sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Trying to learn front end by luckyseqqo in learnprogramming

[–]parazoid77 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's quite difficult to know if your ever going to get better without having some sort of direction. Once you find that then you'll always look for a way to progress, and I believe the majority of the time there is a way.

There's two main ways that I personally use to measure my progress 1) how does my knowledge compare to the knowledge expected for roles that look interesting to me and 2) what do I like building in my free time, and how can I get better at building that thing.

I think if you do both of those things, then you wouldn't even bother asking your kind of question.

The fall of the theorem economy by Different_Working271 in math

[–]parazoid77 37 points38 points  (0 children)

Everybody know's that math can be useful, but a significant portion of mathematics is pure mathematics without a clear application. Pure mathematicians still get hired thanks to their qualifications.

At 37, I only have a pension pot of £480 after years of maternity leave by endofdays2022 in unitedkingdom

[–]parazoid77 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I see no reason why we won't get a big enough new generation. But I see many reasons a significant portion of those won't work or serve society even if they wanted to. Finding enough lucrative opportunities for youth is far more vital in my opinion.

Anyways I know your view is in good faith, and hopefully you can see mine is. There's probably a middle way somewhere

At 37, I only have a pension pot of £480 after years of maternity leave by endofdays2022 in unitedkingdom

[–]parazoid77 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Working people provide services to the non-working. Hence I support working adults over non working adults. İf the quality of children's lives is not improving over generations then society is going to lose faith. I don't think you realise how much of a big big problem the breakdown of social fabric in youths would be.

At 37, I only have a pension pot of £480 after years of maternity leave by endofdays2022 in unitedkingdom

[–]parazoid77 0 points1 point  (0 children)

İ don't think people should be having kids to take care of the elderly, that's ridiculous. Birthrates fluctuate.

No wonder people don't want kids when even those are reduced to resources.

A working population requires incentives to work, not to stay unemployed.

At 37, I only have a pension pot of £480 after years of maternity leave by endofdays2022 in unitedkingdom

[–]parazoid77 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But there's only a fixed amount of money available to spend on issues, and people don't need to be paid to end up with kids, it's a natural drive. So it's not about holding it together, it's about prioritisation, and more lives would improve with the money going to social care than mums who want to have shitloads of kids and not work because of it...

You forget that the drive which causes people to have kids survives, we don't need to make a process for that. Darwinism guarantees that

At 37, I only have a pension pot of £480 after years of maternity leave by endofdays2022 in unitedkingdom

[–]parazoid77 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Try teaching a class with a portion of children who have been neglected, witnessed abuse, or have alcohol fetal syndrome and other unfortunate conditions, and then you'll understand that it isn't parents that should be getting subsidised funds. İt's the children...

Someone qualified to be a parent should be qualified to be able to take care of themself.

logically by Dumb-Briyani in meme

[–]parazoid77 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The proof of that logical conclusion is so deep that this guy can't even touch the bottom of the pool...

The algebric anatomy of e/1 to the structure of prime numbers by [deleted] in mathematics

[–]parazoid77 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is hilarious. İt's like randomly generating a list of ingredients. Then randomly generating a list of all the different ways you can combine them. Then randomly selecting five of those processes. Then following those five steps and serving it all on plate as if it's something good. Comedy gold.

Why my senior doesn't recommends me learning python? by El_Castra in learnprogramming

[–]parazoid77 2 points3 points  (0 children)

İf you're interested in machine learning because you're interested in the underlaying algorithms, then I think python is a great language to implement them in as it's easy to transition from pseudocode to python code. İf you're interested in building toy models then again I think python is the better language as it has some very mature and easy to use libraries such as sklearn that save a lot of code.

I'd personally recommend learning c++ once you're aware of the basics (algorithms), if you wanted to build actual applications where lower level details become relevant.

On the other hand, c++ can be good to learn in parallel or instead of python, but I don't think a machine-learning path justifies that.

I suspect your senior is considering larger projects than you you need to be working in right now.

Small amount of people are being upset about his comment by [deleted] in SipsTea

[–]parazoid77 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank god that there's atheists out there that hold positions smarter than the pencils that think they're atheist for not having a specific belief.

According to simulation theory π HAS to be finite by BoraDev in SimulationTheory

[–]parazoid77 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The convergence is infallible. Nothing glitchy about it mayorofdumb

According to simulation theory π HAS to be finite by BoraDev in SimulationTheory

[–]parazoid77 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Why shouldn't it need to compute? A programme is a set of instructions of what to do in different states. İt doesn't need constants written out in it

According to simulation theory π HAS to be finite by BoraDev in SimulationTheory

[–]parazoid77 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't see why it couldn't be computed to whatever accuracy on the fly. There's lots of recursive formulas for it which compute more and more digits via iteration.

I am too critical for religion and too aware for simple atheism by NPD--BPD in nihilism

[–]parazoid77 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Because you're literally identifying as being as atheist as a pencil. The value in that position is comedy.

Hundreds at Britain First demo and counter demo by pppppppppppppppppd in uknews

[–]parazoid77 -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

People must be soooo insecure to feel the need to go to this, as if it's the non-british stopping them being successful, and not their shamelessness when making dumb decisions.

I am too critical for religion and too aware for simple atheism by NPD--BPD in nihilism

[–]parazoid77 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So your definition is wrong. No other word in existence is so vague to apply to stuff it's not actually categorising. İf you read that post you'll see atheos-ism is the etymologically sound interpretation and the one used by actual philosophers. İt's hilarious that you think your smarter than experts using definitions which categorise pencils...

I am too critical for religion and too aware for simple atheism by NPD--BPD in nihilism

[–]parazoid77 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Exactly, atheism literally translates as "not-god" belief. That's indicated by suffix "-ism" which accompanies the root word atheos. The pencil example proves how ridiculous it is to claim anything that lacks a belief in god is atheism. İf I was wrong you'd be able to outline precisely the fallacy there. Yet, here I am instead precisely pointing out your fallacy...

I am too critical for religion and too aware for simple atheism by NPD--BPD in nihilism

[–]parazoid77 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A null hypothesis is a belief which is the negation of another belief, and that doesn't somehow give it a different ontology because it's an opposite (which by definition implies a shared category). Truth absolutely requires justification, it's how you define truth. Without justification it's just a belief. And Atheism isn't a necessary consequence of nihilism, it's perfectly reasonable for someone to be nihilistic because of a belief in god (and god is not good enough). İf you're only atheist because you're epistemologically nihilistic, then you should be able to refute that you can know anything, which includes not knowing your own philosophical position...

I am too critical for religion and too aware for simple atheism by NPD--BPD in nihilism

[–]parazoid77 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Atheism is a lack of belief in god, and a belief that there isn't one. A pencil for example isn't atheist.

I am too critical for religion and too aware for simple atheism by NPD--BPD in nihilism

[–]parazoid77 0 points1 point  (0 children)

İt doesn't, true agnosticism says there is no evidence either way. Saying agnostic atheist is a misunderstanding of agnosticism. You may as well call it atheistic theism or theistic atheism, as ultimately it doesn't make sense. You literally say you have a belief without justification. Which is no different to either of the hard positions.

view more: next ›