77 Matching Annotations
  1. Nov 2022
  2. Oct 2022
  3. Sep 2022
  4. Jul 2022
  5. Jun 2022
    1. Alito relies on sources such as Hale without acknowledging their entanglement with legalized male supremacy. The men who cited Hale as they constructed the early American legal order refused to give women the right to vote or to otherwise enjoy full citizenship. Relying on that history of injustice as a reason to deny modern women control over their own lives is a terrible argument but apparently the best Alito can do.

      Relying on a history of injustice to continue to deny justice to any person is a predatory argument.

  6. May 2022
    1. Some universities have restructured programs to emphasize the ability to work, socialize and research across languages, offering dual degrees in which students’ language education is directly tied to its application in their other fields of study. Georgia Tech, for example, has devised programs aimed at developing language skills that allow them to work more effectively in, and to be more attractive to, international companies and organizations.

      "Appeal to the people," the fallacy of popular, (argumentum and populm) by making an argument that something is the right or correct thing to do because a lot of people agree with doing it.

  7. Feb 2022
    1. Also, we shouldn’t underestimate the advantages of writing. In oralpresentations, we easily get away with unfounded claims. We candistract from argumentative gaps with confident gestures or drop acasual “you know what I mean” irrespective of whether we knowwhat we meant. In writing, these manoeuvres are a little too obvious.It is easy to check a statement like: “But that is what I said!” Themost important advantage of writing is that it helps us to confrontourselves when we do not understand something as well as wewould like to believe.

      In modern literate contexts, it is easier to establish doubletalk in oral contexts than it is in written contexts as the written is more easily reviewed for clarity and concreteness. Verbal ticks like "you know what I mean", "it's easy to see/show", and other versions of similar hand-waving arguments that indicate gaps in thinking and arguments are far easier to identify in writing than they are in speech where social pressure may cause the audience to agree without actually following the thread of the argument. Writing certainly allows for timeshiting, but it explicitly also expands time frames for grasping and understanding a full argument in a way not commonly seen in oral settings.

      Note that this may not be the case in primarily oral cultures which may take specific steps to mitigate these patterns.

      Link this to the anthropology example from Scott M. Lacy of the (Malian?) tribe that made group decisions by repeating a statement from the lowest to the highest and back again to ensure understanding and agreement.


      This difference in communication between oral and literate is one which leaders can take advantage of in leading their followers astray. An example is Donald Trump who actively eschewed written communication or even reading in general in favor of oral and highly emotional speech. This generally freed him from the need to make coherent and useful arguments.

    2. “I had [...]during many years followed a golden rule, namely, that whenever apublished fact, a new observation or thought came across me, whichwas opposed to my general results, to make a memorandum of itwithout fail and at once; for I had found by experience that such factsand thoughts were far more apt to escape from the memory thanfavorable ones. Owing to this habit, very few objections were raisedagainst my views, which I had not at least noticed and attempted toanswer.” (Darwin 1958, 123)

      Charles Darwin fought confirmation bias by writing down contrary arguments and criticisms and addressing them.

  8. Jan 2022
    1. Samuel Hartlib was well aware of this improvement. While extolling the clever invention of Harrison, Hartlib noted that combinations and links con-stituted the ‘argumentative part’ of the card index.60

      Hartlib Papers 30/4/47A, Ephemerides 1640, Part 2.

      In extolling the Ark of Studies created by Thomas Harrison, Samuel Hartlib indicated that the combinations of information and the potential links between them created the "argumentative part" of the system. In some sense this seems to be analogous to the the processing power of an information system if not specifically creating its consciousness.

    1. Still, persuasiveness need not take the form of logicalargumentation; it can just as easily involve appeal to sentiment,whipping up passions, deploying poetic metaphors, appealing tomyth or proverbial wisdom, employing irony and indirection, humour,insult, or appeals to prophecy or revelation; and the degree to whichone privileges any of these has everything to do with the rhetoricaltradition to which the speaker belongs, and the presumeddispositions of their audience.

      A list of means of persuasiveness:

      • use of logical argumentation
      • appeal to sentiment
      • whipping up passions
      • deploying poetic metaphors
      • appeal to mythology, proverbial or ancient wisdom
      • irony
      • indirection
      • humor
      • insult
      • prophecy/revelation
      • appeal to the rhetorical tradition to which the speaker belongs (pathos, ethos, etc.)
      • presumed disposition of the audience

      What others are there?

      Certainly Donald Trump didn't use logical argumentation. He didn't even frame things as being for something so much as being against other things.

    2. Enlightenment texts took the form of dialogues; mostcultivated an easy, transparent, conversational style clearly inspiredby the salon. (It was the Germans, back then, who tended to write inthe obscure style for which French intellectuals have since becomefamous.)

      Through the Enlightenment texts took the form of dialogues and it was the Germans of the time who began writing in a more obscure argumentative style which changed the form of the discourse.

  9. Dec 2021
  10. Nov 2021
    1. Calling a software convention "pretty 90s" somewhat undermines your position. Quite a lot of well-designed software components are older than that. If something is problematic, it would be more useful to argue its faults. When someone cites age to justify change, I usually find that they're inexperienced and don't fully understand the issues or how their proposed change would impact other people.
  11. Oct 2021
  12. Aug 2021
    1. 3. The no-keyword-arguments syntax (**nil) is introduced You can use **nil in a method definition to explicitly mark the method accepts no keyword arguments. Calling such methods with keyword arguments will result in an ArgumentError. (This is actually a new feature, not an incompatibility)
    2. This is useful to make it explicit that the method does not accept keyword arguments. Otherwise, the keywords are absorbed in the rest argument in the above example.
    3. If you extend a method to accept keyword arguments, the method may have incompatibility as follows: # If a method accepts rest argument and no `**nil` def foo(*args) p args end # Passing keywords are converted to a Hash object (even in Ruby 3.0) foo(k: 1) #=> [{:k=>1}] # If the method is extended to accept a keyword def foo(*args, mode: false) p args end # The existing call may break foo(k: 1) #=> ArgumentError: unknown keyword k
    4. If your code doesn’t have to run on Ruby 2.6 or older, you may try the new style in Ruby 2.7. In almost all cases, it works. Note that, however, there are unfortunate corner cases as follows:
    5. Ruby 2.6 or before themselves have tons of corner cases in keyword arguments.
    6. ruby2_keywords allows you to run the old style even in Ruby 2.7 and 3.0.
  13. Jul 2021
    1. We may assume that Anaximander somehow had to defend his bold theory of the free-floating, unsupported earth against the obvious question of why the earth does not fall. Aristotle’s version of Anaximander’s argument runs like this: “But there are some who say that it (namely, the earth) stays where it is because of equality, such as among the ancients Anaximander. For that which is situated in the center and at equal distances from the extremes, has no inclination whatsoever to move up rather than down or sideways; and since it is impossible to move in opposite directions at the same time, it necessarily stays where it is.” (De caelo 295b10ff., DK 12A26) Many authors have pointed to the fact that this is the first known example of an argument that is based on the principle of sufficient reason (the principle that for everything which occurs there is a reason or explanation for why it occurs, and why this way rather than that).

      principle of sufficient reason

      : for everything which occurs there is a reason or explanation for why it occurs, and why this way rather than that

      The first example in Western culture is that of Anaximander explaining why the Earth does not fall.

    1. Minto is the originator of the MECE principle pronounced "ME-see",[6][3] a grouping principle for separating a set of items into subsets that are mutually exclusive (ME) and collectively exhaustive (CE).[7] MECE underlies her Minto Pyramid Principle,[3] which suggests that people's ideas should be communicated in a pyramid format in which summary points are derived from constituent and supporting sub-points:[8] Grouping together low-level facts they see as similar Drawing an insight from having seen the similarity Forming a new grouping of related insights, etc. Minto argues that one "can’t derive an idea from a grouping unless the ideas in the grouping are logically the same, and in logical order.”[3]

      Saw this mentioned/described in the first session of Roam Book Club 5 [video].

    1. fear, uncertainty, and doubt are not an argument

    2. If you want to understand why I’ve made these arguments, you first need to recognize that for decades, right-wing thinkers and judges have argued that policies that lead to racial inequities are “not racist” or are “race neutral.” That was the position of the conservative Supreme Court justices who recently upheld Arizona’s voting-restriction policies. Those who wish to conserve racial inequity want us to focus on intent—which is hard to prove—rather than the outcome of inequity, which is rather easy to prove.
    3. What happens when a politician falsely proclaims what you think, and then criticizes that proclamation? Is she really critiquing your ideas—or her own? If a writer decides what both sides of an argument are stating, is he really engaging in an argument with another writer, or is he engaging in an argument with himself?
    4. Over the past few months, I have seldom stopped to answer the critiques of critical race theory or of my own work, because the more I’ve studied these critiques, the more I’ve concluded that these critics aren’t arguing against me. They aren’t arguing against anti-racist thinkers. They aren’t arguing against critical race theorists. These critics are arguing against themselves.

      How does this compare with the idea of sealioning?

      Could the versions of argument be broken down into sub categories based on who is participating in the argument? Perhaps the way that IndieWeb has broken down syndication into sub-categories based on which direction the syndication is going: POSSE, PESOS, etc.?

  14. Jun 2021
    1. 'set-cookie': response.headers.get('set-cookie')
    2. If you do need to passthrough your mydomain.com cookies to a thirdparty.com domain, you can technically already do that now by implementing it as an endpoint and calling fetch('/my-endpoint')
    3. I don't really want to re-implement all of my api endpoints to make this work. Is there a way to "mask" the thirdparty endpoints to pass through the cookies?
  15. May 2021
    1. Prominence as a critic tends to reinforce itself. The person who appears on news shows is the person who gets to star in a documentary is the person who gets to testify before the Senate is the person who gets invited back onto the news shows, and so forth.

      Another specific example of this has been noted by Zeynep Tufekci of an economist becoming the face of criticism of the education space being open or closed during the coronavirus pandemic. The woman, who had no background in public health or epidemiology, became the public face of the argument about whether schools should be open or closed.

  16. Feb 2021
    1. As Miller explained, it is central to the radical Left’s foundation to destroy Americans’ faith in ourselves, our past, and our present. Because this destruction is the prerequisite for changing America into a dramatically different country, which is less free, less safe, and less successful.

      Why are Republicans always trying to use the "radical Left" as the boogeyman and painting the entirety of the Democratic party with it? Gingrich knows full well that there are marginal voices on the far left just as there are on the far right. Why are Republicans always painting with such a broad brush and not supporting their arguments with actual facts?

      I'm curious just which specific things Gingerich thinks they're doing that will make us "less free" or "less safe"? For comparison, maybe we should look at decades of "trickle down economics" and see if those work? I suspect Gingrich and Miller would say yes, but mountains of evidence indicate we're not measurably better off. (See also: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/107919/1/Hope_economic_consequences_of_major_tax_cuts_published.pdf)

    1. Keyword arguments allow to define particular parameters as required. Should the parameter be missing, they also provide a way to set a default value. This is all done with pure Ruby.
    1. Sharpe claims that Englishmen “were able to…constitute themselves as political agents” by reading, whether or not they read about state affairs; for politics was “a type of consciousness” and the psyche “a text of politics.” “The Civil War itself became a contested text.” So reading was everything: “We are what we read.”

      The argument here is that much of the English Civil War was waged in reading and writing. Compare this with today's similar political civil war between the right and the left, but it is being waged in social media instead in sound bites, video clips, tweets, which encourage visceral gut reactions instead of longer and better thought out arguments and well tempered reactions.

      Instead of moving forward on the axis of thought and rationality, we're descending instead into the primordial and visceral reactions of our "reptilian brains."

  17. Jan 2021
    1. allow <slot> to be part of a slot
    2. I want to make some add-ons or wrappers on components e.g BigButton.svelte <script> import Button from './Button.svelte' </script> <Button fz="16" h="64" {...$$props}> <slot slot="prepend" name="prepend" /> <slot /> <slot slot="append" name="append" /> </Button>
    3. Related to #1824, can do <svelte:component this={Bar}> <slot></slot> <slot name="header" slot="header"></slot> </svelte:component> <script> import Bar from './Bar.svelte'; </script> as a forwarding workaround
    1. In 3.29.0 you can now use <slot slot='...'> to forward slots into a child component, without adding DOM elements.
    2. Would love to see passthrough slots to create superset components, for example Table and TableWithPagination (table slots for TableWithPagination could be passed through to Table).
  18. Nov 2020
    1. All standard UI events are forwarded on components, input events ("input" and "change") are forwarded on input components, and all MDC events are forwarded.
    2. You can add props to lower components and elements with things like input$maxlength="15".
    3. You can add actions to the components with use={[Action1, [Action2, action2Props], Action3]}.
  19. Oct 2020
  20. Sep 2020
    1. We should also allow passing unrecognised props to the rendered component. eg: tabindex might be required on some instances of a component, and not all. Why should developers have to add tabindex support to their components just that it may potentially be used

      Glad to hear this is solved now: $restProps

    2. You could do something like this instead while maintaining complete control of where different props go. <div class="wrapper> <div {...$$props} > ... </div> </div>
  21. Aug 2020
    1. All of the components should allow passing MUI configuration properties to them so that they can be easily customized. In the case of RFF and MUI components with deeply nested structures of multiple subcomponents, you can pass the properties in with sepecial top level properties. This is very hard to document fully without making a mess, so please refer to the source code and demos for examples.
  22. May 2020
    1. I have used this bash one-liner before set -- "${@:1:$(($#-1))}" It sets the argument list to the current argument list, less the last argument.

      Analogue of shift built-in. Too bad there isn't just a pop built-in.

  23. Apr 2020
    1. If this is the sort of dialectic we’re after in Nietzsche, thenwe will have a very hard time finding it,

      Since Deleuze misunderstands Hegel's dialectic, Cole can dismiss Deleuze's claim that Nietzche opposes Hegel's dialectic . . ..

  24. Feb 2020
  25. Nov 2019
  26. Oct 2018
    1. Universal

      There should be a broad understanding of all disciplines. We shouldn't expect the next great novelist to be good at math?

    2. It's

      First Argument: It is irrational to blindly promote STEM because not all children have an affinity for it. We should all choose jobs that we have a natural affinity for.

  27. Feb 2017
    1. Having long flourished in politics and religion, they have also spread into science and medicine

      Convincing arguments are based upon reasoning, of which, says Campbell, there are two kinds: scientific and moral.

    1. we’re both so focused on what the other is saying or doing that’s wrong that we barely hear anything else. There may have been a time when we might listen to what the other has to say politely, but those days are long gone.

      I believe this statement can sum up many if not almost all of the arguments we have with friends. We just focus on what they are doing wrong or saying wrong at the moment that we forget how much we actually have in common thus making us FRIENDS. I believe the author puts it greatly that the time to be polite is long gone. Could this because of the growing trend of social media?

  28. Aug 2016
  29. Jun 2016
  30. Mar 2016