Suppose a nihilist wants to trigger a nuclear holocaust that will destroy humanity. You try to reason with him. He insists that the human race is not worth preserving, that it should go the way of the dinosaurs, that the universe would be better off if the human race were to vanish. Is it not obvious that there is no way to confront him with scientific evidence that will refute his belief, or with any rational arguments he will find persuasive? In this sense the emotivists are clearly right.

— Martin Gardner, The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener

…more complex projects get derailed by personal conflict than by technical complexity…

— Will Larson and Tanya Reilly, Staff Engineer

It seems the more the philosophers and the demagogues cried ‘freedom’, the more the old casuistic bulwarks got flooded over and the more the human person was occulted by the shadow of the state.

— Anja Publications, Philosophy Now

Refactor frequently. Refactor mercilessly. And refactor without apology. Never, ever ask permission to refactor.

— Robert C. Martin, Clean Craftsmanship

Once Einstein said that the problem of Now worried him. He explained that the experience of the Now means something special for man, something essentially different from the past and the future, but that this difference does not and cannot occur within physics… There is something essential about the Now which lies just outside the realm of science

— P.A. Schilpp, The Philosophy of Rudolf Carnap