computer-puking.gif

there’s no way to monetize lemmy, right?

just making sure i’m on the right liferaft…

Boost for android

wait… TARS was an in camera model? what?!

Sometime later (and deeper): “hmm… seems very uneven… going to have to use a self leveling magma…”

Indeed. Which makes it an even bigger problem that there are hardly enough moderate politicians saying “here’s what we hear you saying about migration and he’s what we will actually do to rectify that”

I didn’t mention the censorship because he is wrong about that

I also don’t agree with his quote about “no need for barriers”. I wasn’t aware he had said that.

He is referring to the poor handling of migration in Europe, which is true. And the general ignoring of popular outrage at how migration is managed.

That he is a fascist dickhead is indicative of the problem. Many many people who are not racist think migration is handled terribly in Europe and the problem is moderate politicians are hopelessly slow to engage with this and as a result the only people talking about it are fascist nutbags…

The problem with democracy is sometimes the majority legally vote for the checks and balances to be weakened…

Pray, I guess?

mishandling migration, and ignoring populist concerns.

I think Vance is a tool, but can someone explain how these two points aren’t objectively true?

Oh it won’t end

We’re not just post-truth, we’re post-information if it doesn’t even matter if a particular thing is made up or not…

“retention bots” of some description wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest…

endless wars of who’s federeated with who

i’ve been here for months and months, i might have seen this mentioned as an aside once or twice. but “endless wars”?

It’s a bit like why drilling into a wall might make the lights go out if you hit a cable. Your brain only registers “feeling” in any part of your body because a nerve carried that information to it. The nerves from your lower arm and hand pass your elbow. Hitting the nerve directly causes signals in it which you brain interprets as pain in your fingers. Presumably the nerves for the pinky side of your hand are slightly more exposed.

It would be ok.

“Internet Cafe” mid 90s. Clicked down through yahoo’s directory not really knowing what I was looking for. Found the canonical list of lightbulb jokes. Funny but overall I was quite underwhelmed. Got a print magazine that listed and reviewed websites.

Simply put, because you often want to change the state of something without breaking all the references to it.

Wild off the top of my head example: you’re simulating a football game. Everything is represented by objects which hold references to other objects that are relevant. The ball object is held by player object W, player object X is in collision with and holds a reference to player object Y, player Z is forming a plan to pass to player object X (and that plan object holds a reference to player object X) and so on.

You want to be able to change the state of the ball object (its position say) without creating a new object, because that would invalidate how every other existing object relates to the ball.

Evolutionarily speaking, threats from outside are an existential threat and need spreading. Good deeds at home are already known by everyone who matters and the ‘reward’ is survival of your children, not you ‘feeling good’. People do ‘hero worship’ though. I think you are downplaying that. Though the influence that comes from such a position probably means people are inclined to cooperate with ‘power’ because it has, de facto, already shown itself to be powerful. Whereas those ‘asking’ for power are necessarily weak.

This is all pop-sci evolutionary psychology so discard at will…

but look at his appeal to widows and the unmarried in Corinthians

you are missing that barely a verse earlier he attributes people’s different ability in this regard to the grace of God…

“I wish that all men were as I am [single and celebate]. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.” - 1 Cor 7:7

he recognises people are given different abilities by God. this is not “failure”. Yes, if God has decided that you aren’t for the single celebate life it is better to get married than burn with desire. As Paul makes clear “But if you do marry, you have not sinned” (1 Cor 7:28)

I understand your hypothesis, but Paul neither says what you want him to say (that sex itself is shameful), nor does it stand up as an explanation when it comes to other things Paul says…

to follow on from your verse above…

“If a brother has an unbelieving wife and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. 13And if a woman has an unbelieving husband and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. 14For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his believing wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy.” - 1 Cor 7:12

This is a far cry from the “original sin” and polluting effect of sex espoused by the later catholic church. it’s the exact opposite. a christian women might be having sex with a heathen husband. but far from this polluting her in any way, it does the opposite - she sanctifies (makes holy) her unbelieving husband! and similiarly, children of such a marriage are not polluted by this act of sex with a non-christian. rather “they are made holy” (v14).

these are not the words of a man who thinks sex is a dirty and pernicious problem.

later on this same passage, Paul makes it clear that his preference for people to not be married is due to the persecution the church is experiencing:

"26Because of the present crisis, I think it is good for a man to remain as he is. 27Are you committed to a wife? Do not seek to be released. Are you free of commitment? Do not look for a wife. 28But if you do marry, you have not sinned. And if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. But those who marry will face troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this. " - 1 Cor 7:26-28

Paul is not acting like someone who finds sex itself shameful. He is acting like someone who has seen the additional suffering caused by persecution to married people (and by natural consequence, people with children). He is echoing Jesus’ words on the matter: “How dreadful it will be in those days [the end times] for pregnant women and nursing mothers!” (Matthew 24:19)

In this time (the late 50s AD), Nero has taken over from Claudius and had begun his severe persecution of Christians (Tertullian quoted by Eusebius). This was on top of a famine seen during the time of Claudius (Acts 11:27-29), which you can read in Joesphus caused some families to be in such a desperate state that they resorted to canabalism of children.

This, together with the expectation that Christ would return soon (“Brothers, time is short… this world in its present form is passing away” - 1 Cor 7:29-31), meant that being single and free to spread the gospel was a priority.

But I’ll say again - Paul never calls sex in a monogamous marriage “shameful”. In fact he goes to the extraordinary lengths of saying a wife has the right(!) to demand sex from her husband (1 Cor 7:4b).

Any hypothesis of Paul’s internal thoughts has to accomodate this behaviour and being a “sex repulsed asexual” does not cut it. He was a self confessed “zealous Jew” (Gal 1:14) when it came to Torah defined sin (male homosexual acts, orgies, cultic practices, adultery), but as for lawful marriage, he acknowledges it is what some are called to by God and within which women ought to have conjugal rights.

Could it be “if it stops me getting at stuff, copyright bad. If it stops the rich getting richer, copyright good”?