Not a "legitimate" descendant, whatever that means after 60 generations.
However, he was an aristocrat, and a soldier, in a time when birth control was rarely practiced. I imagine he's got plenty of his DNA in the modern pool.
No, it would be the same rule, just phrased better. The rule works by introducing a disjunction (to match the one you already have), not by eliminating one.
Given
a implies p
b implies p
a or b
you can conclude ((a or b) implies p) from my statement of the rule, and then conclude "p" from modus ponens. And if you're feeling really obscurist, you can rename modus ponens to "proposition elimination".
But notice that if you have
a implies p
b implies p
c implies p
a or b or c
then my statement of the rule will still allow you to conclude "p", whereas the statement on wikipedia won't.
You misunderstand my comment. I'm not saying that your interpretation is wrong. I'm fine with it. Better or not, either result can be used in the right context. I'm saying that your interpretation does not eliminate disjunction, so it should be called differently. It's a different rule, that's all I want to say.
> Better or not, either result can be used in the right context.
This is most of the point I'm making -- there is no context where the brittle, overspecified version is useful but the more general version isn't. But there are lots of contexts where the overspecified version is useless.
And again, it's not a different rule. Brittle "disjunction elimination" is a special case of the rule I state. Similarly, the Pythagorean Theorem is a special case of the Law of Cosines, not a different rule.
It gets worse, though, because where the Pythagorean Theorem is simpler to state than the Law of Cosines, brittle disjunction elimination is more complex to state than the more general result is.
Think about exportation. We say:
(a implies (b implies p)) iff ((a and b) implies p)
We don't say:
((a implies (b implies p)) and (a and b)) implies p
That second version, which is the equivalent of brittle disjunction elimination for and instead of or, is harder to state, is less informative, and doesn't generalize.
I really really wish math jargon and symbols could be replaced with code. I feel like I could have done a lot better in math if it had been taught in python.
Programming languages generally capture only some specific logic (or some specific kind of math) in their semantics.
Certain concepts like the law of excluded middle (either A or not A must hold), and proofs by contradiction that are common in math, simply don't exist in programming. That's because programming is based on constructive logic / constructive math foundation.
Learning the basics of logic can be beneficial for a programmer tho, and the connection with functional programming is especially high.
Still doesn't make any sense. Is "The democratic voting of two countries was manipulated using social media, it puts at risk our rights, and freedoms." a problem or is "The democratic voting of two countries was illegally manipulated using social media, it puts at risk our rights, and freedoms." a problem?
> Is "The democratic voting of two countries was manipulated using social media, it puts at risk our rights, and freedoms." a problem or is "The democratic voting of two countries was illegally manipulated using social media, it puts at risk our rights, and freedoms." a problem?
Microtargeting voters is not illegal. It needs oversight, in the way campaign ads have to follow certain rules, but if the Russian Embassy bought political ads on Facebook, I think that would be fine.
There is a public interest in knowing who says what in a political discussion. This is why, whether it's a campaign or a PAC or a foreign government, political ads come with "paid for by XYZ" disclaimers. Cambridge Analytica deliberately skirted those rules to do what they were written to prevent.
There is also public interest in ensuring foreigners pushing political agendas do so in good faith. Promoting both sides of a debate, with the intention of sparking conflict, for example, is acting in bad faith [1]. Cambridge Analytica broke these rules [2]. In doing so, they enabled--deliberately or negligently--what those rules were written to prevent.
The line between "using" and "manipulating" any medium comes down to legality and intent. There are grey areas in those delineations. Cambridge Analytica jumped over the ambiguity into clear illegality, wanton disregard and in-your-face bad-faith behaviour [3]. They did so by taking advantage of Facebook's comercially-incentivised negligence and our election oversight system's blind spot in respect of online ads.
> if the Russian Embassy bought political ads on Facebook, I think that would be fine
Definitely not if they were political ads for a US election. It is illegal for foreign nationals without permanent resident status to participate in election campaign activities in that manner[1].
But they're also in the business of responding to search with facts.
YouTube is a strange platform in that respect, but if someone searching for the moon landing gets a conspiracy video in the results because it's popular I don't see anything wrong with YouTube including a snippet of verified information that relates to the query.
For them to be wrong, they'd have to have an opinion. Why do you think people watching a video like this have a strong opinion one way the other? Maybe they don't and are just looking around.
There is nothing about inflammation or Alzheimers in the title or anything else that would provide any kind of information. "Permanently changes the brain" is a meaningless buzzword.
> The research shows that people with longer periods of untreated depression, lasting more than a decade, had significantly more brain inflammation compared to those who had less than 10 years of untreated depression.
I don't intend to shitpost but I think it's a good idea to question the usage of the word "significant" almost immediately unless it's coming from a physics or statistics PhD.
