Clarkeprops

Clarkeprops t1_jdhr7dl wrote

Reply to comment by munkeyears in Feds Stalked Suspects With an Apple AirTag, Report Says by ChickenTeriyakiBoy1

The AirTag is the WORST tracker for stalkers. It has the stalkers personal ID embedded in the device, all the tracking data is stored with apple, and it tells the target that it’s tracking them.

It’s like you’re trying to get caught. Meanwhile, there are devices you can buy that are THE SAME PRICE that do none of those things

21

Clarkeprops t1_jbik0nn wrote

Reply to comment by Giggalo_Joe in There is nothing to say about truth, admits Simon Blackburn. Here he presents the deflationist approach to truth – one that aims to put an end to the search for a theory of truth, which Blackburn now recognises is futile by IAI_Admin

I’m just saying that humans can’t have a corporeal form alive in the medical sense over 2000 years later. A different state of existence isn’t “Alive”. I’m saying alive with a body and a heartbeat.

So don’t ignore my example. Objective truth: The sun can melt an ice cube if it gets close enough, yea?

1

Clarkeprops t1_jbga4hu wrote

Reply to comment by Giggalo_Joe in There is nothing to say about truth, admits Simon Blackburn. Here he presents the deflationist approach to truth – one that aims to put an end to the search for a theory of truth, which Blackburn now recognises is futile by IAI_Admin

I’m not talking about relativity.

But if you want to argue semantics… While I can’t confirm that Caesar ever existed, we can be sure that without time travel, he’s not currently alive. Whether or not death is the end is irrelevant to him being currently alive as we all know the term to mean.

The sun not being hot… ok. Let’s move the goalpost for the sake of the point.

The sun is plenty hot enough to melt an ice cube if it touched the ice cube, yes?

Is that not an objective truth? Maybe I’m using bad points, or you’re not arguing on good faith. Please explain how we can’t have objective truths.

1

Clarkeprops t1_jbg6g9u wrote

Reply to comment by Giggalo_Joe in There is nothing to say about truth, admits Simon Blackburn. Here he presents the deflationist approach to truth – one that aims to put an end to the search for a theory of truth, which Blackburn now recognises is futile by IAI_Admin

I guess that’s what I’m asking. Can we ever know I single objective truth. I thought yes. I don’t understand why not. Certain things are absolute. Caesar is dead, the sun is hot, and earth has water on it. How are these not absolutely knowable?

1

Clarkeprops t1_jbfu8zq wrote

Reply to There is nothing to say about truth, admits Simon Blackburn. Here he presents the deflationist approach to truth – one that aims to put an end to the search for a theory of truth, which Blackburn now recognises is futile by IAI_Admin

Is this suggesting that objective truth is impossible? I understand that some things are unknowable but I think that there can be objective truths in the universe. The Sun projects light and heat. Is that not an objective, unarguable truth?

0

Clarkeprops t1_jaqb7cl wrote

Reply to comment by MarginCalled1 in Figure: One robot for every human on the planet. by GodOfThunder101

Moore’s law used to be 18months, and the limitations of physics have caused the law to invalidate in terms of transistors. Quantum computing will likely revive the trajectory in spirit, but it’ll be wonky spurts and not a gradual incline like the last 50 years.

I really don’t think we’ll have useful robots available in 7 years. They haven’t even started building them let alone have that tech. A new iPhone takes a year or two to develop, and then 6 months to a year to build. And that’s like 100 grams. These things will be 200lbs.

I don’t think we’ll have useful robots for 20-30 years, but when we do, they’ll all come at once.

6

Clarkeprops t1_j9liefx wrote

Reply to comment by Mparker15 in The harms of gentrification | The exclusion of poorer people from their own neighbourhoods is not just a social problem but a philosophical one by ADefiniteDescription

I was under the expression that the etymology of Gentrification had something to do with gentile, but it seems like it comes from Gentry, which is just a (historically white) social class. A bunch of Chinese nationals buying up a condo block is still technically gentrification.

1

Clarkeprops t1_j9ivf9s wrote

Reply to The harms of gentrification | The exclusion of poorer people from their own neighbourhoods is not just a social problem but a philosophical one by ADefiniteDescription

Does anyone take offense that this is a negative term against white people that doesn’t really apply in many places? In toronto, many white people are being pushed out by rising house prices due to foreign ownership. Over 50% of the city wasn’t born here and rising. Is that still gentrification?

2

Clarkeprops t1_j1vykgk wrote

Reply to comment by Surur in Driverless cars and electric cars being displayed as the pinnacle of future transportation engineering is just… wrong. Car-based infrastructure is inefficient, bad for the environment and we already have better technologies in other fields that could help more. An in depth analysis by mocha_sweetheart

I’ve played sim city. I get it. Toronto is not a new city. You can’t expand the streets. None of those things can be added without taking away from others. It’s taken 10 years and 12.5 billion just to put in a crosstown light rail and has colossally fucked traffic in that area 24/7 for over a decade now. It doesn’t always work the same as it does on paper.

3