For academic conferences in particular (I'm in philosophy, things may vary in other fields), I would add some (perhaps more cynical) advice.
For instance, it is true that the main goal of a presentation at a conference is to test and improve ideas before sending them to publication, by showing them to a specialized audience. But, congresses are also (very importantly) about networking and PR, and making yourself known in the field. A conference brings together specialists in a subject, who will be future editors, reviewers, and professional contacts in general.
I tell my students things like:
- Whenever you can, ask (pertinent) questions. This is important beyond helping the speaker, it is also a way of advancing your own career.
- Think about possible questions while listening to the presentation instead of waiting until the talk is over to start thinking about what to ask.
- If possible, raise your hand as soon as the q&a session begins. At some conference sessions there is little time for questions, and some members of the audience who want to may not get to ask.
- Even when that is not the case, you can help avoid a moment of silence right after the talk has ended, which (as a speaker) can be uncomfortable. The worst outcome for a speaker is for nobody to engage.
- It is useful for the speaker to hear many different questions and points of view. Do not give parallel presentations in the questions. Questions should be concise and to the point. Formulating your question should not take more than a minute.
Not really logic programming, but a while ago I made this, also in Python:
https://github.com/ariroffe/logics (mainly for educational purposes).
Parts of the implementation kind of reminded me of it.
His vicepresident has strong ties to the military (specifically to the sectors that made the last coup in the 70s). He has publicly opposed abortion rights, same-sex marriage, feminism in general, publicly denies climate change, is against gun control, and a large etc...
He is not only economically but also socially on the far right of the polítical spectrum here.
This is all I can find about his views on same-sex marriage. It seems to contradict what you're saying. He says he doesn't care.
“Si vos querés estar con un elefante... Si tenés el consentimiento del elefante, es tu problema y del elefante. No me opongo a que dos personas del mismo sexo se casen”, remarcó. Y sumó: “Para mí, el matrimonio es un contrato. Puede ser de dos partes, tres partes o 50 si uno quiere”.
My translation:
"If you want to be with an elephant... If you have the elephant's consent, it's your problem and the elephant's. I'm not opposed to two people of the same sex marrying," he remarked. And, he added, "For me, marriage is a contract. It can be between two parties, three parties, or fifty if one wants."
Edit: Another quote from the article:
“Es un contrato entre partes. ¿Qué tengo que opinar yo? Vos casate con quien quieras. El liberalismo es el respeto irrestricto del proyecto de vida del prójimo basado en el principio de no agresión y en defensa del derecho a la vida, la libertad y la propiedad. ¿En qué me agrede a mi que dos personas del mismo sexo se casen? En nada, punto uno afuera. ¿Afecta la vida de alguien? A nadie. ¿En la libertad? A nadie ¿En la propiedad? a nadie”.
It's a contract between parties. What do I think? Marry whoever you want. Liberalism is unconditional respect of the life plan of our fellow man based on the principle of non-aggression and in defense of the right to life, liberty, and property. What harm does it do to me that two people of the same sex marry? Nothing. Does it affect someone's life? No one's. Their libery? No one's. Their property? No one's.
Yeah, he seems really blunt, crass, and insensitive.
His vice says she's against calling it marriage, which does seem homophobic, but she says she's not bothered by the rights afforded by civil unions. This isn't the worst thing; she's not going campaigning against the right of gays to have their marriages/civil unions recognized by the government, at least.
Civil union is a legal figure (approved in 2002) that grants less rights than marriage. Same sex marriage was legalised in 2010. What she is proposing is taking a step backwards in terms of rights.
One doesn't have to personally like or agree with the choices of others. Being libertarian is about respecting another person's personal choices despite not liking them.
No. What you say is a caricature of him. I listened to him directly. In spanish. I am spanish.
He never opposed to same sex marriage or denied climate change. What he said is that people treat climate change as religion without any other considerations.
A libertarian is not far right. You could consider it right, but far right is just absurd. A libertarian cannot be anti-liberal in essence. Milei never defended positions of force against others and promotes respect for life, private life (he does not care who you go to the bed with or who you trade with) and private property.
Anyone who knows ehat far right is knows perfectly this is not a far right position at all.
I hope you are right, but it's a bit silly to try to claim that there's a caricature and there's a perfectly cromulent man behind it, when his whole political persona is the former.
He does not like leftists ideas (most, not absolutely all) and he is not politically correct all the time when speaking and I donot mean he is right about doing this. Just oart of his personality. Can be harmful for him, yes, but that's him.
If you listened carefully what he defends and under which principles and framework, you will quikcly understand he is a libertarian. That is not "far right". It is something entirely different.
Almost everything he said that looks bad when heard isolated is usually manipulated by lack of context to poject a different idea of what he is saying or defending.
Not sure if translatiins for full interviews of what he says exist. But just listen to the interview with Tucker Carlson, that one is translated and can give you an idea of what he defends that is quite accurate.
hard to listen carefully when someone is shouting at you and lunging with a chainsaw :)
I'm not saying he is the next Pol Pot, but I'm trying to point out there's not much sense in pontificating over what a populist candidate thinks/plans.
Trump was a registered Democrat until he wasn't, etc.
He has little to do with Trump except for being more or less anti-left (not in a totally orthodox way though)
I would recommend you to see the interview with Tucker Carlson for a less distorted view of his thinking and proposals.
He has nothing to do with far right. He is a libertarian, an anti-statist (the opposite of an antiliberal, no matter left or right wing in this case, hence, labelling hime as "far right" is just absurd).
If you want to keep his caricature in your mind I am ok with it. But I have been following him for years. And I do not need english translation or middle-man interpretations at all. I saw it myself.
Yes, sometimes he used to raise his voice (lately less). But compared to promoting policies where inflation reaches 150% or smashing people with taxes, Milei is a much better alternative.
BTW, technically speaking, as an economist, he has a very solid background and has worked for many years in the private sector. For me, those are good things, not bad.
I understand some people do not like Milei, but that nonsense about zoophilia, far right or similar things just look for insulting him so that people make a caricature out of him.
I find him a solid candidate. Let us see when he starts governing. Only time will tell.
He goes on a populist far-right propagandist's show but somehow that will lead to a less distorted view?
Look, I have nothing against Milei (because I haven't even set foot on that side of the Atlantic), nor against libertarianism (I agree we should strive to approximate it), or crypto, or being irreverent (which might be a moot point in Argentina and nowadays).
I really hope he can stay true to the ideas we think he has, but I have serious doubts after seeing this rhetoric again and again all over the world and taking into account how bad the situation is in Argentina (and all over the world).
I know nothing about allegations of zoophilia, and of course any such extreme allegation without similarly hefty evidence are just ridiculous. I think he deserves a fair chance, despite his abrasiveness and methods, but that doesn't absolve him of these.
Saying you won’t watch an interview because you dislike the host, when the subject is about the interviewee, shows a strong tendency to police thought and ignore anything that contradicts your prior beliefs.
I do try to police my attention ... you know, in this economy, who has spare of that!
If I can I try to not watch content from propagandists, populists, self-professed leftists/socialists/Marxists/anti-capitalists/eat-the-rich-ists/etc. it just doesn't make much sense.
No, he does not. Listen to the interview with Tucker Carlson. It is there. It is well exposed. He does not shout in that interview.
With all his defects and given the argentinian situation, I honestly think he was the right choice. I say this from a confidence point of view. We have to see what he really ends up doing and only time will tell. At that time we will know.
I am a supporter of Bukele as well. He is not supposed to be anywhere near the right. But... he had good results so far. That is what I wish to countries: peace, progress, results.
First off, let's preface this by going over the etymology of the words "liberal" and "libertarian". Both words stem from the word liberty, which means freedom, and within the context of politics the freedom of not being burdened by authoritarian regimes and policies.
So with that out of the way, let's break down your references one by one:
>His vicepresident has strong ties to the military
This has nothing to do with liberty or even politics, this is about power. Both the left and the right want the military on their side, lest they suffer a military coup and lose power.
>opposed abortion rights
On the opposing hand it's the freedom for a newborn fetus to a prospective life, and on the supporting hand it's the freedom for a mother to do with her body as she pleases. Either way, abortion rights is a question of who's freedoms are being guaranteed and thus liberal/libertarian in nature.
>[opposed] same-sex marriage
This is squarely authoritarian and is in opposition to liberal and libertarian politics.
EDIT: It would appear this claim was made in ignorance or bad faith, so I'm striking this part out.
>[opposed] feminism in general
Assuming that "feminism" here actually refers to the phenomenon and movement of certain people wanting women to be more equal (read: more powerful) than men, this is guaranteeing the freedoms of the individual regardless of their gender and thus their equality.
>publicly denies climate change
Imposing policies based off nebulous scientific models of questionable accuracy and encouraged by pundits of questionable motivations is authoritarian.
>is against gun control
Guaranteeing the people's freedom and right to bear arms by opposing top-down regulations and policies is squarely liberal and libertarian.
>and a large government
See above.
>He is not only economically but also socially on the far right of the polítical spectrum here.
Seeing as Milei is in favor of liberal and libertarian policies, and seeing as the left likes calling themselves liberals, Milei is quite correct in saying that he's only considered "(far) right" by virtue of the left labeling everything they disagree with "(far) right".
Just to add something to this discussion - South America is fundamentally different from the US. The region has a long and terrible history of gang violence, political and military coups, drug cartels, etc and so forth.
The last thing it needs is more guns in circulation.
PhD Philosophy researcher & software developer from Argentina, with a strong background in mathematical logic. Looking to transition from academia into a fullstack web dev role, in search of new challenges. I am mostly self-taught in the programming world, so you may consider me a junior developer, but I can research and learn new technologies quickly.
PhD Philosophy researcher & software developer from Argentina, with a strong background in mathematical logic.
Looking to transition from academia into a fullstack web dev role, in search of new challenges.
I am mostly self-taught in the programming world, so you may consider me a Jr developer, but I can research and learn new
technologies quickly.
It's available here: https://congressin.com/
6-min demo video: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6Hr7my0QR5c