Seems like the goal is avoiding dependencies and he's got 3 built in database choices for that already. DETS or Mnesia would probably work well for this.
Mnesia is probably what you want in that case, since it turns (D)ETS into a full-fledged database rather than a simple key-value store (think SQL v. Redis). Both are part of Erlang/OTP, though, so you get them for free just by using Erlang/Elixir/LFE/whatever.
There's a hex.pm package called "Amnesia" that wraps Mnesia in a more Elixiry format.
If you're using Phoenix or Ecto, look into ecto_mnesia (https://github.com/Nebo15/ecto_mnesia). It wraps up mnesia into a nice ecto wrapper. It's limited on what your primary keys can be.
DETS (and ETS, the in-memory equivalent) are quite simple for basic K/V-ish storage needs. If you need a relational database, Mnesia should do the trick.
But in a philosophical debate, "right" would be quite ambiguous. One party, for example, could posit that the ideas of "right" and "wrong" are completely subjective. That, in the absence of some stated goal or constraints, what's "right" or "wrong", "good" or "evil" is no more valid a topic of debate than whether chocolate ice cream is better than vanilla.However, once you introduce said constraints, the discussion is no longer philosophically interesting.
So, what you're saying is that the problem of philosophy is that someone could derail a discussion concerning ethics by simply asserting meta-ethical subjectivism and that would be uninteresting or bad in some other way...
I don't quite understand this objection. Not to mention that this is exactly the opposite of what you would expect to find in a philosophical debate. The whole point of the discipline is that every position must be argued for and questioned and not just asserted. That of course includes subjectivism.
It's not that the discussion is simply derailed. It's that it can't even take place until both parties agree on the terminology. The word "right" is packed with all sorts of assumptions on the speaker's part that the listener may not agree with. If that is the case, the discussion devolves into a discussion about those assumptions, which in turn devolve into more discussions about more assumptions.
>> The whole point of the discipline is that every position must be argued for and questioned and not just asserted.
That's the problem. Nearly every word is packed with meaning, which must be unraveled and argued for with... more words. The cycle never ends.
>>It's not that the discussion is simply derailed. It's that it can't even take place until both parties agree on the terminology.
On a theoretical level, this is true for every discussion in every discipline. On a practical level, how would you know that this is a special problem in philosophy if you admit that you haven't studied any?
>>That's the problem. Nearly every word is packed with meaning, which must be unraveled and argued for with... more words.
Just for the record. I did say that arguments are required and of course those arguments are composed of words (and symbols) but i never said that those arguments are about the meaning of words.
I don't know. I only suspect based on what I've seen. Philosophy, it seems, makes it difficult to use common language colloquially, because the meaning of the words is the primary linchpin upon which many philosophical debates rest, rather than external data or evidence.
In other disciplines, this is not the case. The two participants in a discussion generally share the same goals, or at least agree on the measuring stick (e.g. uncovering evidence to prove a hypothesis, making an app load faster, improving a car's fuel efficiency, etc). Progress toward their goals can be measured in straightforward and objective ways. Thus, it's much less common for there to be disagreement about basic terminology.
Of course I could be wrong. Maybe there are many interesting philosophical debates that don't simply devolve into semantics. Perhaps you could humor me by providing examples?
Well, holding fallacious beliefs prevents you from arriving at the correct answer. Since philosophers have refuted many fallacious arguments concerning that question they have, therefore, made some measurable progress.
First example claims that "(p => q, p) so q" is a fallacy by closely squinting at word "must".
Second example claims that p => q where ~q => ~p is assumed is also a fallacy because they claim that one word that q consists of spills out and covers whole statement.
From this brief brush I'd say "modal scope fallacy" is just about some fuzzily defined semantic nuance of English language. So, no, I'd say you can't refute anything except bad grammar with this.
If you can write it down and the thing you want to refute, with symbols and prove their conjunction to be tautologically false with formal logic then I'd say you've refuted the claim. But as I said that's math not philosophy.
> What data do you have to refute the statement: "A statement can be refuted without data"?
Are you asking because you think I claimed to have refuted or wanted to refute that statement?
What refutation can you offer of the statement that data is needed to refute the statement: "A statement can be refuted without data"?
That's exactly the chain of pointless self, and cross referential statements that arise when you are trying to refute something without data and/or precise definition (which would make it math).
First example claims that "(p => q, p) so q" is a fallacy by closely squinting at word "must". Second example claims that p => q where ~q => ~p is assumed is also a fallacy because they claim that one word that q consists of spills out and covers whole statement
No it doesn't. You've formalized it incorrectly.
Doesn't matter, i might as well have said that the argument is affirming the consequent and we'd still have a problem since there is a deeper issue here. What you're saying is that the simple acts of either formalizing your arguments or precisely defining your premises somehow turns it into math and precludes it from being philosophy. Yet philosophers do exactly that all the time.
Is that the point you want to argue? Cause i am neither convinced or interested in pursuing it. It would seem to me like a pointless argument about definitions.
> No it doesn't. You've formalized it incorrectly.
I haven't formalized anything, I just used notational short-hands.
Example goes:
If Debbie and TJ have two sons and two daughters, then they must have at least one son.
Debbie and TJ have two sons and two daughters.
Therefore, Debbie and TJ must have at least one son.
If I substitute string "Debbie and TJ have two sons and two daughters" with "p" and string "they must have at least one son" with "q" and write relation If ... then ... as ... => ... and implied conjunction between two first lines as ( ... , ... ) and substitute string "Therefore" with "so" (for no reason, I just like short syntax) I get what I wrote: (p=>q, p) so q
It's not formalization, it's just string substitution. What I implied later (mainly that the author of the example claims that something tautologically true is fallacy) assumes that we can agree to assign either true or false to the strings denoted by p and q and we use conventional logic.
The only way this could be incorrect is if words in one line of the example are defined to mean something else than exact same words in other line they occur. It's possible but without explicit definition of such bizarre behavior I won't be guessing what author had in mind.
> Doesn't matter
Oh, yes it matters. It's an excellent example of what remained of philosophy when natural philosophers left. Thinking so fuzzy that it lacks not only application but even meaning. Despite that appreciated and cited as a marvelous tool for argumentation.
> affirming the consequent
Much better. But that piece of philosophy was swallowed by math long time ago. Any statement about logic that philosophy can currently make is math, false or semantically fuzzy. You won't be trying to refute many arguments using reasoning of Zeno of Elea nowadays.
> What you're saying is that the simple acts of either formalizing your arguments or precisely defining your premises somehow turns it into math and precludes it from being philosophy. Yet philosophers do exactly that all the time.
Really? Could you point me to works of some, perhaps fairly modern, philosopher that defines what he ponders with accuracy that could be appreciated by a mathematician? But no cargo cult please. Preciseness and some actual meaning is what I'm looking for.
Look, i originally cited that identifying (P⊃◻Q, P) ∴ ◻Q as a fallacy in an argument is an example of refuting that argument without any data. I don't care about your struggles with some random article.
As i said, i don't really want to argue weather that is math or philosophy, especially when i see statements to the effect that affirming the consequent was once philosophy but math "swallowed" it so now pointing out that fallacy means you're doing math and things like that. Talk about imprecise and meaningless right there.
These complaints are ridiculous. Of course philosophy is going to deal primarily with philosophical discussions, and not with scientific ones, that's the job of science!
If you're trying to claim that only scientific ideas are worth entertaining, then the problem is that that claim itself is not scientific.
The commenter you're responding to does not even understand the problem if he thinks science can solve it, as others have pointed out.
Judging by that TL;DR people would think that there's an article with pages upon pages of what Facebook decided to eliminate from PHP, and not to make it easier but to make it possible to mantain their codebase. No such thing can be found in the provided PDF.
They've added static typing, return types for functions, and a few other things. I believe the premise of the talk is that it's still possible to use everything else available in PHP (traits, generators, namespaces, etc.)
Things like this and some interesting developments from Facebook concerning them are mentioned in the presentation, so it would be nice if people would actually discuss that. Just a suggestion.
It's PHP. Unfortunately, enough developer got bit by the fact that PHP doesn't prevent you from shooting yourself in the foot, and shot themselves in the foot.
So, you'd probably be pretty ornery too when other people had more discipline to use the language without shooting their foot and were also employing it successfully. You'd probably want to make assumptions, and word hard to belittle them. Insult them.
And they'll talk about beauty. And zen. And wonder, and joy in a language. And they'll gloss over the major problems that it suffers from. They'll imagine all is well. And they'll try and tell you that nothing good can come from the tool they once used to shoot themselves in the foot.
PHP may have a bunch of ways to shoot yourself in the foot, but you get a new foot back right away. IMHO the oddities in PHP rarely hit you, and when they do you'll pick it up right away in PHPUnit, fix it, and walk away.
