• 2 Posts
  • 590 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 22nd, 2023

help-circle


  • “I realize me trying to use terms I don’t know the meaning of in an argument makes me look stupid now to people who actually have knowledge about the subject, so I’m going to make a short and quippy comment to avoid trying to address my incompetently made claims and hope the other person lets me have the last word, or else I’m going to continue arguing because it would hurt my ego if they got to have the last word.” That is how you look to everyone else. Ancaps are very predictable. How many times have you tried to mic drop people today so far?


  • In my language what I said looked fine in this context and I’d be understood.

    Haha no fucking way you’re trying to use “in my language it’s different” in this context. What language? What language could you possibly even be referring to? Is this language in the room with us right now?

    Since I well know what lazy evaluations are, I am using them correctly, for the analogy that another person should have separated two arguments I’ve made. So it is clear for any spectator, competent or not, that you are a fool. Except some of them are the same.

    You saying “I’m right and your wrong because… because I know I’m right!” is certainly an argument. I guess I was correct about you not being able to come up with actual reasoning for the bullshit you tried pulling.

    I also think you are incompetent at your job, because people use informal language all the time to talk about concepts.

    What kind of pseudointellectual oral diarrhea is this? “Informal language”? You think anyone actually believes the bullshit you’re making up about “lazy evaluation” being “informal language” for something else in your language?

    Are you in 10th grade or something? You sound so unbelievably dumb right now trying to make justifications for your stupidity up on the fly and failing horribly.


  • Actually whatever lemmy.world admins use to auto-ban malfunctioned and was banning a bunch of users for “URL Blacklist” coincidentally when I posted the comment. I’m glad that you thought it was a long ban though and that I wouldn’t be able to respond because now I can point and laugh at what you just said

    but laziness in functional programming is not limited to lazy iterators. I meant lazy evaluations, as in Lisp.

    Man you really just fucking Googled “laziness programming definition” and regurgitated words from the first Wikipedia article you saw? I’m curious how you’re going to try to weasel your way of of that and somehow connect lazy evaluation to however you were responding to that person. Because if you actually knew what the hell lazy evaluation was then you would know how stupid you sound right now. Let me guess, you won’t even attempt to because you realize trying to explain would make you look even more clueless.

    What is obvious is that you saw the words “functional programming” online one time and thought “you should learn functional programming” sounded like a fancy way of saying “you should learn logic” so you used it without having a clue as to what you were even talking about. The most stereotypical ancap pseudo-intellectualism I’ve seen!


  • LOL no fuckin way you ever learned “quite a lot of them” (not even a logical response/conclusion following the comment) and then “forgot” everything about functional programming, but randomly spouted it out because you thought it was somehow relevant. You don’t know what you’re talking about at all and it shows. And you’re crying “other people think they’re intelligent”… do you have no self-awareness? How do you rationalize that you get a pass for saying and believing stupid shit, “I know I’m right and they’re wrong, science and logic says otherwise but I know that means logic is just liberal propoganda! Grrr!”

    Let me guess, you coded a shitty notepad in Python one time or vaguely heard some people on r/ProgrammerHumor mention C++ pointers and Haskell and think you’re a “master hacker” now. Lmao




  • I was gonna disagree, but I couldn’t actually think of a functioning stateless ideology which allows private property. Anarchism is inherently for abolishing private property, so that’s out already. That mostly just leaves you with "anarcho-"capitalism which is just replacing the government with an ultra-capitalist power structure and decimating social mobility, it’s just an undemocratic state but shittier…










  • Pushing for voting for other parties in most of the US gets you nowhere because of the way our elections work in the first place. At least, outside of elections where parties (and policy in general) barely matter at all, like very small municipalities; but generally unless you get the entire city council and judicial system in that town/county progressive it’s pretty hard for small-town politicians to make much meaningful change anyways. Although it’s not impossible – recently an “independent” (I think Republican but idk) city council member I directly voiced my concerns to right before the election about the lack of investment in sidewalks, public transport, and other non-car infrastructure in our small extremely conservative town actually got some sidewalks built which was great.

    With the state level, though, it’s not coming unless you live in a state with some sort of multiple answer voting like RCV (like Instant-Runoff Voting / IRV), approval voting, cardinal/rated voting (like STAR voting or score/range voting, etc… Or if you live an extremely progressive state where candidates that advocate for that kind of system are able to get voted into office, almost always a Democrat or sometimes an Independent aligned with Democrats.

    IMO the ideal voting system would be Condorcet Single Transferable Vote / CPO-STV (same exact thing as STV to the voter, but implementing a variation of the Condorcet Method under the hood, which would be the most proportional system in both multi-winner and single-winner elections) but I don’t think that’s actually used anywhere, and a system with such computationally heavy internals would be a hard sell to people who already see IRV as “controversial”. As long as we get anything other than FPTP, we can make it better later, the specifics don’t matter too much.

    For the curious, STV (Single Transferable Vote) is essentially the same as IRV (Instant-Runoff Voting, known simply as ranked-choice in the US although there are other ranked-choice systems) except it’s multi-winner instead of single-winner, where you can “rank” multiple candidates, and if your first choice candidate is eleminated or if they have surplus votes, your vote is instead “transferred” to your second candidate. The Condorcet system is basically a voting system that takes into account every possible candidate match-up, and makes the winner whoever has the most votes in each individual match-up – it’s very computationally heavy since, especially in elections with many candidates and in multi-winner variations, you can have extremely large amounts of matchups. You can combine STV with the Condorcet method and get CPO-STV, which would theoretically be the system which would be the hardest game/“tactically” vote in (a.k.a. people wouldn’t have any incentive to vote against a candidate they like in order to make a different candidate more likely to win, thereby increasing the chance of a candidate they don’t prefer winning) and achieve the most proportional/happiest-choice voting.