But understanding what their point actually was and what other conceptions are/were possible is also a huge insight. In this parable: jumping from the shoulders next to them, to see how actually large they are.
Sorry to people who not have had you enlightenment about the "true conception of philosophy", this reads just void of actual meaning. Can you elaborate?
> it falls apart when you go to places where the average person is poor and/or uneducated
But being poor or uneducated is not an innate property of a person. Everyone can become poor or rich, educated or uneducated at any time.
> Think: places where people express eagerness to elect a certain person to a third term.
That's exactly something where I think "Smart people don't think others are stupid" applies. Just because people don't vote in ways that would follow your logic means they are dumb. They maybe have different priorities, incentives or moral than you.
Because cancer is "just" some error in what a cell does, and the detection didn't work. Giving enough time everything will have cancer. It's simply memory/hardware faults accumulating.
Also many treatments will hasten your death than the disease itself. There is another HN thread posted today: "Do dentists know what they're doing?", the comments are illuminating. Same goes for oncologists - money incentives play a major role.
A doctor is supposed to do an anamnesis each time it might have some consequences. This is not because they are stupid, or thing you are. People simply have error rates. Just because he wants to hear everything again from the beginning, does not mean he hasn't read your file. He want's to make sure, nothing got lost or forgotten including by the patient himself. And he is actually supposed to do so, if he doesn't that's bad practice.
If you want to generate HTML properly, you treat as the tree it is, instead of doing string concatenation. If you do that, then you also don't need to do much with strings, so that problem is already solved.
Because C is fundamentally defined for an abstract machine. People just ignoring portability and writing machine-specific code reek after actually not understanding other fundamental properties of C and are as such prune to writing a lot of undefined behaviour. C is fundamentally abstract from the machine and ignoring that will bring you in all kind of nasty situations, even if the code happens to run fine, because the compiler translated it accidentally in the naive way you expected it to.
Of course there are also the people who know what C is and make explicit choices about the compiler and the platform. But then they are often explicit about that and say that they are NOT writing C, but e.g. gnu11 on arm64. Then you also know that you can't just change the compiler and platform and happen to be fine.
> Because C is fundamentally defined for an abstract machine.
This is more like a guideline than actual rule ;) (e.g. the C standard is also full of implementation defined behaviour, and that's fine).
Instead of obsessing over theoretical C standard details, people should build their code with "-Wall -Wextra" (that's the absolute minimum), maybe -pedantic (which however disables a lot of useful non-standard extensions that are accepted by most popular compilers), run the code through a static analyzer, and test with ASAN, UBSAN and TSAN (and nowadays, also let an LLM do a bug scan over the code).
When all those things are clean, the code is in pretty good shape and will most likely survive porting to a new target platform or compiler.
UBSAN is also pragmatic enough to focus on the 'important' UB, and ignore the 'irrelevant' types of UB.
Came here to say this but top comments got to the point. It’s funny how non musician programmers think they can just reinvent things without realizing centuries have gone into this. Might as well reinvent Arabic numerals and calculus notation.
reply