Curt Doolittle

Category: Commentary, Critique, and Response

  • Curt Doolittle shared a link.

    (FB 1548444232 Timestamp) PART 7 !!!!! Propertarian E-book Published on Jan 25, 2019

    • A LIST OF HANS HERMANN HOPPE’S ERRORS
    • LIBERTARIANS ARE JUST COMMON PROPERTY MARXISTS
    • THE ONLY MEANS OF ELIMINATING THE STATE AND CONSTRUCTING LIBERTY

  • Curt Doolittle shared a post.

    (FB 1548433145 Timestamp) YEAH IT SURE LOOKS MESSY. SO DOES MATH. —“it’s like languages were to be spoken not written down. if you can’t write 5 volumes on your ideas, that I can’t read it at all. Don’t get me wrong your work is correct but it’s so god damn awful messy”—Mediocre Croat Yes, um, spoken grammar and written grammar are different because it is easier to continually disambiguate speech with tone and paus than the written word with () , …, -. ;, ,., lol. On the other hand the scope of this work is huge, because it begins with the completion of the scientific method and applies it to every single field at some level or other in order to create a commensurable and therefore testable language. So, on average 6m-2y to learn it. You’re a smart enough guy and you can probably undrestand the grammars, the operational grammar, the epistemology, and the law fairly easily. (This is what people tell me.) But since we combine terms from so many disciplines and disambiguate them so heavily, terms are a pain. No other way to turn a lot of ‘very conflated colloquial language’ for the purpose of discounts on conveying meaning by free association, into a set of measurements for the purpose of prohibiting ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, fraud, and deceit prohibiting free assoc. There is no short route to algebraic geometry, no short route to the current law, and not short route to testimonial speech. Just is what it is. As Max Weber suggested, the future would consist entirely of reducing all knowledge to some form of calculation. Not that someone wont come along after me and simplify it, but honestly how do you simplify something as simple as this: https://www.facebook.com/thepropertarianinstitute/posts/1989176281196492 … Aside from the Grammars and Operational Grammar that’s about has simple as it can be.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1548431818 Timestamp) —“I don’t know if this a funny, witty inside joke or not, so that’s how propertarians is at least to me, a very obscure dialectic.”— Yep. Well, if you sat down and tried to disambiguate terminology across all fields into a single commensurable language limited to operations, you would probably make a few different choices in term selection, but you’d end up with the same problem: terms=measurements=precision. So yeah. the language is a problem. Which is what we tell everyone. 1- disambiguated, operational language and grammar is hard. 2- speaking in ePrime is hard. 3- speaking in complete transactions is hard. But it converts language into algorithms.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1548430537 Timestamp) I think it’s odd that you would make that line of arguments: – reading? have you seen my reading list? that’s a tiny fraction of it. Of course I – natural law… then you clearly have not read how i define natural law, the history of it, and why I use the term, and narrow its definition. – particularly that I haven’t read anything after 1940. Particularly quine. When I started with AI, and worked backward through history from Searle, and you don’t mention searl, chomsky, turing, or cognitive science in general, because i base my work on that field of science, not the analytic movement which I am not alone in calling a failure. Nor was Russell for that matter. – that with your ’40s argument you didn’t grasp the connection between the failure of the operational movement in those fields where it was unnecessary (mathematics), where it was adopted, and those where it is increasingly necessary: economics, sociology, psychology, and language, and the areas where it was adopted (computer science, cognitive science, current mathematics), and why logicians failed (there is no closure, so only falsification is possible within each logic). – that you don’t mention my criticism of set logic and idealism, (or the grammars), which is the basis of the critique of philosophy from Kant and the continentals to wittgenstein, russell, and the anglos. – that you are conflating philosophy(positive) with law(negative) and that it seems very difficult for you to grasp the difference between the epistemological spectrum of MEANING, of POSSIBILITY and the one of TESTIMONY. The test of course is whether you would prefer that when you were prosecuted people applied the empirical or some OTHER (arbitrary) means of prosecuting you. – that the law has always demanded third person observability because of incentives to lie, or at least engage in wishful thinking and the pretense of knowledge, and that empiricism was a western invention precisely because our law has been empirical from early bronze age, so that law is a via negativa means of eliminating falsehoods and removing doubt via tests of incentives (means, motive, opportunity, and more recently ‘intent’.) – that you don’t mention the purpose of the law as I work on it: to end marxist, postmodernist, feminist pseudoscience and sophism in public discourse, and to end the use of pilpul, idealism, postmodernism to use weakness in the common law constitution to legislate via the bench, nor how strictly constructed law, in operational language, from the first principle of reciprocity, prohibits these attacks on sovereignty (or ‘liberty’ if you’re enlightenment, and ‘freedom’ if archaic.) – that physical science already makes use of operational language and that economics does not for the reasons the austrians warned. And that the primary transformation in psychology has been the ‘operationalist’ movement. – that when you say ‘context’ dependent you’re suggesting relativism, rather than paradigms that make use of synonyms but which converge on the universe’s parsimony and determinism (consistency). – And that you’re making a ‘seems like’ argument. Which means ‘free association’ not ‘consistent relations’. There are criticisms of my work. I post them. Often. But, as yet, no one has offered any material criticism of the work. No one. All I get are pragmatisms from (a) young men who are very smart and prefer authoritarianism – because they have no experience organizing anything – even a family – at any scale, (b) nat-soc’s who prefer intolerant authoritarianism, (c) young men who cling to the possibility of anarchism, (d) a range of men who cling to the hope of (authoritarian) religious restoration (not knowing how lucky we are to have escaped it.), (e) the room temperature IQ crowd that attempts to participate or observe a discourse that is beyond their knowledge and ability, but is too impatient to wait for the full constitutional changes and the policies that arise from them that would bring them relief. The only extant criticisms I can find, despite trying everything, are (a) people want a positive religion(supernaturalism), philosophy(sophism), pseudoscience, or narrative(excuse), not law, or policy that would benefit them (b) people want to preserve their right to advocate for supernatural, sophistry, pseudoscientific, or excuses, rather than do so truthfully (scientifically), (c) that propertarianism’s grammars, operationalism, epistemology, and strict construction, are too hard for ordinary people to undrestand (not that they undrestand the calculus, programming, or the law as it stands today yet they live under them), (c) because of these reasons it will not be possible to form a majority movement to enact those policies and that law producing those benefits. There is no surviving criticism of the grammars or the epistemology or the law that I know of. And ‘grown ups’ – meaning those of us who have built organizations of any scale, or worked large organizations, or in government, or in finance or in the judiciary, are quite well aware that the world operates by rules and those rules consists of legislation, regulation, and findings of law. And that everything else exists within it. Not because people believe in the law via positiva, but because they fear the consequences of not doing so. The purpose of religion is regional social mindfulness. The purpose of philosophy is local personal mindfulness. The purpose of science is a universal language of truthful speech. The purpose of the NATURAL law is a universal method of prosecuting imposition of costs upon others involuntarily. The purpose of legislation and regulation is to enforce the terms of the local contracts in the production of commons. The difference in the production of commons is determined by asian (dictatorial corporate), european(bipartite state vs citizen), anglo (egalitarian sovereign) presumptions. So my opinion is that if you cannot argue against the benefits (policies), and the construction of the law, and the creation for a market of non-false religion, non-false philosophy, non-false science, then you don’t much matter other than preventing good people who are willing to act to obtain material benefits and the rewards of a society far more free of falsehoods, then you don’t matter. But here is what the data says: people online (in france at present we have great evidence) are negatively correlated with activism (taking action). That people are positively activist in order to obtain material benefits. That they will pursue these material benefits by any means that they can justify. People are happy to opine and presume knowledge. However, if you sit down, try to write a constitution that cannot be violated and which ends the industrialization of propaganda, disinformation, sophism, pseudoscience, and deceit, in commercial financial, economic, and political spheres you will find that the problem is quite difficult. To do so requires a VIA-NEGATIVA epistemology of eliminating falsehoods. Which if you sit down and try to produce, is quite difficult. And once having done so if you sit down and try to produce a set of policies that eliminate commercial, financial, economic, political, and academic parasitism in all its forms, you will find it is quite difficult. If you sit down and try to produce a plan by which a small percentage of (costly) men can bring a government to its knees such that it has no choice but to enact this constitutional amendments, end parasitism, and free a people from predation and genocide, you will find it is somewhat hard to do. Now, if you can find a one, single, other, person, who can do any ONE of those things, I’d like to meet that person. If you can find that group of people to do all those things, I would love to know about them. Because from where I’m sitting you folks haven’t got a single other person living today with anything other than wishful thinking and empty words. And while I’d MUCH RATHER sit around and work on my tech company and reap the economic rewards, I am not (unlike critics) extirpating my frustration with hollow nonsense to mask my lack of agency and courage. I am not afraid of dying. And I don’t lack agency. I have built companies of scale. I have built a body of thought on a scale only seen since the marxists and perhaps since smith and hume. And much against my preference I’m building a body of people capable of teaching and communicating the work, the policies, and the revolution to those who would have it. And if you had a criticism of anything material you would make it. However, what I see is nothing more than (a) lack of understanding, and straw manning because of it, (b) self confidence absent evidence of demonstrated ability, (c) moral conviction that is admirable, (c) but lacking the courage to do more than gossip. So as always, as you have noted, I follow the same technique wherever possible.
    1 – Acknowledge the other’s good or ill intentions. 2 – Deflate and disambiguate his argument – almost always an argument out of ignorance. 3 – Undermine his argument – almost almost always, as in this case a straw man due to ignorance. 4 – State how he can falsify your argument if an argument is to be had. (There are only the arguments above to be had). 5 – Hold to reciprocity and return any disrespect, shaming, rallying, disapproval, ridicule, or gossip, stated or implied in order to incite the individual to persist in the argument, until iteratively he exposes his lack of knowledge, overconfidence, arrogance to the audience. Then post the conversation to train members of the group in how these arguments are constructed and defeated through deflation and disambiguation of vacuous arguments and straw men. Priests lie, commerce frauds, law decides. Thus endeth the lesson. 😉 -Cheers

  • Curt Doolittle shared a link.

    (FB 1548517517 Timestamp) THOUGHTS?

  • Another Straw Man: So, Learn How To Attack the Argument.

    2019-01-26 10:25:02 @IvanTheHeathen Don’t hold back. You deprive me of good criticism and others of similar doubt from an advocate. So let’s dance, I’ll correct you, educate the audience, and create a test of falsifiability for anyone attempting criticism. WHAT ARE WE ACTUALLY DEBATING? So first, yes, you’re making an inductive rather than informed argument – meaning a ‘seems like’ argument, and you haven’t once demonstrated awareness of the central arguments or addressed them. Secondly, you are making an accusation that is not only the OPPOSITE of my line of reasoning, but in doing so demonstrating the problem I seek to correct. So, lets educate you on the bare minimum of the content so you have some idea what you’re arguing against other than your imaginary straw man. PROBLEM STATEMENT How do we prohibit ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, loading-framing, suggestion-obscurantism, the fictionalisms of sophism in all its forms, pseudoscience in all its forms, and supernaturalism in all its forms, and outright deceits, from commercial, financial, economic, political, legal, and academic (pedagogical) speech, by use of the law and its market competition, while not limiting or prohibiting truthful speech? In particular, how do we prevent both platonic sophisms of idealism, and abrahamic shophisms of pilpul, critique, and their applications in theology, philosophy, math and the logics, interpretation of scripture, text, history, and law, and their reformation as the pseudoscience of marxism, the sophism of postmodernism, and the denialism of feminism? PROPOSITION 1) It is possible to complete the scientific method such that any TESTIMONY given in defense of an accusation of either falsehood or ir-reciprocity or both, that imposes a cost on the ‘informational commons’ – the commons upon which the public depends for commercial, financial, economic, legal, political and academic(pedagogical) information – has failed a test of due diligence against ignorance(pretense of knowledge), error, bias, wishful thinking, loading-framing, suggestion-obscurantism, the fictionalisms and deceits. 2) it is possible to do so by this argument: Whereas man defends investment of:

    1. Time, 2. Effort, 3. Resources, 4. Forgone opportunity 5. Reproductive Proximity And Where defended investments consist of:

    1. Self-Property – Body, Time, Actions, Memory, Concepts, Status, etc. 2. Personal Property – Houses, Cars, “Things”, etc. 3. Kinship Property – Mates, Children, Family, Friends, etc. 4. Cooperative Property – Organizational and Knowledge ties. 5. Shareholder Property – Recorded and Quantified shares. Citizenship. 6. Common Property – Territorial and capital interests, Artificial Property. 7. Informal Institutional Property – Manners, Ethics, Morals, Myths, Rituals. 8. Formal Institutional Property – Religion, Government, Laws. And Where reciprocity consists of:

    1. Productive 2. Fully informed 3. Warrantied 4. Voluntary transfer 5. Free negative externality. And Where ir-reciprocity in action consists of no less than:

    1. Murder 2. Harm 3. Theft — 4. Fraud (in all forms) 5. Free Riding (in all forms: Socialization of losses, Privatization of commons) 7. Blackmail 8. Rent Seeking. 9. Conspiracy — 10. Propagandizing (Poisoning the well) 11. Conversion (Poisoning the well) — 12. Immigration, 13. Predatory Warfare 13. Conquest 14. Genocide And Where ir-reciprocity in speech consists in: Speech

    1. Intent to lie. 2. Intent to deceive. 3. Failure of due diligence against falsehood 4. Carrier of falsehoods, lies and deceits. 5. Carrier of tradition and culture of lies and deceits. 6. A genetic predisposition to lie and deceive. And Where due diligence must expose pretense against: 1. Ignorance and error. 2. bias and wishful thinking 3. suggestion, obscurantism, loading and framing. 4. fictionalisms (the sophisms, pseudosciences, and supernaturalisms) 5. outright deceits. And Where truthful speech consists of that which survives tests of the hierarchy of dimensions conceivable by man:

    1. categorically consistent (identity) 2. internally consistent (logic) 3. externally correspondent (empirical) 4. operationally consistent (existentially possible) 5. rationally consistent (rational choice) 6. reciprocally consistent (reciprocal rational choice) 7. consistent within scope, limits, and fully accounting (complete) 8. consistent across all those seven dimensions (coherent) And where: And where both Display Word and Deed are limited by:

    9. limited to actions for which restitution(restoration) is possible. 10. warrantied by sufficient resources to perform restitution. Therefore:

    1. If speech survives the dimensional tests of consistency of dimensions conceivable by man, is limited to that for which words and deeds are open to restitution, and where such speech is warrantied by sufficient resources to perform restitution either directly or by insurer, then due diligence against falsehood and reciprocity has been made, and no crime has been committed. You can try to falsify that line of reasoning. CLOSING COMMENT In most reductive form this (epistemology), the grammars, and operational grammar, are the basis of the work. If you can understand this then the rest of the work follows. What are the grammars? The equivalent of the periodic table for speech. In particular, operational grammar provides the means of constructing well formed statements, sentences, collections of sentences, and summary sentences. The grammars diagram (I am not sure how current it is, not very, but close enough ) https://curtdoolittle.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/periodic-table-of-speech-draft2-3.pdf (Continued…) THE PROGRAM IS ENTIRELY FALSIFICATIONARY

    —“You adopt a hard-line positivist view in philosophy of science and do not reckon with the relevant criticisms.”—

    Nope. The opposite. Actually I make use of tests of due diligence such that if one pretends knowledge that cannot be explained with a sequence of testable operations, one cannot possibly warranty one is uttering truthful speech, because one cannot therefore possibly warranty that he knows of that which he speaks. You can try to falsify that statement In fact, search my site for the word verify. If you find it at all, either (a) someone else said it that I’m debunking, or (b) as criticism of its use in general. Conversely search for the frequency of the word justificationism to get a measure of how frequently I criticize justificationary thought. This pretty much eradicates everything you’ve said. But let’s continue. OPERATIONALISM IN SPEECH IS A MEANS OF FALSIFICATION Operational semantics (vocabulary) and grammar, in complete sentences, like all other mathematical, logical, algorithmic grammars, produces well form statements that are testable – or not. The reason being that *operations are sympathetically testable whether they involve thought, word, or deed. In other words, operations produce universal commensurability and testability in testimonial speech. You can try to falsify that statement. THE OPERATIONAL MOVEMENT You didn’t read or understand my arguments that the movement failed because they had only discovered falsification and failed to grasp the extent of it. In other words “logics don’t ‘prove’ anything, except a negative. Their only positive use is to limit the range of falsification to marginal indifference”. A statement which is fairly easy to demonstrate in mathematics: general rules of arbitrary precision given scale independence. From the square root of two to infinitesimals the best we can do is approximate to the point of marginal indifference in application (action in reality). You can try to falsify any of those statements. REGARDING POSITIVISM

    (1) People who have read work in the philosophy of science written after 1940 generally don’t adopt hard-line positivist positions; or, if they do, at least make some attempts to answer criticisms of that view made since 1940.

    (2) You adopt a hard-line positivist view in philosophy of science and do not reckon with the relevant criticisms. (3) Therefore, you probably haven’t read the relevant work. Please find where I have a˜positive or view in the philosophy of science, when every single method I use is exclusively falsificationary. NOW WHAT DEMARCATES SCIENCE (due diligence) FROM NON-SCIENCE (failure of due diligence)? Testifiability. Try to falsify that statement. HISTORY? WHERE DID SCIENCE AND THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD ORIGINATE? In the application of practical court law of tort to practical testimony in the physical sciences. This is why the principle theorists from Aristotle to Bacon to Hayek have either begun or ended with the law. AND WHY? Of the domains of inquiry only the law tests every possible dimension of human cognition, action, and testimony, and unlike the other high degrees available (medicine, philosophy, theology) it was the only one with a feedback loop. Try to falsify that statement. AND WHY DOES THAT MATTER? Law (natural law of reciprocity, and the common law of tort, not command, legislation or regulation) only DECIDES matters of conflict. It is falsificationary. You can prove nothing. Only falsify claims. Which is what the court consists of and which frustrates the average individual who is incognizant of the function of the law. SO WHAT’S THE HIERARCHY OF SCIENCES (however we define them), from least number of dimensions testable to most number of dimensions testable, which science has the greatest demand on those claims that are scientific? Law. Try to falsify that statement. (continued…) REGARDING it seems very difficult for you to grasp that the alternatives to empirical means of acquiring knowledge are not necessarily arbitrary, merely on account of their being distinct from empirical means. This is a false dichotomy. And more importantly, there isn’t always a clear dividing line between empirical and non-empirical knowledge.”— This is a positivist statement. Conversely, no means of identifying an opportunity (hypothesis, theory, law) has any bearing on its truthfulness (survivability from falsification). In the series “free association, hypothesis, theory, law, metaphysical presumption” all potential “knowledge” which we must define before we say much about it, must survive the market tests of falsification by reasonableness(hypothesis), falsification by testing(theory), falsification by market application(strong theory or law), and falsification by persistent presumption(metaphysical value judgement). So apparently you have failed to grasp that no means of acquiring STORIES ( categories, hypotheses/theories, paradigms(networks of theories), ontologies (networks of paradigms) of changes in state convey DECIDABILITY in matters of dispute. And apparently you can’t tell the difference between Meaningful(communicable), Reciprocal(agreement), Truthful(warrantied against falsehood), and Decidable statements. And the identification of opportunity (meaningful) and the prohibition on the seizure of opportunity (Law), or the difference between the possible, the preferable, the good, the truthful, and the decidable. Or the difference between the demand for decidability depending upon who is warrantying the display word or deed: you, you and dependents, you and associates, you and the public. And you probably haven’t picked up yet (despite my demonstrations) on the technique of using series to prevent errors of induction by conflation. If you need that explained to you I will point you to detail. REGARDING What this means is that it’s not possible to empirically verify any single statement in isolation, We don’t verify anything. We falsify it. We falsify it by the full set of dimensions (coherence), and we falsify it most often by Means, Motive, and Opportunity. (Although, due to malincentives of police and prosecutors, motive may be extended to intent as a matter of reform.) You don’t prove your innocence. The prosecution’s function is to falsify your innocence. You are innocent until your innocence is falsified. Many cases are undecidable. Courts are, by their nature forced into decisions. This drives the market for false claims to the margins. You can try to falsify that statement. WHY DON’T I QUOTE CONTEMPORARY PHILOSOPHERS As far as I know the postwar argument is reducible to: Whether a method exists at all (via positiva, no). Semantic problems given disciplinary paradigms. (Context) The problem of limits of instrumentation (observation and measurement) The problem of the limits of information from limits of instrumentation (underdetermination) The limits of mathiness in the absence of frame (descriptive vs constructive) The economics of testing. (Utility and efficiency) The problem of declining returns and increasing costs. Decidability in choice of avenue (almost always economic) Role of scientists in society Ethics If there is something more meaningful (Say, Strawson, whose work I build upon) then please state what it is. But the point of demarcation is positive vs negative: what to do to obtain information vs what to do to perform due diligence and warranty your speech about that information. As far as I know the scientific method consists of due diligence and a warranty of that due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, loading, framing, fictionalism and deceit in the speech claims that we write or utter. In other words, the scientific method consists of whatever is necessary to perform that due diligence, in whatever field of inquiry, at current instrumental and logical scale, and have it survive tests of consistency in those categories of expression possible by man. You can try to falsify that statement. As we say, scientists pay no mind to philosophers of science, it is an art (craft) of measurement in an effort to remove our ignorance, error, bias, and wishful thinking (and sometimes deceit). They have no choice but to pay mind to the law. You can try to falsify that statement. SUMMARY It is extremely difficult for the vast majority of people to think in falsificationary terms, and to ‘unlearn’ justificationism. It is a smaller set of people that can abandon continuous appeals to intuition and produce streams of calculation (grammars). You are no different. There is a reason software folk have an easier time: they are already working in operational language at all times, and database normalization forces disambiguation. But for literary folk in general who neither specialize in applied math, engineering, software, the hard sciences or law. CLOSING In my opinion, you are just another drive-by idiot. One more moron in the long line of people who reads a few bits of what its he most revolutionary thought in a century and you waste my time defending what exists in EXTREMIS thousands of pages of text, by using the (cheap) vehicle of the internet to shame me into educating you in defensive duress, rather than you educating yourself before you speak in ignorance. You are not too stupid to understand. You may lack intellectual honesty, although I don’t detect it. You may like Orwoll lack Agency which is the most common weakness that cannot be over come. You may lack will or courage to discover the truth regardless of costs, and therefore simply seek to defend your investments (priors). But if you have an argument against the rough outline I have written here let us hear it. Because I have spent a long time in every field, and with every logical, empirical, moral question trying to defeat it and I can’t.

  • Curt Doolittle shared a link.

    (FB 1548444232 Timestamp) PART 7 !!!!! Propertarian E-book Published on Jan 25, 2019

    • A LIST OF HANS HERMANN HOPPE’S ERRORS
    • LIBERTARIANS ARE JUST COMMON PROPERTY MARXISTS
    • THE ONLY MEANS OF ELIMINATING THE STATE AND CONSTRUCTING LIBERTY

  • Curt Doolittle shared a post.

    (FB 1548433145 Timestamp) YEAH IT SURE LOOKS MESSY. SO DOES MATH. —“it’s like languages were to be spoken not written down. if you can’t write 5 volumes on your ideas, that I can’t read it at all. Don’t get me wrong your work is correct but it’s so god damn awful messy”—Mediocre Croat Yes, um, spoken grammar and written grammar are different because it is easier to continually disambiguate speech with tone and paus than the written word with () , …, -. ;, ,., lol. On the other hand the scope of this work is huge, because it begins with the completion of the scientific method and applies it to every single field at some level or other in order to create a commensurable and therefore testable language. So, on average 6m-2y to learn it. You’re a smart enough guy and you can probably undrestand the grammars, the operational grammar, the epistemology, and the law fairly easily. (This is what people tell me.) But since we combine terms from so many disciplines and disambiguate them so heavily, terms are a pain. No other way to turn a lot of ‘very conflated colloquial language’ for the purpose of discounts on conveying meaning by free association, into a set of measurements for the purpose of prohibiting ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, fraud, and deceit prohibiting free assoc. There is no short route to algebraic geometry, no short route to the current law, and not short route to testimonial speech. Just is what it is. As Max Weber suggested, the future would consist entirely of reducing all knowledge to some form of calculation. Not that someone wont come along after me and simplify it, but honestly how do you simplify something as simple as this: https://www.facebook.com/thepropertarianinstitute/posts/1989176281196492 … Aside from the Grammars and Operational Grammar that’s about has simple as it can be.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1548431818 Timestamp) —“I don’t know if this a funny, witty inside joke or not, so that’s how propertarians is at least to me, a very obscure dialectic.”— Yep. Well, if you sat down and tried to disambiguate terminology across all fields into a single commensurable language limited to operations, you would probably make a few different choices in term selection, but you’d end up with the same problem: terms=measurements=precision. So yeah. the language is a problem. Which is what we tell everyone. 1- disambiguated, operational language and grammar is hard. 2- speaking in ePrime is hard. 3- speaking in complete transactions is hard. But it converts language into algorithms.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1548637697 Timestamp) James Santagata is trolling Howard Schultz and it’s brutal. The whole feed is worth reading.