/lit/ - Literature

>>20231070
He was also a virgin and a liar.
His analysis makes some sense but his solution isn’t viable at all.
You’re an ambassador of this dark age. Accept it.

>>20211690

>>20200164

>>20123734
Imagine unironically believing this

>>17354539
It matches Ted's handwriting and writing style, so there's little reason to think it's a fake.

>>16108178
false
here's one of his BASED letters

NACA/NASA used black women to calculate math problems, because solving math problems is no different than what code monkeys are doing.

/thread

>>15759839
Based and tedpilled

>>15233213
Some techies may consider this acceptable. But their dream of immortality is illusory nonetheless. Competition for survival among entities derived from human beings (whether man-machine hybrids, purely artificial entities evolved from such hybrids, or human minds uploaded into machines), as well as competition between human-derived entities and those machines or other entities that are not derived from human beings, will lead to the elimination of all but some minute percentage of all the entities involved. This has nothing to do with any specific traits of human beings or of their machines; it is a general principle of evolution through natural selection. Look at biological evolution: Of all the species that have ever existed on Earth, only some tiny percentage have direct descendants that are still alive today. On the basis of this principle alone, and even discounting everything else we've said in this chapter, the chances that any given techie will survive indefinitely are minute.

>>14962781

Math was retroactively refuted by uncle Ted.

>>14904623
>I want to learn math
Why? Math is fucking useless. As long as you know basic algebra and arithmetic, you can get by just fine.

>>14895283
Does a letter from Uncle Ted count as philosophical literature?

>>14800418
>>14800421
>>14800434
>>14801439

>>14763628

>>14743454

How am I supposed to know what translation of Dostoevsky I'm supposed to read? I'm told by some sources that P&V is the superior translation that captures not just the concept, but the style and direct meaning. I'm told that Garnett a shit but then someone else says that the initial translation by Garnett is "magnificent". I'm considering just reading McDuff because it read a bit nicer from the excerpts I saw. Is there a functional way to compare without buying each translation?
I don't have that kind of money. I want the translation that is most accurate without text that loses the intended way to read it. ShouId just give up?

>>14533897