i mean, vi har ett system med taxilegitimationer av en anledning.

my brain is broken to just absorb useless information… is there an opening for that?

it is very interesting, but it’s also one of those topics that makes anything else in the conversation not matter.

also do note that i said nothing about thinking sensory inputs are illusory, just that belief is not required for things to exist.

surely if the universe has an infinite lifespan there could be an infinite number of humans? for whatever passes as a human at any given time. the two concepts may even overlap.

not that it matters for the day-to-day, anyway.

to me, those last two statements are pretty close in the grand scheme of things. it was allegorical anyway, since we weren’t really talking about god.

if there is no proof one way or the other, the pragmatic stance is to be neutral. if one side is more theoretically sound, the pragmatic stance is to assume that’s the correct side while still being open to the other. only when there’s proof of one side can you dismuss the other. none of those steps require “belief”, i.e. unfounded assumptions.

as an aside, personally i feel like religion is one of those issues where there is proof.

well… it’s a bit hard to say considering that the sort of style this library encourages is pretty unpythonic. if i did something similar i’d probably make a wrapper type that has all the functionality as methods, which would necessarily require compartmentalisation. i’d probably break it up into one file fore everything with related functionality and compose the final type from that.

you can just untick “german” in your language settings…

it’s not a slur, it’s a signal that that the poster types like they’re on reddit.

it’s a really cool proof of concept, and i hope to never encounter it in the wild.

also, why is this organised with one function per file?

we’re comparing it to a system where none of that has been done. it’s sort of a “god of the gaps” situation but the gaps are shaped exactly like pieces in a puzzle. we can extrapolate the form of the proof even if we can’t show it. the same is not true of the other camp.

a hypothesis based on established facts is no longer belief but extrapolation.

the atheist says “i will not believe”. the agnostic says “i can not believe”. one is as dogmatic as the beliefs they purport to refute, the other lacks the capacity for dogma, as belief for them is simply not possible.

no

i don’t believe in wifi, just like i don’t believe in trees. i know they’re there. that requires no belief.

data goes in, data goes out. you can’t explain that.

“believe in wi-fi”

the soviet union flag

I don’t know where you’re getting thsi from

probably from 3g

not per cell. per tower, sure, but a tower contains tens of individual cells. i’ve been to places where there are just two or three cells on days where there are a couple of hundred people and the signal just craps out.

you can get it to like 50m actually. not reliably, and absolutely not in that kind of environment, but it is possible.