__sisyphus__

I'm not sure I agree with the author here. I do understand the point, but it seems like a rather rigid and reductive understanding.

Sure, if you're only ever responding with sarcasm it's going to have an effect similar to what the author describes—it brings a certain insincerity to the progression of a conversation, especially in groups. But not every conversation or idle thought needs a well-reasoned dialectic attached to it. And parsing out every idea logically is often tedious and tiresome.

It feels like the author is really talking about some other, larger societal issue—intellectual laziness. And while sarcasm might be an overused tool for the many who cannot be bothered to engage in actual discussions, sarcasm in itself is certainly not the enemy here.

This is how I've always understood it as well. It's probably not quite this simple, but for a couple of sentences, I can't imagine having a much clearer picture.

Part of me wants to replace "post-Kantian" with some sort of Hegelian descriptor, but I suppose the difference in meaning would be somewhat negligible. I've just always felt like every continental philosophy since Hegel has essentially been a response to him less than Kant, but Kant certainly provided the foundation for what was to come.

Yeah, this is a good point. I still have a lot of friends from my youth that are pretty serious southern baptists/calvinists, and many of them genuinely believe that aborted babies may actually go to hell. They understand it's a strange thing to say, often admitting they could be wrong, but I suppose it's a more logically sealed version of their beliefs, even if it seems strange.

Cool, thanks for sharing!

I've wanted to try something like this (on a smaller scale), but haven't had time. It's good to hear of an implementation that reflects my expectations. How long did it take you to migrate over?

you definitely make some good points. i realized a few things i didn't think about after posting as well.

i guess i was thinking more along the lines of, most of the time i personally don't think you should be choosing a presidential candidate based on predictions of who may or may not win. even some of your examples are more centered on the ultimate outcome of the election and how to plan for it; i really think people whose lives could be affected that drastically should be planning ahead for that situation anyway.

nonetheless, i agree they do have some value, and perhaps i should have clarified my line of thinking more clearly.

really though, what tangible value do polls provide anyway? i get that the polling over the last few years hasn't been great, but i don't really understand why everyone's so upset about it. did anyone actually make or change decisions based on these polls? they're just predictions anyway.

for instance, in your example, a hurricane's path directly affects citizens of cities that lie on that path—do they need to prepare to leave their homes, etc.? but is anyone actually basing their decision to vote or who to vote for on the polls in such a way that it significantly affects the outcome?

> Nothings stops you from learning whatever second language you want.

You're right, nothing is stopping one from learning a second language; unfortunately not only do most english speakers lack incentive, but also they lack the ability to practice in the way most other languages do. Most of the time when you run into non-native english speakers, they would rather practice their english with you, even when in their country of origin.

Additionally, there's very little lingual diversity in the US as it stands. Sure, there are plenty of spanish speakers, but early education doesn't really focus on teaching spanish with any sort of fluency as a true end-goal.

So situationally it just makes learning a second language that much more difficult. Nonetheless, I do agree with you that there are obviously huge benefits to it; the few that you mention, along with many others.

I agree. Grid seemed great in theory, but in practice I almost never find myself using it. The number of use cases that flexbox doesn't satisfy is quite small, and the Grid syntax is a bit more tedious. It's just not worth the trouble most of the time.

having been employed by agencies directly, and having worked as a freelancer working with agencies as well as other businesses directly, these rates are right in line with my experience.

So, anecdotally, my degree was in philosophy and math, but I now work as a programmer. Yes, semi-related, but coincidentally, really. And I think this is probably the case for you as well (at least, I would guess).

This forms what I think is the underlying thread here. For those that aren't as flexible and creative in applying their talents and education, most of these classes really do end up being useless, and for them, a waste of money in the long run.

If you're already capable, chances are that no matter your field of study, you're going to land somewhere that you can find a way to use your knowledge; but this really seems to me more a case of interest and driven/natural critical thinking skills than it is a reflection of the content of the classes. Those that apply themselves can find niches to sharpen their skills, whereas those opportunities aren't necessarily sought out by everyone.

So, in effect, while some individuals taking classes of any sort, even poorly taught, might have the fervor to find a path towards enrichment, not all students will have this experience. And this leads to the "basket weaving" degrees for others: subjects that, while not generally irrelevant a priori, are generally irrelevant for many experientially.

I attended a private college. Not only did I have to live on campus for all four years, but additionally, they forced you to purchase the meal plan. I made most of my meals myself; nonetheless, I had no choice but to pay for the meal plan.

they are restricted from lowing their rates per the same 2006 bill cited above. in addition, they have to pre-fund their pension benefits well into the future in ways that other privatized companies would never do. the obligation is overwhelmingly crippling. i don't remember the exact figures, but in 2006 USPS profited somewhere around ~$10M, and in 2009—three years after the law was enacted—they lost close to ~4B. i believe it was estimated that ~3/4 of those losses were directly associated with that law.

for whatever reason (also probably a bad one), i hate the syntax of switch statements, and for that reason i almost never use them. the match expression though, i'm actually very excited about. i quite like the mapped look; it seems more intuitive to read.

I tend to agree with this. I found a lot of the arguments from the article for her being "African-American" unconvincing.

From one perspective, I suppose one could make the argument that most "African-Jamaicans" would hold a similar distinction to "Africa-Americans" in that they share a common lineage. If you transitively apply that shared property, perhaps you could say that she's an African American "once removed" or whatever you want to call it. Although I'm not really sure how convincing I find that either.

What I wonder—is this distinction important one way or another to actual African Americans? Or is this actually just a contrived political battle?