[mjburgess]

The idiot there is Babbage -- the politician, more well trained in general thinking, clearly observed that thinking-things can correct mistakes against a background of common understanding.

eg., "Q. Who is the king of france?", "A. France has no king, did you mean who was the last king of france?"

[Y_Y]

But that's an input too (cf. contingent vs. necessary truth). If the Analytical Engine were controlled by an Orléaniste it would surely declare the balding[0] Count of Paris, Jean Carl Pierre Marie d'Orléans, to be king[1].

[0] https://files.osf.io/v1/resources/p4wqa/providers/osfstorage... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Succession_to_the_former_Frenc...

[sgarland]

Calling Charles Babbage an idiot has to be peak HN.

[mjburgess]

Clearly raised to a higher peak by taking one of the words of a statement most easy to misread for the sake of outrage, and highlighting it, whilst ignoring the substance of the comment.

Babbage was insulting politicians who had, in the instance of his insult, a better grasp on the nature of intelligence than he had. It is a foolish quote to repeat, and reeks of the same smug obliviousness in which it was said.

If Babbage was fit to be so smug, he is fit to be called an idiot when having been so foolishly.

"Peak HN" is presumably when you can cite an oblivious smarter-than-thou Engineer at his most inastute, but not call one an idiot.

[wzdd]

> If Babbage was fit to be so smug, he is fit to be called an idiot

Please become familiar with the British sense of humor and the context of the writing before taking it at face value. If that is too much work, at least be prepared to give the writer the benefit of the doubt. Babbage was writing for a specific audience and with a specific intent, and I would suggest that you are probably misunderstanding him if you are inferring smugness from an isolated quote.