Re: [gentoo-user] from Firefox52: NO pure ALSA?, WAS: Firefox 49.0 & Youtube... Audio: No

[lee]

Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@×××××.com> writes:

> On 24/12/2016 03:52, lee wrote:
>> Neil Bothwick <neil@××××××××××.uk> writes:
>>
>>> On Thu, 22 Dec 2016 04:15:50 +0100, lee wrote:
>>>
>>>>> There are no config files to edit with the predictable names, the
>>>>> names are created from the physical location of the port.  That's why
>>>>> they are called predictable,
>>>>
>>>> I only know what the names are when I can look them up when the computer
>>>> is running.  I don't call that "predictable".
>>>
>>> If they are constructed according to specific rules, they are
>>> predictable, by definition.
>>
>> You're overlooking that you need to know exactly, in advance, what the
>> rules are applied to, and all the rules, for having a chance that your
>> prediction turns out to be correct.  Provided you know all that, you can
>> predict the universe, assuming that everything always goes according to
>> rules.  You can not prove that it does and only disprove that it does
>> when you find a case in which it doesn't.  So what's your definition and
>> your predictions worth?
>
> You keep mis-defining what "predictable" means in this context. It does
> not mean, in the style of Newton, that you will always know everything
> about it. Neither is it the same meaning as prediction in the context of
> a scientific theory.
>
> "prediction" here simply means that the interface name is guaranteed to
> be the same as it was on last boot, and the somewhat random nature of
> kernael names (ethX, wlanX) is not in play.
>
> It does NOT mean that you are guaranteed to know exactly what an
> interface will be called before you boot it for the first time.
>
> Rename "predictable names" to "already known names" if it makes you feel
> better. There's nothing wrong with this definition of predictable, as it
> satisfies it's own rules and is consistent within itself. It is not
> complete though but we already know that from Godel.
>
> As long as you keep trying to apply the wrong meaning of predictable to
> this situation, you will keep typing mails like this one I'm replying to
> where you argue about something that is not even there. You also can't
> realistically argue about what "predictable" means because like almost
> all human concepts it is not a singularity, rather it is a spectrum
> where it means what the author says it means.
>
> And the quote for that meaning has already been posted in this thread
> somewhere.

Seriously?

Predicting something means to tell something in advance.  You are trying
to defend a wrong usage of language here.