"Don't be evil"
-
Evil serves a very important role. Without evil, we wouldn't know what good is. Thus, evil is simply a "lesser good". Therefore, Google is good. QED. Marc
Imperative to Functional Programming Succinctly Contributors Wanted for Higher Order Programming Project!
-
Evil serves a very important role. Without evil, we wouldn't know what good is. Thus, evil is simply a "lesser good". Therefore, Google is good. QED. Marc
Imperative to Functional Programming Succinctly Contributors Wanted for Higher Order Programming Project!
Good lord, I never realized you work for Obama... :doh:
Will Rogers never met me.
-
It's an anagram of "Embody Evil". (Hey, that's about as accurate as half the statements made in meetings, and there's a chance he's dylsexic, and I'll get away with it)
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
It's an anagram of "Violent Bed" if that helps?
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
-
It's an anagram of "Violent Bed" if that helps?
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
I'm sure it would help someone; just not sure whom.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
Because they're 'projecting'...they blame everyone else for their own shortcomings ie: they're evil. You see this a lot...for example, people who 'promote awareness' seem to have a severe lack of it themselves.
-
Evil serves a very important role. Without evil, we wouldn't know what good is. Thus, evil is simply a "lesser good". Therefore, Google is good. QED. Marc
Imperative to Functional Programming Succinctly Contributors Wanted for Higher Order Programming Project!
I thought Godel proved that a system can't prove its own consistency unless it is inconsistent. So, Google is bad :-D
-
Evil serves a very important role. Without evil, we wouldn't know what good is. Thus, evil is simply a "lesser good". Therefore, Google is good. QED. Marc
Imperative to Functional Programming Succinctly Contributors Wanted for Higher Order Programming Project!
Marc Clifton wrote:
Without evil, we wouldn't know what good is. Thus, evil is simply a "lesser good".
That smacks of Manicheanism...
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack. --Winston Churchill
-
My favourites are the conspiracy theorists who say that we should have secret meetings to discuss how to deal with all the conspiracies.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
Didn't you get the email invite to the one on Tuesday?
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
-
Google is king when it comes to violating it's own motto "Don't be evil" :laugh:
“Everything is simple when you take your time to analyze it.”
Google represents everything soulless and wrong.
"... having only that moment finished a vigorous game of Wiff-Waff and eaten a tartiflet." - Henry Minute "Let's face it, after Monday and Tuesday, even the calendar says WTF!" - gavindon Programming is a race between programmers trying to build bigger and better idiot proof programs, and the universe trying to build bigger and better idiots, so far... the universe is winning. - gavindon
-
Didn't you get the email invite to the one on Tuesday?
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
What?! No, I didn't! It's a plot, isn't it?! Someone in the group is trying to get one over on me! We need to discuss this. Choose a date -- and don't tell the others!
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
It's more of a guideline.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
I rather read it as an acknowledgement.. yes, it's possible; you are free to choose so, but why would we?
If the brain were so simple we could understand it, we would be so simple we couldn't. — Lyall Watson
-
In the future, when we are all using driver-less Google cars and you make a statement like that, you'll die in a freak car 'accident'.
Hehehe :laugh:
“Everything is simple when you take your time to analyze it.”
-
Marc Clifton wrote:
Without evil, we wouldn't know what good is. Thus, evil is simply a "lesser good".
That smacks of Manicheanism...
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack. --Winston Churchill
-
Google represents everything soulless and wrong.
"... having only that moment finished a vigorous game of Wiff-Waff and eaten a tartiflet." - Henry Minute "Let's face it, after Monday and Tuesday, even the calendar says WTF!" - gavindon Programming is a race between programmers trying to build bigger and better idiot proof programs, and the universe trying to build bigger and better idiots, so far... the universe is winning. - gavindon
-
It's more of a guideline.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
I thought Godel proved that a system can't prove its own consistency unless it is inconsistent. So, Google is bad :-D
Kenneth Haugland wrote:
I thought Godel proved that a system can't prove its own consistency unless it is inconsistent.
Not even close. Consistency: X is provable, therefore X is true. Completeness: X is true, therefore X is provable. The most important of the two aspects is consistency, because if you're able to prove something that's actually false, there's no point to proving anything. The layman's version of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem claims that in any closed system there are statements that are true and unprovable, because proving them would violate consistency.
-
Kenneth Haugland wrote:
I thought Godel proved that a system can't prove its own consistency unless it is inconsistent.
Not even close. Consistency: X is provable, therefore X is true. Completeness: X is true, therefore X is provable. The most important of the two aspects is consistency, because if you're able to prove something that's actually false, there's no point to proving anything. The layman's version of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem claims that in any closed system there are statements that are true and unprovable, because proving them would violate consistency.
-
Google is king when it comes to violating it's own motto "Don't be evil" :laugh:
“Everything is simple when you take your time to analyze it.”
Not that examples are so hard to come by, but doesn't an assertion like this deserve just a little support? What did google do that pushed you into the "evil" camp? It has to be more than just realizing that all ad brokers are evil by construction. I mean, I know why google seems evil to me... * Owning the internet verb for "to search", and adulterating search results with paid content is pretty evil. * Announcing an open source operating system for phones and then after it is accepted spending years replacing it bit-by-bit with proprietary content is pretty evil. * Conspiring with a cartel of Silicon Valley employers to tamp down wages for the geeky talent that makes it great is pretty evil. I just wondered what you woke up to.
-
Kenneth Haugland wrote:
I thought Godel proved that a system can't prove its own consistency unless it is inconsistent.
Not even close. Consistency: X is provable, therefore X is true. Completeness: X is true, therefore X is provable. The most important of the two aspects is consistency, because if you're able to prove something that's actually false, there's no point to proving anything. The layman's version of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem claims that in any closed system there are statements that are true and unprovable, because proving them would violate consistency.
> Not even close." Bzzt! Wrong! Gödel's second incompleteness theorem states that a consistent system cannot prove its own consistency. And of course inconsistent systems can prove anything, true or false, including their consistency. > Consistency: X is provable, therefore X is true. > Completeness: X is true, therefore X is provable. This is an odd and confusing way to state these, as it isn't clear that they are universally qualified. Better is: Consistency: For all X, if X is provable then X is true. Completeness: For all X, if X is true then X is provable. > The layman's version of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem claims that in any closed system there are statements that are true and unprovable, because proving them would violate consistency. That "because" omits a lot. Gödel's proof of his (first) Incompleteness Theorem shows that, given a consistent formal axiomatic system (capable of expressing elementary arithmetic), it is possible to construct a true statement (the "Gödel sentence" for that system) that cannot be proved. The Gödel sentence G is an encoding of the statement "G cannot be proved within the theory T". If G could be proved, that would be a contradiction, making the system inconsistent. And since it cannot be proved, it's true.
-
> Not even close." Bzzt! Wrong! Gödel's second incompleteness theorem states that a consistent system cannot prove its own consistency. And of course inconsistent systems can prove anything, true or false, including their consistency. > Consistency: X is provable, therefore X is true. > Completeness: X is true, therefore X is provable. This is an odd and confusing way to state these, as it isn't clear that they are universally qualified. Better is: Consistency: For all X, if X is provable then X is true. Completeness: For all X, if X is true then X is provable. > The layman's version of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem claims that in any closed system there are statements that are true and unprovable, because proving them would violate consistency. That "because" omits a lot. Gödel's proof of his (first) Incompleteness Theorem shows that, given a consistent formal axiomatic system (capable of expressing elementary arithmetic), it is possible to construct a true statement (the "Gödel sentence" for that system) that cannot be proved. The Gödel sentence G is an encoding of the statement "G cannot be proved within the theory T". If G could be proved, that would be a contradiction, making the system inconsistent. And since it cannot be proved, it's true.
jibalt wrote:
Gödel's second incompleteness theorem states that a consistent system cannot prove its own consistency. And of course inconsistent systems can prove anything, true or false, including their consistency.
It's better said that if a system S includes a statement about its own consistency, then by definition S is inconsistent. To demonstrate its consistency, you have to include statements that are outside of S.
jibalt wrote:
This is an odd and confusing way to state these, as it isn't clear that they are universally qualified.
Granted, that's the way I learned it, but we could nitpick all day, since it should say: Consistency: For all X \in S, ... because there are statements outside of S that can "declare" the completeness of S. Of course, that would create a new system S_0, which has its own "Godel sentence". And so on.
jibalt wrote:
If G could be proved, that would be a contradiction, making the system inconsistent. And since it cannot be proved, it's true.
It's not that "since it cannot be proved, it's true"; every false statement in S could be considered true by that phrase, which would break consistency. My understanding of Godel's ITs (once again, as someone who's still grasping wisps of understanding about it): If a system has to discard either consistency or completeness, consistency is more important, so completeness goes out the window. G has to be true and unproven, violating completeness, since proving G would violate consistency, which defeats the purpose of having the system in the first place. (Apologies for leaving out the o with the dieresis atop; Godel deserves to have his name written correctly, but I'm at a loss on how to type it with my current keyboard settings.)
