Stack Exchange
log in

JimmyJames

 Discussion on answer by Monica Apolog…

Imported from a comment discussion on security.stackexchange.c...
JimmyJames
Wed 16:15
Shared accounts also makes it much harder to detect when a bad actor has gained access to an account they should have access to.
JimmyJames
Wed 16:15
A more common situation: Eve quits or gets fired. Now you have to change the credentials for everything Eve was using (assuming you know that), you can't just disable Eve's account(s).
 

 Discussion on question by JenserCube:…

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...
JimmyJames
Jan 10 21:32
Just as a note to your salient point about prices varying in the US, sales tax can vary not only by state but also by locality within a state. And often, the price on advertisements is the "manufacturer's suggested retail price" (MSRP) which may not be the price at a given retailer.
 

 Discussion on question by Muhammad Ik…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
JimmyJames
Jan 7 10:44
I'm not sure I agree with the assertion that AI/ML can't be racist. That's like saying a book can't be racist. If a model discriminates based on race (e.g. in sentencing recommendations) I think it's fair to call that model racist. Whether there was intention to make it so is likely important for other reasons, but ultimately irrelevant from a definitional perspective.
 

 Discussion on answer by ohwilleke: Wh…

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...
JimmyJames
Dec 20, 2024 20:49
@icyicy Given that he was never a client of United, how do you make that connection?
JimmyJames
Dec 19, 2024 16:52
@phoog "the terrorist (or not) is the person whose driveway was blocked, who committed murder because of the driveway being blocked" Ah, OK. But for the analogy to align, the perp would need to kill a person other than the person who blocked their driveway, perhaps a prolific driveway blocker. This isn't a case of direct retribution. And even if he was a client of United at some point, killing the CEO doesn't destroy the company or change their policies; someone else will step up. The clear mechanism by which this crime can affect change is through fear A.K.A 'terror'.
JimmyJames
Dec 19, 2024 16:52
@phoog Blocking one person's driveway isn't really a way to intimidate a population, though. But when people damage SUVs because of their ecological impact we call that eco-terrorism. In this case the idea is that this act was meant to affect economic activity by intimidating businesses. It's not about the person per se, it's about the goals and motivation of the crime. Mangione was apparently never a client of United, assuming that is true, it seems difficult to argue that it was personally motivated.
 

 Discussion on answer by fev: Is the w…

Imported from a comment discussion on english.stackexchange.co...
JimmyJames
Dec 20, 2024 13:24
"And since the white male probably uses the same washroom, the term 'boys' can't be too derogatory because he identified himself with that category." Given that we don't know what movie this came from, we can't ignore the possibility that it was set the context of segregated washrooms.
 

 Discussion on answer by littleadv: Wh…

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...
JimmyJames
Dec 19, 2024 00:35
@barbecue There are of course harsher punishments for 'hate' crimes, but I don't think CEOs are typically considered a protected class under those laws. There's also a difference between committing a crime against an individual because you don't like who they are and committing a crime to intimidate a group of people. Many actions of the KKK have been considered terrorism, for example. It's worth noting that, apparently, Mangione was never insured by United.
 

 Discussion on question by Miss Unders…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
JimmyJames
Dec 5, 2024 21:18
So are you aware of flowers and starfish?
JimmyJames
Dec 5, 2024 21:18
I don't think the title of this question matches what you are asking. "Do prime numbers occur in nature?" Yes, if you think ideas in human brains (and/or other animal brains) are part of nature. If not, no, because numbers in general only exist in minds. If we ignore that and just assume that things we can count are part of nature, you are surely aware of flowers and starfish. Maybe you mean "are prime number sequences found in natural phenomena?" or something to that effect.
 

 Discussion on answer by David Gudeman…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
JimmyJames
Dec 4, 2024 21:58
@ChrisDegnen So I take it you consider consciousness to be non-objective? I'm not great with the terminology but I think you are saying that consciousness is not part of objective reality. Something special, in other words. Supernatural perhaps?
JimmyJames
Dec 4, 2024 21:58
@ChrisDegnen What caused you to make that comment? ;-)
JimmyJames
Dec 4, 2024 21:58
@ChrisDegnen "I can't help thinking there are just unknown causes." You are in good company. The question is whether 'random' events are truly random or, if we knew everything about the state of the universe, we could precisely predict all events. The idea that true randomness exists does seem to resolve things such as infinite regress. It's also put out as a potential explanation for consciousness and other thorny philosophical problems.
JimmyJames
Dec 4, 2024 21:58
@DavidGudeman I kind of figured that, but some people might argue that the way a die is thrown is the cause of what side it lands on. I have a friend who swears he can 'set' the dice in craps. A croupier once scolded him in my presence. I have a pet theory that 'true' quantum randomness may have more impact on things like this than we realize, though.
JimmyJames
Dec 4, 2024 21:58
The biggest weakness seems to me to be that quantum mechanics asserts many events occur without a (known) cause and many physicists believe there is no reason to believe there is one. For example, the idea of virtual particle formation requires no cause.
 

 Discussion on question by user71827: …

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...
JimmyJames
Nov 20, 2024 23:06
Reminds me some big-name software vendors. "Oh, you thought a million would buy a system that works given your requirements. No, no, no, that's a few million more."
 

 Discussion on answer by RMDman: Giant…

Imported from a comment discussion on diy.stackexchange.com/qu...
JimmyJames
Nov 5, 2024 05:31
@RMDman Should we tell them that a house built in 1900 isn't that rare in the US? It really isn't that long ago.
JimmyJames
Nov 5, 2024 05:31
@RMDman I agree with you more or less. I mean, drying out brick is a little different than drying out e.g. old doug fir. But for sure any medium that is growing mould (mold) and/or mildrew that well needs to be removed with extreme prejudice. Aside from that, I'm just explaining why I think they are getting all butt-hurt about your answer.
JimmyJames
Nov 5, 2024 05:31
@RMDman I think the point is that those 'short' bricks are typically full bricks but placed perpendicular so that they 'bond' to the inner brick wall. So their presence suggests that is the construction.
JimmyJames
Nov 5, 2024 05:31
@John If it is actually drywall as the OP has tagged the question, we would expect some sort of gap between the brick and the drywall, perhaps with some sort of insulation, maybe?
JimmyJames
Nov 5, 2024 05:31
@gidds How would the wiring behind the (what the OP calls) drywall typically be installed?
 

 Discussion on answer by pinegulf: Did…

Imported from a comment discussion on skeptics.stackexchange.c...
JimmyJames
Oct 22, 2024 08:02
@Obie2.0 I thought we were calling him 'Leon' now, per Trump.
 

 Discussion between mudskipper and Bumble

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
JimmyJames
Oct 1, 2024 14:37
I think in some versions SB what happens on H+Tu is not really described. In others, I think she is not awoken and H+Mo and H+Tu sort of become one indistinguishable event, as you note. That is a bit confusing to reason about.
JimmyJames
Oct 1, 2024 14:20
I don't really want to go there, but I think that would be far more obvious.
JimmyJames
Oct 1, 2024 14:20
@mudskipper I think what confuses people is that the forth option (H+Tu) is sort of invisible. In the version with balls and cups I give above, if the player picks up a cup and there's no ball under it, they know with 100% certainty what the coin flip was. I think the error relates to people not understanding or accepting that being awoken is information. We could create grim analogies revolving (no pun intended) around Russian roulette.
JimmyJames
Sep 30, 2024 21:36
The challenge might be getting people to see that it's the same problem from a probability perspective, but I expect you will.
JimmyJames
Sep 30, 2024 21:35
@mudskipper A really simple analogy which I think makes the answer obvious is that you flip a coin: if tails you place two identical cups on a table with two identical balls. If heads you place two identical cups on the table but only one has a ball under it (chosen at random, with another coin flip.) Then a player selects a single cup and guesses what the initial flip was. If you find a ball, what are the odds that the coin was flipped heads?
 

 Discussion on question by user80226: …

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
JimmyJames
Sep 27, 2024 07:07
Obviously 'they' have access to advanced processors not available on the open market.
 

 Discussion on question by David Gudem…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
JimmyJames
Sep 25, 2024 09:35
@Conifold Sorry, I also want to address this "Your point is strange, why would people care to debate whether to call something "subset of physics" or not?" I don't think it's a debate. If you (as I do) think that physics is the study of the nature of physical reality and also believe (as I do) that chemistry is about physical reality, then it's simply a tautology that chemistry is a subset of physics. Arguing that something can't be reduced to what it is makes no sense.
JimmyJames
Sep 25, 2024 09:35
@Conifold "It is whether higher order laws (chemical, biological, etc.) simply repackage fundamental laws or "emerge" over and above them." I argue that anything that cannot be reduced to some set of existing fundamental laws is in fact a fundamental law. For example, from your link above, there's a really good example "dimethyl ether and ethanol share a Hamiltonian" yet are empirically different chemicals. If true, this is incontrovertible proof that the Hamiltonian is not sufficient to describe chemicals and there's some other fundamental factor that is missing.
JimmyJames
Sep 25, 2024 09:35
@Conifold I think you are missing my point. If we assume for a second that chemistry cannot be fully described by QM (something I have no qualms with considering or accepting with evidence) that doesn't mean chemistry is not a subset of physics. It simply means there's something else required to describe it. Unless, that is, you are saying chemistry is some sort of supernatural phenomenon, and I don't think you are.
JimmyJames
Sep 25, 2024 09:35
@Conifold "full reducibility is implausible for structural reasons" I feel like there's a definitional question here. If we define 'physics' to be the study of physical reality, and chemistry is the study a subset of physical reality, then trivially, chemistry is a subset of physics. In other words, chemistry is the way we approach the physics of chemicals. But what you are pointing to seems to be about whether the practice of chemistry can be accomplished with fundamental (quantum) physics which seems pedantic and even a little myopic to me.
JimmyJames
Sep 25, 2024 09:35
I found this article: Reduction and Emergence in Chemistry and, interestingly, it claims that this view is not universally held: "The idea that chemistry stands in a reductive relationship to physics still is a somewhat unfashionable doctrine in the philosophy of chemistry. (2017: 1)"
JimmyJames
Sep 25, 2024 09:35
"When and why did scientists just start assuming that chemistry is reducible to physics?" I'm not sure that 'assuming' is the right word here. Obviously, making assumptions is part of the process of science, but that's not why we care about it. That sounds almost like anti-science rhetoric. The only thing that really matters in science is what can be demonstrated. Assumptions can vary from person to person and carry little weight.
 

 Discussion on question by Adam Willia…

Imported from a comment discussion on skeptics.stackexchange.c...
JimmyJames
Sep 20, 2024 02:02
@AdamWilliams "it's hardly "chemical-free" once the process is complete!" I think that's the heart of the question. From the link I posted above: "Electrolyzing regular tap water produces a solution of hypochlorous acid and sodium hydroxide" Those sure sound like chemicals to me but earlier in that same page they claim it is "chemical-free". It doesn't seem to make sense from a literal perspective so I'm assuming they mean no chemicals are added.
JimmyJames
Sep 20, 2024 02:02
This might be relevant: totousa.com/tips/what-is-ewater-plus
 

 Discussion on question by The Pointer…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
JimmyJames
Sep 10, 2024 04:43
I'm not sure if this is helpful but I think it's an error to use concepts from physics as analogies for mathematics and vice versa. I like to think about physics kind of like mathematics in reverse. In mathematics, you pick your axioms and discover what results from those choices. In physics, you try to identify the axioms that produce the results that align with what you can discover.
 

 Discussion on answer by Speakpigeon: …

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
JimmyJames
Sep 10, 2024 04:43
"Gödel's proofs are based on a false logic so it doesn't prove anything." Perhaps I'm not understanding your meaning, but it seems like a bold statement to just assert and not explain what you mean by that.
 

 Discussion on question by Zhang Hong:…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
JimmyJames
Sep 6, 2024 15:32
One thing that I think helps here is to understand the context of the Incompleteness Theorem. To my (casual) understanding, the fact that mathematics allowed for statements that were paradoxical was not news. Mathematicians were working to define a mathematical foundation which did not allow statements of that type. Gödel showed that these efforts were bound to fail. The philosophical implications of that might present some issues depending on your leanings.
 

 Discussion on answer by JimmyJames: W…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
JimmyJames
Sep 2, 2024 04:28
@DikranMarsupial "The dictionary definition does not say it is a fact in your mind, it just says a fact is 'a piece of information presented as having objective reality'. It is equivalent to a flat Earther stating that the Earth is flat. That would then be a fact according to that dictionary definition. If you are unhappy with that ..." I'm perfectly happy with that as is it exactly what I am arguing. Why do you think I am unhappy with my own argument? Do you think I am insane?
JimmyJames
Sep 2, 2024 04:28
@DikranMarsupial "no, it was a fact that nothing travels faster than the speed of light in 1520 just as it is a fact now." You are simply asserting your position, again. One might ask why when you refuse to answer direct questions about clarifying your own position. In 'fact' (pun intended) you accused me of trolling on your answer but then continue to engage me on mine. What's that about?
JimmyJames
Sep 2, 2024 04:28
@ScottRowe I'm not sure what your comment has to do with my answer, much less whether you are in agreement or disagreement. I am absolutely interested in any respectful critique or questions you might have, however.
JimmyJames
Sep 2, 2024 04:28
@DikranMarsupial It's a little unclear what you are asking or why it isn't addressed in my answer but a 'fact' 'in my mind' is a something that I believe to be true (or reasonably true) about objective reality, at a given moment e.g. right now, I believe that the surface of the earth is spheroid in nature. An 'opinion' 'in my mind' is something that I think but it is subjective such as Nirvana was a better band than Candlebox. You might think Candlebox is better but that's not an argument about objective reality, that's about taste and preference.
JimmyJames
Sep 2, 2024 04:28
@DikranMarsupial If you really didn't believe Australia exists and claim seriously claim it doesn't exist, then in your mind, it would be a 'fact'. That doesn't make it objectively true, though. Essentially, there's no difference between a 'fact' and a 'factual claim' other than whether you believe it is true.
JimmyJames
Sep 2, 2024 04:28
@DikranMarsupial OK. It's a fact that my assertion is supported by a dictionary reference though. There are no facts without people claiming them. The idea that there are free-floating 'facts' in the universe isn't supported by logic.
JimmyJames
Sep 2, 2024 04:28
@DikranMarsupial You seem to be making my point for me.
JimmyJames
Sep 2, 2024 04:28
@DikranMarsupial How will you ever know if a factual claim is true? Facts are claims. You are talking about truths.
JimmyJames
Sep 2, 2024 04:28
@DikranMarsupial By that logic, there no facts at all, only beliefs.
JimmyJames
Sep 2, 2024 04:28
@DikranMarsupial Does it make sense to say: "In my opinion, Australia doesn't exist"? It's a factual claim. Calling it a 'fact' is confusing because, we tend to think of the word 'fact' as a synonym for 'truth'. The problem is that so many 'facts' turn out to be false, or at least not completely true. As a perhaps overused example: "all swans are white" is a factual statement. It didn't become an opinion when black swans were discovered. It was simply wrong. It wasn't a 'lie' either. I think our language fails us a bit here.