> I have never understood why "reductio ad absurdum" is popularly considered a 'fallacy'.
> It seems like a perfectly logical argumentative technique,
It's both. The strong form of the valid argumentative technique involves what amount to a series of valid syllogisms, where each step from the premise to the false conclusion involves a true premise and a logical (and therefore absolute) implication. The false conclusion drawn through valid implication and and a series of premises all but one of which is accepted as true thereby disproves the premise that was in doubt. There is a weaker but still valid (though not in the logical sense) form, where the steps aren't logically necessary but contingently true, with both the intermediate premises and the inferences with high enough likelihood that the conclusion is very likely true if the questioned premise is true.
The fallacy has a similar shape but involves intermediate premises that are false or at least unjustified, or intermediate steps that are unwarranted, or consists of steps that are a likely enough individually but which in aggregate are not sufficiently likely to justify the conclusion that the premise is false.
Most commonly, the fallacy form rests on what reduces to the reasoning:
1. If A, it is most likely that B
2. Most likely A.
3. Therefore, most likely B.
A contradiction (A ^ ~A) is the point at which reductio ad absurdum is achieved. It proves that a false assumption was made.
A counter example to a universal proposition is but one means of finding a contradiction since the universal allows you to assert the positive. A proof that no examples exist would contradict the statement that some do, just as effectively achieving reductio ad absurdum.
What you're saying is not incongruous with what I'm saying.
statement leads to contradiction -> "general-statement is actually false in at least one case", so if reductio ad absurdum is defined as achieving a contradiction, then the original statement is false in at least one case.
But really, I'm interested in these arguments, please let me know where I can learn more. Especially regarding the idea that it uses less energy than the current banking system.
> Especially regarding the idea that it uses less energy than the current banking system.
I guess this one is pretty clear, OP was only comparing to gold/silver (I have no idea how it compares in practice).
To be comparable to banking, bitcoin should probably first reach the level where it can provide the same functionality (payment, fractional banking, etc.). (And then prorated as even if it were to provide the functionality, it would have to scale by several orders of magnitude to replace banking)
That's a completely ridiculous answer and makes it clear you have no idea what you're talking about. 1) Gold has nothing to do with banking transactions, I've lived my whole life without ever touching a spec of gold. 2) Is about the energy consumption of bank branches. My bank doesn't even have branches. You're comparing apples to... tires or something.
And you are willing and able to tot up those statistics for the people who make Bitcoin miners and other machines running nodes? And the buildings that house those, etc.? As long as you are not, it's still an improper comparison.
On the one hand, we have the biggest crisis to ever face humanity, where all of our lives literally hang in the balance and daily we're seeing the effects from wildfires to cold blasts.
On the one hand, we have the biggest crisis to ever face humanity, where all of our lives literally hang in the balance and daily we're seeing the effects from wildfires to cold blasts.
No, but I have ways to survive all this. Even climate change will only lead to some billion deaths at worst. One in seven chance? Not a big deal for me. I'll take it.
I thought this was a joke, but you sounded like someone I know, so I went digging through your history. And sure enough... I particularly liked this bit: "In fact, people quite like me." Hah. It's a small World, Rene. Remember that. Not just because of the bullshit you attach to your name online, but also the bubble you think you can maintain around you in real life.
Generally this attitude, if actually held, would be described as psychopathic.
And if you think that your quality of life would be the same, even if you survive, then you are blind to the violence that must surely come when the world goes to hell.
When that many people die from starvation and dislocation, you better believe that the pitchforks will come out, and no one will give a damn if you are a BTC lord, you'll be left in a latrine by roving mobs who out-number you 100000 to 1.
We'll see. I care enough that I'm carbon negative. Most people also take the same trade as me. In truth, they do worse things: they actively kill our future by being carbon positive.
The difference is that when I kill our next generation I don't pretend I care. It is no surprise that makes the rest of you carbon positive people uncomfortable.
What you hide from yourself so that you can claim to be pure, I don't.
I know that if the billion could die you will kill them. Because you're doing it now. So the 1 in 7 happens anyway. So I do enough to ease my conscience and then make my peace with my role in the coming violence. 14% likelihood of death? I've beaten worse.
There is not enough UV-B in sunlight for your body to manufacture vitamin D when the sun is less than fifty degrees above the horizon. This means that for the majority of the northern half of the United States and all of Canada, you can't make _any_ vitamin D from the end of fall to the beginning of spring.
Looker Data Sciences, recently acquired by Google | Remote (US Only) | Full-Time | Typescript, Ruby |
We are seeking curious, kind, and passionate people to help us pave the path for the next generation of business intelligence tools. We value simplicity in our code and our user interfaces. We empower small groups to move fast, build relationships, communicate clearly, and achieve more. We believe in choosing the right tool for the job, not one tool to solve all problems. We make a huge impact on product direction, we experiment, and we iterate rapidly.
We see that PDT doesn't scale well with the the amount of data complexity you usually have to deal with in the warehouse.
On top of that, the results of PDTs are only accessible to Looker. As your data team matures, there will be many other users and applications that need to take advantage of your transformed data in the warehouse. (e.g. modelling in Python)
Dataform also brings other features not available in PDTs. For example:
- Data validations tests (assertions) to ensure data quality in all your data applications (including Looker)
- Incremental tables: You can define tables that update incrementally instead of being rebuilt from scratch, hence delivering better performance and saving costs
- Reusable code. You can define reusable code snippets across your entire project
I much agree with this response. The term that I've heard to summarize all of the above is "semantic layer". That layer will run in the warehouse, vs. some external dashboard tool.
This is not quite true. Sheep can eat grass more efficiently because they have wide mouths. Goats have narrow mouths. But both can eat grass just fine.
Sheep will not go out of their way to try new foods but if they are pastured with goats they will observe and learn from the goats, and end up eating a fairly wide variety of plants. They'll never be quite as broad-minded as the goats, but they will eat a wide variety of grasses, shrubs, and leaves. They are not as flexible as the goats and can't reach as high into trees as goats can, nor can they climb hard to reach cliffs and terraces as well as goats can, which is probably why goats are preferred for this but application. But they will definitely eat low-hanging leaves and shrubby plants they can get to.
I live in Santa Cruz CA and and deal with terribly potholed roads. The air temperature here rarely gets below freezing, and I've never seen any ice on the roads to indicate that the ground temperature has been below freezing. Clearly something besides the freeze/thaw cycle is causing potholes.
