the environment be treated like it doesn’t matter to our civilization?