For me specifically, the setup and config oftentimes is what I’m doing with the computer, the learning and knowledge gained from the practice is what I’m after, which is good because it’s significantly less fun than it used to be.
Admittedly mine is probably a non-standard case and it ties in with other things in my life.
Condolences on your loss.
Depends on how you define ‘cost’ I suppose, but seems like the trade off isn’t worth it for you, which is fair.
Some might value the perceived benefits much higher than you do.
What if the life I’m imagining I’m protecting is one where I have the option of choosing a platform/application that isn’t scraping the absolute dregs of the barrel to squeeze out that last bit of profit margin.
That’s a win win right?
The way that sentence is structured implies otherwise, but that could be a misinterpretation on my part, I suppose.
Ah. OK. Thanks for clarifying
Also levels for fecal matter in most things that come from agriculture.
Milk is weird, I don’t disagree, but governmental regulations on levels of “safe contamination” isn’t a milk only thing.
I was genuinely asking because it wasn’t (and still isn’t) clear that that’s what they meant.
The dairy farm thing makes sense.
Other than cat milk, possibly? I’ve honestly no idea.
But " just eat/drink plants " will kill a cat right?
You mean cats? Are they not obligate carnivores?
I mean, yes? That’s a good summation.
The part where you get to call something “open source” by OSI standards (which I’m pretty sure is the accepted standard set) but only if you adhere to those standards.
Don’t want to adhere, no problem, but nobody who does accept that standard will agree with you if you try and assign that label to something that doesn’t adhere, because that’s how commonly accepted standards work, socially.
Want to make an “open source 2 : electric boogaloo” licence , still no problem.
Want to try and get the existing open source standards changed, still good, difficult, but doable.
Relevant to this discussion, trying to convince people that someone claiming something doesn’t adhere to the current, socially accepted open source standards, when anybody can go look those standards up and check, is the longest of shots.
To address the bible example, plenty of variations exist, with smaller or larger deviations from each other, and they each have their own set of believers, some are even compatible with each other.
Much like the “true” 1 open source licences and the other, “closely related, but not quite legit” 2 variations.
1 As defined by the existing, community accepted standards set forth by the OSI
2 Any other set of standards that isn’t compatible with 1
edit: clarified that last sentence, it was borderline unparseable
“It’s not libre / free as in freedom so it’s wrong”.
I think it’s more “It’s not libre / free as in freedom so it’s not open source, don’t pretend it is”.
The “wrong” part would be derived from claiming its something that it isn’t to gain some advantage. I’m this case community contributions.
There’s not a handwaving distinction between open source and not, there are pretty clear guidelines.
Damn, all but 2.
Nearly had me a bingo, oh well.
TL;DR;
Probably a troll, possibly just confused, either way uninteresting
See the end of the post for a reply bingo card.
Nope. The onus is not on me to prove that God exists as I’m not the one using God to substantiate claims. I hope this is not difficult to understand.
The difficult to understand part is where you are referencing things that didn’t happen.
Perhaps i’m misunderstanding though, so if you point out where i was using god as justification that should clear it up nicely.
No, you claimed that religion is, as social constructs go, somehow less real than all the other social constructs that are equally observable around us - do you need me to remind you?
Again, point at where this happened, if you keep referencing things without related references it’s going to seem like you are making things up.
At least here you provided a quote, though unrelated. it’s a step in the right direction.
Just in case you meant to use that quote, nothing in the “Just to pre-empt…” quote mentions relative "real"ness.
Atheists are always the first to purport themselves as (pardon the pun) God’s gift to “rational thinking”… yet their (supposed) “rational thinking” falls apart rather quickly under investigation.
No claim to more rationality than you, no claim to atheism either, citation please.
Not big on history, are you?
Vague and fallacious. especially given i was responding to this passage of yours :
Howzabout the Inquisition? Or Saudi Arabia’s “religious police?” Or the vast riches the Catholic Church has stolen over the centuries? I’d say no - they are pretty darn “physical.
You really are obsessed with God’s existence (or lack thereoff), aren’t you? I guess I had a hard time following because it’s not something I care about in any way whatsoever. It seems that this differentiates me from atheists, doesn’t it?
Again, no assertion of atheism on my part, feel free to quote the part where i did.
The only reference to the existence/non existence of a god is in relation to the original post i responded to , it’s not a point i added to the conversation.
But i suspect you know this.
This is my reply bingo card ( if you so choose to make one )
They could just be deeply confused about how a conversation generally works?
Nope. I’d declare said statement propandistic shite unless they can prove they are privy to what God does or does not allow.
Most communication is propaganda to some degree, you’ll need to be more specific in the particular viewpoint you have here if you want a useful response.
Prove that god exists and i’ll immediately get on to finding out what they do or do not allow.
Just so we’re clear, faith isn’t proof, in fact its definition is almost universally “belief, in the absence of proof”
Lots of people believing also doesn’t equal more factually correct, it just means more people believe.
What do you think churches, mosques and temples are? “Non-physical”? Howzabout the Inquisition? Or Saudi Arabia’s “religious police?” Or the vast riches the Catholic Church has stolen over the centuries? I’d say no - they are pretty darn “physical.”
Correct, you have accurately described physical objects, not a single one of which i have denied the existence of.
If you could point out which one of those is the physical manifestation of a being that “would or would not allow” something then we can get on to the conversation part.
Just in case there’s any confusion, i’m all aboard the " organised religion is mostly bullshit people doing horrific things on a large scale over even longer time frames" train.
Note the “organised”, it’s important.
Also the “religions are just socially acceptable cults” train.
It might seem like I’m on two trains but in reality it’s a venn diagram in the shape of a train and it’s basically a complete overlap.
See the above.
The above wasn’t addressing any of the points so I’m not sure how it relates to this one either, but feel free to let me know.
I’m not exactly sure what you are trying to say here. I don’t see how ascribing magical powers to religious people changes the fundamental idiocy of the quote you used.
I genuinely think you are misunderstanding what was being said here, intentionally or otherwise.
Just in case it’s unintentional, I’ll try again, but with more describing.
The vs statement was used as an illustration of the difference between the description of a tangible manifestation of a being vs the description of actions of a groups of people with “belief” in a being.
One of those things is a “being”/manifestation performing an action, the other is a group performing actions due to a shared belief or “construct”.
Also the first “quote i used” was from the original post, the second was a comparative example, neither of which i was stating as fact, purely as a demonstrative example.
So you’d be good with phrases such as “God would never allow any species to ever disappear or arise over time” to be considered factually incorrect, as god(s) is/are a social construct?
Just to pre-empt, yes, money and borders are also social constructs but they also have physical manifestations, national identities are similar but not quite the same and all, including classification systems, have agency/effects through people’s shared belief in them.
Shared belief in god can have effects, but those effects wouldn’t make statements about a singular manifestation having independent agency to do something a correct statement.
“God would never allow any species to ever disappear or arise over time”
vs
“Peoples belief in God would never allow any species to ever disappear or arise over time”
Are you suggesting that generation-specific vernacular is a sign of poor education?