shadowfox

While that is an excellent book, I would say that it focuses on type theory from a somewhat more theoretical perspective than (say) TAPL which is more on type _systems_ from a programming languages perspective. Both are great reads though.

> By forcing you to make a decision without context.

Not the OP, but what would be the point to that? In any practical scenario there is always context, isnt it? I guess I don't quite get what we are trying to measure here.

What exactly is an "evangelical atheist" ?

I don't think the OP is talking about usefulness at all, that is on a completely different dimension I would say.

> Not everybody has a body of beliefs that guides him.

Not the OP, but this got me curious. How does one reason about things if you have no axioms (i.e. "body of beliefs")? Are you using some non-axiomatic systems of reasoning or just saying that some people don't reason at all ?

I think I am confused by your comment in the context of Larry Sanger: are you suggesting that rationalwiki is incorrect and that Larry did not say any of the things quoted?

That seems like a very interesting collection :) Do you have any recommendations for unusual or particularly interesting ones?

Given that the "First Amendment" is purely a US thing, and applies only to the Government curbing speech, I am not sure how much of this really applies anywhere else and in any other context?

Not altogether sure what this has to do with the article and/or the raid?

I vaguely remember doing similar things with Matlab, but it has been a while and I don't recollect fully.

> At least in the US we (try) and make donations public. The places where it’s “banned” are black holes.

That is definitely an interesting take. So, is your ideal society one where anybody is allowed to give and take bribes as long as it is public?

Do you have any pointers to these research papers?

From what I can tell, at least for academic wet labs, robots seem fairly unavailable/unaffordable.

> This is a distinctly Western perspective: that intent matters

I am kind of curious about the perspective here. Is the argument that "eastern" (I assume, as opposed to "western") perspectives do not consider intent in evaluating actions?

> because it is the only document/philosophy in history that has determined the limits the people place on government rather than government determining the limits on the people

Really? The only document in history?