Late-diagnosed autistic, special interest-haver, dad, cyclist, software professional
That’s interesting to hear; somehow my algebra 2 skipped sum notation (and it wasn’t remedially covered in subsequent math classes) but I’ve been writing code for decades now and seeing it in code totally explains the sum notation for me
Yes, so long as we’re using passwords- I like Keepass because it doesn’t have a browser integration or exploit pathways if any one of my passwords is out there on some host that gets compromised
I expect that pretty soon we’ll be moving on to using passkeys instead of passwords I’ll reevaluate how I keep my auth keys and passwords when that day comes
The way these self-confident charlatans talk, you’d think they believe every thing they don’t like must be its own ideology, complete with ivory-tower academics dispensing it from a great height.
I’m seeing a bit of this kind of referential language elsewhere too, decrying such bugbears as ‘evolutionism’ and ‘abortionism’- which, when you think about it, seems contrived to give people who read the title and don’t read content the impression that there are whole fields of study, replete with cult followings, devoted to these things.
Rhetoric of this kind has a way of getting people to file away contingent-possible notions (that is, it might or might not be a thing but I don’t have time to understand it now so I’m filing a placeholder in my head for later) Having those things filed away in your head has a way of putting you on the fence about whether they’re true or real or not (they’re neither true nor false, just contingent)- and when you’re on the fence, partisanship can readily decide the matter without having to supply any evidence.
The purpose of rhetoric like this is not to inform, but to flood its audience with contingent-possible bullshit, to exhaust their critical capacity and render them receptive to even the most counterfactual nonsense you can contrive.