People voted for them. They serve their voters. That’s how democracy works. They are “controlled” by their voters. People who don’t understand that get governments who don’t listen to them and instead listen to people who do understand that, like the aforementioned small business owners.
Every state with a coastline already has laws guaranteeing beach access. https://beachapedia.org/File:Surfrider_2019_Beach_Access_Map.png
The last time the Democrats had a majority was in the 117th Congress. They introduced a minimum wage increase bill HR 603 with 202 cosponsors, not a single one Republican. If the Democrats have a slim majority, all it takes is for a few Democrats whose districts rely on votes from small business owners who don’t want to pay higher minimum wage during a pandemic when their business is shut down to stop it. Those small business owners vote, and their employees listen to people like you. If you vote for enough Democrats that aren’t in that position, of course it will pass. The messaging to the employees should be that if their Democratic representative isn’t meeting demands, they should primary them, not that they should let Republicans win.
After these articles, the “free area” was defined to include just the areas that ROC controls, so the parliament no longer has representatives for mainland Chinese provinces. Based on that, the parliament no longer claims to represent all of China, and the ruling DPP asserts that Taiwan is a separate sovereign state from China. https://jhulr.org/2024/06/12/taiwans-constitutional-battle-the-case-for-the-republic-of-china-roc-constitution/
Removed by mod
And the “history” of the event you were taught was a fantasy cooked up by McCarthyist acolytes to spread atrocity propaganda.
The history I was taught is backed by documentation. The history you were taught ignores the documentation and takes the word of a government that tried to destroy any documents that existed of the event.
The “history” you will be taught in that course won’t include the reports of the journalists who were there at the time and whose film was confiscated. The famous tank man picture only survived because the journalist who took that picture hid it in a toilet.
ROC doesn’t claim to legitimately rule China anymore. That was just KMT’s delusion, and they’re no longer in power.
Superdelegates existed in 2008 as well. They were mostly in Clinton’s camp, but when Obama got ahead in the primary voting, not even anywhere close to as big a margin as Clinton had over Sanders, they switched. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/feb/23/uselections2008.barackobama
When she ultimately lost the primary, she threw her support behind Obama in the general election. https://www.c-span.org/program/american-history-tv/senator-hillary-clinton-2008-convention-speech/194032
You’re confusing the DNC with the primary voters, who gave Clinton a landslide victory over Sanders. You can’t get any closer to the will of the people than that.
Better by the only criteria that matters. Once something is proved, everybody will agree to it given enough time to examine and question the proof. Once someone makes a mathematical proof, the philosophical arguments are thrown on the trash heap. As you mentioned, Wittgenstein threw his earlier philosophical arguments on the trash heap. Given a few more years, he would have thrown his latest philosophical arguments on the trash heap as well.
The only people I’ve seen who refer to themselves as capitalists are people with capital that aren’t wage slaves.
And again, the history of philosophy is replacing philosophical arguments with better tools. Your link just shows sloppy thinking from both Hume and his critics.
If a mathematical proof hasn’t been verified, it isn’t accepted. For a proof that uses lots of new nontrivial machinery, the mathematician is expected to give talks to motivate that machinery and answer questions from other mathematicians. Or they can just build their proof in Lean from already well understood axioms.
It’s generally agreed
That’s my point. Mathematical proofs aren’t generally agreed. They are agreed by everyone to logically follow from the definitions and axioms started with. Every single statement in a mathematical proof evaluates to true or false, and if you don’t believe a mathematical proof, you can directly point to a statement that is false. Philosophical arguments are “generally agreed” upon until the tools to take them out of philosophy are developed, and then the philosophical arguments are discarded entirely.
Your same argument that mathematics can be discussed under philosophy can be used to argue that mathematics can be discussed under the framework of wild untethered speculation. Neither one is a convincing argument that philosophy or wild untethered speculation is useful.
This is why ethics has failed. It has been built on the unstable foundation of philosophy instead of on the solid foundation of mathematics.
It’s not about those specific proofs.
It certainly is about those specific proofs and anything that has been rigorously proven in Lean. We’re discussing techniques that show something is correct forever, and those proofs show that something is correct forever. Philosophical arguments don’t even show that something is correct today. This is why the examples I gave earlier are now not explained by philosophy but by other systems. Once the tooling exists to lift a discussion out of philosophy, that is the end of philosophical debate for that topic.
Furthermore, the kernel still relies on CPU, memory and OS behavior to be bug free.
Only to a point, just like human language proofs require the reviewers brains to be bug free to a point. The repeated verification makes proofs as correct as anything can get.
The fact that C++ is Turing complete does not prevent it from computing that 1+1=2. Similarly, the fact that C++ is Turing complete does not prevent programs created from it from verifying the proofs that they have verified. The proof of the halting problem (and incompleteness proofs based on the halting problem) itself halts. https://leanprover-community.github.io/mathlib_docs/computability/halting.html
It is not necessary to solve the halting problem to show that a particular lean proof is correct.
79% of Americans say they want age caps for elected officials, but they keep voting for people older than those age caps, and that is the result that counts in the end.
Quote chapter and verse of the law at them. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/01/technology/california-beach-access-khosla.html
https://libguides.law.uconn.edu/c.php?g=1321550&p=9887441