Bonus points if it’s usually misused/misunderstood by the people who say it
If I just rolled a 6 I’m not going to expect the same result if I roll the die again.
I would argue that you didn’t roll the die the exact same way…
Of course there could be other things other than your movements like wind that also affects the outcome.
Right, so even if I’m doing the same thing I’m not doing it in the exact same way, so the result may be different.
This “Do you listen to Weezer?” stuff is getting pretty old
“This is the way”
640k ought to be enough for anyone.
Bill Gates didn’t even say it. And even if one only takes the spirit out of that quote whereupon software and hardware should be planned with foresight, it’s so overused.
He denied he ever said it, but nearly 15 years after the quote. It was quoted heavily in 1980’s computer magazine, always with a 1981 date. I’ve never seen the interview where he said it. Bill Gates is a consumate huckster, and I don’t trust his word on anything, but without direct evidence, the most logical answer is all the times he did say in interviews that the (Microsoft) thought 640k would be enough memory for much longer than it was.
“Customer is always right” isn’t a trump card for customers to win disputes with the staff. When it comes to matters of preference, yes, the customer is always right. Ketchup on ice cream? Great. Down jacket and shorts? Sure thing! If it makes you happy and you’re paying for it then you’re always right.
In most other matters though, customers are usually wrong. The idea that random people off the street know more about the products and the way a business should be run than the actual people selling said products and running said business is absolutely ridiculous.
I think the original quote was something along the lines of, “the customer is always right, in mattera of taste”. Meaning to accommodate the customers wishes, even if it’s ugly or a bad idea or whatever. Like if they want to paint their house pink with green trim, let them
I think it’s even broader than that.
If customers want green socks, sell green socks.
It would be have been better said as demand is always right (not supply).
“The cloud is just someone else’s computers.”
If that’s what you really think the cloud is, still, then you are a dinosaur who is not evolving with the times.
Do u think it’s actually being stored in water vapor in the sky
It’s reductive but not untrue.
Wait what do you think the cloud is then? A bunch of computers owned by no one?
I usually think of it this way, though I use the term server and acknowledge there are often many servers involved. Is this incorrect, or is there a better way to think about it?
Servers and and sometimes services
Yeah, those get old. I prefer:
Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary.
Between Ronald Reagan and Karl Marx, where do you fall on the issue of gun control? 😆
The people that spout the second part are only slightly more annoying than the people that spout the first part. Both sides are idiots who think they have a “gotcha!”. Rhetorical geniuses.
The second amendment exists. The courts have upheld it to mean the right of individual ownership. There is zero wiggle room here. If anyone wants to debate how it is vs. how it should be, I welcome that conversation! But be warned, we’ll be arguing opinions, not these two facts.
The next comment is where some kid, fresh out of Remedial PolySci, tells us all that amendments can be changed. Who knew? Of course they can’t explain the method by which that happens or propose a path forward in the foreseeable future. (Hint: The point is entirely moot.)
Yeah the genie is already waaaay out of the bottle in the US. It would be logistically impossible to get rid of guns, nice as that would be. This is something both extremes refuse to accept, because they wouldn’t have a cause or solution to rally around. No, Bubba, nobody’s going to take your guns. No Stewart, we can’t just ban guns and wash our hands of it. Other countries have indeed mostly eradicated firearms in normal society, but nowhere near on the scale that the US has.
A “well regulated militia” had a different meaning back then. Also, there’s a comma in the middle of the amendment that means the first phrase is only a clarification. The second clause stands on its own.
Yup. I’ll go with the linguists on this one.
Textualism and originalism
A group of linguistics scholars describe developments in the field of corpus linguistics, which did not exist when District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago were decided, that have allowed for a new understanding of the language used in the Second Amendment. Researchers in American and English history have digitally compiled thousands of Founding-era texts, making it possible, for the first time, to search and examine specific terms and usage from the period. The resulting evidence demonstrates that “keep and bear arms” had a “collective, militaristic meaning” in the late 18th century. The scholars write that, consistent with that meaning, Founding-era voters would have understood the right to be subject to regulation.The resulting evidence demonstrates that “keep and bear arms” had a “collective, militaristic meaning” in the late 18th century.
And what is this even supposed to mean in a way that would contradict the originalist viewpoint? The definition of “militia” in the period is already understood to mean all able-bodied men that are suitable for military conscription. And by extension, a “well-regulated” meant said militia having proper equipment and knowledge of how to use said equipment. Quoting this changes nothing.
Also a side note: you should look at some of the arguments above the one you quoted in this link. There were 2 based on the State of New York discriminating against people, particularly racial minorities and LGBTQ individuals, which have the most need for the ability to defend themselves
Alright, we can discuss the first clause. Here is another comment I made in the thread on that topic: https://sh.itjust.works/comment/4356959
Ah yes, because the founders wrote in modern American english that is wholly objective and unassailable in its original meaning. it is for this reason alone that no new laws have been passed or enforced since the penning of the Constitution.
Ok, I’m not saying you need to agree with the principle, but the grammar clearly states that the citizens get guns because the government has a military (which is the well-regulated militia).
Again, not starting a debate on if that’s good or bad, just grammar.
No, the “well-regulated militia” actually referred to a desire to have all able-bodied men of military age to commonly have most of the skills needed to fight in a war in case of a draft, such as marksmanship and survival skills, as well as already owning most of the necessary equipment.
What’s important to note is that the US had a very small standing military for most of its history. It relied on being able to conscript a large number of recruits whenever a war started, and sent them home whenever the war was over. This requires a lot of the citizenry to already know most of the skills they’d need to raise an army quickly.
Oh, so because the state had a military people were allowed to have guns? That’s shockingly similar to what I said.
“Settled science.” Used by people who don’t understand that science at its heart is constantly questioning everything.
We’re taught that intelligence is performative. So most people think intelligence is answer driven, clever people know that it’s question driven. But a gameshow where contestants ask the right questions might not do as well as Jeopardy.
Edit: my dumb ass picks the gameshow where you famously have to literally ask the right questions as an example.
“Agree to disagree.” No, dipshit, you’re just wrong.
I do not agree to disagree, because we’re not arguing about opinions. Your belief is simply, objectively incorrect. Or mine is, which is something that I would be willing to accept. If I were wrong, you’d be able to convince me that I’m wrong. We can keep going until one of us accepts that we didn’t have an accurate understanding of reality.
It’s always the dipshits that fall back on “Well, we will have to agree to disagree,” usually right after they’ve been presented with enough evidence to change the mind of a rational person. Fuck that, I do not agree to disagree.
Agree to disagree is for things like “what ice cream flavor is best”, not for things like “2+2=4”.
I have found that the issue is often that people tend to not realize they’re arguing that 2+2=6, they think they’re arguing what ice cream flavor is the best
This is exactly the sort of argument that I was thinking of when I wrote the comment. We can agree to disagree on the best ice cream flavor, because everyone has different tastes. We cannot agree to disagree on whether the earth is flat, because it’s not and we have overwhelming proof that it isn’t.
You don’t get tired of arguments? I see it as a ‘fine, be stupid if you want’ because I’m not spending more time on the point.
Yeah, but if I mean that, I say that.
I don’t want to sound mean. It’s just a nicety.
OK let’s agree to disagree. 😉
(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻
I use it as a politer version of “Could you stop talking now? Thanks.”
Six of one, half a dozen of the other?
Agreeing to disagree is just more polite and often nicer for both, if such agreement is reached. You’re basically saying that we can’t really convince each other of our position so let’s just leave it at that instead of trying endlessly.
I don’t get that feeling at all, to me it sounds like you’ve just come to the conclusion that you shouldn’t go on with arguing.
Makes sense
No, dipshit, you’re just wrong.
Your belief is simply, objectively incorrect.
If I were wrong, you’d be able to convince me that I’m wrong. We can keep going until one of us accepts that we didn’t have an accurate understanding of reality.
Boy if this doesn’t describe most people arguing online lol.
which is something that I would be willing to accept.
I’ve found this is much harder than it seems. People either don’t understand they’re wrong (which might be the reason they’re wrong to begin with) or unwilling to admit to being wrong even to themselves. So you’ll have the first part of my quote lol
Love your username
If I were wrong, you’d be able to convince me that I’m wrong. We can keep going until one of us accepts that we didn’t have an accurate understanding of reality.
I had an ex like you.
Sara?
“I could care less”.
Oh really? How much less?
I thought that was the joke: I could care less… but I can’t even be bothered to care any less because I care so little.
It’s just people saying it wrong, like “bone apple tea” instead of " bon appetit". It’s supposed to be “I couldn’t care less”. But I mean come on, these are the same people who searched for “Michael Jackson Billy’s Jeans” so often on YouTube that it became a recommended search term. Lol.
At least it makes sense when people say “I couldn’t care less.”
“I tried to, I really did. But I just could not care less. I’d hit the bottom of the barrel.”
It can be interpreted as sarcasm, as in “tell me more, I could care even less.”
“Survival of the fittest” when used to indicate the stongest should survive. Instead of the one best suited for (fitting) the situation.
Both wrong. Survival of the barely adequate.
We are all minimal viable products on this blessed day
Welcome to Costco. I love you.
“Everything happens for a reason”
The cancer disagrees.
I mean, technically it did happen for a reason. Your body hates you.
Also, my sympathies for your condition.
To be fair I’ve been abusing with alcohol since my late teens. So I guess we’re even now.
SUCK ON THAT CANCER!
I usually answer “if you say so”
Or worse: “it’s all part of God’s plan!” every time something bad happens. “So… God’s a sadist, or what? Cuz his plan is shit.”
God did ruin Job’s life over a bet with Satan so maybe this is less of a plan and more of a downward spiral gambling addiction
I hate this phrase so, so much. Sometimes babies die within days of being born with no chance of getting baptized. Don’t people realize that the implication of this is that God is dooming them to purgatory just to spite the parents? Do they not Pealize how fucked up that sounds?
or when someone gets the benefit of excellent medical care and thanks God for it. ugh. A lifetime of dedication by the doctors and scientists that brought you this cure? A distant second place.
As a surgical tech, I have to bite my tongue when this pops up. Like… bitch, your god sent you to the OR in the first place - you should be pissed!
Hear me out on this: God is creating jobs for the community. If there weren’t stupid people around to get hurt, the smart ones wouldn’t have anything to do!
Or he sucks so bad at planning that he can’t make people happy without also hurting others.
“But happiness would be meaningless without sadness to compare it to!”
Bitch were you never happy before you learned what cancer was? Did you start enjoying life the moment you figured out what rape is? “Boy I sure am glad I’m not being raped today! Much happier than I would be if I didn’t know there was an alternative!”
I actually love this one, because it’s technically correct but not in the way people who use it mean, so you can turn it around easily.
Yes, you did get cancer for a reason. Because you insisted on maintaining your suntan every winter. Or perhaps merely because you pissed off the wrong banana.
In my case, it was through no action of my own and merely bad luck. So the only “reason” would be bad luck or a shitty all-powerful deity.
Hmmmm I do love to eat bananas 🤔 BRB, off to sue Chiquita
deleted by creator
“Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”
An individual, uneducated observer might not be able to tell them apart, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a distinction.
One of the avengers movies dropped that line, and I feel like it’s spread like wild fire since then, and it’s just objectively not correct.
I understand much of the technology we use today isn’t magic, but it may as well be with how much I understand about how it works.
I don’t think you quite grasp what Arthur C Clarke was going for with this one.
I get what he was going for, I just think it was poorly executed.
It’s actually one of Arthur C Clarke’s “laws.”
Sorry but I’ve got to “well actually” this one though. Happipy, it’s a simple misunderstanding. _The quote is from the perspective of the uneducated observer. _ To the one who understands the technology, sure there’s absolutely a difference. But if I were to go back to ancient Rome and somehow facetime someone from what appeared to be a polished stone, it’d absolutely be considered magic. Even if I fully understood the difference. (Most limitations would be explained away as most magic in stories has limitations or rules, a wizard using a staff or needing ingredients etc.)
Understood - what I’m saying though is that it’s a bad quote. It doesn’t convey that it’s indistinguishable only to people who don’t know any better, it just says that it’s indistinguishable, which again is objectively not correct. The cell phone in ancient Rome would absolutely be considered magic… in error, by people who don’t understand what they’re seeing; and limitations on magic doesn’t make it suddenly not magic - just cuz some fiction establishes that you need a newt eye, 2 raccoon penises, and a 1/2 cup of sugar to summon a magma demon doesn’t mean it wouldn’t be creating a ton of energy and matter.
I could say a spruce and a pine are indistinguishable just because my dumb ass doesn’t know the difference - but I’d be wrong.
What if the demon is actually an interdimensional traveller and the newt eye is the biometric lock to operate the portal device?
You’re coming at it from the perspective of somebody who does understand the technology, which is not what the quote is about.
What if the demon is actually an interdimensional traveller and the newt eye is the biometric lock to operate the portal device?
Then it would be technology, and not magic. We can what-if new criteria all day long and assign the results to whatever category it would belong to under those criteria, but the two will always be definitively distinct.
You’re coming at it from the perspective of somebody who does understand the technology, which is not what the quote is about.
…which is why I dislike the quote - it doesn’t actually convey any kind of limited scope, it just -incorrectly- says the two are indistinguishable. And anecdotally, every time I see that quote dropped in a discussion about tech or fiction, it’s never done with any nod to a limited observer; it’s used as a justification to conclude that the two are the same thing.
And idk why it rubs me the wrong way so hard, but it’s become a pet peeve.
Indistinguishable doesn’t mean identical. It just means that the observer cannot tell the difference.
The observer being the one who doesn’t know it is technology is implied by the quote.
Sometimes brevity is much better than a lot of explanation. To add in a fairly obvious point about this being for the uneducated observer would make it twice as long.
Edit: To reinforce that it’s the observer, imagine how silly the quote would have been were it to reference all parties. Like, the person who understands that it is tech is going “oooooh, magic!”
I always interpreted Clarke’s Law as first fixing an observer.
Then there exist technologies that are sufficiently advanced that the observer can only understand as magic.
Obviously someone had to understand it to make it in the first place, but there are (or will be) even more advanced technologies that that someone couldn’t understand either.
There’s two parts to it.
First of all, a lot of technology is doing straight up wizard shit. Fire in the palm of your hand? Carriages that travel without horse or driver? A house that obeys your commands by itself? A mirror you can speak into and another being can hear your words? This shit WAS magic.
Secondly, what counts as indistinguishable is based on our ability to distinguish things. To an omniscient 3rd party, they can see everything and notice what obeys physics and what does not. But for a long time, we couldn’t tell between bacteria and curses, or between head pressure and demons.
So a 15th century bumpkin could not hope to distinguish between our technology and straight up magic. And there will be future tech to which we are not unlike that bumpkin ourselves.
An individual, uneducated observer might not be able to tell them apart, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a distinction.
What about when an involved educated observer can’t tell them apart? I mean, we still can’t fully explain how friction works but we know how to use it.
Inability to explain something doesn’t make it magic, regardless of the observer. I haven’t the faintest idea how the computer I’m typing on works; but I’m reasonably confident it doesn’t break the laws of physics. And even if I’m wrong about that - computers are literally magic! - then… they’re magic: the observer always makes a conclusion based on their observations, but whether or not that’s correct is moot: the thing being assessed is what it is.
My argument here boils down to this:
“I can’t tell these two things apart.” =/= “These two things are the same.”
“This looks/feels like magic!” =/= “This is magic!”
…I’m collecting downvotes like pokemon in this thread in this thread, which I assume means a lot of folks disagree, but I’m really scratching my head here at why that is.
“This hurts me more than it hurts you”
No, I’m pretty sure being spanked hurts more than doing the spanking.
Being spanked is physical harm, vs doing the spanking is emotional harm. The argument is that emotional is more harmful than physical.
Of course this ignores that being spanked very likely also inflicts emotional harm. It also ignores that emotional harm isn’t a scale.
