Funkytom467

I’m exactly like that too. I think my nature isn’t nice, but i can choose to be.

And i’m also admiring anyone that as that nice nature, i find it beautiful and extremely attractive. So to a degree i have that goal of trying to choose it whenever i can.

One drawback, wich also coincide with my very rational personality is that i hate having too strong of an emotion, had anger issues as a kid, but also the start of love is somewhat unpleasant for example.

But hey, to me as long as your trying to be better, your are good person.

deleted by creator

I started with c++ so does c really has advantages over c++ ?

And yeah same, Rust seems to be pretty cool too, at some point I’m gonna try it…

This is a fucking differential equation with unknown constants, so yeah, everyone will be burning…

Good women make them

I get that, most people are like you, it’s normal. Best thing for everyone is to avoid those persons.

But my point of view is a lot more optimistic, i think having this behavior isn’t all their are defined as. They can still grow and learn, especially on other area of life.

Depending on how much they rely on this behavior you can have two approach…

If it’s little, you can teach them better without them knowing, as long as it doesn’t directly clash with their dogma, but it requires to be subtle.

If they rely to much on it, the best course is to detach their opinions from the real world and only speak to them with very down to earth things.

I know it will not always really work, most of the time my optimistic view is to idealistic. I can have it because i’m more tolerant, maybe too much.

The goods thing is, even if i’m wrong, i can enjoy myself doing this, and for the rare time i do change something in that person, well that feels great.

That’s technically true, but the question then becomes, why are our assumptions different?

If it’s based on different beliefs of what reality is (ground work), it would be normal to fight for truth.

If it’s based on our affinity for the result of the argumentation (the house), it would also be normal to fight for our own benefit and those like us.

So realistically i don’t see any reason as to why we should respect each other’s opinions… all would incentives us to fight for the correct assumptions.

This in itself doesn’t mean we should stop respecting people though!

So if I understood you, you meant in reality we should more or less respect the opinion without arguments based on whether it is more or less subjective?

I do agree those people you speak about are uninteresting and mostly stupid.

But we should respect stupid people, their ideas aren’t always worth respecting, but as people they themselves deserve considering.

And I praise anyone that has the patience to teach morons to be better people despite their own lack of judgment.

Let’s also be clear that people should be respected, unless…

Opinions however are another matter. You don’t have to respect someone’s opinions to respect him.

Unless his opinions are his whole self, but then it goes into the category of the ‘unless’ i can’t respect.

And the benefit only goes to people who make others do shit they don’t care about. Never to the work that’s important and can be cared about.

We shall run our water production through filters so every comrade gets clean water for free!

You can’t get no…

Yeah sure, making meth, using kids to sell drugs and killing them, being an addict, letting someone’s girlfriend die of an overdose, forcing a relationship… All thoses nice family values.

Maybe you forgot that in the end Walter does also admit he did it for him, not his family.

You’re right, it’s probably not right way ro put it, it’s not The truth in the philosophical sens.

Although science is based on the premise such a truth exist in regard to reality. Aka what we call realism in ontology. So i think we can see science as a subset of philosophy in that sens.

However i don’t think science is just about facts, it’s also about understanding them to a point we can predict them. That’s what we call theory or model. Hence the distinction between experimental and theoretical science.

So what i really meant by truth is what we think is the true theories to explain phenomenons.

That’s why i said we adapt our beliefs to proof. We don’t know if a model is correct or not, and we say we believe it’s true if there is enough evidence.

However, what allows us to change our mind is the fact that we can’t never be 100% sure if something is true. Leaving always a possibility to correct our belief if new proof is found.

(This idea to use probability for our beliefs is based on Bayesian epistemology.)

…

For your exemple, Greeks already had pretty good geometrical knowledge, Ptolemy created this idea of epicyclic trajectories to explain geocentrism. Which is what the model of Copernicus would have resulted in earth’s frame of reference.

(Of course Greek’s models were not as good as Copernicus, mostly because of their obsession with finding mathematics in the universe.)

What made Galileo say his observations proved heliocentrism, and so Copernicus, is the movement of other stars around Jupiter.

But dispite being close, Copernicus model didn’t actually worked, and so neither did Ptolemy’s idea of epicycle, because they had circular trajectories.

It was Kepler, based on the observations of Tycho Brahe, who created a model that actually worked using elliptical trajectories, later formalize by Newton.

(Einstein later explained how frames of reference are all physically equal. Making geocentric frame of reference not technically wrong.)

Just to end on your last point, what i mix up isn’t science with philosophy but rather scientists. Scientists are the one that needs philosophy, they are the one concerned by moral decisions, not science itself. That’s an important distinction in most context…

T is for Tired as fuck.

Science is a method to find truth by telling us how to construct proofs.

What we call rationality in general, in which science is based on, is to use proof to believe in something.

Whereas faith and so religion is believing without proof.

So as a scientist you do believe in any theory that has been proven. And of course you change your beliefs with each new information.

Believing isn’t just a word we use for religion, it also means to accept something is true.

I don’t think most scientists were religious, but for the one that were, people are never coherent, they can use science for some beliefs and religion for others even if that’s contradictory.

As for moral, i didn’t explicitly say it’s science, because it isn’t, it’s philosophy. But scientists that don’t want to believe in God and his morals have created other philosophies and morals.

Some based on the same premise of rationality as science. For which science can even be a tool.

Conversely the foundation of science always was motivated by philosophical questions about reality. And it’s application always had concerned about morals.

P.S. I don’t have faith, and i do think most current religions have bad morals and are just manipulative organizations. But most religious people are not part of them, most of them are good people. Their faith isn’t a problem for me or anyone, and can even be good driving force.

They do overlap in their goals.

God is the creator of the universe science describe. God itself, if he existed, would be a topic of science.

Science is answering our pondering about our place in the universe. We can also be scientists and create a moral belief system that’s not based on God.

Separating them is part of the compartmentalization we do to avoid conflict or our self contradictions.

Fundamentalists in both religion and atheism think the other view is wrong and should not exist. That’s very different from just recognizing we have different point of views.

And atheists aren’t all such morons to think religion is such a problem. Most atheist can respect religious people as long as they’re not fundamentalist.

Well i’ve never really done AoC or test alike myself. So i don’t know the difficulty or amount of time you should spend.

To me if you have ideas but just not elegant ones, you could always do them. Despite being wrong or ugly they’ll still teach you something, especially if they’re complex.

But if the idea gets too hard to do, to time consuming for your little time, or if you’re really stuck, you can look at the solution.

Just remember that a solution isn’t a great way to learn, at best it will teach you what you need to learn more about.

I get that, went through it myself and i’ve known plenty of people in that case.

What got me into programming is learning c++ to make games. I started the summer after high school when i didn’t have any work left.

But my programming skills became useful for my job though. If it’s not for you I get you would rather look for a job.

Good luck with your work my friend.