January 19th, 2021

(no subject)

Very peeved by the continuously repeated cliche "the most powerful person on the planet".



I mean, only a couple of weeks ago the world saw a demonstration that "the most powerful person on the planet" is impotent. Yet they keep playing this broken record.

(no subject)



The tweet doesn't make much sense, but that's not why I screenshot it.

Not making this industry welcoming to beginners...

Not making this industry welcoming to beginners...

Why should this industry be welcoming to beginners? Why should beginners — being beginners — even need to bother about js frameworks instead of first learning the ropes, as is more appropriate to their beginner level? How has this become such an endlessly repeated sermon preached by the members of "this industry"? It must have something to do with social justice as their predominant professed ideology.

(no subject)

This is so good! Published in today's copy of the Times:



I'm mildly fascinated by how much of a fuck the rest of the world gives about Russia's internal squabbles. Just imagine, the cartoon assumes that the readers of the Times must be able to recognize the name of Navalny and to connect it to the August news in order to get the joke.

(no subject)

A famous extract from a Zaliznyak speech (2007):

Мне хотелось бы высказаться в защиту двух простейших идей, которые прежде считались очевидными и даже просто банальными, а теперь звучат очень немодно:

1) Истина существует, и целью науки является ее поиск.
2) В любом обсуждаемом вопросе профессионал (если он действительно профессионал, а не просто носитель казенных титулов) в нормальном случае более прав, чем дилетант.

Им противостоят положения, ныне гораздо более модные:

1) Истины не существует, существует лишь множество мнений (или, говоря языком постмодернизма, множество текстов).
2) По любому вопросу ничье мнение не весит больше, чем мнение кого-то иного. Девочка-пятиклассница имеет мнение, что Дарвин неправ, и хороший тон состоит в том, чтобы подавать этот факт как серьезный вызов биологической науке.


Contrast this with this extract from Rick Roderick's lecture on postmodernism (1993):



Philosophers call someone a relativist. By which they mean it's a person that holds that any view is as good as any other view. My simple response to that is this. That is a strawperson argument. No-one in the world believes it, or ever has believed it. No-one, Derrida or anyone else, believes that every view is as good as every other view. That's only a view we discuss in freshman philosophy class in order to quickly refute it. And no-one believes it. There are no defenders of the view, and since this type will be going out if we run into one it will be interesting, but we will likely find that person in one of the institutions that Foucault discussed rather than in some seminar.

(no subject)

From Merriam-Webster:



With the second, italianized, pronunciation (that's the recording hidden behind the second loudspeaker icon), it sounds comically similar to the Russian (okay, Church Slavonic) паче, and has a very similar semantics. Паче чаяния :-)

(no subject)



Meanwhile, it's 2021, and they still haven't gotten to SSR. Or at least haven't released anything production-grade yet. Renewed their promises though.