There is in fact an active US federal indictment against Maduro. That of course does not make kidnaping him legal. But it does allow Rubio to say that he has a court order to arrest Maduro. That’s true.
January 4, 2026 at 10:20 PM
There is in fact an active US federal indictment against Maduro. That of course does not make kidnaping him legal. But it does allow Rubio to say that he has a court order to arrest Maduro. That’s true.
must mean that a US court indicted Maduro, though he’s deliberately not being explicit.
January 4, 2026 at 8:46 PM
must mean that a US court indicted Maduro, though he’s deliberately not being explicit.
more than two things even
January 4, 2026 at 12:43 PM
more than two things even
Some live in both N and H, some live in one.
January 2, 2026 at 11:50 PM
Some live in both N and H, some live in one.
She really, really wants to be a Kennedy…
January 2, 2026 at 12:28 AM
She really, really wants to be a Kennedy…
It must be that Holland =/= Netherlands.
Ok folks: what is your favorite fact that you share with people (maybe a bit too) eagerly?
January 1, 2026 at 10:48 PM
It must be that Holland =/= Netherlands.
I don't say it's useless. Only that it is not as useful as you might suspect, at least to specialists in a field, since LLM's inevitably lag behind current knowledge. And might seriously lag. Still, might be useful.
January 1, 2026 at 6:55 PM
I don't say it's useless. Only that it is not as useful as you might suspect, at least to specialists in a field, since LLM's inevitably lag behind current knowledge. And might seriously lag. Still, might be useful.
But what it misses is current data, since the current data is difficult to retrieve. Usually known mainly to experts in the field. So in providing the 'current consensus', it often provides outdated information.
January 1, 2026 at 4:55 PM
But what it misses is current data, since the current data is difficult to retrieve. Usually known mainly to experts in the field. So in providing the 'current consensus', it often provides outdated information.
this new dimension of self-glorification is truly scary
December 31, 2025 at 9:33 PM
this new dimension of self-glorification is truly scary
that’s a very interesting thing to say.
December 30, 2025 at 11:15 AM
that’s a very interesting thing to say.
Is this* grammatical? (Didn’t read the thread, so maybe already asked and abs.)
*The only players with 2000 hits are in the Hall of Fame"?
Should be,
The only players with 2k hits are those in the HOF.
And that is not equiv. to,
Only plyrs with 2k hts are in the HOF
*The only players with 2000 hits are in the Hall of Fame"?
Should be,
The only players with 2k hits are those in the HOF.
And that is not equiv. to,
Only plyrs with 2k hts are in the HOF
December 27, 2025 at 9:33 PM
Is this* grammatical? (Didn’t read the thread, so maybe already asked and abs.)
*The only players with 2000 hits are in the Hall of Fame"?
Should be,
The only players with 2k hits are those in the HOF.
And that is not equiv. to,
Only plyrs with 2k hts are in the HOF
*The only players with 2000 hits are in the Hall of Fame"?
Should be,
The only players with 2k hits are those in the HOF.
And that is not equiv. to,
Only plyrs with 2k hts are in the HOF
unless it turns out that all horses are animatronic..
December 21, 2025 at 7:55 PM
unless it turns out that all horses are animatronic..
Beyond Grinch and Evil
How Grinch Was My Valley
Memoirs of a Grinch
December 21, 2025 at 1:27 AM
Beyond Grinch and Evil
I think Kp and KKp should be distinguished, I'm sure [ ] and [ ][ ] should be. My epistemic intuitions don't help in some cases. Stalnaker discussing S4.2 ("the correct logic" of knowledge and belief) defines belief as Bp <-> ~K~Kp, and I just have no useful intuitions on this.
December 20, 2025 at 7:08 PM
I think Kp and KKp should be distinguished, I'm sure [ ] and [ ][ ] should be. My epistemic intuitions don't help in some cases. Stalnaker discussing S4.2 ("the correct logic" of knowledge and belief) defines belief as Bp <-> ~K~Kp, and I just have no useful intuitions on this.
that’s made up. what’s “a dean in the department”? departments don’t have deans.
up.is
December 19, 2025 at 1:30 PM
that’s made up. what’s “a dean in the department”? departments don’t have deans.
3/2: it is at least odd to base a normative logic on LP.
December 19, 2025 at 2:03 AM
3/2: it is at least odd to base a normative logic on LP.
2/2: weird that for every valid sequent p |- q in LP there is a quasi-valid sequent p |- ~q. it can be contingently true that p |- q and p |- ~q are both valid (quasi-valid).
December 19, 2025 at 1:18 AM
2/2: weird that for every valid sequent p |- q in LP there is a quasi-valid sequent p |- ~q. it can be contingently true that p |- q and p |- ~q are both valid (quasi-valid).
well-known that contradictions are contingent truths (falsehoods) in LP. maybe less well-known, the law of noncontradiction is nonetheless a logical truth in LP. even less: the negation of every logical truth is a contingent truth (falsehood) in LP. 1/2
December 19, 2025 at 1:14 AM
well-known that contradictions are contingent truths (falsehoods) in LP. maybe less well-known, the law of noncontradiction is nonetheless a logical truth in LP. even less: the negation of every logical truth is a contingent truth (falsehood) in LP. 1/2
‘Jack wasn’t certain that it was raining, but *still* he knew it was’ sounds fine to me. As does *despite* being uncertain, Jack knew it was raining. So, it seems like you can know w/o being certain.
December 17, 2025 at 11:07 PM
‘Jack wasn’t certain that it was raining, but *still* he knew it was’ sounds fine to me. As does *despite* being uncertain, Jack knew it was raining. So, it seems like you can know w/o being certain.
I’m hesitant to say otiose. Rejecting the S4 axiom, for ex, has the metaphysical consequence that (among other things) objects can lose their (modally understood) essential properties. There’s at least this important difference between [ ]p and [ ][ ]p.
December 16, 2025 at 7:34 PM
I’m hesitant to say otiose. Rejecting the S4 axiom, for ex, has the metaphysical consequence that (among other things) objects can lose their (modally understood) essential properties. There’s at least this important difference between [ ]p and [ ][ ]p.
Anything goes, so meaning’s lost. Of course there are lots of versions of the argument.
December 12, 2025 at 7:25 PM
Anything goes, so meaning’s lost. Of course there are lots of versions of the argument.
As I understand the PLA, it fails because the agent is herself the linguistic community. And since the LC determines the rules for proper usage, she is no more than self-constrained in her usage of linguistic terms, and that’s equivalent to being unconstrained in usage. 1/2
December 12, 2025 at 7:24 PM
As I understand the PLA, it fails because the agent is herself the linguistic community. And since the LC determines the rules for proper usage, she is no more than self-constrained in her usage of linguistic terms, and that’s equivalent to being unconstrained in usage. 1/2