.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}
Visit Freedom's Zone Donate To Project Valour

Saturday, December 14, 2013

But They're Very Educated

This is why a society without a certain number of nitpicking engineers is dysfunctional. Billions and billions and billions. A fourth grader should have been able to catch this.

The worse thing is they've just mapped the magma chamber system better. It isn't mre likely to erupt or be more dangerous. This is no more news than the big scare last summer over 400 ppm CO2. Which, by the way, we get to have screaming headlines all over again probaly around April when the number actually goes above 400 for real. What? You missed all the headline front page retractions of the false 400 reports?
Rob - it's irrational turtles all the way down.

I also really enjoy the swivel to Arctic methane levels to explain why we're all gonna die. No one ever stops to discuss the actual trend.

In the meantime, we don't deal with all the real problems. Are we becoming a society of lemmings?
I liked the second comment best.

The U.N. MUST tax something to stop this volcano from erupting.
There was a house hearing on extreme weather and climate this week. Two cautious experts and one alarmist. The house Democrat press release on te hearing actually omitted and mention of testimony except the alarmist comments.
It's the narrative, Rob. It must remain supreme.

I was just reading an article about Hans Kueng, the dissident Catholic theologian. Of course he is coming to the end of his life, and the focus was on the extent of his disagreement with the RC hierarchy. Very disapproving of the official stance, of course.

But in the midst of the article, I suddenly started thinking about how little the hierarchy actually proceeded against him. Basically, they disavowed his theology. And that was it. They did not persecute him in any way at all.

Compare to our current secular trend in dealing with those who challenge secular dogmas. Those who espouse the ideas of secularism and freedom are in fact trying to destroy those who disagree with their current cant. They want to destroy their careers, and we've even had people arguing for criminal punishment FOR DISAGREEMENT with ideas. It's a crime against the people! Treason! Journalists, scientist and politicians.

How close the "champions of freedom" are to burning Servetus at the stake once more.

Human cultures operate in cycles, and the unwareness of our modern age seems to be returning us to a very uncivilized state. Our culture is devolving in front of our eyes.
I just peeked inI on the stagnant cesspool HCN has become. Even most of the formerly readable people have become meme repeaters. Sad. Then angry. Saw a link to Wikipedia for a temperature chart going back a few thousand years. Nearly all the authors cited have since explicitly retracted their results. Just try and get the chart changed.
You know, Rob, once "climate science" fell to the level of writing papers about model projections (models which have failed to predict past temps) and substituted that for observation, it was all up.

This isn't science - it is some sort of cargo cult.
This is probably OT, but I know MOM and her cadre are connoisseurs of fine Post Modernism:

Feminism and Programming Languages

It gets even better in the comments.

I think this type of logic represents the feminist idea that ... (p && ¬p) == 1.

I'm so optimistic about the kids! The next generation will save us!
Bobn - Thank you for the tip.

I have been wondering how it was possible to eff up Healthcare.gov quite that thoroughly, but perhaps we (or rather you) have found the answer:

What is a feminist logic is a question I’ve spent the past six months thinking about and researching. There are not a lot of women in philosophy, and there are definitely not a lot of feminist philosophers, so I don’t have a good answer for this question. There is great scholarship talking about weather a feminist logic can build off of formal logic or if it has to reject the laws of identity and create something entirely new. There are solid arguments for both camps, personally I’m swayed by the constructive theories that would build onto formal logic through a feminist lens. There exist logics that handle contradiction as part of the system, namely paraconsistent logic. I think this type of logic represents the feminist idea that something can be and not be without being a contradiction, that is a system where the following statement is not explosive: (p && ¬p) == 1.

A feminist logic that rejects the laws of identity could spawn a programming environment in which the confusing glitches of Healthcare.gov are in fact normative.

Because the last thing you ever want to happen is for things to work consistently. That would make fixing errors far too easy.

Only by getting rid of "normative" programming can one be fully free to experience the angst of life in its eternal Great Motherhood.
There's also, Bob, a level of eerie self-awareness that poses a question:

While I think there are issues that could be explored with the mathematics and the machines, this is not where my interests are focused. In part, because I am hoping to uncover something constructive through my research. And when math and computer systems are already so pervasive and useful, calling for their death by fire hardly seems advantageous.

Does this really mean what I think it means?
I do not think the term "research" means to me what this person thinks it does:
A huge part of my research is stemming from the idea that values and biases are perpetuated within technology, focusing my attention on computer systems and code. If values are perpetuated by code, how do we think about values in the creation of and use of code in a more explicit way.

Of course, the nasty normative idea that 1 + 1 = 2 does seem to be a gross imposition of patriarchal constraints upon the strange antic freedom of the Star Trekian glorious world in which 1 to the fourth power is a very large number.

But how does one get a useful computer program if 1 + 1 might equal 2 or 3 or perhaps 0, or perhaps infinity?

And does the researcher here understand machine language?

This person doesn't need a new logic, s/he needs a new type of quantam chip to embody the escape from the confines of reality. The nasty deterministic nature of electrons just won't suffice.

Although s/he does seem to grasp that perhaps her/is cell phone might not be that reliable.

Well, well, well, it's nice to know the feminism's goals are now complete incompetence. It's becoming clear that the first patriarchal oppression occurred when form emerged from chaos, and we all know who did that. Bad, bad Boy!!!!
It may just be that she realizes that if she were to deal with math and machines, she would have to deal with REAL WORK. She's much better off sticking to regurgitation of the entire Cultural Marxist party-line, as in:

I still believe that the construction of a programming language informed by (intersectional) feminism, queer (of color) theory, critical race theory, and disability studies is a worthwhile experiment

Not just "queer" mind you - it must be queers of color.

On the other hand, modern feminists do despise anything that men are usually better at - so she might just want to burn it all down.

For maximum dread, note that the apparently male commenters are taking this swill seriously.

This whole thing reminds me of the ads at http://doyougotinsurance.com/ - I keep waiting for somebody to jump out and say: "You silly old conservatives, it's SATIRE!".

But it keeps not happening. :(

"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two makes four." - Goerge Orwell, 1984

This isn't innocent. Not a drop of it. A world where the college-educated believe swill like this, and most others are on a diet of solid prolefeed - the progressives and Cultural Marxists have been working towards this for generations.
The Doors, Bob.
Can you picture what will be, so limitless and free. And all the children are insane.

But they DO recycle.
I'm so depressed, now I have to go to bed.

What really sucks is I still like the guitars on that song - it's a cool song, but in this context, the poetry *is* disturbing.

But I take much further back than the 60s - Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson and their crews helped lay the ground work.
OK, here we thought this was all complete blather - but, no, there is code - sort of:


C+= (pronounced either C-plus-Equality, or See Equality) is a feminist programming language, created to smash the toxic Patriarchy that is inherent in and that permeates all current computer programming languages.

Note: This is a programming language written by and for FEMINISTS, not WOMEN. LEARN THE DIFFERENCE, YOU MISOGYNIST!

Inspired by the ground-breaking feminist research of Arielle Schlesinger.

The language is to be strictly interpreted using feminist theory. Under no circumstances should the language be compiled, as compilation and the use of a compiler imposes an oppressive and toxic relationship between the high-level descriptive language and the low-level machine code that does all the labo(u)r. Instead, C+= is interpreted, which fosters communication, itself a strong female trait.

No constants or persistence. Rigidity is masculine; the feminine is fluid. I.e., fluid mechanics is hard for men 'because it deals with "feminine" fluids in contrast to "masculine" rigid mechanics'.

No state. The State is The Man. 'Nuff said. Hence, the language should be purely functional.
Basic language style

Anything that can be construed as misogynist will be corrected, thus:

private == privileged
printf(); == yell();
class Foo{}; == social_construct Foo{};
#include == #consider
break; == leave;
if() == check()
for() == check()
while() == check()
sin(x) == biotruth(x)
div == unite
'y's are strictly prohibited when naming variables; only 'x's are allowed

Much more at link. Lesson: never f*** with geeks on their home field - unless you have a really good sense of humo(u)r.
bobn, you owe me a new keyboard. I suggest a safety label on that link. WARNING: Unsafe for viewing with Monday morning coffee.

Please, please, please somebody point me the way to the feminist who finds fluid mechanics to be easy. I have some nasty boundary-layer problems she/he could help me with.
Instead of "running" a program, which implies thin privilege and pressure to "work out", programs are "given birth". After birth, a program rolls for a 40% chance of executing literally as the code is written, 40% of being "psychoanalytically incompatible", and 40% of executing by a metaphorical epistemology the order of the functions found in main().

It's a beautiful thing. Freedom at last, thank G_d Almighty the bits are free at last!

I talked to God and She tells me that gender neutral code is like gender neutral life. Yeah, you can get it to replicate but you can't get it to want to replicate.
I have been wondering how it was possible to eff up Healthcare.gov quite that thoroughly, but perhaps we (or rather you) have found the answer:

You can be sure there were all sorts of social hiring criteria placed on the job.

My father saw first-hand how national research labs operated with the DoD became cesspools of political correctness with actual scientific thought and progress (and the DoD itself) becoming frowned upon. And that was in the 80's.

Detroit is our future.

Neil said:

Please, please, please somebody point me the way to the feminist who finds fluid mechanics to be easy. I have some nasty boundary-layer problems she/he could help me with.

I'm thinking that this is a geek's subtle dirty joke. Or maybe it's your idea of a subtle dirty joke - "fluid dynamics" and "nasty problems" and all.

But maybe that's because I have a dirty mind.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?