Hemingways_Shotgun to ShowerthoughtsEnglish • edit-21 month agoWe tend to describe the pupil as though it's its own actual separate part of the eye. It's almost strange to think about the fact that in reality it's just a hole in the Iris and not a "thing" at all.message-square32fedilinkarrow-up1131arrow-down16file-text
arrow-up1125arrow-down1message-squareWe tend to describe the pupil as though it's its own actual separate part of the eye. It's almost strange to think about the fact that in reality it's just a hole in the Iris and not a "thing" at all.Hemingways_Shotgun to ShowerthoughtsEnglish • edit-21 month agomessage-square32fedilinkfile-text
For example, why do we say “Your pupils are dilated”. They aren’t. It’s the iris aperture that is dilated.
minus-squareKalciferlinkfedilink4•1 month agoCould it not be said that “nothing” is actually a thing? 🤔
minus-square@Agent641link6•edit-21 month ago Me, trying to persuade my philosophy prof that by not turning in my assignment, I have actually turned in an assignment.
minus-squareJackGreenEarthlinkfedilinkEnglish1•1 month agoIn programming, for sure. But that’s just the semantics of the language you’re using.
minus-squarefunkajunklinkfedilinkEnglish2•26 days agoWhat about this: Unicorns actually existed but went extinct, that would be a population count of 0. If they never existed and are purely fictional (preposterous!), one could argue their count was null.
Could it not be said that “nothing” is actually a thing? 🤔
Null and zero are two different things.
In programming, for sure. But that’s just the semantics of the language you’re using.
What about this: