Re: Morally equivalent

[Christopher Dimech <dimech@gmx.com>]

> Sent: Monday, October 17, 2022 at 7:27 AM
> From: "Bob Newell" <bobnewell@bobnewell.net>
> To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Morally equivalent
>
> 
> > What is a 'moral equivalence' in Emacs Lisp?
> 
> I have actually seen this expression used in a similar manner
> in what is supposed to be a serious mathematical textbook.
> Grimmett & Welsh, in "Probability, An Introduction" state
> 
> "A slightly different but morally equivalent definition of a
> discrete random variable is a function X : Omega -> R such
> that there exists a countable subset S ⊆ R with P(X ∈ S) = 1."
 
It is just political nonsense pushed into software.  An introductory
textbook for beginning undergraduates is never serious.  And even
if it was serious, morality does not work.  Either it is equivalent,
or it is not.  There is no morality in it.

It is hypocritical to scold users on how they annoy maintainers with
their bug reports, whilst no being bothered by the confusion and
waste of time caused by authors themselves when writing nonsense in
the documentation.  If it was only about humor that is comprehensible
as such, that would have been fine.