what is it giving mr hussein

i feel the same way about bob dylan as i do about the rolling stones. i like some of their music, but i can only stand listening to at most 3 songs in a row. after that i need a break.

the only people who are still tweeting about newtonian physics are those who do not yet understand newtonian physics

looks to me like he showed up after the first time he was called

anybody have any guesses about what the hidden word is?

it’s actually impossible to be bilingual because you can only ever be speaking at most one language at a time

maybe we just need to Think Differently about what it means for something to be a summary

depends on the context, but σ is most often used to denote a member of a permutation group

the belief that a quick 3 second rinse will kill off bacteria seems to be consistent with the ways that most people try to wash their hands

i haven’t had any problems with giant cockroaches ever since i started cutting all the tags off my shirts

so, people walking

in my defense, your honor, i didn’t think anybody would actually fall for it

windows 11 is a next generation experience. microsoft teams now has 16 times the detail

how the fuck could they have possibly done things in a way that makes explorer tabs depend on recall?

if they can’t even separate out recall from the rest of the operating system then i have absolutely no faith it will be secure.

why write better software when you can simply tell the customer to buy better hardware?

before gödel’s theorems can be formally stated, you have to make a lot of assumptions about axioms, and you have to pick which kinds of logical rules are “valid”, etc. and that all feels way more dicey to me than the actual content of gödels theorems.

i definitely agree that gödels theorems can help to undercut the idea that math is this all knowing, objective thing and there’s one right way to do everything. but to me personally, i feel like the stuff that’s very close to the foundations is super sketchy. there are no theorems at that level, it’s just “we’re going to say these things are true because we think they are probably true”.

how does that follow from Gödel’s incompleteness theorems?

the math/philosophy overlap in set theory/logic makes me uneasy. the closer you get to it, the more the idea that “math is objective” starts to fade away. also pretty surreal to be learning philosophy/taking things as given in a math class. especially because you spend a lot of time proving that certain things are true, but you don’t ever say what it means for something to be true.

i would probably word it as something like:

Robots.txt is a document that specifies which parts of a website bots are and are not allowed to visit. While it’s not a legally binding document, it has long been common practice for bots to obey the rules listed in robots.txt.

in that description, i’m trying to keep the accessible tone that they were going for in the article (so i wrote “document” instead of file format/IETF standard), while still trying to focus on the following points:

• robots.txt is fundamentally a list of rules, not a single line of code
• robots.txt can allow bots to access certain parts of a website, it doesn’t have to ban bots entirely
• it’s not legally binding, but it is still customary for bots to follow it

i did also neglect to mention that robots.txt allows you to specify different rules for different bots, but that didn’t seem particularly relevant here.

but then the market would be ever so slightly less free. the horror!