Dennis Hackethal’s Blog
My blog about philosophy, coding, and anything else that interests me.
Tweets
An archive of my tweets and retweets through . They may be formatted slightly differently than on Twitter. API access has since gotten prohibitively expensive – I don't know whether or when I'll be able to update this archive.
But in case I will, you can subscribe via RSS – without a Twitter account. Rationale
@FrankJasensky @marvin_wank @ENERGIZEAIR_DE
Ich sagte doch bereits dass es auch ohne Staat Regeln und entsprechende Durchsetzung geben kann.
Bzgl Kindern soll der Wille der Kinder zählen, nicht der der Eltern. Ich will einfach nicht, dass Kinder zu Dingen gezwungen werden.
@FrankJasensky @marvin_wank @ENERGIZEAIR_DE
Schule erreicht keine Chancengleichheit sondern Gleichschaltung. Private Sicherheitskräfte, Schlichter, Verbraucherschutzbünde usw.
@FrankJasensky @marvin_wank @ENERGIZEAIR_DE
Schulzwang ist unmoralisch und ekelhaft (und unnoetig); die beiden anderen Dinge braucht man zwar, aber man benoetigt fuer ihre Durchsetzung keinen Staat.
I didn’t need a visa to go to Japan in 2018. You sure that’s changed?
RT @muskQu0tes:
“Just looking for problem-solvers who get things done with a high sense of urgency. Don’t care if or where they went to sch…
@FrankJasensky @marvin_wank @ENERGIZEAIR_DE
Erstaunlich, was manche glauben, wozu man den Staat alles braucht.
The more I learn, the worse it gets. The world should know the truth of what has been happening at Twitter.
Transp…
RT @libertyrecap:
“Poverty can be brought about by law; it cannot be forbidden by law.” - Isabel Paterson
RT @Project_Veritas:
Results are in.
11.29.22 pic.twitter.com/6LBptCUcab
RT @pickover:
Physics, unpredictability, attraction, mathematics.
This shows a kind of magnetic chain reaction or self-assembly.
By Magi…
I’ve found evidence that payment processor @Square systematically lies about how long they hold their users’ money:
I’ve considered replacing EOL with something but, since I have user input (not my own commits), it then becomes a guessing game about which characters users would be sufficiently unlikely to ever type in… not a fan. But it might be an acceptable temporary workaround.
RT @mazemoore:
Elon Musk and AOC finally worked out their differences.
The chemistry these two have is crazy. pic.twitter.com/4dYzYAinqa
RT @emollick:
High prestige journals were worse:
44% of genetics articles in Nature with Excel supplemental files have errors
53% of articl…
RT @lulumeservey:
1) Last week SBF gave an all-time accidental interview to Vox, when he thought he was off the record.
This actually happ…
RT @TheJackForge:
The first thing you should learn as a programmer, is that there are teenagers that are better programmers than you will e…
RT @HumanProgress:
In the 1960s, smallpox killed more than two million people per year. There was no cure, but there was a vaccine. The pro…
RT @ArmandDoma:
The City of San Francisco fired its Elections Department Chief, whose performance they admitted they had zero issue with, e…
Awarding a 100-point bounty to anyone who can solve this problem: stackoverflow.com/questions/7449…
RT @wesbos:
Stop tweeting 0.1 + 0.2 = 0.30000000000000004
window.location = https://${0.1 + 0.2}.com pic.twitter.com/EoTkWnV9zb
Literaturkritiker Michael Maar sagt, er lese Der Anfang der Unendlichkeit von David Deutsch “[z]aghaft-neugierig”. Was er damit wohl meint? 🤔
nvm you clarified here twitter.com/Mathwalkr/stat…
So, it is not true that Pax Americana is “literally the same thing as a single world government since Pax Americana was a US foreign policy for global hegemony”. And so I think my original point, that Macron could mean a single global order that isn’t a global government, stands.
RT @JonErlichman:
Starbucks’s revenue:
1980: $4 million per year
2022: $4 million per hour pic.twitter.com/DdQeNZhC1t
I’m not arguing that things would be better or that such a state of affairs would be desirable. I’m merely showing that global hegemony does not imply global government.
Imagine a world where the US is the only country with nuclear arms. I.e. it totally dominates any other military in the world. Yet it also leaves all other countries alone and only trades with them peacefully. To me, that would be world hegemony but not world government. No?
Yea nvm that’s clear. I think you misunderstand my disagreement as me being obtuse or something.
One possibility is that you haven’t made yourself very clear. Another is that I’m lacking background knowledge.
Btw I think global hegemony is quite different from/still a lot less than an actual world government.
Yes. So you agree that your historical claim was false?
You also claimed that “global hegemony by one country […] is impossible”. That’s a contradiction.
You made a historical claim that the US’s was “literally […] a single world government”.
I didn’t say that you brought up pax americana, I know I did.
I merely explained […] he’d be calling for a global hegemony by one country […] which is impossible.
Yet you seem to say that that’s already happened in history: twitter.com/Mathwalkr/stat…
No I meant ‘single global order’ as something distinct from a single global government. I’m just saying they’re not necessarily the same.
RT @marvin_wank:
Wer körperlich Schwachen das Tragen von Schusswaffen verwehrt, liefert sie dem metaphorischen und buchstäblichen Messer de…
The ratio on this tweet gives me hope. twitter.com/OfficialSPGB/s…
I don’t know. Btw I don’t think what you name is the only thing preventing global US hegemony. But since you now agree that there is not even such a hegemony, and therefore def no single global government, I think we can conclude this discussion.
It’s possible I don’t understand what it means (though I think I do) but my point stands that the US isn’t a global government. It doesn’t have jurisdiction over global territory. If there’s even a single sovereign country apart from the US, the US is not a world govt.
The fact that it was a foreign policy means there was no world government.
No doubt the US has been very influential on the world stage but that doesn’t make it a world government. There are sovereign states besides the US.
I don’t know. And the point is that America isn’t a world government. I was giving an example of an interpretation of a “single global order” that isn’t a single world government.
Maybe he means a single global order like the Pax Americana
RT @realchrisrufo:
BREAKING: Disney has fired CEO Bob Chapek, who pushed critical race theory and gender ideology in the company’s programm…
he says “single global order” not ‘single global government’
who knows what he means by that
RT @TCSparents:
“If a baby takes his first steps and his mother responds, “How exciting! You’re walking!” that is an authentic expression o…
not all questions in the link are unanswered but some are (the link is just a relatively easy way of finding them)
but to be clear i’m not currently requesting anymore that you answer those questions, except for the meta one
no there are more twitter.com/search?q=(from…
i don’t think you’ve understood the article i sent you because you’re still ignoring my question why i should answer your questions when you ignore mine
my question is not rhetorical and the discussion is rather one-sided
Why Doesn’t Angier Use the Machine Only Once? blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/why-does…
RT @AJamesMcCarthy:
I spent 12 hours with my telescope pointed at the center of a nebula in our galaxy to reveal this: a star forming regio…
RT @unusual_whales:
The IRS says the new 87,000 agents could help rase as much as $1 trillion, per Bloomberg.
thanks to everyone confirming that the vox-populi concept of democracy is incompatible with free speech
(and to be clear, it’s the vox-populi democracy that’s bad, not free speech)
twitter.com/hypocrates6942…
twitter.com/dubgang4/statu…
twitter.com/PrinceErebus/s…
No because it was based on a poll. Freedom of speech if it’s what others approve of is not freedom of speech…
No because it was based on a poll. Freedom of speech if it’s what others approve of is not freedom of speech at all. twitter.com/AlexEpstein/st…
Fair point. My guess is that Elon wanted to be able to point blame to the poll since whichever way he was gonna decide was going to make a lot of ppl angry.
Stronger move would have been to take a principled stance and follow it through regardless of popularity. twitter.com/AlexEpstein/st…
there are many, but a recent one is why i should answer your questions when you refuse to answer mine
RT @antoniogm:
Funny how fast we went from ‘tech bros’ to oppressed ‘workers’.
bug on @realDonaldTrump’s page. When I refresh the page on iOS by dragging down his follower count increases AND sometimes also decreases.
@Lydia_Beeyoobee @fakeaarontweets @JoeReynolds2020 @FreeRangeKids
First it says the mom made the kid walk home, then it says she asked him and he agreed. Very different scenarios and moral implications.
@Lydia_Beeyoobee @fakeaarontweets @JoeReynolds2020 @FreeRangeKids
I disagree with your assumption that the kid is an ingrate but I just read the piece and find it self-contradictory.
RT @JonErlichman:
Steve Jobs at home in 1982: pic.twitter.com/oSWQvQ5Rjh
@hans_denkt @MinistryofTru16 @KMoritz01
Selbst das kann ich noch logisch nachvollziehen. Aber ‚viertel ab‘ geht wirklich gar nicht.
„auch weil es für sie nicht genug gut aussehende Männer gibt“ natürlich sind die Männer dran schuld 😂
that also doesn’t answer my question
you should read this curi.us/2128-question-…, see how it applies to this discussion, then come back
just so you know, i won’t answer your other questions until then
@monack @krlwlzn @fakeaarontweets @JoeReynolds2020 @FreeRangeKids
that dependence is more of a reason not to coerce and thereby betray them, not less
you’re still refusing to answer my questions, why should i answer yours?
to be clear, there are healthy boundaries: blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/boundari…
but i don’t think those are what you were talking about
i’m not talking about an unhinged and ill adjusted adult. i’m talking about a regular adult, and shifting the focus from child to adult was supposed to show you that it is wrong to set ‘gentle boundaries’ to control people’s behavior. same with bedtimes, eating vegetables, etc.
I don’t need to define violence, everyone knows what it is. It may be a fact of life, but it need not be.
And that still sounds like advocating violence against children.
not everything is communicated explicitly using words, no.
that doesn’t mean coercion is necessary or desirable.
you’re not answering my questions btw. they’re not rhetorical
‘But how would self-coercion surface in my husband in the absence of gentle boundaries set up by surrounding humans ?’
see the problem?
“[Y]ou need to experience […] violence […]. Especially as a child.” You’re publicly and explicitly advocating violence against children.
How do you teach those things without those issues to adults?
And what if the child doesn’t want to learn those things?
The parent, and then the parent explains why throwing food is a bad idea.
What do you propose?
in your next example, perhaps the child could be brandishing a machine gun?
so you’re saying ‘if i can’t persuade i’ll use force’? that’s not very persuasive is it?
i can’t imagine a child who would enjoy beer
but yes that would be the child’s prerogative, just as it is yours
freedom includes the freedom to make mistakes
if it’s such a bad idea you should have no trouble persuading the child of that
They’d have more time if ppl didn’t fill their day with things they don’t want to do.
Learning rules requires knowledge which can be acquired peacefully, no coercion necessary.
To be clear I do not advocate neglect or never teaching rules. I just don’t think it requires force.
Note that emergency situations are different from things like forcing someone to eat vegetables or go to school.
No you put out the fire and explain how that seriously could have hurt the brother.
When you describe children as totalitarian that can easily be understood to imply that it is appropriate to use violence or other kinds of force against their alleged illusions of grandeur and their alleged violence.
Total subjugation of the world around often seems to be the vision, if only fleeting :)
Evidence?
How is that “breaking”?
It’s thwarting their efforts until they do what you approve of.
you say “Of course not” but then seem to argue in favor of it anyway
throwing stuff to see if and how it flies is a science experiment
much more apt to describe children as little scientists than as little totalitarians