I study math at uni and I was shocked realizing all my teachers use ubuntu on both their laptop and work desktop

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      215 days ago

      Probably because Windows is best suited for games and cookie-cutter corporate applications while basically every supercomputer, cluster, etc. runs Linux. Professors aren’t usually running games or cookie-cutter business software so why not? If your one-off, experimental research code is going to ultimately be run on a more powerful system running Linux, why write it on Windows and waste time debugging once you try to run it for real?

        • @VintageGeniousOP
          link
          74 days ago

          Because usually very few people use Linux, especially in public sector. And here it was all of my teachers, not just one

        • JJLinux
          link
          fedilink
          105 days ago

          When I look at my gut, I ask myself the same question 😭

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            3
            edit-2
            5 days ago

            Well Liebniz said it’s because of a necessary being bearing the reason for its existence within itself, if that helps.

            • JackGreenEarth
              link
              fedilink
              English
              14 days ago

              No, because it’s circular logic. There’s no reason for a necessary being to exist before it does, and no evidence that one does in the real world.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                1
                edit-2
                4 days ago

                No, because it’s circular logic.

                It is, and that’s inherent in the problem under consideration, the problem of the ‘uncaused caused’ or the ‘first mover’. Logic can either be A) circular or B) not-circular. Any not-circular logic must explain each element by referring to a prior, but then you’ve got an infinite regress. So you’re trapped in a dilemma: do you want the circular logic or the infinite regress? Liebniz’s choice was to say that God was inherently existent, like when Lao Tzu said 道法 自然

                There’s no reason for a necessary being to exist before it does

                Correct. It is necessary: it is self-causing. It does not stand upon a ‘reason’, unlike everything else in conditioned existence.

                to exist before it does

                You’re assuming it is subject to the laws of linear time and causation, and point out how that assumption leads to a contradiction. But Liebniz’s God is not subject to the laws of linear time and causation. Which is the whole point of positing it: because if it were subject to those laws: infinite regress.

                and no evidence that one does in the real world.

                Well the world exists, so all this existence must have some cause. That was the starting point of the conversation: Why is there something instead of nothing?

      • lemmyvore
        link
        fedilink
        English
        14 days ago

        Bold of you to assume Ubuntu was a recent version.