with what does the book begin?

If machine intelligence is indeed a different form of intelligence, then it can be observed and judged on the basis of its own merits, as opposed to a messianic waiting for a moment where it might equal or eclipse (weakly defined) human intelligence. This would even render obsolete the question as to whether or not machines can think—which in itself willfully glosses over the corresponding opposite question, “Can humans think?” posed by the former Fluxus artist (and Emmett Williams collaborator) Tomas Schmit in the year 2000 (Schmit et al. 2007, 18–19). — Crapularity Hermeneutics: Interpretation as the Blind Spot of Analytics, Artificial Intelligence, and Other Algorithmic Producers of the Postapocalyptic Present. Florian Cramer.

i mean, by the grammatical rules, it's still a valid reply to the comment.

[modifier][noun][verb][modifier][noun].

gödel reminds us: "syntax all on its own cannot determine semantics".

the point is to evidence grammaticalness despite apparent meaningfulness, and the commenter may just be seeking to simulate the point with a logically consistent application of the rules at play. "incomplete" with respect to [mimicking] or [reproducing] an [socio-historical cultural] artifact, but not inconclusive in evidencing the point (remixing to produce variations on the theme; i.e., there are evidences of +20-word recursive sentences, if not larger).

nothing about the buffalo sentence entails the social rule "when someone else posts the buffalo sentence, it must match the aforementioned sentence verbatim". permutations on the point are totally fair game.

bullied bullies bully bullied bullies bullying bullied bullies

[narrator]: bill gates did not GET ReST.

i'm drawing on the confluence of political circumstances involving spoofing identity in a post-identitarian world: https://infosecwriteups.com/the-curious-case-of-github-commit-spoofing-a-lighthearted-exploration-54ddbaaaf40a

dr. nash's article is about the politically loaded significance of linguistic practices/naming, not just "black women's genitalia", as a basis for analyzing the material conditions reflected in forms of gentrification.

you are enjoying the soft bigotry of low expectations, or to read her without the principle of charity. i have every reason to suppose you're intentionally weaponizing obtuseness/reductionist posturing.

tbh, it's one of the drier bits like what you might find any day on language log (upenn). do you read much philosophy of art anyway?

my favorite pornotrope is how people still swear by the belief that apple computers suffer no "malware", because why are androids apparently so promiscuous like any black person wants to spoof torvalds' github username

do androids sleep with promiscuous scapegoats?

between The Delectable Negro and In Defence of Cannibalism (routley. 1982): and and and and?

since you know by 2020 that modeling categorical logic and categorical truth tables tell you less about the "trumper" than the non-trumper do you [really] want to risk it, framing the trumper, at least, as a "moron" who can't muster the "IQ" points (btw, was everybody jumping on that that new EQ+AQ+SQ wagon to own the Young-Girl's war on war)?

that paradoxical circumstance where trump acts the fool, because he knows you'll take the bait, in front of his base, amplified by algorithmic blunders: socialism and barbarism/annihilation, have always lived side-by-side. your mythology of technology only cyclically prevents you from seeing that.

he's no brian leiter.

one cat's nip is another cat's jazz

but it allows for some people to type out one-liners and generate massive blobs of text at the same time that they could be doing their jobs. /codecraft

1. metacognitive myopia explained why people didn't/couldn't update their beliefs about the existence of "weapons of mass destruction etc".
2. dogwhistling the threat of sexual revolution "comrade kamala" (i.e., he's implying hypocrisy when he doesn't understand what lenin's use of the term "prostitute" meant).
3. playing the fool until you can't (i.e., making his base feel insightful and "seen" as playfully serious, homophilically/mimetically charismatic; e.g., his base feels like their inference-making is being promoted based on linguistic sympathy through the aura of charisma).
4. from (3) somewhere in his administration they're letting the would-be "fool" base do the grunt-work and creating cover; see "Optimal Team Formation Under Asymmetric Information".

elizabeth warren lampoons trump and vance

is the threat better than the existence of the threat? does threatening mean being constantly present?

have books become too heavy for men?

doctrine of double effect hours