It’s nature’s Beast of ARRGH

I’ve seen a 3DS in the Technical Museum in Vienna.

There’s no proof for or against God, just by the simple fact that God could just not care and not get involved, and such a God would be neither provable or disprovable.

The only position that can be logically drawn from that is the agnostic one: “I don’t know whether God exists or not, and I don’t care. It doesn’t affect me.”.

Atheists on the other hand are in a position that doesn’t logically follow from the evidence. They believe that there is no God. It is a belief, because it cannot be logically derived from the evidence. And there are lots of Atheists who live their atheism like a religion. They study their literature to build a belief system, to find evidence, to disprove others. They meet up (online or physically) to talk about their non-belief and to hone their arguments. They strongly defend their position in discussions. I’ve even met Atheist missionaries who stand on street corners preaching that God doesn’t exist.

To respond to your quote: Not playing tennis would be agnosticism. Atheists are running around the field, following the players and shouting in their ears that tennis sucks. They are playing, just a different sport.

“Don’t have a religion” includes

• Atheists
• Agnostics
• Spiritual but not religious people
• Religious but unaffiliated people

Saying “don’t have a religion” equals atheist is like claiming that everyone who didn’t vote for Trump or Harris is an anarchist.

Try adding up ethnic groups. If you count Jewish as a separate ethnicity, you get an estimated total of 225% and even without Jews it’s still 195%.

The voting in 2020 thing was probably not a guess or estimation, but a remembered factoid from reporting around the last election.

I’d like to know how large their sample size was. I mean, this was yougov, so I expect at least some level of credibility to this, but depending on how large the same size is and how biased your selection is, you can get some really weird numbers.

E.g. do the same study with some old KKK members or with a school class in a black, impoverished neighbourhood or with a group of CEOs and you will get very different results.

Maybe they think all the trans people are in some other part of the country like New York or California, or maybe they think that trans people are so indistinguishable from cis people that anyone they meet could be secretly trans?

That could explain the paranoia that some people have about trans people. And also why people e.g. think that Daniel Radcliffe’s wife is trans because she’s taller than him (even though they have a child together, but then again, maybe these people think that transwomen can get pregnant.).

Read the linked source.

the religiously unaffiliated share of the population, consisting of people who describe their religious identity as atheist, agnostic or ‘nothing in particular,’

Many of the unaffiliated retain religious beliefs or practices without affiliating.

One fifth of the US public and a third of adults under the age of 30 are reportedly unaffiliated with any religion, however they identify as being spiritual in some way. Of these religiously unaffiliated Americans, 37% classify themselves as spiritual but not religious.

Affiliation is about which community you are affiliated with. It’s not about beliefs at all, actually. Affiliated means “I would call myself an X”, and if you are not affiliated with a certain group, you are not affiliated, no matter if you are atheist, agnostic, spiritual but not religious or even religious but not strong enough to actually affiliate with one group.

Remember, atheism is a belief in itself, contrary to agnosticism. Atheism is the conviction that no God exists, even though there’s no proof for an absence of a God. Agnosticism on the other hand is acknowledging that there is no proof that God does or doesn’t exist, so they just don’t care about it.

Atheism is in many ways similar to a religion. There are communities formed around the shared belief that God doesn’t exist, they preach that God doesn’t exist, they study their literature to find proof that God doesn’t exist. They defend their faith that God doesn’t exist, like any religious person would defend theirs. There are even atheist missionaries who stand on street corners preaching that God doesn’t exist.

To be an Atheist is to believe so strongly that God doesn’t exist that it becomes something like a religion in itself, and that’s rather rare.

Agnosticism on the other hand is really wide-spread, even within religiously affiliated people. There are tons of religiously affiliated people who are socially religiously affiliated but are actually agnostic (“All my friends and family are X. I don’t really care whether God exists or not, I don’t really believe in the spiritual teachings of my faith, but I’m not that much at odds with it that I can’t live as an X, and denouncing the faith would lead to repercussions, so I’ll just formally keep being X, because it’s less hassle.”).

Nice!

He shows everyone his hand, but in his hand he holds a royal flush, 5 black lotus, a Mega Mewtwo, and half a trillion dollars.

The problem is that the cards are stacked so much in his favour that he doesn’t have to hide his hand. We see him allright. But what good does this do? Can we un-elect him? Can we impeach him? What can we do? Pretty much nothing.

The only people that will remain loyal to Mush are centrists/ politically disinterested people.

What do you define as a centrist in that context? From an European viewpoint, most democrats are right-wing politicians, some of them even far right. Bernie Sanders is the only one that comes to mind that could be seen as center-left.

And politically disinterested people don’t sound like a relevant political force…

They have to be careful about it too, since they have propped him up and Trump is a megalomaniac who actually thinks he deserves to be where his and his base are rabidly, stupidly obedient to him.

They created a quite sizeable cult of personality around Trump. Getting rid of him will at least hurt during the next election. That is, if there is an election and the magats have the mental capacity to remember what happened a year ago from then.

If JS is chaotic neutral, what then is chaotic evil?

All I’m saying is

"10" + 1 => "101"
"10" - 1 => 9
"a" - "b" => NaN

I recently joined a team that had no backender for a year and the frontenders maintained the backend. In this case the image totally applies.

I once had a company give me an assignment that sounded very much like what you are describing. They said I should allocate 10h at once to implement a real-life task that they had and that their developers “already solved”.

At that point I only wrote a handful messages with their recruiter and hadn’t even spoken to a human there. I didn’t even know anything about the team, my potential boss or the project at that time.

I didn’t even answer back, just ghosted them. I’m not going to spend multiple hundreds of Euros of my time just for some assignent to maybe qualify for an interview.

90% of the things that Japan introduced according to comment sections on the internet never happened (or never made it past the prototype stage) and the rest was actually introduced in Korea, not in Japan.

The Japanophilia is strong with a lot of people on the internet.

There’s this idea I’ve been considering for a long time.

Imagine putting a remote controlled firework smoke bomb under the tailpipe, hidden from sight. At best a really stinky one that smells like burned rubber or something.

When someone follows to closely, just fake an engine issue or something by activating the smoke bomb and fill their AC air intake with the smell of burned rubber for weeks. Just to teach them to not follow too closely again.

So on this road with no line of sight obstructions at all the driver failed to notice two kids impatiently waiting to cross and failed to slow down a little in case the kid actually jumped in front of the car? That guy is obviously not fit for driving.

You always have to balance: Do you want the user to have “some” user experience, or none at all.

In the case of image viewers or browsers or stuff, it’s most often better to show the user something, even if it isn’t perfect, than to show nothing at all. Especially if it’s an user who can’t do anything to fix the broken thing at all.

That said, if the user is a developer who is currently developing the solution, then the parser should be as strict as possible, because the developer can fix stuff before it goes into production.

That’s a fair assessment.