definitely agree, STT is very philsophical because it is based on the two hallmarks: sound reasoning and sound ethics. The reasoning here is that stock posts need to be well supported, and one must remain gracious in posting.
One does not need to be professionally trained in the subject to achieve these, in fact, as a side-note, most professional philosophers I have met very often fail in at least one of the above. As such, the STT is a better training ground than many campuses I've visted.
Which leads me to the link that LG made, Demystifying Hashgraph, which is surely meant for those trained in computers. I found the philosophical underpinnings quite oustanding. Firstly, there is the obvious logic that comes with computers, and this leads to its elloquent expression when being discussed, but in this case, there was some clear philosopical concepts, such as,
'For deterministic protocols, all honest nodes reach consensus by round r for some a priori known constant r.'
Without my formal training I would have no idea what it meant, even if I am still lacking a fuller comprehension due to my limited computer knowledge. But I can say after reading plenty of metaphysics, that this essay is well grounded in presuppositions relevant to its subject, and therefore very philosphical in its style.
As for LG's game in Trust, I failed to pick the winning side.
Just goes to show that there is probably more to Hobbes than I was ever prepared to believe......
a liberal interpretation of law that leaves people free to do whatever the law does not explicitly forbid.[6] His understanding of humans as being matter and motion, obeying the same physical laws as other matter and motion, remains influential; and his account of human nature as self-interested cooperation, and of political communities as being based upon a "social contract" remains one of the major topics of political philosophy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Hobbes
(20min delay)