neokantian
Joined 8 years ago
Karma
101
Submissions
99
Member since
Jan 18
Recent submissions
Comment · 6 years ago
Comment · 6 years ago
Religious people and atheists cannot possibly get along. That is a well-known fact. Never have. Never will.
We look down on godless individuals and we despise them. That is simply a non-negotiable part of our religious beliefs. So, whenever I get to deal with moral advice from the godless vermin, I just repeat the same remark all over again: We do not take lessons in morality from the godless vermin.
Comment · 6 years ago
Well, that is the way it seems to work out. The divorce rate here is very, very low. However, when people move back, they get caught up in the same (high) divorce rate of the place where they are moving to. In my opinion, family breakdown is very contagious. That is why married people better stay away from divorced ones. Well, that is how it works here. Divorcees are no longer accepted in the community. I think that this approach makes sense, simply, because it works.
Comment · 6 years ago
> Very lonely, I ended up spending a lot of money going to cafe's to fill a social need.
I usually work at the swimming pool of my condo here in SE Asia. I love taking swimming breaks. The other guys here at the pool do pretty much the same. These are the same people that I see at the gym when I work out. There are also a few retirees here who avoid cold winters in Canada. There's nothing lonely about my lifestyle. It is actually much better than working in an office.
Comment · 7 years ago
> Yes, it wasn't legal.
Legal or illegal according to the laws in what jurisdiction? As international users, we obviously benefit from decisively reining in any American attempt at extraterritorial expansion. That is why, for example, we support the interdiction of American warships in the Black Sea (Russia) and the South Chinese Sea (China). I am waiting for the good news that either of these countries has finally sunk one of these vessels. That will be party time!
Comment · 7 years ago
As international users, we have a vested interest in reining in the proclivity of American government departments to engage in extraterritorial expansion. We should wish to see them lose or be made to lose.
Comment · 7 years ago
According to https://www.kik.com/terms-of-service, they seem to have chosen jurisdiction in Canada: "Kik Interactive Inc. is located in Canada at 420 Weber Street East, Unit I, Waterloo, Ontario, N2L 4E7."
According to the article, "The Securities and Exchange Commission today sued Kik Interactive Inc", without clarifying in what jurisdiction they are suing them. It is about "the sale of one trillion digital tokens". It is therefore about the exchange of KIN tokens against other tokens such as BTC, ETH, USDT, or similar.
The KIN token is traded on 10+ different non-jurisdictional exchange platforms: https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/kin/#markets
The American SEC cannot reasonably claim jurisdiction over the non-jurisdictional Ethereum platform, nor over any non-jurisdictional exchange platforms, because in that case, every country could do that too. If every country can do that, then no country can do that.
Why?
Well, in that case, KIK could trivially seek protection in North Korea or Russia, and prevent US enforcement by shielding under their nuclear umbrella.
Concerning KIK's marketing communications, it is not clear who exactly can regulate such messages: the country of message origination or the country of message destination.
We cannot allow US government departments to grab control over non-jurisdictional issues. That is absolutely not in the interest of international users. Therefore, it is necessary to encourage geopolitical adversaries of the USA to impede, thwart, and undermine any such attempt.
Comment · 7 years ago
Abstraction, i.e. modelling, means leaving out details. Understanding then becomes knowing what details you can leave out for the given purpose. In this context, it is essential to remark that scientific abstractions, i.e. physical-world, empirical theories, need to be tested experimentally. Otherwise, they will simply lack legitimacy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagonal_lemma#Proof
This proof consists of just 7 lines, but these 7 lines are considered to be fiendishly unreadable. The lemma itself says otherwise something very understandable and perfectly relatable:
logicSentence <-> prop(%logicSentence)
Meaning of the lemma: If prop(%s) is a predicate property of any logic sentence s, then there exists at least one true sentence for which this property is true and/or one false sentence for which it is false. The expression %logicSentence is the (numerical) description (encoded as a number) of the logicSentence. The remainder of Gödel's proof is just endless bureaucracy to establish completely precisely in/from what type of theory it occurs/can be derived.
If you leave out the bureaucracy, Gödel's first incompleteness theorem follows almost trivially from the lemma:
logicSentence <-> isNotProvable(%logicSentence)
Hence, according to the expression above, there exists at least one false sentence that is not isNotProvable (and is therefore provable) [a] or at least one true sentence that isNotProvable [b]. Hence, the theory in which this situation occurs is inconsistent [a] or incomplete [b].
Now, the bureaucracy in Gödel's full proof actually does matter, because his theorem holds for the Peano and Robinson formalizations of arithmetic theory but not for the Skolem and Presburger ones. The reasons for that can only be found in the bureaucracy of Gödel's proof.