timinman

Fantastic. Thank you.

My impression was that node took some of the momentum that Ruby had as a server-side language for web development.

Thanks for that!

The page is not responding. I smell Bigfoot.

"A gentle answer deflects anger, but harsh words make tempers flare."

Proverbs 15:1

"If your enemies are hungry, give them food to eat. If they are thirsty, give them water to drink. You will heap burning coals of shame on their heads, and the LORD will reward you."

Proverbs 25:21,22

I'm glad I finished the series of questions because it was fun to see how my values compared to others on the results page.

They were exploring moral relativism scenarios in schools back in the 1960's. The open machine intelligence part seems to be just good window dressing (I clicked after all). It isn't about machines as much as human psychology. I doubt autonomous cars are going to be programmed to take potential fatalities fitness, gender, or profession into account.

"The researchers found that there was considerable variation in how much wisdom people showed from one situation to the next."

It sounds to me that the study's questions likely rely on a very specific understanding of what wisdom is. Whoever wrote those questions must be very wise indeed! (sarcasm)

>So our universe must fundamentally be a supernatural creation?

In my comment I wasn't making the argument that our universe must fundamentally be a supernatural creation. I was trying to show that presupposing it is a natural creation is not philosophically neutral, especially when what we have observed naturally seems to oppose the idea of energy or matter coming out of nowhere.

>What is your evidence? From my perspective, accepting the probability of a transcendent creator is a reasonable conclusion to draw based on the existence of the universe. I realize that will be judged to be a 'faith position', but from my perspective so is supposing it could exist on it's own.

Fair enough. He was specifically speaking to 'naturalness' as technical designation in physics. I am getting a little more general.

The scientific method seeks to be entirely empirical - which makes sense for understanding what we can observe.

But what happens when what you are trying to understand is not observable? You fool yourself if you think you are being empirical when you are not. (His comment about moving the yardsticks applies here).

Any endeavor to understand the universe, especially origins, ends up involving philosophical presuppositions. Science aspires to avoid that, but can it?

The OP made a side-comment about 'idea of naturalness' being a philosophical tenet. That's a problem because science claims to be philosophically neutral, which is impossible.

Science looks for a system which can exist without supernatural intervention, but the creation of time/space/matter doesn't fit within those constraints.

Admittedly that is a philosophical or even theological take, but at least it's honest.

Nice game. Something weird can happen in the brain when we have to choose a binary answer under pressure. Maybe the fact that we are answering positively for prime (which is not the default) adds to that. For me it helped to rename 'yes' to 'prime' and 'no' to 'divisible'.

I've used both for hobby games. Corona is user-friendly and it's a great solution with lots of community plug-ins and support. It uses a freemium model, offering features like access to native API's and offline builds at a price, and you can't really use it on Linux. LÖVE is free and open-source and adding support for Android and iOS makes it even more attractive.