You said this a lot, but you seem more like you took offence than like you’re moving on.
It comes across as you dismissing people’s points because they didn’t debate by the rules you invented for them to speak.
It’s not a computer science word, it’s an IT word, and I’m afraid you’re going to have to live with people being a bit imprecise with it.
Why not link to the article coining the term? It’s well written and explains well.
Satya Nadella has given an evasive answer there and both Zuckerberg and the journalists have been taken in.
It is common in programming languages that have a lot of boilerplate to use code generation, where you take some information about data and generate code automatically, like code that translates data between formats (for example reading and writing xml for saving to disk or json to send over the network). Being very routine to write and easy to deduce logically from other information, this process has been automated for years and years, long before AI existed.
Microsoft’s flagship software such as operating systems, office software, is unbelievably vast and complex, far beyond the complexity of most business software, and has been developed over decades. They absolutely have not replaced 30% of their code since the very recent advent of useful AI. I can believe that 30% of it is automatically generated, but not by AI.
Time travel, evidently.
Why do you use the distro you use?
People said Ubuntu is easy, but I prefer green to orange so I went with Mint.
Every wankpanzer ever? I had to check it wasn’t the onion. It’s not the onion.
Uh, the politics was an example of similar debating techniques, I made no assertion about your political viewpoint at all, that’s entirely opaque to me.
I also made no assertion about your personality, just that your viewpoint is atheist, and I made no ad hominem about you unless you have contempt for atheists and you consider that me asserting that you believe in atheism is offensive.
I did assert that calling people “illogical”, “irrational” and “unintelligent” is condescending and dismissive and that if you don’t believe that, you need to improve your social awareness, and I absolutely stand by that.
The words logical, irrational, and unintelligent are used because that is literally the topic of the post.
You say that as if it’s an external environment that didn’t come from your own beliefs about religion. You’re the OP! You set the topic yourself! You yourself framed it this way! The self dissociation and lack of awareness of your own beliefs is even more striking than normal here.
I don’t believe that you’re wrong about lack of scientific evidence on the issue of theism vs atheism at all. I do think you’re wrong about whether you’re at all neutral on the subject.
Would it help you if we called it anti-theistic rather than atheistic? Regarding your overwhelmingly anti-theistic perspective, there’s a difference between belief and proof that you’re ignoring - you can’t prove your atheism and you disrespect people who believe things without proof, so you deny your atheism.
But you believe lots of things without proof. It’s how we go about our daily lives. It’s normal. You don’t get your spectrometer out so that you don’t inadvertently believe without proof that the skirt is blue despite knowing full well that you are vulnerable to optical illusions, and you don’t have to have proof that the creepy guy is a creep to avoid him. This is normal. This is how we evolved to learn about the world.
I think the reason that I’ve upset you is that I’ve caused you cognitive dissonance, because I assert that you believe atheism without proof and it seriously challenges your self image because the one argument you used against religion all the time was that believing things without proof is illogical, irrational and unintelligent, and whilst you’re happy to claim that you mean that in the nicest, most neutral, inoffensive and non-insulting way, you don’t half react badly when I put you at the receiving end of your own criticism.
If you really in your heart truly believed that atheism and religious belief both have equal merit and there’s no rational way to decide between them, you wouldn’t spend the whole day inviting religious folk to explain to you why they’re so irrational, illogical and unintelligent when it comes to religion. You have an opinion, and it’s very strongly held, but you never admit it, because it’s not as logical as claiming there’s no answer and you so very strongly want to believe that you’re logical and rational. But I want you to accept yourself as you really are, a bunch of flesh and blood, leaping to conclusions every day on everything based on flimsy evidence and little logical deduction, controlled by emotions and flooded with hormones all day long. We all are. It’s ok. We evolved to have gut feelings for our own protection. You believe atheism but you assert agnostism intellectually. You dismiss the evidence of your own behaviour and attitudes to keep up the self pretence that you drew beliefs are exclusively deduced logically from cast iron evidence, but that’s just not how humans decide things that they care about at all. It’s how they solve maths problems, not how they decide how to treat each other on social media.
I think you really need to come to terms with the fact that you’re fundamentally human and accept that you have some beliefs you can’t prove, like everyone does.
Remember that you believe in the supremacy of science because your parents and teachers taught you to and told you stories of the empirical method’s victory over philosophy for making accurate predictions, not because you preformed some grand comparative experimental study of different philosophies yourself. We believe what we believe because it seems right to us, and we so very very very rarely get out the tape measure and national statistics when we think someone is unusually tall. It’s ok to have things you believe that you didn’t prove, it’s not ok to believe that you prove everything that you think is true; you wouldn’t even be able to have breakfast before it was too late if you did.
No, I don’t know you at all, all I’ve got to go on is the way you’re behaving in this thread.
If you think that calling people “illogical”, “irrational” and “unintelligent” isn’t condescending and dismissive, your social awareness is extremely low, and I also think your self awareness about your own beliefs is rather low.
You like to assert that you are balanced, but you also like to spend all day calling religious folk unintelligent, illogical and irrational.
Your “have a good night buddy” is as utterly unconvincing as your neutrality.
Sure, and Trump claims to respect women equally and has no qualms promoting women, but his contempt for them leaks out and the overall picture is starkly clear.
Maybe you don’t realise that normal people consider words like “illogical”, “irrational” and “unintelligent” pejorative.
Your behaviour is very like the people on here before the election spending at their time explaining why the Democrats are terrible and people shouldn’t vote for them, but when challenged, claimed that they didn’t support Trump at all. It was never clear whether they were lying to others or themselves
You’re being condescendingly dismissive about other people’s beliefs, overwhelmingly about religious beliefs, and I begin to think that you yourself believe that agnostism is the most defensible intellectual position, so you adopt it in theory, but you use it mainly to belittle religious viewpoints. I think emotionally and in behaviour you’re an atheist, but you’re not prepared to admit it to yourself because your intellectual heroes are agnostic and you look down on staunchly atheistic people, despite behaving like one online.
Give in. It’s 2025. Be yourself.
You present yourself as an agnostic but are very one sided in the debate, and you only have criticism for religious people. If you’re going to use words like irrational and illogical for religious beliefs, at least have the intellectual honesty that your position is far more atheist than you’re admitting to us or yourself. It’s not nuanced or balanced at all.
Every time you’re challenged on your beliefs, you claim to not know, but when you’re challenging other people’s beliefs you use words like “irrational” and “illogical”.
You don’t behave like someone who is calmly on the fence at all.
I worry that your debating position and your actual beliefs are out of alignment and I’m not sure whether you’re misleading us or yourself.
I liked tcsh. It was my favourite shell.
Please give at least some clue before I give Google more clicks.
I don’t know what a Mary Sue is. Can you explain?
If there’s any universe in which it makes complete sense for someone to be born ultra powerful completely at random, it’s Star Wars and superhero movies.
I love The Force Awakens but I know someone who complains that it’s really distracting that the three main protagonists have a black guy and a woman, and it’s “trying so hard to be woke” that it spoils the film for him. He really truly honestly believes that he’s not racist or sexist but the “blatant DEI” ruins it.
NONE of the the main 9 star wars films are particularly subtle or deep, but they’re great fun, and if you can’t get over one of the lead characters being female or one of the main characters being ridiculously powerful for no other reason and you try to justify that in terms of consistency or good writing, you’re definitely using double standards.
I think he should reconsider how racist and sexist he is, and I think bleating about Rey being effortlessly at Kylo Ren’s level in the force isn’t worth the effort you put into justifying it.
Another thread suggests that the people calling the cybertruck a swastikar might be discouraging other people from buying them.
Absolutely.
I hesitate to ask, but how was he trying to stimulate himself that he ended up pissing all over himself?