On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 3:10 PM Alexis Hunt via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Apr 2020 at 01:04, Rebecca via agora-business <
> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> > I vote FOR both proposals
> > --
> > From R. Lee
> >
>
> I endorse R. Lee on both
On 4/6/2020 7:39 AM, Rebecca via agora-discussion wrote:
> And I certainly don't remember that second paragraph. However necessary it
> may be (to avoid AI=1 proposals defining higher powered rules to mean their
> opposite or whatever), it reads like actual nonsense at first glance.
> Although I
On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 12:36 AM Rebecca wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 12:28 AM Kerim Aydin via
> agora-discussiongora-discuss...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 4/6/2020 5:03 AM, Rebecca via agora-official wrote:
>> > I would like to note that I hate the rule 217 factors. I think they
>>
On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 12:28 AM Kerim Aydin via
agora-discussiongora-discuss...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> On 4/6/2020 5:03 AM, Rebecca via agora-official wrote:
> > I would like to note that I hate the rule 217 factors. I think they
> should
> > be abolished. And I think that my grammatical
On 4/6/2020 5:03 AM, Rebecca via agora-official wrote:
> I would like to note that I hate the rule 217 factors. I think they should
> be abolished. And I think that my grammatical arguments are enough to
> sustain the judgement.
Personally, I think your first judgement was sufficient (and
Here's my weekly-ish draft!
-Aris
---
I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran
Decision of whether to adopt it, and removing it from the proposal
pool. For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the
quorum is 7, the voting method is AI-majority, and the valid
On Mon, 6 Apr 2020 at 02:04, Rebecca via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> I think by whatever dictionary meaning of the word any you use, universal
> or existential, I can at least convince you all that the sentence is so
> ambiguous as to be unsolvable with pure
I think by whatever dictionary meaning of the word any you use, universal
or existential, I can at least convince you all that the sentence is so
ambiguous as to be unsolvable with pure English. Although I could have used
other factors in resolving the case, I opted to use "common sense" (an
""A worker CAN dispose of a shipment if a recipient cannot eat any apple
within"
I think this sentence means the same thing as my example sentence. If "a
recipient can eat any apple within the shipment", they can eat every single
apple because any is universal here, the apple is arbitrarily
9 matches
Mail list logo
