Earlier quoted context omitted.
2 + 2 = 4 You're welcome.
I disagree. 2 + 2 = 11 also 2 + 2 = 10
Go build a bridge with that math, and we'll see if it objectively lasts...
Ask HN: Is the world going to shit?
131–139 of 139 posts
Re: Ask HN: Is the world going to shit?
#132Earlier quoted context omitted.
You found out the objective truth? Please share, the rest of us are eager to know.
2 + 2 = 4 You're welcome.
It's a waste of time to argue with people who believe there's only subjective truth. The whole of the world and existence reminds one constantly of objective truths--material or otherwise. These people are arguing ideology while ignoring fundamental ways that they (in reality) make decisions.
Re: Ask HN: Is the world going to shit?
#133The world has been going to shit for the past 2,500 years. The ancient Greeks were the first ones to notice it. That seems like a long time ago to us because we're human and have short lifespans but in the larger scheme of things it was only a moment ago. Thing is, civilization as we know it may completely collapse in the next moment - but that could be another 2,500 years from now!
Re: Ask HN: Is the world going to shit?
#134Earlier quoted context omitted.
This take always rubs me the wrong way because it conveniently ignores the fact that letting 90% of humanity die is wrong and should be avoided given that 1% of humanity is more or less to blame for this mess.
If one is going to use a word that means a specific thing then get annoyed because that word didn't conform to what they wanted it to mean, I mean, can we do anything about it? They should have used a different word. Calamitous or monumental are good words for what you're describing.
The word fits. Our existence as we know it is at risk.
Our existence for the majority of us is at risk.
Our existence as a nation is at risk.
I didn't say "and existential threat for the human race". Even if I had, the pedantry is unwarranted.
Re: Ask HN: Is the world going to shit?
#135Earlier quoted context omitted.
Climate change might be the greatest challenge we've ever faced, but it's hardly an "existential threat" (ie. something that threatens our existence). Even under the worst IPCC forecasts, there won't be enough land lost (eg. by flooding or desertification) to wipe out humanity. Don't get me wrong, billions dying or displaced would be a humanitarian disaster of epic proportions, but isn't something that threatens our…
Exactly, it does always irk me when people call it an existential threat to humanity. That's not to say it isn't a huge problem. But it won't wipe us out. Some areas will also become more habitable (eg Siberia) The mass migration of people across borders as a result of climate change might cause wars that are such a threat though. But still I don't consider climate change itself as such.
I said an existential threat, not an existential threat to humanity. For the majority of us, and for our nation, it is indeed an existential threat.
Regardless, the pedantry is unwarranted.
Re: Ask HN: Is the world going to shit?
#136Earlier quoted context omitted.
Its still exponential growth so it will eventually mean all possible useful wind and solar is used up. Then what?
If we truly used up all solar and wind power on the planet (which is a mind-bogglingly large amount of energy) there is still nuclear fission which is also a very large amount. Then if we invent fusion, that's basically infinite energy for free. And on top of all that, Earth is not the only planet, and the Sun has energy that does not only hit the Earth, so we can be construct a Dyson sphere. Energy from our human sc…
Solar and wind were brought out up because if any other energy source (like fusion) was used, then waste heat would be generated that would eventually (at exponential growth scales) boil the planet. And we could only, even the best case scenarios, ever only use a fraction of the available wind and solar that exists. Biological life is also solar powered so there's only so much you can take before that's an issue.
Re: Ask HN: Is the world going to shit?
#137Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree. 2 + 2 = 11 also 2 + 2 = 10
Go build a bridge with that math, and we'll see if it objectively lasts...
I love explaining jokes, so I'm glad I thought to look back at this comment.
My statements are sound enough to build bridges on. It's all the same math, just in ternary and quaternary. My point is that there is no such thing as an objective interpretation, because all methods of communication are open to biases. Even math expressions.
Re: Ask HN: Is the world going to shit?
#138Earlier quoted context omitted.
Go build a bridge with that math, and we'll see if it objectively lasts...
I love explaining jokes, so I'm glad I thought to look back at this comment. My statements are sound enough to build bridges on. It's all the same math, just in ternary and quaternary. My point is that there is no such thing as an objective interpretation, because all methods of communication are open to biases. Even math expressions. https://brilliant.org/wiki/number-base/
I agree that there is no such thing as objective interpretation. The interpretation is always biased by the interpreter. But truth comes before interpretation, not after. Truth exists independently of the observer's bias.
A bridge is either sound or unsound, engineering-wise. It is irrelevant whether any person judges the bridge to be sound or unsound--the soundness is tested by reality, and reality is mapped 1-to-1 to truth. Reality is truth.
Your math statements are true in the context of the ternary and quaternary systems. However, if you led the project to engineer and build the bridge under one of those systems, i feel confident that the bridge would fail. Because your ' true statements' would meet the reality of an engineering and implementation world that does not use those systems. Your argument that they are true would be completely irrelevant in the practical domain of modern construction. Your statements are not sound enough to build a bridge upon because the building project lives in reality instead of possibility.
One cannot argue for subjective truth because the nature of truth lies in its objectivity. Anyone who argues for subjective truth is in fact arguing for the non-existence of truth, which is foolishness.
Re: Ask HN: Is the world going to shit?
#139Earlier quoted context omitted.
I love explaining jokes, so I'm glad I thought to look back at this comment. My statements are sound enough to build bridges on. It's all the same math, just in ternary and quaternary. My point is that there is no such thing as an objective interpretation, because all methods of communication are open to biases. Even math expressions. https://brilliant.org/wiki/number-base/
I agree that there is no such thing as objective interpretation. The interpretation is always biased by the interpreter. But truth comes before interpretation, not after. Truth exists independently of the observer's bias. A bridge is either sound or unsound, engineering-wise. It is irrelevant whether any person judges the bridge to be sound or unsound--the soundness is tested by reality, and reality is mapped 1-to-1…
You're preaching to the choir, but only your favorite book, not the whole text. There is no nature of truth. Tell me what it is now, without using the word "truth", "objective", or "reality" - I can wait.
If you were to frame the statement as "One cannot argue for the subjective nature of truth, because by doing so they are positing the objectiveness of subjectivity", then I'm 100% with you. But to demonstrate that objectivity in a way that can escape the confines of your own mind? Good luck - it's a fool's errand. The most we can do is approximate reality, but that will never reveal the objective truth - just it's fuzzier-around-the-edges cousin "reasonable certainty". Enter the hard sciences.
Also, "quaternary" and "ternary" systems are no different than any other mathematical system. All the same rules apply. The only difference is when you cycle place values, and the expression of certain irrational values, which actually improves with quaternary and ternary over decimal, as they're both factors of 12 and can divide more easily than 10.