it actually does make sense to suggest that rob ford would be spinning in his grave, if not for gravity.

see, what you don't understand is that the fords are big-boned.

if you could get rick moranis and robb wells out on the street together doing a bob/rick gag, it would necessarily be priceless. guaranteed 10 million hits.

at some point, the show will need to include a cameo by robert (bob) wells, who is fucking pissed that everybody calls him rick.

c'mon, rick. there's a song for that too.

but c'mon, rick.

this is what i want you to do. call larry david. the two of you are going to work on a series - and this will be the last thing you do, before you officially retire - where you, rick moranis, are fucking pissed off at the world for calling you bob. you will play yourself. you get to be a grumpy older man, and the gag is that you're sick and fucking tired of everybody calling you bob, and you're going to make sure everybody knows it. you get to just yell and scream at everybody and be old, and the underlying joke will go on for ever. it's a gag that has no end, that keeps giving. rick moranis being angry for being called bob is a joke that will never end, never wear out, never not be funny.

honey, i shrunk grandpa!

no?

why not?

unfortunately, it seems as though bruce willis has completely forgotten that he was supposed to die hard.

the way this works is that the synapse that remembers he's supposed to die hard is trapped in an area of his brain that is slowly collapsing, and a flood of dangerous proteins is slowly filling up the lobe, threatening to dissolve the synapse. the synapse has 24 hours to block the proteins, and regenerate elsewhere. the synapse will be aided by a young rick moranis, who for some reason is a micrometre tall, and is screaming at everybody to stop fucking calling him bob.

there's two ways to do this; you can do this using set theory (which is what chomsky did, and has precursors in some of the more absurd philosophers that chomsky would go on to criticize, like badiou), or by using functions, which is more modern and minimizes the use of the cumbersome and maybe problematic (see axiom of choice) components in set theory. so i didn't exactly study chomsky directly in computer science class, but the conversion of his theory of grammar into a modern framework, using mappings and functions. mathematicians nowadays would generally prefer the language of functions over the theory of sets.

i did, however, a take a math course in automata theory at the graduate level that was built almost directly on chomsky's work, which was different than the computer science courses that used chomsky's hierarchy as a foundational part of the theory of computation.

yes, you will study noam chomsky if you take high, or even mid, level courses in computer science or computer mathematics. his work in the theory of languages (which he assigns to galileo, and which i have criticized him for doing, as i think that's wrong) is foundational in computer science. he will be remembered as one of the most important computer scientists and computer mathematicians of the 20th century, amongst other things.

i remember the first time a professor wrote the chomsky hierarchy on the board and i burst out laughing. i thought to myself that that can't be what he wants to be remembered for.

it will be a great irony of history if we forget everything else, and remember chomsky only as the blurry figure from the distant past that gave us the chomsky hierarchy.

i have actually taken graduate level courses in artificial intelligence.

it's not what you think it is. it's really actually the same thing as a google search. every time you searched google over the last 30 years, you were using a system that is functionally identical to what we call "artificial intelligence".

the physics of cognition is immensely data and computation intensive, so much so that the idea of using a computer to emulate even the intelligence of a bird or small mammal is beyond the limits of current technology, and beyond the limits of what we can project as future technology. all we can actually do is automate the process of searching a database, which does not remotely emulate cognition, let alone intelligence.

i have previously called for industry to refrain from using the term "artificial intelligence" to describe advanced and automated search algorithms. they should call it what it is, not what it isn't. as it is, artificial intelligence is just a marketing term.

this remains the best short analysis of ai for a general audience that i'm aware of:

i can tell you that rob would be spinning in his grave, if it weren't for gravity preventing it.

how would you imagine that boycotting or banning crown in ontario would affect their sales, and their bottling facilities, in ontario?

there's starving drunks in africa that could have used that crown royal.

https://globalnews.ca/news/11391490/ontario-lcbo-crown-royal/