undefined | Better HN

Skip to content

Top Best Ask Show New Jobs

0 pointsjodrellblank6y ago0 comments

This is a "who shaved the barber?" puzzle; that situation should be forbidden by the content of the tweet - they're not allowed to tweet again until after they've given notice.

0 comments

4 comments · 2 top-level

afiori6y ago· 2 in thread

your noticing the notice and them resuming tweets are asynchronous. If we want to bring some logic inferences the only thing we can say is that their next tweet must say something about restarting to tweet.

Actually no, the only thing we could hold them up to is that before any tweet on the usual topics there should be a notice that normal tweets have begun again. It would be perfectly reasonable to now defend their position without a prior notice that they are going to also defend their position.

jodrellblankOP6y ago

I’m assuming the notice exists independently of whether I see it or not. If the notice is a tweet then submitting the tweet happens before anyone could read it and the account has resumed tweeting before giving notice.

If the position is “we won’t tweet again until we do” then this is a meaningless announcement because that’s the default position of every twitter account.

afiori6y ago

The reason you are deriving a meaningless statement is because “we won’t tweet again until we do” is a terrible synopsis of that tweet. How about "we suspend how usual operation until further notice"?

If tomorrow morning they were to comment a justification of their choice that would still be outiside of the normal rust-related news the account concern itself and thus allowed.

Treating languages as naive logic statements is doing a disservice to both language and logic.

kgin6y ago

I guess they could have said "This account will pause tweeting until we start tweeting again" but that's a funny turn of phrase.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse