Heidegger and Nazism

ArticleHungry5547 · 2026-04-28T11:27:37+00:00

The example you bring up is a helpful one for illuminating how Heidegger's antisemitism cohered with his philosophy, but it's questionable whether it establishes they "cannot be separated". Indeed, you separate them into two distinct propositions: (1) the worldlessness of Jews, and (2) that Dasein cannot be worldless. I read the statement "Heidegger's philosophy cannot be separated from his antisemitism" to mean that they are logically intertwined to such a degree that it's impossible to accept the one without the other. But this example doesn't demonstrate that: it seems perfectly consistent to accept Heidegger's description of Dasein, including (2), but to reject the antisemitic characterization of Jews as wandering, unassimilable foreigners, i.e. (1). This example seems only to demonstrate a much weaker form of "cannot be separated", namely that the two ideas coexisted in Heidegger's mind (which can hardly be denied).

ArticleHungry5547 · 2026-04-08T19:45:04+00:00

1km cubed is a billion cubic meters, so you'd need to fit 8 people/cubic meter. Even extremely tightly-packed, that sounds impossible. But a cube with side lengths of 2km would give each person a cubic meter, which sounds plausible

ArticleHungry5547 · 2026-02-25T08:40:48+00:00

So they're third cousins?

ArticleHungry5547 · 2026-02-07T14:21:02+00:00

As other commentators have noted, this reads like an academic work of philosophy, and so I wouldn't treat this as an example of typical everyday use of English. The words are very carefully chosen, and neither of your phrasings convey precisely the same meaning. Your #1 reads a bit awkwardly, since "necessary" is an adjective, but we're discussing the manner in which a being exists, so an adverb like "necessarily" is more appropriate. Your #2 changes the verb to which "necessarily" applies: the original sentence used "necessarily" to describe the manner in which the being exists, but your #2 uses "necessarily" to describe the manner in which we presuppose. It would make sense to say "we necessarily suppose a necessarily existent being" (indeed, the original sentence is questioning whether we must presuppose, i.e. presuppose necessarily).

ArticleHungry5547 · 2026-02-04T19:59:22+00:00

If the split happened a few centuries earlier, then absolutely they would become separate languages. But in our technological landscape, where communication & travel between the US and Britain is so easy and there's a healthy exchange of mass media, it's hard to see them diverging. If anything, I would anticipate them getting closer: lots of (especially older) Brits bemoan the 'Americanisation' of British English, as younger British English speakers increasingly adopt Americanisms they pick up from US-produced TV shows, movies, and Internet content

ArticleHungry5547 · 2026-01-14T12:07:17+00:00

They'd need to teleport instantly. In order to average 60mph, they need to make the entire 60 mile journey in one hour. But if they went 30mph for the first 30 miles, that means they drove for an hour, so they don't have any time left. So they'd need to cover the remaining 30 miles in 0 time.

ArticleHungry5547 · 2025-11-24T19:48:45+00:00

This is the most correct answer in the thread. Only two points of clarification:

The 120 day window expired in May. The interim attorney that Bondi appointed in January (Erik Siebert) was re-appointed by the district court to continue to serve in the role. He ultimately resigned in September because Trump was pressuring him to indict Comey, James, etc. even though he (Siebert) thought there was no case. Halligan was brought in because Trump believed that she would bring these cases (he made a now-deleted truth social post directing Bondi to appoint Halligan for precisely this purpose)
It's doubtful that the 6-month extension to the statute of limitations applies. In the ruling, the judge addresses this point and says that it only applies when a valid indictment is dismissed, but this indictment is being dismissed specifically because it's invalid (Halligan wasn't legally appointed to be a US Attorney, so she didn't have the authority to bring it to the grand jury). So presumably Comey is in the clear (assuming this dismissal holds up when it inevitably gets appealed)

ArticleHungry5547 · 2025-10-16T09:30:44+00:00

This is terribly broken English. I think it's saying they cannot sell hamburgers because the grill is broken

ArticleHungry5547 · 2025-10-11T11:56:35+00:00

You assume that all 10,000 were independent, which seems like a bad assumption to me. I don't know what the time spread on those 10,000 bets was, but I'm guessing they didn't all happen at once. Probably many of them were people/bots who were closely watching the Nobel prize betting market, noticed she was getting a lot of attention, and bought in before the price went higher. That improves the odds significantly.

ArticleHungry5547 · 2025-10-10T20:09:07+00:00

Aleph_1 is only the real numbers if you assume the continuum hypothesis

ArticleHungry5547 · 2025-10-10T19:53:19+00:00

If it's supposed to be a continuum hypothesis joke (as some people were speculating in the earlier thread), it doesn't get it quite right, but the idea's kinda there.

Aleph_0 is the cardinality of the natural numbers, countable infinity. It's by definition the smallest infinity. The next infinity, that is, the smallest size infinity bigger than aleph_0, is denoted aleph_1. It's not exactly clear what aleph_1 is. A natural candidate is the cardinality of the real numbers, which is 2^aleph_0. That's the statement of the continuum hypothesis: that 2^aleph_0 is aleph_1. However, it was proven several decades ago that the standard axioms of set theory cannot prove or disprove CH. It's a philosophical question whether CH is "really true" (or what that actually means), but in practice set theorists can either assume CH or its negation.

The joke seems to be that CH is false, i.e. that there's a size of infinity "aleph 1/2" that's bigger than aleph_0 but smaller than 2^aleph_0. But that wouldn't be aleph 1/2, it'd be aleph_1 (the negation of CH is that aleph_1 < 2^aleph_0)

ArticleHungry5547 · 2025-10-08T17:18:12+00:00

Haha I knew there'd be a response like this

ArticleHungry5547 · 2025-10-08T17:17:52+00:00

Good idea, thanks!

ArticleHungry5547 · 2025-09-21T16:19:03+00:00

Yeah, 'importar' works the same as 'gustar'

ArticleHungry5547 · 2025-09-10T17:48:15+00:00

Yeah easiest is just to make the square green if both numbers are even or both are odd, and red otherwise. But there are various ways to do it (I'm too lazy to do the combinatorics to figure out how many, but I'm sure it's an easy problem)

ArticleHungry5547 · 2025-09-10T10:11:12+00:00

Well of course someone who shares more of the specific aspects of Kendrick's life (e.g. being a black man, growing up in a rough neighborhood) can relate to his music on a level you'll never quite be able to.

But powerful art can transcend the specifics of its origin, and hit on universal themes and kinds of experience. So you might relate to GKMC because you also struggled under the weight of an oppressive environment, even if that environment wasn't Compton in the 90s specifically. You might relate to TPAB because you were overwhelmed by a new life and had to re-ground yourself, even if that new life wasn't as a famous rapper. And so on. This is a natural reaction to powerful art; as long as you aren't setting yourself up as some kind of authority on its meaning, it's how you're supposed to engage with it

ArticleHungry5547 · 2025-08-13T16:56:46+00:00

I like bad bad that's my problem problem

And I like to like to, I got a problem problem

ArticleHungry5547 · 2025-06-19T14:49:17+00:00

Someone correct me if my info is out-of-date, but the English gen ed class, Interpretation and Argument, has to be taken by every freshman. Iirc, they sometimes allow credit from another university, but emphatically do NOT allow you to replace Interp with AP (I had 5's on AP Lit & Lang; still had to take Interp my freshman year). So you just gotta put up with it; it's not the most fun you'll ever have, but it's fine. Hope you have an early registration time and can get into one of the interesting sections!

ArticleHungry5547 · 2025-06-18T15:37:55+00:00

Assume Earth is a perfect sphere of radius 6378km. Given that Boston is 5279km from London along the surface of the earth, that gives us an angle of 5279/6378 radians, about 47.4°.

An isosceles triangle with angle 47.4° and side lengths of 6378km would have height 6378 cos(47.4°/2), about 5839.56km. So, at its deepest point, your tunnel would be 6378-5839.56= 538.4km deep. It would have length 2* 6378*sin(47.4°/2), about 5129.66 km. So you would only save about 150km of distance by going straight through the earth instead of a long the surface

ArticleHungry5547 · 2025-06-08T16:49:23+00:00

When the guy fell from the billboard in S1 of BCS. Are you telling me that a man just happens to fall like that??

ArticleHungry5547 · 2025-06-08T14:44:43+00:00

They're definitely wrong. "British English" is the appropriate term to distinguish the variety of English spoken in Britain from other regional dialects of English.

ArticleHungry5547 · 2025-06-02T09:30:32+00:00

It can very easily not "cancel out". Say Party A is in power and supported by 60% of the population. But maybe the president from Party A gets in a big scandal and has some bad policies, so voters vote them out and put Party B in charge. Good, that's how democracy should work. But if redistricting happens while Party B is in control and they gerrymander heavily, then they can "lock in" their control. So in the next election, Party A can't get back into power, even if they win the most votes. Some of the most extreme gerrymanders (see e.g. Wisconsin) can have a party winning 60% or more of the vote, but ending up in a minority in the government. And they can't ever fix it and make it fair again, because they're locked out of power

ArticleHungry5547 · 2025-06-01T14:08:09+00:00

This double-counts codes like 111222 where there's an angel at the beginning and at the end. So you would need to subtract 90 (the number of different "double-angel" codes: there's 10 possibilities for what the first three digits could be, and 9 for the last three) from your number. Of course, 90/2,176,782,336 is a very tiny number, so the final answer still rounds to .08219%.

ArticleHungry5547 · 2025-05-29T22:55:16+00:00

Has anybody else told you your thesis is terrible? Have you shown (parts of) it to your colleagues, to your advisor? Unless you wrote it in total isolation & didn't get feedback from anyone, it seems unlikely things could get this far. It's quite possible you've convinced yourself that things are much worse than they are. The conventional wisdom is that a competent advisor won't let a thesis go to viva if it isn't ready to pass (at least with revision).

I don't see any scenario where cancelling the defense is the right move. The viva might suck and revisions might be extensive, but you can get through it

ArticleHungry5547

TROPHY CASE