Bolt

Pretty confident in my solve. The only ones I didn't get myself were 20-down, 29-down (obvious in retrospect), and 21-across (inferred the word, but didn't know the tool).

        N I X O S
        O     P   K     C P
G T K   O     E M A C S   R
N   D E B I A N   L   C L I
O N E     T   S   I   R   N
M         H   U     M I N T
E D I T O R   S       P     H
  O       E L E M E N T A R Y
  N U C L E I     A   I     P
L G     S   N     G E N D E R
  L S       U     L   G     L
  E         X F C E         A
L S       P     E   L       N
S       Z O R I N O S     C D
          P     T

That seems weird, the opposite position makes more sense to me. You can't think of any possible economy where you could morally have two houses, and in this situation it's somehow necessary? Could you elaborate further, because it seems reasonably plausible that there could be an economy with significantly more houses than households, to the point of warranting multiple ownership. And of all the things to call second house ownership (convenient, luxurious, smart, excessive, warranted), necessary isn't the one that comes to mind.

It's not on the border. The specturm line is under each trait. Though it's absolutely ridiculous that they're connected instead of being bars.

Is that extra soft tofu? It usually has more protein than that. A pack of extra-soft I have is 8g / 100g, and some other varieties seem to be 10-15 from online sources.

That seems reasonable, given they presumably use the price for dried beans as well. When you care about price (and therefore about about a price/protein graph) you buy beans dried.

Probably somewhere around the legume cluster. They're really pulling their weight there, as expected, though peanuts are quite the dark horse.

It's not controversial to accept that all reasoning requires making some basic assumptions. You do understand that I'm just pointing out that a counter-argument exists and I don't actually take it to be damning. It is the same as in all fields; there are assumptions. We assume non-contradiction and an excluded middle. This is reasonable because we can't do much without the assumption. You can call it a properly basic belief. But that doesn't make it objectively true. A person who doesn't make these assumptions—if one exists—could be ridiculed, called less than nothing, even. Such a person could form no coherent views. So? I agree that all useful though must make these presupposition. But perceived utility does not a truth make.

Listing philosophers doesn't do much. I'll freely admit to not having read much of theirs, and I certainly won't consume their corpora for an internet discussion. However I would be delighted to learn the mistake I've made, because I'm certainly no expert philosopher. If you don't wish to continue, have a great day. If you do, I look forward to it.

Stating something doesn't make it true. Your proof presumably relies on the past causing the future.

Oh sure, you can believe things without a sound proof (especially since even those must rely on assumptions). I was mostly trying to demonstrate that there are sincere counter-arguments to even such an uncontroversial belief. Would love to see your rigorous proof if you think you have one though.

I would challenge you to. Saying literally anything about the future requires an assumption that it is affected by the past (ie. that previous events cause future ones).

I mean there is technically no sound way to prove causality (at least to my knowledge). It all goes back to "It's been that way before" which is fair enough, but not rigorous.

They're talking about the desktop application.