Listen moron. The CONTEXT was that BRITAIN (Churchill) created an unnecessary war. The world wars were UNNECESSARY. Are you trying to suppress the truth?
Yes. See here’s the thing, you MIGHT be quoting a book; however, it’s the CONTENT and CONTEXT on what is being quoted. You basically gave permission for the CONTENT and CONTEXT of Nazi support. Fuck Nazis. https://t.co/qwp6MpffQm
Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.
@curtdoolittle @Johansson85 @cmclymer @MonicaLewinsky Nope. Canadian cities are incredibly diverse. 46% of Toronto are immigrants and it’s very safe and prosperous.
@curtdoolittle @maialmrn @KillerkattArt @DegenRolf I disagree that’s “only communication”. I think art is the highest human achievement possible, even more than science, and it contains the highest possible truth. There has to be more to life than laws and lies.
We all make mistakes (invariance in conclusion) but some of us make few if any errors (variance in conclusion).
I realize you are offended, but that is the price of learning – the reorganization of presumptions in which you have made investments – particularly self image.
photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_dJ9jhts2Ng/78567267_519502865313275_4581435855092056064_o_519502861979942.jpg YES IT IS EASY TO JUDGE ART, JUST LIKE WRITTEN OR ACTED WORKS
(from twitter ‘dispute’)
I can teach anyone to evaluate art. This is the overview of the method from the course presentation. With practice you can judge any work, set of works, movement, civilizational works, and speak of them intelligently and recognize when you must say “i don’t know enough” on one hand, and ‘i like it’ (or not) on the other. Art is a craft like any other. You may not like Shakespeare, Joyce (understandably), Hemmingway, or Dickens (oddly) or Michener, Ludlum, Forsythe, or the female equivalent, any other set of authors, but it’s possible to intelligently say why; same for food; same for art. Otherwise, you’re just saying “i don’t like math” and ” i like comedies”. Because how you feel about art is a measure of YOU, not the art.YES IT IS EASY TO JUDGE ART, JUST LIKE WRITTEN OR ACTED WORKS
(from twitter ‘dispute’)
I can teach anyone to evaluate art. This is the overview of the method from the course presentation. With practice you can judge any work, set of works, movement, civilizational works, and speak of them intelligently and recognize when you must say “i don’t know enough” on one hand, and ‘i like it’ (or not) on the other. Art is a craft like any other. You may not like Shakespeare, Joyce (understandably), Hemmingway, or Dickens (oddly) or Michener, Ludlum, Forsythe, or the female equivalent, any other set of authors, but it’s possible to intelligently say why; same for food; same for art. Otherwise, you’re just saying “i don’t like math” and ” i like comedies”. Because how you feel about art is a measure of YOU, not the art.
At present, aside from testimony and reciprocity I think I understand this problem (mathematical foundations) better than anyone else, for reasons I’m still … exasperated by.
Math is a language. It consists of one dimension: positional names. Positional names consist of one constant relation: position (ordinality). Names are unique. Positional names are unique. Positions are scale independent. Positional names can be assigned to any referent in any dimension. We can assign names to any set of dimensions, just as we assign names to any set of referents within it, and as such we can used dimensional order or name, and position order or name, to describe ANY CONSTANT RELATIONS at any scale or combination of scales relative to the observer, and we can scale this technique of dimensional and positional names to any comprehensible scale.
So it’s not that math is unreasonably useful, it’s that it’s fucking OBVIOUSLY useful in describing the natural world, because like the natural world mathematics is SIMPLE (consisting of constant relations). However, like anything else, we learn it’s constitution by it’s failure. And mathematics is terrible at inconstant relations (economics, sentience), and at that point of failure we must move from positional (linear) language (averages) to operations language (discrete operations).
So for example, as far as I know, the reason that physics is frozen is Einstein published before Hilbert solved the underlying problem by Einstein NOT solving the problem of the underlying structure, by the presumption that the wave (calculus) was the primitive, rather than the operations that averaged into the wave – demonstrating that Einstein like many mathematicians understood the application of the language of mathematics without understanding it’s construction relative to ALL languages.
In fact, if I had my druthers, I would have people learn the abacus, the gear, the computer, and the shape to learn mathematics, not just memorization by wrote repetition.
Welcome to continue this but it’s not possible that I’m wrong.
Foundations of language of which mathematics is the simplest because it consists of only one property, and our brains evolved to grasp the world as spaces first by very similar (geometric) means, an understanding of which usually awes the audience.
Art is yet another means of communication with decoration valued over utility where one can lie, testify, opine, or fantasize, because that is the range of human communication.
