Regarding Zeno's paradox love the way you can never get from point A to point B You start at Point A and go halfway to Point B, they you go halfway, then halfway, and never reach your destination because your always only halfway from your starting point
In Canada one never gives a credit card to a waitperson who then disappears, perhaps to skim the card before returning with the bill. The wait person returns to the table with card device and the customer does the process. So much for the technological USA.
I don't know much about Zeno's paradox but it reminds me of personal life paradox. The whole idea of never arriving. In which you start at point A with the destination to arrive at point B. But when you get to point B, you realize the whole time you were still at point A.
I learned today that work place discrimination includes political ideologies. I didn't particularly find it all interesting, but the thought that popped into my head was a bit of a lol. Since it was deemed by law to be illegal to discriminate on said reason, does that mean every person who makes a judgement on people for certain parties that seem to discriminate, discriminate against people themselves for having different views? And if so, why is their discrimination justified if it won't hold up in a court of law? I don't need answers, I was just asking myself the question in which I already knew the answer was, it's not justifiable, those people are just dicks and can be terminated from employment for voicing their dissatisfaction. This is all for a workplace harassment program I've included at work. I got the idea from my last role in contract administration where I had to deal with a few instances.
There's an important difference between having a discriminating view and acting upon it in a way that impacts other individuals by infringing on their rights or freedoms. So people judging someone with a discriminating view who is not acting upon it, in a way with negative consequences (like firing them) display discriminating and fascistic tendencies themselves. A judging opinion is justified in the sense its just another thought. Everybody has that right. Acting upon that judgement in a discriminating way is not justified if the victim did not discriminate themselves (in a way that impacts other individuals by infringing on their rights or freedoms. One can also discriminate by saying or writing their opinion in public of course, here it depends on the details. Discriminating thoughts should be able to be shared publicly but motive and context matters)
they have venom? lol. well.. I guess I learned that my grade in Electronic Music class was better than I thought. Yesterday I was under the impression that I had somehow dropped a full letter grade! Not really learning though, I suppose...
The paradox I saw was more implied and a result of the precision of numbers leading to a counter-intiuitive distancing from the comparison, which I see as similar to some of Zeno's paradoxes. It's also true to say there are more than 5 stars in the sky. So if greater than 5 is presumably more numbers than less than 5, how are there both more stars than numbers greater than 5 and less stars than numbers less than 5? It's like numbers have different representations. The solution as far as I can tell rests not on numbers but another symbol, on the point symbol, or fractional symbol to signal that we're between 4 and 5 in the ones place and also to acknowledge the possibility of an irrational number which is infinite.
I learned something new yesterday...but now I can't remember what it was. So I guess it'll be new again tomorrow.
That when you give a seminar to your workers about bullying and sexual harassment in a very relaxed team environment, they take the piss out of it. I should have known better. Lol.