I can give it a shot. I don't want to butcher it, but I feel like attention spans on here are pretty short for philosophy so here's the short version. Many continental philosophers appear to be skeptical of the separation of form and content necessary for logic to "work" in the context of another subject of study (Deleuze), interested in presenting tensions between ideas that do not clearly adapt themselves to exclusive truth or falsity (Derrida), or interested in presenting things that do not pretend to be particularly abstract or logical (Levinas).
On a personal note, I want to say that I drifted to continental philosophy in my undergrad after studying and appreciating formal logic. I realized that mainstream analytical philosophy had a lot less to do with logic than I had imagined (no symbolization, no commonly agreed upon rules of deduction), and at a certain point the question of "why logic" presented itself. I haven't found many opportunities in my writing to use the more technical concepts of modality or nth-orders, let alone anything from category theory.
I think the irony is that all those weird logics turned out to not just be useful for logic... but literally actually really useful! Like people make lots of money based off of them
I'm not saying it's fair, but is is probably better financially for current home owners. Sell faster, with fewer/no contingencies and waiting periods, and Zillow may potentially price "hassle" lower— making deferred maintenance less expensive to take care of.
Is it better for people who are trying to break into the housing market now? No. Is it better for people who are trying to sell and move out in a low-demand area? Probably not, except it might speed up the process.
Okay so in Portland homes sell same weekend they're listed if they're priced right. I know this because My home sold after only a 2 hr open house. It's nuts. Zillow wanted to pay way under their zestimate and I ended up selling for more than asking. The offer I picked ultimately was a real family with a mortgage.
The zillow owned homes have been sitting on the market for a while despite being fair prices IMO. I think its turning agents away since zillow really wants the buyers to also use zillow.
Realtor here, so sure, I'm biased... Zillow is engaged in arbitrage just like anyone else trading assets. It's possible to get a great price and low fees... or it's possible to get taken for a ride. Knowing what I know about real estate - I'd never buy or sell through Zillow or a similar service (Redfin, etc), and I'd never recommend it to a family member or friend. Everybody focuses on commissions, but if you sell your house below what you should have, you are leaving a lot more money on the table than the cost of my commission.
This is probably because it is relatively easy to add more elisp flourishes, another seven major modes for editing JavaScript, much harder to actually improve the core.
A lot of the people I know who still have an account, and are aware of Facebook's track record, use it for maintaining contact with friends and status updates, I don't think there is a whole lot that will get those people to drop, they would rather try to further close off the flow of information into Facebook, and they are already not trusting the service or what it does with the information it gets.
You are saying that comfortable communication with friends is rationally less important than long-term ideological battle that you don’t really influence?
If you don't mind sharing your private conversations then sure it starts looking rational.
It is not just an ideological battle when your information is used directly against you personally. Companies pay for ads targeted to you by mining your personal content.
If you are not on facebook or rarely use it they have no opportunity to influence you.
You can use Facebook while not having any conversations on it you'd wish to stay private. I think most of my friends still on Facebook use it that way.
Facebook is a contact point, first and foremost. Nothing prevents you from greeting a friend and requesting that the conversation continues on a more private channel.
It is a good parallel. Obviously if your relatives live on another continent, flying is the optimal, but for example you can ride a bus from SF to LA instead of flying.
"People aren't rational" is just a dishonest way of saying you disagree with someone's very logical reasoning due to different values.
I know Facebook is scum, but I have no other way to stay in touch with some of my IRL friends. So really I have competing agendas here, social connectivity vs. personal privacy, and I'm sacrificing some privacy to gain connectivity because I value one over the other. I, personally, mitigate the privacy loss by only sharing stuff I'd consider publishing publicly anyway, only liking stuff that's similar, avoiding groups and pages, periodically deleting all old content from my account, using adblockers and private browsing all the time, and customizing the FB web app via local scripts (thank you, FB Purity).
You can disagree with my values and the resulting choices (maybe you value personal privacy over social connectivity), but those choices are completely rational even for people who don't necessarily think about them in painful detail like I do.
So get over yourself and quit thinking that other people are somehow beneath you because they make different choices than you.
I have Facebook messenger app installed for the sake of a couple of people, and I check the Facebook main page once in a blue moon to respond to event invites from a friend.
Other than this I don't use Facebook at all any more and have used it very very little for the past several years.
I use a browser that tries to protect me from trackers and ads.
To me, this is what makes sense to do.
But they still get a significant amount of my attention because I use Instagram though.
The main issue here is that they also get to link all the other app events to your facebook account due to the facebook sdk and the fact you installed the app on the phone.
How is this not rational? Not feeding Facebook anything beyond the minimum (minimising anything extracted from the user) but keeping it open as a communications channel (maximising how much value the user is extracting) is exactly the rational strategy to adopt when network effect keeps Facebook as the #1 place people (re)connect.
I use facebook as an address book. When i need to get touch with someone I haven’t been talking recently, I open fb messenger and reach out. Then we can move it to a better form of communication. But it works. I don’t think I feed much info into it. Also fb market place has decent items.
This has always been my problem with emacs. The basic interpreter and interface design is phenomenal, but it is so bogged down and buggy it is frustrating to actually push it to the limits of capability. I wish the devs would just drop support for stuff that can be maintained just as well as a plugin.
Do you not use motions? I use stuff like `dfXa` where X is the character I want to delete to, for example. I could do 23x, d6w, or d/foo<CR>, depending on the information I have, either way this is light-years faster than what I can do without motions. Macros and programmability are great, but they are more for boilerplate stuff than just one-off mangling text fast. You can also hit the arrow keys in sed mode to reuse old commands, a lot more painless than recording and storing a macro in my imagination.
My claim is not that motions and the like are not useful constructs. My claim is that most functionality of this sort, whose use-case is not contrived or trivial, has equivalently low-keystroke solutions in nano; these often tend to be more intuitive as well, and sometimes require even less keystrokes/keyboardtime than vim (especially considering the whole enter/exit edit mode extra keystroke, which tends to be conveniently absent in keystroke wars).
E.g. dfXa -> Mark, Search, X + Enter, Delete
d/foo -> Mark, Search, foo + Enter, Delete
d6w -> Mark, EndOfWord x 6, Delete (or store 'EndOfWord Delete' as a temp macro, and use a predefined repetition command)
To me, '23x' (and to some extent even d6w) is an example of a contrived use-case; while you can come up with ways to minimize keystrokes for such a scenario in nano too, in reality if you have text or code where you need to find the 23rd instance of a character EXACTLY, there's something REALLY wrong with your code/text, in which case '23x' is the least of your problems. In all non-trivial/non-contrived cases, if you need to look up something 23 times, you're probably going to want to walk through those instances as well, and the act of 'counting first then executing the incantation' is likely to cost you far more time spent on the keyboard than what is saved by minimizing keystrokes. And if you really, really need something as arcane as that, and use it often, then you can write a relevant macro easily. No need to bother regular users with that bloat.
Somebody else here already mentioned the ^U^U^U^U^U^K vs y5p comparison: this is a prime example of the above philosophy, and I agree. Keystrokes are saved at the cost of actual time spent on the keyboard. At the end of the day, I'd much rather spend 5 seconds on 10 keystrokes, than 10 seconds on 5 keystrokes. And in practice, most people would use a selection instead anyway, resulting in more keystrokes in vim compared to nano to begin with.
On a personal note, I want to say that I drifted to continental philosophy in my undergrad after studying and appreciating formal logic. I realized that mainstream analytical philosophy had a lot less to do with logic than I had imagined (no symbolization, no commonly agreed upon rules of deduction), and at a certain point the question of "why logic" presented itself. I haven't found many opportunities in my writing to use the more technical concepts of modality or nth-orders, let alone anything from category theory.
e: Replaced induction with deduction, a typo