since you know by 2020 that modeling categorical logic and categorical truth tables tell you less about the “trumper” than the non-trumper do you [really] want to risk it, framing the trumper, at least, as a “moron” who can’t muster the “IQ” points (btw, was everybody jumping on that that new EQ+AQ+SQ wagon to own the Young-Girl’s war on war)?

that paradoxical circumstance where trump acts the fool, because he knows you’ll take the bait, in front of his base, amplified by algorithmic blunders: socialism and barbarism/annihilation, have always lived side-by-side. your mythology of technology only cyclically prevents you from seeing that.

he’s no brian leiter.

one cat’s nip is another cat’s jazz

1. metacognitive myopia explained why people didn’t/couldn’t update their beliefs about the existence of “weapons of mass destruction etc”.
2. dogwhistling the threat of sexual revolution “comrade kamala” (i.e., he’s implying hypocrisy when he doesn’t understand what lenin’s use of the term “prostitute” meant).
3. playing the fool until you can’t (i.e., making his base feel insightful and “seen” as playfully serious, homophilically/mimetically charismatic; e.g., his base feels like their inference-making is being promoted based on linguistic sympathy through the aura of charisma).
4. from (3) somewhere in his administration they’re letting the would-be “fool” base do the grunt-work and creating cover; see “Optimal Team Formation Under Asymmetric Information”.

elizabeth warren lampoons trump and vance

seems more important that people wanted him to, even if he didn’t, as what a settlement might imply.

have books become too heavy for men?

for the question “will artsy dot net have to start taking age verification?” to pass nimby codes

for context: https://dutchreview.com/culture/decolonising-dutch-museums/

doctrine of double effect hours

since 2008 (the artilect wars) or the third “a.i.” winter?

the gettier problem

mmo festive “sexual” cartesian theatres coming for disney world from japan with loving kindness

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyHSjv9gxlE

i’d like to think the motivations to think or practice prime our hinge commitments to attune to noopower such that we privatize our lives in spite of the commons. the available motivations, then, would be the actual problems, adoption and qualities of thinking, the symptoms.

bcs’s On the Origin of Objects might make your day.

as someone who observes the interests of theology that has crossed disciplines with computer science, i should only speak from that regard, than as a web developer who puts a dog in the fight of competing styles, insofar as the styles bear ontological commitments. though, obviously the web is suffering in quality due to these dogmatic “software” “engineering” practices, it must be said. there’s a wider tendency to advance metaphors which make certain paradigms more attractive to some developers than others based on philosophical prejudices coming from having accepted aristotle’s agrilogistic axioms (law of noncontradiction, metaphysics of presence, essentialism). computer science is fundamentally ontotheological, not accidental, and engineers who follow martin are committed to a politicization of the object as more real than what objects are about. their style fails to purposefully and meaningfully ground fundamentally distributed applications, necessarily. someone might contrast martin against authors like brian cantwell smith, to see the orientation from which i speak.

greater still, we’re seeing the outcome of what seems like decades of uncritical adoption of practices, what seems more like political movement than properly philosophical argumentation, everywhere in c.s. and wider applications of it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyHSjv9gxlE

institution: yet another non-human living asexual hyperobject constantly having sex with itself stopping only to shamefully laugh at the moments in which we respire.

ice cream truck driver

the quantum level of description is a luxury:

Conscious intentional communication, which we perhaps too hastily attribute to human beings as a mark of distinction, becomes a limited domain, the only domain where the distinction between desirable and ‘spurious’ uncertainty pertains. We may have to concede that the centrality of human communication, understood as a semantic and culturally saturated information system is, at least in principle, neither the first system in which information processes occur, nor necessarily the most efficient.