Untitled

Morally speaking your first use of a Death Note is always a freebie, since there's no way any reasonable person would expect it to work

Marche Atwater

It's me, I'm the postmodern audience member in Los Angeles or New York who marveled at the opera's innovative multipositionality and hybridity, in which revolutionary ideologies, exotic nativist music and dances of the Li ethnic minority on Hainan Island, and high European styles and modalities coalesced in a neo-Wagnerian Gesamtkunstwerk.

Why are the laws of logic what they are, as opposed to something else?

This is a bit like asking "why are the laws of physics what they are?", but seemingly even less tractable.

A sufficient answer is not "the laws of logic were made up by man; ask him why he made them up that way!" or something of its ilk. It's true that all explicit systems of logic were devised by people, and that through history people have devised many different such systems in order to reason about the world. But it's likewise true that some conceivable systems of logical inference work better than others to that end. The inference rules of syllogistic logic, classical propositional logic, fuzzy logic, whatever, they all to one degree or another succeed at allowing one to derive new knowledge from old knowledge, new truths from known truths, etc. Some conceivable rules of inference, such as "from two statements, infer the first one" or "from A ∨ B infer ¬B" simply don't work for transforming old knowledge into new knowledge. They are unsuccessful methods of inference. And this would seem to say something about the underlying structure of the world, that some conceivable rules of inference work and others don't. We can, if we strain very hard perhaps, imagine that it was otherwise—we can imagine a world in which "from two statements, infer the first one" does work, although we can hardly say anything about what it would be like.

So, there's my question. Why does logic work the way it does, instead of some other way? Why is the world such that these rules of inference work and those rules of inference don't work?

I have no hope of ever getting an answer to this but I'm very curious.

This doesn't say much, and it probably is tauntological in some way, but what ultimately evaluate what works is natural selection.

Works by 1mposter.

Neon Genesis Evangelion laserdisc cover artwork (1995)

I love this one

@raginrayguns said:

oh! yes. great question. thank you for forcing me to specifics. TSLA! (circa 2021)

this valuation has to be what, 90+% speculation? theres no way anyone thinks that TESLA will be more profitable, produce more buybacks than the rest of the car industry combined. i think a huge portion of the stock market is like this. i reblogged a thing about this recently but i cant find it, the change in the stock market over the last 10 years is almost entirely the top 10 companies

Why can’t it produce more buyback/dividends (economically equivalent except for tax purposes, which is why shareholders generally prefer buybacks) than the rest of the car industry combined in let’s say the next 10 years? TSLA does not need to be restricted to just the car industry, it could potentially expand the car industry as well, which is also not mutually exclusive with the fact it can also potentially make cars so cheaply and good that rest of the industry makes virtually no money.

I do think TSLA is probably in some sense overvalued, but the future is by definition uncertain. There are also people who value TSLA shares as gambling chips like GME. Arguably you can say this is the same case with gold or money, which have limited use except they are scarce and are widely considered to be scarce and a store of value.

knuckle tattoos that say AI GENERATED

Where does the eleventh letter go?

managed to read 99% of the caption to some ecchi art so yes i guess you could say I'm fluent in Japanese