The big take from philosophy is that irrespective of just about any subject if we're to move forward then it's of paramount importance that proper debate takes place and that each protagonist's arguments and supporting propositions are properly understood. I use those terms in the philosophical sense as distinct from the nonsensical shouting that we witness all too often on Social Media and elsewhere on the Web. That we often do not listen carefully and take time to analyze what others are saying is the cause of much of the world's ills. I've always prized debates as I've learned so much from having taken part in them. And It's a great shame that these days formal debating seems to have gone out of fashion. If one cannot explain or logically support one's propositions during a debate (or when trying to teach a subject) then one doesn't fully understand the matter at hand. What's also important to recognize is that there are times during a debate when a protagonist first becomes aware of fallacies and weaknesses in his/her own case and that realization can occur without his/her opponent being aware of the fact. It's an interesting phenomenon which I've experienced albeit not for quite some while. Moreover, when I've become aware that I've been wrong under such circumstances then learning turned out to be a sharper and more positive experience than other forms of learning (trouble is that these days there's little opportunity to partake in such debates as few are prepared spend the time to take them seriously). The reason I mention that scenario here is to show that as I'm a bit of a veteran of such discussions and that I'm used to opponents 'clobbering' me during disagreements. If I were to be offended by such criticisms in philosophical debates then I'd have quit long ago. However, what I do find disconcerting is when I've not chosen my words carefully enough for whatever reason (usually brevity) and what comes out ends up either sounding wrong or that I'm misinterpreted. My earlier comment would likely fall into that class. I try to avoid misunderstandings by being prolix, that is I'll restate a point using different phraseology but at times even that doesn't work. I'm often surprised how some readers even misinterpret the most straightforward of statements. [Note: I'm not referring to you in the following.] And that just happened yesterday with another of my comments when someone deliberately misquoted what I said. Clearly hide has no bounds when one's actual words are deliberately misquoted just below what one has actually written. I'm curious about the logic that underpins such strange thinking. (I suppose one shouldn't be a bit surprised these days when the leader of the free world sets quintessential examples for all to follow. By uttering blatant and outrageous lies with a deadpan expression that'd put masters of the art like Buster Keaton to shame then it's little wonder that many are bound to emulate his practice.) I'm unaware of any correlation between the large decline in the study of liberal arts subjects in recent decades and many of the antics we're witness in politics these days but I'd not be surprised by one iota if something of note were to be found. Philosophy often comes under that wing which implies that fewer people are studying the subject (well, at lest so on a per capita basis), and I'd posit that's not an ideal situation by any stretch. I'd suggest that skills that philosophy teaches such as the ability to help people think logically and to examine issues from multiple perspectives and to do so from factual evidence are in very short supply at a time when the world desperately needs them. We need aeridite people who can speak with authority on important world affairs such as Russell and the remarkable historian A.J.P. Taylor used to do, they had the ability to mesmerize just about anyone who'd listen to them. Even those who'd disagreed with their arguments and or worldviews couldn't counterattack with simplistic counterarguments without looking ill-equipped and or not in command of the facts. It's here philosophy comes to the fore in that it educates from multiple perspectives, whether it's teaching argument (such as Socrates' wonderful demolition of Thrasymachus' stance on justice) or teaching works of great thinkers whose views on matters differ wildly from one another actually forces one to consider philosophical notions from different viewpoints. Hobbes' worldview differs widely from say Locke's, Berkeley's immaterialism is a forerunner to later works on perception, and so on. The matter of mysticism, esoteric number theory and such, to my mind comes under metaphysics—whose definition I well remember as 'above and beyond physics', which is about as short and as apt as any definition gets. You're right, my mind endeavors to make sense of the world from an analytical perspective, like Descartes's cogito, ergo sum I have to begin my worldview somewhere and it more or less ends with my 'sense data' (like Russell banging his hand on his table to 'prove' it was there). Unlike Descartes, I don't move up the thought chain and attempt to prove God exists—after all, philosophy once taught me where Descartes's logic fell apart. That said, I remain agnostic about most metaphysical matters but in no way do I criticize others who hold stronger views—whether they come under the purview of traditional religions or say esoteric number theory. Frankly, I don't know enough about them (except, perhaps some religious training I learned as a child). If pushed however, I reckon I'd likely agree with the saying: "That there are more things in heaven and on earth than man will ever dream of." OK, let me roll the metaphysical ball a little further. You correctly took my handle as a reference to that Hilbert although it's a pretty common name. Why is that relevant here? If your knowledge extends as far as mathematical Hilbert spaces and QM then you'd know that much of our knowledge (and perception) of the actual QM world only exists through mathematical analogy. Whilst, we've managed some truly remarkable feats with QM such as being able to measure alpha, the fine structure constant, to an accuracy of about 10 decimal places and use such figures to produce some remarkable engineering, we've only gotten there by cleaver trickery. Our mathematics is not up to the job, we're constantly dodging infinities in QFT and so on. Simply, what actually happens and goes on down there in the quantum realm is anyone's guess. For all intents and purposes the real quantum world may as well be metaphysical. BTW, Being and Nothingness and No Exit (Huis clos) and related material were on the syllabus, so one had to wade through the Book. That's now quite some time ago but I don't recall it being anything other than tedious (perhaps, that was down to the translation). Given the outrageous political behavior we're witnessing in the world today I reckon No Exit paints a remarkably apt metaphor.

> I had a problem with the hyperbole and the fact that this nonsense is on HN. As someone without a smartphone, I caution you to be very wary about what specifically you mean by "nonsense". If you only mean "tyranny", that's one thing. If you mean it's not a problem until I live little better than a hermit in the woods is another, unable to have real banking, real health care, real education for any kids, unable to order taxi service, unable to pay for parking, unable to refuel, unable to get packages, and so on ... yeah, no, you need some empathy. > Even the apps are required to have accessibility and handicap access is protected by law in practically every western country. Here's my handicap, which I've had therapy about. I'm on the internet too much. When it's accessible, as now when I should be working, I find it almost impossible to avoid the urge to check. My solution is to not have a smartphone with me, to limit when I can be online. I am about to head to the basement, where the wifi doesn't reach, in order to focus on work. Would you force a teetotaler to drink? Would you recommend that someone trying to lose weight should carry a bag of peanut butter cups with them all the time? Here is another handicap: there are people who are electrosenstive, that is, they get headaches or have other problems when they are too close to radio signals, so they do not even carry a cell phone. Now, I happen to believe that is not based on the physical effects of radio signals, but forcing them to use a smartphone will cause them severe mental distress. There are still others who suffer from anxiety knowing their every action is being surveilled. When I started with therapy, the doctor asked if I thought the phones were listening to me, to see if I had any signs of schizophrenia. He then realized how that connected to the conversation, so had to rephrase the question, because we both know nearly all apps listen to us, one way or other. Apps cannot solve these issues because smartphone-based apps and the ecosystem supporting it are the issue. > What you're asking is for people who are interested in living online to give up potential benefits of the modern age. No, what you asked for was a bank that only supports people who decide to use a smartphone which can connect to the Apple and Google app stores, so that you could pay lower rates. The benefit is that you profit by their ability to exclude people who are more expensive to maintain. Completely legal, of course, as the freedom to live offline is not (currently, in nearly all jurisdictions) a protected right. That excludes people like me who are "living online" but who do not have a smartphone, that excludes people who use a PinePhone or other smartphone which doesn't run Android, that excludes people who use an Android phone but have not agreed to the Google Store terms of service, as zevv did at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43140223 . And don't forget that one of the reasons we are more expensive to maintain is that you are more profitable for them. Banks can send you ads directly, and know you've read them. McD's can use personalized ads based on your buying habits to induce you to buy more and overeat. And of course many apps have in-app advertising, which cannot be blocked. Uber made $1 billion last year from in-app ads. Is surveillance capitalism required for the modern age? > Slowing the elevators for the elderly (of which there are quite a lot) is problematic and probably not what most of us want. The newer elevators around here, at least the one in government-owned buildings, solve that issue with a flip seat.