I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters.


Unless that person was black, that would probably win him votes. :vomit:

I think that will be my new favourite emoticon. — Benkei

You agree with his factual understanding of the current political and social climate then.

At no point did he say he would enjoy doing so, naturally he did not say he wouldn't, let alone the idea he would or wanted to have. He simply called a spade a spade and, at least in this particular scenario, happened to have told the truth.

People don't like the ugly reality of our own nature being revealed to them, we like well manicured lawns, white picket fences, adorable canines, matching iPhone covers, and our freshly made deli sandwiches cut in delectable slices with a fancy cocktail sword skewering each. So much so those who actually wish to change the status quo, at least be a barrier and source of proliferation toward neutralization of the social ills that plague, not us but someone else (therefore not an immediate concern), are often ignored as if their message of awareness was as good as the degeneracy itself. We would rather shoot the messenger, before we would accept a message directed at oneself we find too intimately revealing or personal for one's concocted sense of morals and standards, guidelines that deep down we know we would break at the first hint of losing said vanities and "givens" we have enjoyed since time immemorial, provided it is reasonably likely we would still gain the upper hand and come out on top.

This is neither a critique or praise of Trump nor one of his supporters, critics, or those in between. Simply a reminder that this is the world we live in, and ignoring the grim if not revolting realities that come with existence, only benefits those who wish to proliferate and propagate them further.

Do you not agree?

The right sized government is relevant to the right sized parenthood.

The chain that supports you from an endless, ever tormenting plummet is in fact only strongest as its weakest link. Which in this case is the most unruly child given equal rights as the most ardent scholar enjoys.

One who values life, rather the civil order that ensures such life is reasonably expected to continue the following day, would do well to acknowledge such realities.

Well that's a surprise. I was expecting to find the name of someone else on this latest tombstone to be quite honest.

Hm. Perhaps it's just a bit of projection on my part, but I feel him to be but a victim of the lustful, buxom charms of the temptress' bosom that is alcoholic beverage.

Oh well. What's done is done I suppose.

Got a hunch he's a historian of Ottoman expansion and the greater Muslim conquest. People tend to look at war in the past with a blase "yeah we kicked ass" type of mindset when in reality, as you can see, much more vile, less boastful events occurred regularly, typically involving women and children. I'm no history buff, but something in me doubts the conquest of Constantinople was a family-friendly moving experience with a Casablanca-esque atmosphere as people bade their farewells, knapsacks full of fun little snacks and treats for the kids as they hit the dusty trail. There's some pretty nasty stuff written in religious books. Those were the laws of the day, mind you. I'd be curious to know his knowledge or lack thereof regarding the aforementioned so as to ascertain precisely what frame of mind he was in when such comments were made, rather the true context of the seemingly glaringly callous remark(s). Any deeper understanding at all would be better than blind "infallibility", typically attributed to God, shown for one's "team" in a war involving human casualties. Which, unfortunately, in a war, is exactly how things work. It is simply against human nature to care about your enemy's child when your own are viewed by said enemy as being better off dead. Hm. Oh well. :brow:

That or Michael's "Why be moral" thread featuring specific examples of baby killing was a bit more convincing than he anticipated. :chin:

I was wasting my time it seems. Not even got going yet.

Guess this is how things are now here.

Bye bye :) — I like sushi

Talk to me. I have a knack for these things. Not languages or even philosophy, but being able to connect to and with those who feel unfairly treated, unheard, or ignored.

I will not insult you by reminding you of basic logic and premise structure. But so I can be sure we are on the same page, answer me the following, if you please. It would make my evening if you did.

A.) What is your concern or argument? If there is no argument what is the desired path you wish to take this general discussion toward? What is the goal, other than enlightened if not farfetched debate reaching into the most obscure regions of the topic? (Perhaps, this is it!)

B.) Why do you feel the opinions and judgement of your judgement merits disengagement? Is this perhaps what you are accustomed to, be it here or other places? On The Philosophy Forum, no one knows you, personally that is. One could say, you have a new life here. With no judgement or constraints of any past or current life. Why throw it away when you have people all over the world who wish to engage with you? (Perhaps... dare I say, one might be a bit selfish to deny one's thoughts and beliefs to an eager public)

C.) So what if some languages are better than others. I am better than you at certain things, assuredly, at least one could hope, just as you no doubt are better at certain things than myself or any of your critics here! What, may I ask, drove up this thought in your mind that led you to create this thread. Are you perhaps studying language yourself? Do you know multiple languages? Have you attempted to and found great difficulty in doing so? Do you find yourself unable to have these sort of discussions with those in your life or perhaps find those disagreeable as well?

If you please, mind you. Discussion forums are voluntary, you could easily sign off and never return. Which would sadden me, to an extent. Please be considerate of others who enjoy your contribution here and at least consider responding.

Thanks,

A friend :)

You think I am ignorant? Okay then … shut it down I will not waste my time if you assume I have not studied any linguistics. I guess you just have a pet hate.

Np bye :) — I like sushi

No, no, to have one's thread moved to the lounge be a badge of honor, if nothing else. Like in the days of old, the philosopher's table was not a chopping block (though it may have served similar purpose after dark) but a refining board where one can best find one's own faults not in shame or negative light, but in the promise of progress, like all great thinkers thoughts and desires surely went through.

You quit when in fact you should strive forward, you doubt when in fact you should only double down on the conviction that fathered this thought or discussion you brought forth. Sure, it's not perfect, perhaps not even desired by the majority, but I ask you now. What scientific theory was not arduously even cruelly scrutinized before it became the law we all know and acknowledge? Very few. So take solace my weary friend. :)

Besides... I think now the mystery as to the identity of the caper of your disappearing thread is now well known. :wink:

First off, all these words and terms you use "Sicilian", "English", etc are nonsense in a true discussion of languages being "better". All lingual communication is forced air through specific muscular nuance. Nothing more. Nothing less.

So it depends on what one defines as "better". Simpler? Sure, cavemen grunts were simpler and for someone who views simplicity as the paramount of communication are in fact much "better" than modern languages. More intricate requiring skill to master and perhaps even a deeper specificity of intent or purpose one wishes to convey? Sure, than complex language like we have today is "better". Until you explicit define what "better" is as in what intent or goal is to be accomplished, it's a matter of perspective.

One would assume, the point of language, rather communication altogether being to convey and converse a specific sentiment, desire, or goal, a modern language is "better" than a series of grunts or clicking of one's tongue, yes. Up to the point it becomes too complex very few know how to express certain intricacies and subtleties, properly, up to the point it becomes a mere vanity display of 500 different ways to say the exact same thing seemingly for the point of simply being able to do so.

Sure. They can all vie for the title of Who Acquired More Stuff for Their Heirs to Sue Over. — Vera Mont

No, that's fair. Though bear in mind people fight and kill over far less. If they raised their heirs properly and morally, or at least with an innate desire for peace as well as the knowledge of the value of avoiding avoidable discord, conflict can be minimized if not removed from the dynamic altogether.

That's but one way of looking at it, is what I mean. Family strife is undesirable but it is unlikely to be disappearing altogether any time soon. How I look at it is, people vote with their resources, in this case, their money. So if many people buy my product or service, it clearly benefits them and thus society, which encourages innovation and progress, thus not only rewarding me for my efforts but encouraging the next innovator who may bring something even better to the proverbial social table. Now I'll be the first person to say, innovation can sometimes go too far for one's own good. That said, the old adage comes to mind, "if you don't do it, somebody else will anyway". Along with "give them enough rope, they will hang themselves". But that's beyond the point so I digress.

Within the admittedly poor limits of my knowledge, the majority is neither eager to contend nor able to attain anything like the full value of their efforts. Is that fair? I don't think so. But, as you say, opinions are cheap. — Vera Mont

I disagree somewhat. Though not entirely. What is the "full value" of one's efforts? Sure that modest tailor who hems clothes and fabrics could be making more money if he happened to have been educated in technological innovation and managed to have come up with the steam engine. I completely get the sentiment, at least my understanding of it, of "not wanting to contend" as in not wanting to pit myself against my fellow man where if I succeed he falters, especially in the context of superfluous resources or wealth and unneeded quality of living. I get that completely. That said, when one looks beyond the short term and gazes into the long term of society as a whole, one might find it is not quite the zero-sum game. I think so at least.

Perhaps I misspoke regarding my remark of "opinions are cheap". They are dynamic, if not shifting, and often ill-formed, therefore placing prominent and pertinent value on something that is as ever-changing or resolute as the tides can be an unwise principle to adhere to in life. What I mean is, just because someone doesn't like you or something about you, doesn't automatically give the concept merit.

Regardless, I enjoy reading and becoming aware of the opinions of those I respect, such as yourself. Even online. For I believe, if not know, they are definitively grounded in many of the same truths and values I call my own. Thanks for the reply. :)

As we here all attest. — Vera Mont

Surely just because one is limited to the certain cheapness that comes with the human existence does not mean bargains are not to be found? :)

My claim is simply that without some unnecessary, perhaps even gross and offensive to the enlightened mind, idea, concept, or "dream" even, the majority would not be as eager as they should be knowing the full value of their efforts, despite being unable at the present. Is that not fair?

From where does a man strive toward then? — Outlander

From birth to dotage, for self-esteem, the love of a happy family, the respect of his fellow citizens, the satisfaction of contribution to the common weal. — Vera Mont

Meh. Opinions and perspective, be they internal or external, are cheap, as ever changing as the winds. and often out of one's control anyhow. Lest you give turmoil and tempestuousness power, they matter not. Contribution is important. However, one can contribute a Trojan Horse unknowingly that provides great benefit, until it is revealed it in fact has not.

What purpose does he have to excel, — Outlander

self-fulfillment, the attainment of skill in his craft and the privilege of passing on hard-earned wisdom to the next generation. — Vera Mont

Wisdom... how fantastic. Utilization of knowledge. How many times has such utilization damned entire empires? It is not what is taught it is how to use it.

to defeat that lesser man in the mirror he woke up to? — Outlander

Why defeat? Why not simply improve upon, day by day? — Vera Mont

If one is without fault, one is without care.

from each according to their ability, to each according to their need.
Wealth is an evil concept. — Vera Mont

From where does a man strive toward then? Rather, to? What purpose does he have to excel, to defeat that lesser man in the mirror he woke up to? None. None whatsoever. And this constraint, is the father of all squalor and mediocrity.

No, it means you're not allowed to change the name. — Michael

So you would agree it is more of a safety net for inexperienced coders versus an actual, functional progression in and of PHP itself. If I want to intentionally change the name, variable, or anything for that matter, of an open source framework I dang will do so from the source code seeing as it's free and open for me to do so if desired.

That used to be how things were done, but then PHP introduced "protected" and "private" visibility precisely so that we didn't have to do this. — Michael

But, and correct me if I'm wrong, doesn't that simply put/shift the onus onto the lower developer to use quirky/prefixed variables now?

Example, in running your code, I just got a fatal runtime error "unable to access protected property Person::$name ".

So it's not like it actually frees up the use of the literal verbose name of the variable itself. It just makes it so "Ok now I have to use use '$name2' or '$variable2' instead of what comes firsthand in mind." as far as secondhand development/utilization of a framework goes.

That's the entire purpose of things like public, protected, private, readonly, final, typing, interfaces, abstract, etc; to ensure that developers do things properly. — Michael

Yeah, sure. Again just trying to better understand not to argue purely for the sake of doing so, but- actually no I get it, especially the latter comment. I'm not an "open source" guy so I'm sure you understand my "that's a solution in search of a problem" mindset. Myself, and many others have gone through painstaking measures in attempt to facilitate HTML based interfaces can perform any reasonable, common-use coding in and of itself, perhaps replacing the need to code altogether.

Being able to see at a glance 'protected "name"' immediately tells them that they're not supposed to do '$class->name = 'foo'''. — Michael

I get that completely. But just to ponder. As a hypothetical. Couldn't all that be resolved by using a simple prefix to the variable? Example (and I do this in mine, sometimes, as do others) ... let's use your WTFramework.

Any common variable a person would use $name, $id, $session, $user, etc.... whatever it is...

Instead use a prefix so it would be

$_name or $wtf_name

literally


So no person would ever overwrite a variable in virtually 100% of use cases whatsoever.

I do get the point you want people in an open source framework to access and adjust variables and in a modern PHP dev environment the inline warnings are very useful.

Anyway, nice meeting a fellow coder on here.

Seriously I think TPF or even the two of us should have an old fashioned "code off".

Say a simple guestbook. A page of static content anonymous users can post comments on, sans db, stored as text files. I think that would be interesting. If you have the time.

Often times you don't want that which is why such properties are usually protected or private. — Michael

Doesn't one generally not "publicly" reassign variables from a helper/framework class?

Say I'm incorporating your framework into whatever PHP project I'm working on. I'd have $myclass and $yourclass, respectively. What reasons would someone who is clearly not "public", as in a full on admin level code editor, edit a property of another class? It can't be for some "security exploit" since they have the full code and could just edit it from the parent class.

If they choose to break the code, even unintentionally, perhaps they shouldn't even be coding in the first place.

What I mean is for example, I use Twilio, a well-known telecommunications framework.

So I could have a thousand different variables going on that range from different classes and functions ($appOne, $appTwo, $functionOne, etc) and there will still be only one "helper" or "external" class. Say in this case $twilio.

So there's no reason to randomly change an independent variable that corresponds to a new class or object just to do so.

Say there is an important object I want to re-use I could just use one line of code to "store" it, statically or dynamically with a "&="


There would be no reason for me to manually code/reassign at the top level (meaning I literally can access anything) the following


That would be asinine and utterly intentional. If I can access the parent code I can easily change anything about it anyhow.

Am I making sense? I swear I know what I'm talking about, I'm not trying to be difficult or whatever.

— Michael

;

No different than


Is it? Not on my end at least.

I had to Google the "readonly" stipulation. What realistic (or even atypical) case scenarios can you provide that warrants its explicit use?

Never did "cast" variables ie. string, int, boolean, etc. Didn't see the need to do so if everything it interacts with can handle errors/unexpected inputs, be they common or rare, properly.

Edit: with the exception of certain required internal functions, however in this manner:

I'd much rather a default function-level based "error handling" (ie. not integer detected therefore, perform this) than a top level PHP error that breaks whatever the user is doing (and often the site or at least the specific action page in the process).

Exactly what I was worrying about, how greatly PHP has changed, or "advanced" allegedly.

I'm a solid "OOP'er" as that is, in my eyes, the peak "pinnacle" point of PHP advancement. The last and only paradigm shift as far as I judge.


Anything beyond that has always been a hard pass for me. Simply for reasons of not being needed.

The furthest I go into modern PHP (post 2007) is the use of the double scope (::) operator and even that is for convenience/compatibility purposes.

As example, this is the only use case of the newly introduced scope operator in my framework:

And that's of course out of necessity. I view myself as fairly adept in PHP, at least in the period of time I was most active in it. Hopefully things haven't changed too much...

Nihilism doesn’t choose chaos and hardship, it merely accepts that there is no intrinsic meaning available to us. — Tom Storm

Doesn't the universe seem to though? Space and the world itself is a chaotic, violent place. If there is no intrinsic meaning or purpose available to us- actually. Wait a minute. Is this a faux/proxy theist/atheist argument without either of us realizing it? "Intrinsic meaning" seems to imply, in your usage of it, something that could theoretically only come from intelligent design, no? Meaning, if you do not believe in intelligent design, you automatically are either a nihilist or moral anti-realist? Well that's naturally a pretty easy cookie-cutter argument to make of course.

But if we're looking beyond that- the idea that some form of morals ("right or wrong" as advanced intelligent beings or "progress and regress" as purely cellular beings in a larger scale of actual advancement or purpose or "value" not just simple one-time human observation of what seems to "work" in one man's lifetime levied against purported other lifetimes) might exist and proliferate the Universe and existence itself and we only begin to try to understand it, perhaps pay it lip service in the form of laws, codes, so-called "ethics", and best practices, what concrete proof could any man have against such a notion?

There’s a significant difference between 'there is no inherent meaning' and ‘nothing matters’. — Tom Storm

Well sure, similar to how there's a significant difference between the state of a vehicle that has just drove off a canyon and the state of the same vehicle once it reaches the bottom of said chasm. I see little difference in the two states. Perhaps this is what differs our respective worldview(s).

In layman's terms: "doesn't one inevitably end up as the other?" :)

The problem I have with people who say nothing matters (nihilists, moral anti-realists, literal institutionalized persons, etc) is that the majority of them are functional "hypocrites" (I use the word 'hypocrite' in place of a vulgar term for the severely mentally deficient).

Nothing matters? That's great. Go live in a pile of sand away from society and the goods and services it produced by people who live and die every day for the opposite belief. Who also, as a matter of fact, maintain for you.

Got a phone or internet connection? Someone who believed in moral realism made that.

A car or drive on public roads? Someone who believed in moral realism made that.

Ever used a band-aid? Been to public school? Read a book? Watch a YouTube video? Eat anything beyond a poorly cooked hunk of raw animal flesh? Yup. Provided by a moral realist.

Every breath you take using our inventions is already a disqualification of your attempt at an argument. As far as rational minds should be concerned, it's a non-starter until you live as you believe.

Now, if right now you abandoned every modern invention and went to go live in the woods (not here btw- somewhere undeveloped) and live your truth, then, that's a starting position for an argument. Perhaps someone will find your bones next to a tree with a carving of your attempted non-philosophy and be in a compassionate enough state to take it as serious content. Not here.

Once, when I was lucid dreaming, meaning aware I was asleep, I took a picture with my smartphone to see if when I awoke it would be on my phone's gallery.

It wasn't.

But I definitely took a picture and left a message. It remains in my mind, and now in yours. But neither of us can access it physically, here and awake, that is. So what does that mean?

The only true thought experiments are those performed outside of a laboratory setting where the participants are unaware they're participating in one, and as such are illegal in most cases. Well that's not true, unethical is the word. Which is the foundation of how most today operate. Dating, for example.

"Would you rather [undesirable choice A. vs. undesirable choice B.]..." seems to be the casual go-to.



But as far as contemporary philosophy goes, the trolley problem comes to mind. It's fairly basic yet touches on the main issues of life and society. Life, death, responsibility, action and inaction, blame, guilt, cause and effect, etc..

Well that's somewhat pleasing and comforting to hear. However, like I said. The first million dollar computer that took years of research and took up the size of a room, we now wear on our wrists for little more than the cost of a large pizza. Took 50 years to make that progress. And since then, further progress seems to come so quickly it has become superfluous. So, you see the concern and validity of my argument I'm sure.

Neat. It can be used to make enemies of the state give up information/names/locations of stolen goods, persons, or illicit activities. Kidnappers and ransom takers, etc.

Unfortunately. What some people forget. Is just how the first computer was a massive, costly piece of machinery that took up the entire wall of a decent sized room. We now have them we can wear on our wrists for $50.

Secret drones the size of a housefly exist. Only a matter of time before they hit the market and become affordable any college kid can get hold of.

So what happens, if the current pattern continues? Dare you ask? You could potentially offer to give someone a ride and have the roof or seat of your car equipped with non-contact "brain sensors" of this type and bring up in conversation, "Man someone figured out my bank pin. I used all 4's. I was so dumb. Hey. Whatever your bank pin is... make sure it's good." Upon triggering someone manually by such a phrase it will likely come up in their head, unless you're, what is basically crazy, and start thinking random numbers as quickly and feverishly as possible.

Scary direction indeed. What does this mean for the future of humanity? One could only imagine.

It's like watching a violent friend who struggles with alcoholism or drug use or violence.

Knowing they're going to die (or at least get in trouble and further the negative actions and emotions) but just doesn't listen. No matter what you say or try. They make progress when you're around- sometimes. But inevitably fall right back into their old ways, sometimes getting you into trouble or worse as well.

You tend to discount the person's welfare, if not only temporarily so as to avoid a greater selfishness of not focusing on those who can and will listen and society as a whole. However, you know if they're going to get in trouble or something similar, they're likely going to be impacting other people's lives or society as a whole before they go down. You don't want to just flat out say "Hey man, shape up, you're making us look bad" because more often than not that just pushes them further down into the cycle of negative thoughts followed by foolish actions they can't seem to avoid. Now multiply that by 8 billion people.

It really gets frustrating. You can't just say "oh well" and write off another human being as a "loss" as if they were a carton of eggs that fell off the back of a truck. On the other hand, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Can't save everyone. Many a fool has tried.

It comes down to knowing throughout the development process, people will make mistakes. Sometimes these mistakes are very severe and overreaching into the lives of those who have nothing to do with the person. Say some kid gets bullied in school or a mentally-unstable adult is habitually harassed at his place of work then decides to shoot up the place and kill 50 people. And you knew the guy. Well, at least talked to him a few times. All you had to do... was be his friend, calm him down, let him know there's good people everywhere and we're all in this together, even those who don't seem to think so. But instead you were in a hurry and got upset because he took an extra two minutes on your order. Point being it really boggles the mind how such small little gestures or even inaction can literally change the world and lives of countless people. So what do you do? How do you even go about solving such a ill-defined yet clear problem? You can't "make people be nice" to one another any more than you can force people to live a life without mistakes they (when lucky) live to regret. What does one do.

Does religion perpetuate and promote a regressive worldview? — Art48

Religion being a "way (or structure) of life perpetuated" the answer would be: depends on the religion.

If, like most people by "religion" you mean a simple compare and contrast of those who believe in creationism/intelligent design vs. evolution/haphazard intelligence then that's a bit different. But not by very much.

I'd delve into this topic in much greater detail but seeing as I'm short on time at the moment I want to pose a question or set of questions to you and anyone who happens to be reading. If religion (believing in God or a set of societal rules, codes, or covenants that absolutely must be followed lest one or one's society become destroyed) limits one's desire for scientific advancement, "advancement" that leads to the point our five human senses are just short of literally glued to inhuman devices and social communication becomes an unwanted chore (sound familiar?) ... by what measure do we judge if something is "regressive" or "progressive". I'll substitute these words with negative and positive, respectfully. You could take a snapshot of a situation, say a sports game and conclude, Team A is losing. This may be true, however in real life unlike sports games, there is no timer. As much as some people like to insist. Perhaps if you took a snapshot at a later time Team B would be losing, and never recover from this position (ie. Team A won despite appearing the opposite due to the limitations of human observation).

In short, I don't happen to find anything particularly "progressive" or "positive" about a society that results in true Nuclear holocaust where the entire planet becomes incapable of sustaining life, even if we do get to watch it all on our little iPhones or smartwatches before we succumb to radiation sickness. Do you? I'd much prefer the steady, predictable, and nuanced old world society where, sure things were simple - if not outright grueling at times - but at least humanity lived on whilst retaining the social communication skills that allowed society to progress in the first place. Wouldn't you? Seems like a reasonable opinion to hold but to each their own..

Humanity can become plenty neurotic contemplating the pains, struggles, and chasms of existence itself, no matter who or what you deem responsible or no matter how long you believe it lasts or continues.

One where more people are trying to enter than exit.

If a person requires to consume particular substances to display or practice certain mental, emotional, and behavioral skills or traits, this means that they are unable to practice those skills or traits *deliberately*. This is a weakness, a disadvantage. — baker

Spot on. I don't believe anyone could disagree.

However one should differentiate "requires" from "prefers". I'd say I "require coffee" first thing in the morning to get moving. I strongly prefer it, and if I happened to run out I would likely go through considerable measures to obtain a cup. But if all coffee ceased to exist from the world, I would simply have to go through my morning routines regardless.

Per my example, sure, if you cannot not be pissed off without becoming intoxicated that indeed would be a problem. On the other hand I stand by the fact for most responsible drinkers, alcohol makes one "more jovial" as in, relative to one's preexisting state of joviality. To further agree with you, yes if one is unable to be jovial without becoming intoxicated that is in fact a negative trait one possesses.

Take something very tedious and boring no one enjoys. I don't know, sorting a 5-gallon bucket's worth of buttons that have become unsorted. For example. If, in this fictional example, you had to do it anyway and it's something you simply don't enjoy, you can't force yourself to enjoy it, that is to say you can't artificially elevate your "happiness" on cue or command absent of external stimuli. Can you? Sure you could look forward to the reward and bear that in mind or focus on it whilst doing so (say they're rare and worth a considerable amount once sorted) or be thankful of how good or satisfactory one's life is and what one has. Sure with discipline one simply does the job regardless. If one would not do the job because of a mental wall or some sort of personal refusal without being intoxicated (alcoholism) then yes that is a separate yet very common set of scenarios.

In short, sure with discipline or "skills or traits" you can be friendly and pleasant even when you're going through hell so to speak. But this is a facade.

I think we can delve into two different common "types" of people's personalities, which many are a mix of the two or others but for simplification we will distinguish two: "introverts" and "extroverts". I wouldn't say it's fair to condemn one over the other as being a "weakness" or "disadvantage". Some people just don't like crowds. Some people can't be by themselves for more than a few days without losing their mind or at least becoming irritated or depressed. It's different mental configurations be they biological, habitual, or a combination of both. So, while I agree with most everything you've said I think the assertion that someone who "requires to consume particular substances" to say have fun and feel at home in a crowded or unfamiliar environment is an automatic, cut-and-dried "weakness" and "disadvantage" needs some revisiting.

Fear. Ignorance. Not to say people are saints of course and no man of a particular self-identification is more or less prone to acts of social ire than one without. A long time ago people had too much free time, that is less to occupy one's mind than we do today. Very little was known about the nature of the world (arguably little has changed) and the prevailing religion of the day was superstition. Bad things happened quite often and a fledgling humanity sought answers for the troubles that ailed them. The human mind needs a devil, someone or something else to blame when troubles arise. Who do you blame? Your mate at the pub who you bump shoulders with every other day, go to one another's house, and whose kids play together? Or that person or small, mysterious group of people who keep to themselves all day nobody seems to really know anything about. Makes sense really.

"The Monsters Are Due on Maple Street" is a good example of this psychological phenomenon.

No I get it. The constants of the site are loaded (header/footer ie. core HTML structure, images, universal JS/CSS, etc) and any content can be a simple albeit long string along with functions needed only for the specific page vs. requesting the aforementioned over again. Although I was under the impression all browsers "cache" the aforementioned and minus the 1-1 handshake that the server is still reachable, which would have to be done anyway to request "about.js" or whatever new content medium in the first place, doesn't seem to differentiate the two methodologies by very much? Perhaps I misunderstand. Fair enough. However..

SPAs don't require Ajax. — Michael

If it's an obituary for a cat or memoirs of the owner of said cat, sure. At that point it might as well be a single page website with a floating sidebar of whatever section you wish to scroll to or at least a fixed menu of the sort. I suppose it does save browser memory- the content not being rendered by the browser and stored in the JavaScript as text, especially images or videos not rendered and when changed they are thus freeing up the memory from any images or video previous rendered when you change to the new "page".

But for anything useful like a public forum or guestbook, or say billing or payment application where an action could have been made from another avenue ie. by phone and needs to be updated, it really ought to communicate with the server, wouldn't you say? Am I wrong? if so, how and why. with examples.

I get the concept (I think?). For a small or medium sized business. You load every single item (thousands), image link, and description (often lengthy) when someone visits your homepage? That doesn't seem efficient to me. I suppose it simply loads the blank "default item" page and clicking the item individually loads its information? That would still require every single item in inventory's ID, picture, title, and usually price to be loaded from the first homepage visit. That seems a bit much.

Sure for many places, a restaurant or small business it seems fine that just links to an image of a menu or something. Not sure what greater benefit an SPA would offer as opposed to HTML-based page browsing from the user's end? (assuming they have a good connection)

Gmail settings will not load a new page. — Jamal

Right but if you had a good internet connection in the first place the literal only advantage/difference between not changing a page to going back to the main email listing in a click of an X button is vanity and perhaps a non detectable fraction of second. It's vanity. No utility. Sure if your internet fails and it lets you click an "X" to return back to an email listing if you happened to have the setting page for a prolonged period of time for some reason without a connection (which I doubt it does) perhaps an email title and the few words included in the preview might be useful. But other than that I fail to see any utility or useful difference between the two (direct page loading vs. single page AJAX loading. Also remember you're describing AJAX deep down at the end of the day, SPA is one version of a larger picture. AJAX vs. HTML page loading, that's what I'm referring to.)

Well sure, but what is an email web client but a collection of notes, albeit most sent by others and to and fro. If you do anything but opening a note or adding to it (responding to an e-mail) say, changing account settings it does a full redirect to a different URL.

See, right now, my internet is throttled (or something) and I can't even access the Help (?) or Settings (gear icon) button no matter how many times I click the damn thing. You can't even right click it and get the actual URL to open in a new tab because it's too busy loading 50 different things I DON'T EVEN NEED AT THE MOMENT OF ACCESS. LOL. Come on. See my perspective.

Oh look now it just opened. And I STILL CAN'T CLICK A LINK UNDER THE SUB MENU. Nor can I right click it!!

I'm grateful you don't experience what I do. But for the many who do. It's a nightmare. And it's still happening. lol

oh look now i'm offline. see. it's frustrating. and this is the largest company in the world. very annoying. like i were an anti-humanist trying to piss technology users/computer people off. i could not think of a better way. just saying.

Which websites for example offer this truly "one page" browsing in entirety?

Where you visit example.com and every action or section never changes the URL regardless of the intricacy or specificity of the action?

Most all I've seen redirect to certain URLs (say example.com/billing or example.com/billing/pay) but load (presumably blank) templates for each URL section that are then filled with the specific information via JS or "SPA" if I understand the term correctly. At the very least a /terms or /about page. I can't recall a single website that operates as you describe, unless I'm misunderstanding the concept.

With SPAs, different views are rendered (and actions completed) in the browser without loading a new page or refreshing, using JavaScript to invisibly communicate with the server. Often, all the necessary HTML, JavaScript, and stuff are downloaded once, when you log in. — Jamal

I abhorred these things when they first came out. If your internet is not good or perhaps is throttled due to reaching an allotted usage level, nothing would ever load and worse never told you it didn't. They seemed to have improved it by forcing a manual redirect/better fail-safes in more robust frameworks but there was nothing like clicking a link or performing an action and the browser itself telling you "hey it failed" right when it did so you knew to refresh or try again later. Just my 2 cents.

Sure it was nice if say you had a website that served another function other than a forum and the user can dynamically load the latest forum posts if they wanted to without having to pull double queries from the site and the forum database for efficiency or a site like Twitter or stocks that benefit from instant updates or things that change from one second to the next.

edit: On an active forum makes sense, so any new posts/threads just pop up a few seconds after they're posted. But for a niche blog site, especially authored by just one or two people where the only new content is posted every other day or few days is really not needed imo. but people like knowing they have all the latest shiny bells and whistles, even if seldom used.

Do they really? It is so normalized to drink during social occasions. Why would you want to cause an illusionary state whenever you socialize, how does that make any sense? — Skalidris

That's the point mate, for a responsible drinker being less pissed off and more jovial is not an "illusionary" state. Now it can easily and arguably inevitably lead to such. But that's a complete reversal of the word responsible.

Okay, so let's imagine you have to choose between spending some fun time doing something you only like when you drink, or doing something you like when you're sober, would you consider them both as valuable in your life? — Skalidris

Sure. That's a far cry from your original premise to jump from having to specify a "fun time doing something [one] only enjoys when drink[ing]" but we can roll with that if you like. Naturally that's a personal choice and my random answer doesn't seem to touch on any philosophical or logical aspect but, if I may rephrase your question to what I believe is your intended or rather more widely beneficial "purpose" as: "Would I wish to enjoy something I only enjoy whilst drinking and never did before over something I previously enjoyed and no longer can (this is the main stipulation) unless sober?

I would consider results valuable. Yes if a person has a more enjoyable time, and they place enjoyment over productivity it would indeed be more valuable in my life. Perhaps I enjoy productivity more and am (like many) unable to be as productive whilst drinking. In such a case it would absolutely be the opposite. That's my point. Everybody is different. Having half a beer versus drinking half a bottle of hard liquor counts as "drinking" just the same, arguable. So yours is a loaded question with undefined variables as is.

I didn't get the point of your story. — Skalidris

And exactly why I told it. Different strokes for different folks.

To circle back to the primary question, if not cheaply, why are enjoyable experiences enjoyable? Because they are.

This can't be a serious question. Though, I once met an Uber driver once who, when the conversational topic of alcohol randomly came up, informed me he couldn't drink it, as in his body couldn't tolerate or process it correctly. Hiding my deepest sympathies I lightheartedly replied, good for him and mentioned the dangers and potential lethality. Boy was I relieved to arrive at my destination and escape being in the mire of such a grim fate bestowed upon someone.

Whenever I tried it, it just felt like a dream where I wasn’t fully in control of my thoughts, and I never liked it. — Skalidris

It simply wasn't for you then. Just not something you need or should be consuming.

Why do humans want to escape their mind and avoid reality? How is it an advantage? — Skalidris

Kind of asking two completely different albeit vaguely and circumstantially related questions here. Your experience is exactly, that. Your experience. Completely unique from 8 billion others. Sure many are like you, and if a thing is a hindrance, which it is to many, then cast it away.

For the majority of responsible consumers of alcohol who can handle it, it's a welcome reprieve. For some a distraction, for others a way to focus. A "social lubricant" it is called by many. It puts the majority of, again responsible consumers who can process it correctly, in a "good mood" of sorts. Certainly there's an argument for your disposition as though it does seem to make problems disappear, responsible drinkers know this is an illusion and temporary state, and know they cannot simply avoid them or avoid work toward resolution of said problems. In short, it allows the majority of people to have a quick and cheap good time even in hard times.

It is easy to fall into complacence and avoid one's responsibilities however, yes. Abuse can be harrowing and indeed fatal. One can indeed lose everything. This happens quite often. For many, especially the less intellectually inclined, it is in fact best avoided. At least, habitually.

Even when reality triggers negative feelings, it’s more efficient to be sober and think about a solution rather than choosing denial by getting drunk — Skalidris

Just because you're sober or awake, as you think, doesn't mean you're any more coherent or in touch with the absolute nature of things than someone who is perhaps a bit less than sober. Not automatically, that is. Sure plenty of habitual consumers of alcohol ie. "drunks" are in fact dregs of society, but for many, this remains true whether sober or not.

Again, your experience is your own, and if that experience is fact for you, I would continue and have no argument whatsoever. As far as you and your individual, private choices that can be shared, if one asks.

why do 99% of humans long for that state at least once in their life? — Skalidris

Oh come now. I doubt you've even met 0.0001% of humans. These inane generalizations are textbook characteristics of exactly the kind of person who should not be drinking, save for a special occasion under supervision by fellow citizens (friends) and supervisors (bartenders) perhaps? :smile:

Why haven’t we evolved out of this? — Skalidris

Why not ask why aren't we all the stereotypical, imagined grey alien, content with standing around with nary an emotion, whim, or desire for any amount of time? Because life is about change. You become aware. You can learn to walk, learn to run, learn to ride a bike. It goes on.

Understood, in your purported, limited experience it creates an uncontrollable state of mind. Understand this is not the norm. Not when reasonable care and moderation is taken.

But if the question boils down or becomes tangential to "why do people like to feel pleasure and ignore pain", well. It becomes quite moot and elementary at that point. Wouldn't you say?

people tell themselves all sort of things to stay in their denial to avoid facing their problems. I don’t believe this is just a random trait that stayed within us while having no advantages, so what could it be? Maybe if we weren’t driven to choose denial whenever something is too horrible, we would be totally insane and couldn’t deal with reality — Skalidris

You seem to be entranced by the word or concept of 'denial' so let me tell you a story based on the truths and falsehoods of what people commonly prescribe to be a case or "unchangeable situation" of such.

Two brothers became trapped in a cave once. A seemingly inescapable situation where the mouth of the cave collapsed thus sending their rappelling gear and ropes down and making the opening impossible to reach. The men quickly resorted to their primitive state, after consuming all their rations, eating bugs and each waking up early to gather the liberal stream of leaking water nearby. They fought once, nearly killing one another, but in the end decided if they were trapped without any hope of rescue, any one killing the other would do little but prolong the inevitable, and curse the lone survivor to perish under the burden of a needless murder that ultimately changed naught. So they explored what little they could. Their sources of illumination (flashlights, matches, a lighter) soon expired and became inoperable except for the emergency flashlight each one possessed. As they explored one noticed the other's flashlight was running low and such ascertained his might soon as well thus dooming them both so as they explored they would often do so without using either. The man who's flashlight was running low happened to have become injured in the dark and blamed the other for "setting him up" and so on their return from the darkness became immovable from the location of the cave where they had originally fallen to remain in the light of the crevice where he could keep watch on his immediate surroundings, leaving the other to explore by his lonesome. Several days passed, each mind becoming more ravenous, paranoid, and untrusting. The man with the fully charged flashlight would depart into the darkness, each journey becoming longer and - according to his accounts - more hopeful, returning with plenty of insects and moss which he would always split with his sole, now-immovable companion. His flashlight soon grew dim too, barely functional, hardly able to light up a few feet in front of him. However, the next day he, the traverser of the seemingly endless abyss that trapped them both returned, manic, unable to control himself. He informed the other he discovered a crevice about a mile or 20 minutes in from which he was able to spot a fisherman or person on the river and would signal to him with his flashlight that the man returned in response. "I need your flashlight, brother!" he exclaimed. The man who would not budge looked at his clearly manic, near-insane brother and instantly imagined another "perceived trap" or simple descent into madness. He grabbed him with what little strength he had left and threw him against a rock brandishing a sharp hunting knife he was unaware the other possessed and said "I tell you now, flee from me, or I promise you, this next trick will be your last" and cut him shallowly on his forearm, breaking his flashlight as he fell backward. His swears, promises, assurances were no good at this point. He realized that. So, he departed. That night, while the immovable man slept, the brother swiped his flashlight and swapped it with his own.

As it turned out, the explorer's word was true. He did in fact signal a young fisherman who brought his family out to the river and was able to signal to them "SOS" using his sleeping brother's flashlight. That night the nearby town organized a search and rescue party, bringing in equipment to the awake brother's position. As the entire town on riverboats and buggies broke through the crevice freeing the flashlight signaling man, now delirious with hunger and fever, as he cried "My brother, my brother is still trapped, you have to save him!" a loud noise was heard as the cave which had confined him collapsed behind. The flashlight signaling man was rescued and taken to the local pub for a meal and hard ale. The rescue team immediately sought out for the still trapped brother, going by the location given by the now rescued man.

Epiphenomenalism — petrichor

Oh come now that can't be a word.

On a broader point, your current premises of "feeling pain" being different than "responding to stimuli" is lacking in merit. And that's a charitable view at best.

Surely you mean, accessing a former state of non "pain" and thus mentally calculating a situation, act, or moment is "wrong" and needs to be immediately corrected by further action. This is a huge difference between your current premise as-is. This requires both retainable and accessible knowledge of A,) past B.) present and C.) future (that is to say ability to formulate or postulate a future action or state by applying something from either (A) or (B).

Does science not sometimes contradict other science? Does religion not always contradict other religion? This is your starting point. Your journey is yours and yours alone.

Presuming this thread is locked and unlocked for a set period implying discussion is encouraged if not warranted or vaguely allowed for purposes of vanity..

What made you draw such a definitive conclusion? Surely you've heard the popular phrase oh I like/dislike "X" because "X reminds me of Y" and so on...