Correct that’s what we were talking about. I mean you’re so close but somehow you keep missing the context. Now where’s that rant?
1 Like
Yet you confidently said:
Not, “because that’s what algorithms do…”
Even though you couldn’t even identify what an algorithms does even when it is written in pseudocode.
Mostly because you don’t know how they work.
I get that you don’t like being told that you’re being confidently wrong, but you are.
Alright I make this easy on you. If someone said, “drinking water makes me less dehydrated” and I said, “yes that’s how water works”. Does that mean I know the scientific reasons behind water making your body less dehydrated? No, it means that I understand the simple logic that our body needs water to function.
I get that you like to lie and make stuff up to “own me” but you are failing terribly as usual.
1 Like
You would be wrong. But confident when you’re doing it.
If you said, “Yes, that’s what water does”, you would be correct.
“How water works” is more like saying that the covalent bonds between Hydrogen and Oxygen are strong enough to maintain a connection to make water stable.
You really are doubling down on your nonsense aren’t you.
Semantics.
1 Like
Well, yes, we’re arguing using words, words have meanings.
You are using loose meanings, because you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Words can have multiple meaning, especially in the English language. There’s a reason context is important.
No, I am using a meaning you don’t like. Everyone else understood, you just look for any excuse to troll.
1 Like
Yes, they can. But you wouldn’t be able to identify them anymore than you can an algorithm.
Not at all. You are using an incorrect meaning. It is incorrect whether I like the use of it or not.
It’s fun to watch you try and resort to insults when your trolling doesn’t work. You misuse words all the time.
Again semantics. You clearly don’t even know what that word means.
1 Like
No use arguing with them. A literal mind of a child. He insisted that I must have bought a boost because I talked about seeing the ads plastered all over YT. He doesn’t know how anything works, if that isn’t apparent after near 2 years of circular arguing with this potato.
Always with the projecting.
I don’t get them on my YouTube, yet I have been to the sites looking for evidence.
More lies smh you can’t stop lying.
Calling people names is against the rules.
1 Like
I clearly do, since I clearly identified the meaning above.
Then you wouldn’t keep going on with your nonsense. You can know something and not understand it.
1 Like
No, you can’t. You have to understand something in order to know it, definitionally.
Know:
To perceive or understand as fact or truth; to apprehend clearly and with certainty:
That is incorrect. You can know that an arm is broken yet not know how it’s broken. Inert knowledge is information that a person knows but doesn’t fully understand.
1 Like
No, it is correct…
know
verb (used with object)
- to perceive or understand as fact or truth; to apprehend clearly and with certainty
But here you are, moving goal posts again…
Adding ‘inert’ because you don’t actually know how an algorithm works.
Prime example. There is no goal post. You are using this phrase incorrect. I said someone can know something without understanding it. That is factually correct. It’s called inert knowledge.
If you’re going to turn everything into an argument at least do your homework.
1 Like
No, inert knowledge is not knowing something fully enough to use it.
In order to actually know it, you need to understand it.
Inert knowledge is information that can be expressed but not used to solve problems in real-world situations. It’s also known as “dead knowledge”.
I mean honestly Hirav… I don’t understand why you insist on making a fool of yourself.
1 Like
Because you don’t actually know it, you know parts of it, but not enough to use it.