Refreshingly honest shrinkflation,
Once traversing from the plural to the singular, trading standards keeps them in check.
Something to look forward to.
Digit
techno hippie
- 2 Posts
- 62 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
Cake day: October 29th, 2023
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
1·9 days agoIs it like, boards of canada’s nostalgia, tainted with truth, and autechre’s the autistic future, and, soffmi muhod’s the child of those?
It’s open to interpretation.
Answer it like its general advice, like it’s preference, like it’s only for today or like it’s asking more deeply about our times, which is more called for, which depicts, for whatever philosophical leanings one has, or even dont even answer at all, and just listen and muse upon the idea, and get inspired to make your own child of music.
Also…
… I hear Tortoise are releasing a new album soon.
Today, mostly play: Boards of Canada, soffmi muhod, or autechre?
Currently, it’s between 1 & 2 here.
Some boards of canada beautiful place and a couple unreleased tracks, and soffmi muhod counterpart before, perhaps then the enthusiast, and then semble, maybe later, some autechre LP5, and plus. Maybe. Or more soffmi muhod. or more boc.
I hear (~ from myself), boc is mother, autechre is father, and soffmi muhod is a child of music.
Also reminds of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwpYMYnAsz4
Reminds of how some self professed “anarchists” insist on capital punishment, like an unwitting opposame, to, e.g. nazis, not realising/admitting what they’re really engaged in is another form of malarchy, not anarchy. Reminder, malarchism is not anarchism.
Just had wild (early/incomplete) notion of constructing the 3D version, with fallacies on one side, the opposite(?) of the fallacies on the other side, and on the back side, sorta the opposite of the front side, like, concessions and retractions…
Inspired by this context, and other comments here.
Took a while to contemplate how mere contradiction could be fallacious. It could be:
- semantic strawman.
- bare assertion fallacy.
- argument from ignorance fallacy.
- false dilemma.
- appeal to emotion.
- moving goal posts.
- circular reasoning.
- non sequitur. (… ghadamn! I spelled that correctly for the first time! (thnx to another lemmy user correcting me last time.))
- bandwaggon fallacy.
- red herring.
But, that was a good point to raise. On face value, it is at first difficult to see how mere contradiction can be fallacious.
(And I confess, only the first of those I came up with entirely by my self. The others were suggested by an LLM, with examples which I’ve omitted for brevity.)
how so?
I was thinking of his noodliness
Do you know of any browsers that would not render
<html>simple site</html>?I just tested it in brave, dillo, librewolf, links, and it works in each.
I only recently discovered this (that contrary to prior belief and training), even
<body>is unnecessary.
Nope.
But I’d still love to hear what credence is behind your metagaming introduction assertion.
For the original version, nearer true, since suppression may take time and effort, or none, similarly with violence. Even then, arguing tone seems to always take more time and effort than mere contradiction.
I suppose fallacies could exist at any level… … except the bottom two (since they’re not really offering an argument at all)… and perhaps, arguably, at the top. That’s a tricky one though… could a point be centrally refuted, fallaciously?
At the browser level?
Otherwise,
can haz
<html>simple site</html>
You’ve introduced metagaming.
???
I’m not sure you’re aware what’s happening here.
You’ve introduced
This is an attempt at a re-creation of someone else’s extended version. As noted in the text in the image, and in my other post here (which in hindsight (especially after seeing this comment) I think I should have included in the original post, and put my question in the title.)
It’s an interesting thing you’ve created, but it’s not the same kind of thing.
Like I say, I’m not sure you’re aware of what’s happening here.
If you are, then please, by all means, if you have access to the original extended version this is a re-creation of, please share it, so we can compare where I went wrong. (I re-created it as faithfully as I could from memory, after exhausting myself on several attempts to find it again.)
If not, and you thought this extended version is entirely created by me, then let this reply be a correction, refuting that.
Also… re:
metagaming
it’s not the same kind of thing.
I’d like to know more about your thoughts and feelings on this, as it’s not clear to me how you think this is so, and is not apparent to me how the original 2-layer-extended version I’ve copied from memory is doing this.
To my thinking this extended version seems exactly in the same spirit of Paul Graham’s original, adding necessary extension to cover further levels by which some people seek to win arguments by worse means than mere name-calling.
But like I say, I’d love to hear more about your perceptions of this is being in error, and it being “metagaming”, and “not the same kind of thing”. If you can, for those of us to whom that nuanced insight’s not apparent, may you please elaborate on that?
Wouldn’t that merely be responding to tone?
We can.
Or [sometimes] it’s angels, or the collective unconscious, or the subconscious, or aliens, or subliminal programs running in your proprietary operating system, or something…