If you’re on a Windows box, the apps you’re calling out are assuming some level of FHS or XDG compatibility, neither of which are Windows things.
If you’re on a mac, macOS uses its own thing but can play well with dotdirs. However, you’ll find a mix of assuming XDG and weird macOS storage locations depending on how the tool determines storage location priority.
If you’re on Linux, there are too many standards.
Adding extrinsic rewards for tasks like this can often introduce dark patterns eg maxing reviews to max rewards. It’s not as simple as “just pay someone to read papers.” As much as I detest academic publishers, it’s also not as simple as just throwing everything into open access (which we should do no matter what) and then having folks do it for the good of the community. There will have to be some experimentation with a balance of intrinsic and extrinsic rewards.
In the US I directly pay for the funding for papers through tuition and taxes. I shouldn’t have to fucking pay a parasitic publisher on top of that just to access that shit. In math at least I don’t mind paying a little here and there for an MAA or AMS journal though.
I use uBlock Origin to remove tracking. I also manually remove tracking. Privacy Badger is a tool that works to explicitly do this kind of tidying.
Your analogy doesn’t work at all.
If one of the core harms is the removal of income and tracking, ad blockers fall into this category. Ad blockers very explicitly remove these things. The harm is not “Honey stole my income” it’s “Honey removed my tracking and Honey added their tracking.” Read the Legal Eagle case.
I am genuinely concerned about this because Legal Eagle’s suit is directly tied to manipulating URLs and cookies. The suit, even with its focus on last click attribution, doesn’t make an incredibly specific argument. If Legal Eagle wins, this sets a very dangerous precedent for ad blockers being illegal because ad blockers directly manipulate cookies and URLs. I haven’t read the Gamer’s Nexus one yet.
Please note that I’m not trying to defend Honey at all. They’re actively misleading folks.
Are you looking for an editor that can format YAML out-of-the-box or with plugins? In my experience, most editors only support a small number of formats out of the box and extend that functionality with plugins. I have yet to find a solid, production editor without a decent YAML formatter. If you’re using one of the common commercial ones, Red Hat maintains many that work explicitly for Ansible.
other given statements
Perhaps this is our fundamental misunderstanding! I am operating under these statements
P: I have nothing to hide Q: I should not be concerned about surveillance
In my opinion, everything after this is OP’s proof, ie we have no given statements ergo you calling out modus ponens is meaningless because, from our foundations, we could theoretically have ~P^Q, P^~Q, P^Q, and P^Q. Our foundation provides no context on how P and Q interact, and, as both of us state, albeit for different reasons, we cannot conclude anything about their interaction.
Sure! Let’s go back to foundations. The foundation of modus ponens is, quoting your source,
If P -> Q and P, then Q
In order for this to work, we must have both P -> Q and P. Will you please quote OP that shows we have P -> Q, as I have asked from the beginning, instead of making personal attacks? Alternatively, if I’m missing something in my foundations, such as “P -> Q can always be assumed in any basic symbolic context without proof,” educate me. As you have bolded, we can use modus ponens if and only if (necessary and sufficient) we have its requirements. If we don’t, per your source, we cannot use it to prove anything.
From your source, we must first have P -> Q. You have not demonstrated that. Sure, if we assume that P -> Q, then P -> Q. That’s a tautology. OP’s goal is to prove P -> Q. I’ve said this multiple times as did OP. Your consistent sharing of a truth table is a necessary condition for P -> Q but it is not sufficient. If P -> Q, then the truth table is valid. That’s modus ponens. You still gotta show (or assume like you have been) that P -> Q.
To quote OP,
P -> Q
I will be providing a proof by counterexample
In other words, P -> Q is an unproven hypothesis. If P -> Q, then your truth table is correct. If we assume P -> Q, then your truth table is correct. But propositional calculus unfortunately requires we prove things, not just show things that will be true if our original assumption is true.
You didn’t read OP, regularly refused back anything up, and came in with ad hominem. When others vote in a way that disagrees with you, you claim a conspiracy. I think the only person here acting in bad faith is you. I have tried to expand OP’s understanding of their proposal and you have only attacked people. You have attempted to insult me multiple times. Granted, I did take a swipe at you begging the question, so you could argue some bad faith was merited, but you saying I’ve never done logic while missing me explaining to you the point you’re suddenly trying to make (“necessary but not sufficient”) continues the poor student metaphor.
I’m sorry you found “good luck” to be patronizing. Does “have fun” work?
Still failing…
Reread OP. All you did was provide a truth table that is necessary but not sufficient. Given A and given B, with literally nothing else, prove A -> B.
You postmodernist you
Now this is a logical fallacy. While many might agree it’s a proper response to Quine or Kripke, I think it’s just kinda sad. Good luck!
How so?
OP said that, given A and B, they would prove A -> B via negation, meaning the truth table you built does not yet exist and must be proved.
It is rather…
OP is not trying to use language, OP is trying to use propositional calculus. Using language unattached to propositional calculus is meaningless in this context.
This is textbook modus ponens
No, it’s not. Textbook modus ponens is when you are given A -> B. We are given A and B and are trying to prove A -> B. Never in any of my reading have I ever seen someone say “We want to prove A -> B ergo given A and B, A -> B.” I mean, had I graded symbolic logic papers, I probably would have because it’s a textbook mistake to write a proof that just has the conclusion with none of the work. As the in group, we may assume A -> B in this situation; OP was taking some new tools they’ve picked up and applying them to something OP appears passionate about to prove our assumptions.
how dare you
I was responding to OP. Why are you getting mad at me instead of getting mad at OP? OP brought propositional logic to a relativistic conversation. My goal was show why that’s a bad idea. You have proven my point incredibly well.
You made the same leap that OP did.
[I]t is logically accepted that there might be other reasons, even unknown.
No, it’s not. That’s what I’m calling out. This doesn’t follow from A or B and requires further definition. While you’re using to explain case b, OP tried to use it to explain case c. In both cases, you are assuming some sort of framework that allows you to build these truth tables from real life. That’s where my ask for a consistent formal system comes from.
In your case b, we have not(I have something to hide) and (I am not concerned about surveillance). Since OP is not saying that the two are necessary and sufficient, we don’t really care. However, in your case c, where we have I have nothing to hide and not(I am not concerned about surveillance), both of you say we are logically allowed to force that to make sense. It’s now an axiom that A and not B cannot be; it has not come from within our proof or our formal system. We waved our hands and said there’s no way for that to happen. Remember, we started with the assumption we could prove A -> B by negation, not that A -> B was guaranteed.
If you’ll notice my last paragraph in my first post basically says the same thing your last paragraph says.
I’m not sure how you prove by negation in this case just via modus ponens. Care to enlighten me? I opened with something that doesn’t follow so that would be a great place to start.
Give me a consistent formal system with a list of theorems to prove OP’s conjecture and I’ll show you how we have gaps in the system. My analytic philosophy is pretty rusty; I think there are a few 20th century folks you can start from for this.
Some may have nothing to hide, but still be concerned about the state of surveillance
This is where your proof falls apart. It follows from nothing you’ve established and relies on context outside of our proof, which does not work with propositional logic. Another commenter goes into a bit more detail with some pre-defined axioms; with the right axioms you can wave away anything. However you have to agree on your axioms to begin with (this is the foundation of things like non-Euclidean geometry; choose to accept normally unacceptable axioms).
A rigorous proof using propositional calculus would have to start with the definitions of what things are, what hiding means, what surveillance is, how it relates to hiding, and slowly work your way to showing, based on the definitions and lemmas you’ve built along the way, how this actually works. Understanding how to build arithmetic from the Peano Axioms is a good foundation.
However, by attempting to represent this conversation in formal logic, we fall prey to Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems, which means something beyond the axioms in our system has to be based on faith. This arguably leads us back to the beginning, where “nothing to hide” and “state surveillance” fall under personal preference.
Please note that I think “nothing to hide” is bullshit always and do not support heavy surveillance. I like the discussion you’ve started.
I don’t think you understand what “outside my realm of expertise” means. I’m not trolling, so I must be a simpleton. As a simpleton, my general perspective has always been that it should be safe to ask questions about things you don’t understand so you can better understand. In this case, it’s very simple to say “from my uneducated eye, this appears to be a strong source that contradicts; that doesn’t seem to jive with the narrative so can someone help me understand why it doesn’t?” You seem to feel simpletons aren’t allowed to ask questions or grow, so we’re done here. I will take my specialized, domain-specific knowledge (which I’ve forgotten more about than you will probably ever learn) and sit in my simpleton castle knowing that’s all I ever get to know because it’s not okay to ask questions on the internet in a community based on discourse.
I’m was just hoping for a solid rebuttal, not necessarily a fancy one! If you’re able to explain why the criticisms you mention mean that specific study is bad, that would be great! I’m assuming you’re not from China and mistakenly think wherever you’re from doesn’t suffer from similar issues, meaning we can only trust you as much as the article.
It would be great to have some citations for that so I can point to things when I get into these discussions! That was part of what I asked for. You seem really passionate about this so you must have that available to help me out. Thanks!
I’m not sure you read my post if you think I trust any of the studies I linked more than anything else. It might be good to reread it!
It looks like someone else linked one of these studies in a different comment while I was writing my own. I don’t feel as crazy now. I don’t care one way or another; I just want to make sure I can respond correctly! I wonder if the emphasis on fluoridated water is itself linked to industry capture?
I want someone who knows about these things to respond to this 2012 metastudy that ties naturally fluoridated groundwater to neurological problems. I have used this the past decade to say “well the science is unclear;” I found it back then (2013 at the latest) when I was trying to disprove a crank and really questioned my shit. There was a(n unrelated?) follow up later that questioned the benefits. Since this is very far from my area of expertise, I’m not championing these; I just want to understand why they’re wrong or at least don’t matter in the discourse.
(Edit: for the educated, there could be a million ways these are wrong. Authors are idiots, study isn’t reproducible, industry capture, conclusions not backed up by data, whatever. I just don’t have the requisite knowledge to say these are wrong and therefore fluoridated water is both safe and useful)
Update: great newer studies in responses! You can have a rational convo starting with these two that moves to newer stuff.
The first and third apply to TV, radio, podcasts, or possibly even reading. The second isn’t a guarantee (not conclusive for everyone) and can be solved with technology.
The real science here is practicing good sleep hygiene. Your phone is one of many things that can fuck with that; it’s only a small part of it.