Ahh, I see. Thanks!
Maybe I'm missing something, but you're basically saying 'the speed of time is a function of the speed of time'.
Yeah but 'fast' is also defined in terms of time...
> speed of time isn't fixed and absolute Isn't 'speed' defined with the use of 'time'? Doesn't that make an expression such as 'speed of time' kind of meaningless?
I also don't understand this. The boxes don't seem to be organised in any logical way, they just spell HTML?
> I think the idea behind intellectual property is to encourage people to take risks associated with developing something new and profit through their innovations. No, the idea is to prevent other people from profiting…
> I genuinely think the audience would have cheered for most or all of it anyhow How much of that is because the general audience is conditioned over time to adapt to that particular kind humour?
That's not really saying anything, especially coming from a free-market crusader and with no reasoning/arguments attached. Also that which stringent free-marketers and ancaps consider a 'free market' probably can't…
Has anyone seen a formal proof of different cardinals based on axiomatic set theory? The diagonal argument in particular is very weak imo.
Ahh, I see. Thanks!
Maybe I'm missing something, but you're basically saying 'the speed of time is a function of the speed of time'.
Yeah but 'fast' is also defined in terms of time...
> speed of time isn't fixed and absolute Isn't 'speed' defined with the use of 'time'? Doesn't that make an expression such as 'speed of time' kind of meaningless?
I also don't understand this. The boxes don't seem to be organised in any logical way, they just spell HTML?
> I think the idea behind intellectual property is to encourage people to take risks associated with developing something new and profit through their innovations. No, the idea is to prevent other people from profiting…
> I genuinely think the audience would have cheered for most or all of it anyhow How much of that is because the general audience is conditioned over time to adapt to that particular kind humour?
That's not really saying anything, especially coming from a free-market crusader and with no reasoning/arguments attached. Also that which stringent free-marketers and ancaps consider a 'free market' probably can't…
Has anyone seen a formal proof of different cardinals based on axiomatic set theory? The diagonal argument in particular is very weak imo.