We understand "time" in the context that we must: to subsist in order to procreate. The extent it exists outside of our own perception as we imagine it does, is debatable. Ultimately, time is our sensory interpretation of the world around us to facilitate our survival and thus, we may never make sense of it outside the constraints it exists within.
We know empirically that time only flows in one direction, it can’t be described as just a perception. You’d have had at least the tiniest of evidence that time sometimes flows backwards.
Time doesn't flow at a speed. So, time flows at no speed, so, time doesn't flow. Time doesn't exist within time, so it has to be static. Moments don't change.
How would you measure time going backwards if you can only perceive it going forwards? How can you "experience" everything around you going "backwards" if that includes your memory? How can you determine that a specific moment in time was arrived at by time going forward, or by going backwards?
How do you know anything outside of your perception is true? All things boil down to a philosophical argument. The simplest answer is that "time" as we imagine it is a product of our interpretation and the true nature of "it" is hidden from us.
This is about time as it relates to our understanding of the physical world through science. You might as well say matter is an illusion, nether is relevant to this discussion.
You believe it is irrelevant - I believe it is relevant. I argue matter itself has more basis in reality in that it cannot be as easily explained away as time. In the context you're speaking in, there is much more evidence and logic to support the existence of matter. My point is that time as we believe it exists, is a construct that has meaning to us because of its benefit to our survival, rather than it being an objective reality.
_Everything_ flows in one direction, all particles goes in a straight line from their self reference, fields "modifying direction" is just an observer point of view. The separation of time and space is purely a perception matter.
A gross comparison would be to compare with objects perception, it only exists because our mind can leverage it for a strong evolutional advantage (I'm not only speaking of humans here).
No, a particle can flow left OR right, up AND THEN down, forward THEN reverse THEN forward again.
But in time, it can only go forwards, at very slow rates like far from gravity wells, or fast like in relativistic situations. Never backwards. Never stop.
As we haven't seen any evidence of this, then the effects must be so tiny that we can just ignore that possibility. It's like worrying about the gravitational effects of Russell's Teapot.
Life isn't inherently easy - or fair. For most, it is much easier today because of the efforts of those who came before us. We are lucky for those efforts because they afford us moderation and comfort that are not guaranteed.
To expect results without hard work is presumptuous and pretentious, of which this author has in spades.
It’s a bit trickier than that imho because Hard work doesn’t guarantee results either. And since, as you said, life isn’t fair, we are faced to… randomness. True story, working hard/intelligently does buy us some tickets to a decent life, but it’s not 100% jackpot. I know plenty of people that worked hard, they studied things that are not in demand, and so they are work in whatever they can with shitty salaries. I worked as hard as them, but studied (by luck I guess) something with demand (software engineering), and so I can afford some more niceties in life. And I know people who didn’t work as hard as others, and live a better life than many. So, it’s more complicated than “work hard”.
There’s plenty of productivity to afford all of us housing, utilities, food, and healthcare.
The only real reason we don’t do that is because we take hard work as a virtue, it’s not; ignore the effects of luck, the capacity for hard work is derived by luck; and like to imagine ourselves being rich one day and think that hard work is enough.
Homelessness is not a bug, it’s a feature, and so is every other aspect of society that directly or otherwise forces us plebs to be obedient cogs in the wheel unless!
Great things demand hard work, there is nothing great about basic needs.
Rock solid and plenty of ports. I use it for multiple ZFS file servers, which subsequently led me to utilizing Linux regularly, which then led to dropping Windows altogether. It sounds corny to say but FreeBSD changed my life is a measurable way.
The article conflates philosophy with the formal study of philosophy.
In truth, philosophy necessarily exists just as math does, even if no one studies it. And also like math, even when people don't realize it, they utilize it. Both are foundational to reality, so much so that the very word reality invokes philosophy itself.
Even if you - and the stance SO takes/took - are correct, that doesn't erase the fact that the decorum is unpalatable to a vast majority of the user-base.
Being correct does not necessarily engender popularity or success. Often, humility, patience, and kindness are key.
I think the appeal of SO to its users (besides getting help for programming when you find someone willing) is that its also a source of narcissistic supply for the powerusers that can be maximized due to SO's gatekeeping policies.
It especially hurts to see words like "narcissistic" used to describe my friends who volunteer copious amounts of their time to try to be polite to hordes of others who clearly don't give a damn about what they're trying to accomplish and seem to assume that their usual way of interacting with web sites that have a submission form is the only way that exists.
My experience has overwhelmingly been that people object to being told that they can't just ask the question they want - not to the specific words used.
We don't allow anyone to use insults; we expect each other to be patient; we use our "please"s and "thank you"s in comments (even as we remove them from questions) - and if you see otherwise, please flag it; moderators take code of conduct violations seriously.
But none of this seems to make a difference. And people come to the site with expectations about politeness that simply aren't conducive to getting people to stop doing things they aren't supposed to do:
Meanwhile, a major reason why people aren't required to explain in a comment why they downvoted a question, is because of the history we've had with downright vitriolic replies from OPs who seem uninterested in the rules:
How ironic. For years you've been enforcing the dehumanization of human communications (e.g. basic gratitude and courtesy are taboo) and then you object when AI comes along and people prefer it to your dehumanizing platform.
> For years you've been enforcing the dehumanization of human communications (e.g. basic gratitude and courtesy are taboo)
This is so far from true that it's frankly insulting.
> and then you object when AI comes along and people prefer it to your dehumanizing platform.
I do not object in the slightest to people preferring to use an LLM. I have even explicitly suggested in threads like this that people who prefer to do so should continue to do so.
What I object to is the idea that other people should get to decide how Stack Overflow works, or should get to denigrate Stack Overflow on the basis of their idea of how it ought to work.
It's absolutely true. I've had my posts edited to remove phrases like "thanks for any advice which you can provide". I've had people leave comments and ding my reputation because I've expressed gratitude. Maybe you don't think eliminating gratitude from basic communications qualifies as "dehumanizing". OK, let's agree to disagree. (BTW - to the guy who called me a "troll". If you can't disagree with a fellow of your species, without branding them a troll, you've just made my point. Thank you.)
>I've had my posts edited to remove phrases like "thanks for any advice which you can provide"
Yes. Doing this makes your post better, because it means everyone who reads it later saves time. Your post is not there to talk to people. Your question is there to ask a question. Your answer is there to answer the question.
> Maybe you don't think eliminating gratitude from basic communications qualifies as "dehumanizing"
What you miss is that it is not communication between the person who asks and the person who answers. It is publication of a question and answer so that everyone can benefit.
When you see someone say "thanks for any advice which you can provide" directly to someone else, does that feel welcoming to you? It doesn't to me. It feels like suddenly I'm unintentionally eavesdropping on some conversation, and that I'm not supposed to be there. But I only came to learn (or teach) something.
> BTW - to the guy who called me a "troll". If you can't disagree with a fellow of your species, without branding them a troll, you've just made my point. Thank you
You appear to be making multiple throwaway accounts rather than risking your HN reputation. From the guidelines:
> Throwaway accounts are ok for sensitive information, but please don't create accounts routinely. HN is a community—users should have an identity that others can relate to.
Stop assuming the worst. Someday you'll get on the wrong train before you check its destination. I happen to be signed in with two accounts on two different devices because I had forgotten my password and was having trouble with the recovery process. So ding me for it. It's what you do best.
While what you say may be true, I would wager poor password hygiene isn't relegated to just this administration; rather, it seems to be a human weakness in general.
