ImpressiveWebs

He was on Letterman in the 1980s and said his name means “black plowman”.

I thought it was good, but Joel McHale as Roy doesn’t work. Dude is too chiseled for that role, even though he does a decent job with the acting.

The domain log.io redirects to a completely different domain.

The Biblical “magi” are not the same as the “Persian clan” referenced in your source. The Biblical word is simply a generic term for “astrologers” or “magicians” but which is rooted in the Persian meaning. In fact, the singular “magus” is used in reference to a Jew who practiced some form of magic in Acts 13:6-8.

I don’t understand. You can literally just look it up in any dictionary. What exactly do you think my explanation was lacking?

As a related aside:

The word “magi” is plural for “magus” which means “astrologer”. In the Bible, God condemned all forms of astrology or similar “fortune telling” (e.g. see Deuteronomy 18:10-12). Thus, these astrologers were not some sort of God-ordained “wise men” as many believe. The “star” the astrologers initially followed was for the purpose of leading them and the child to King Herod, who planned to kill the child. God eventually intervened though to foil what was initially an evil plan.

In case it gets fixed, here's a screenshot:

https://i.imgur.com/3Wle9Te.png

And FWIW, if you put a "www" in front of the URL, the error doesn't occur.

I don’t know anything about using Elm in practice but I’ve been curating a newsletter[1] for front-end developers for almost 10 years now. I often share new scripts, plugins, and tools related to different JavaScript libraries. Over 450 issues later, I think I’ve only shared an Elm-related tool around 4 times. I don’t think Elm is dead, but it’s certainly not something I see come across the literally hundreds of sources I scour every month when curating the newsletter content.

[1] https://webtoolsweekly.com

Yeah I noticed that while refreshing because the same one came up again. Seems to go against the whole spirit of the “doesn’t exist” theme if it’s not auto generated IMO.

I got:

SpotifAI is a system that uses deep learning to automatically create playlists from user-submitted playlists. Its algorithm has been trained on millions of playlists from Spotify.

Which is pretty cool sounding and has a cool name.

Hm, I’ve never noticed that before. I’m assuming maybe it’s your 2nd theory that this happens if you enter both a URL and text? Maybe it’s a new HN feature?

Nice. Very difficult though, even for a former Scrabble expert like me, :)

My suggestion is to not remove the letters as they’re typed. It’s very jarring and unusable that way. You should just “disable” the used ones and keep them in the same place.

Also, is there a way to remove letters from the play area after they’re used? Or start from a clean slate without refreshing the page?

And whoever posted it put a second slash at the end of the URL, apparently to trick the HN system into allowing it to be posted again. I’m not saying I care, I’m just pointing out that it seems like that’s what was done, because I believe you can only post a link again after a certain time has passed.

If major clips of any of those channels/shows get millions of views on YouTube every episode, that is not counted.

But that’s also true of Rogan. His show’s clips get way more views than those other networks.

Well, apparently he’s double vaccinated so I don’t know how someone can call him anti vax. From what I’ve seen, he’s more or less pointing out scientific arguments against vaccinating children or even mandating it for healthy, low risk people. I don’t necessarily agree with what he says, but I don’t see a problem with getting another viewpoint from someone that’s evidently well educated in the field.

The nested divs themselves would not affect SEO. The problem may be caused by divs being used in place of proper semantic tags, which may have an effect. But even then, the affect would be minimal. And I’m not sure what you mean by certain “weak devices” being affected. I’ve been writing and blogging about HTML for 15 years and have never heard of that.

Do you think Politifact is a good source for that information? I'm sure there are other less-biased alternatives that discuss that subject.

Ok, well, there seems to be a bunch of people convinced it's some dude in the Philippines, but for the record there's no actual proof.

Where did you get that info? Reddit seems to be slow for me right now, so I couldn't search the subreddit you mentioned, but all of the I'm Not Norm videos have the following Instagram linked:

https://www.instagram.com/sparkleforesst/

AFAIK, it's that girl who runs the channel, she's the same person that appears in the merch ads in the videos.

I don’t trust anything reported about North Korea. For all we know, the authorities themselves smuggled it in simply to make an example of a few, to maintain the status quo of fearful obedience. There’s just no way to verify anything that’s reported about NK.

What about the questionable practices of Pfizer? Or any other vaccine maker? Do those things somehow discredit the value of the vaccines? Because I’m pretty sure the stuff you dug up on FLCCCA is pretty trivial by comparison:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pfizer#Legal_issues

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moderna#Criticism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson_%26_Johnson#Recalls_an...

And please don’t take this as “whataboutism”. I’m just making sure you’re consistent in your criticisms.

From the FLCCCA website: [1]

All clinical trials suffer from risks of bias in their design and conduct, as assessed by the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool that assesses trial biases with the grades of “some concern, low, moderate, high, or serious”. Although one group of authors has assessed many of the trials as having moderate to severe risks of bias, performing meta-analyses of these trials can more accurately detect the true effects despite individual trial biases. Multiple groups, including ours, have performed meta-analyses of these trials, with all groups finding consistent benefits amongst the trials. In fact, the consistency of trial results from both sets of randomized and observational controlled trials from varied centers and countries and trial sizes and disease phases lend even more validity to the estimates of benefit.

[1) https://covid19criticalcare.com/ivermectin-in-covid-19/faq-o...

I see no financial incentives for drug companies to discourage it.

Then you’re not looking hard enough. You don’t think endless booster shots are an incentive to dismiss Ivermectin? Discouraging Ivermectin means, not billions, but trillions in revenue.

And that’s not even considering the fact that the vaccines could never be legally approved for emergency use if Ivermectin works.

The point is that there wasn't a single canon, different sects of Jews had different canons.

You're attaching a lot of weight to a lot of different historical viewpoints. Of course you can find different sects of Jews with different canons. You can find different sects of Jews doing a lot of strange things including committing mass suicide.

However, the majority of the most recognized scholars and historians of the first few centuries C.E. do not consider the so-called apocryphal books as part of the Bible canon. Josephus, Jerome, Councils at Laodicea and Chalcedon, as well as numerous church Fathers (e.g. Justin Martyr, Melito, Origen, Hilary, Epiphanius, Gregory Nazianzus, Rufinus of Aquileia) testify to the closing of the canon outside of the apocryphal books.

We know that many Greek-speaking early Christians accepted some of the pre-Christian Greek "apocryphal"/"deuterocanonical" works as canonical. Why did they do that?

It doesn't matter. A lot of your arguments hinge on finding obscure debates and controversies. So what if there was controversy among some? The general consensus, however, disagrees with those debates and controversies and finds them irrelevant.

The canon did change. In the middle of the second century CE, the Pharisees still had multiple canons

You mean the same Pharisees about whom the the Jew, Jesus Christ, said: "Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition." (Matthew 15:6)

And, if we consider other Jewish groups such as the Sadducees or the Qumran community, we find even more Jewish canons than that.

Again, do you mean the Sadducees whom Jesus and many first century Jews condemned? It's irrelevant to even consider any canon that contradicts the most well respected historians and scholars of those time periods. You refer to them as "canons" but they are no such thing. The Hebrew canon was well established by the time of Josephus and only a few obscure sources contradict that.

And why do you dismiss it as 'some so-called "debate"'? It was a real debate, you can read the Mishnah for yourself

I dismiss it because it's irrevelant. In fact, it's about as relevant as you and I having this debate right now, because neither you or I can change the fact that the canon was well established before the 1st century CE.

All the Holy Scriptures defile the hands.

You want me to take seriously a document that says that?

Furthermore, this passage gives evidence that the same debate was active in the 1st century CE as well (and possibly even the 1st century BCE too), through Rabbi Shimon's reference to Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel.

Yes, it was very active -- among people who had no say in the matter and whose opinions didn't mean a whole lot until we decided to throw 20th century criticism into the mix.

The fact that the canon wasn't fixed doesn't mean the apocryphal books were part of it. I'm saying there is little evidence to support that, even though the canon wasn't fixed. And again, that's just one of many arguments against the apocrophya.

And that's besides the fact that even if there was some so-called "debate" about it, if the canon didn't actually change as a result of those debates (e.g. Song of Songs and Eccl. are part of the canon), then how can you say it wasn't fixed? I mean, that's just silly.

What part of that Wikipedia document do you think contradicts what I've said? The lede says:

Although there is no scholarly consensus as to when the Hebrew Bible canon was fixed, some scholars hold that the Hebrew canon was established well before the first century AD – even as early as the fourth century BC, or by the Hasmonean dynasty (140–40 BC). The modern Hebrew canon does not include the seven deuterocanonical books, and this was the basis for excluding them from the Protestant Old Testament.

And:

Since the 16th century, most Protestant churches have accepted only works in the Masoretic Text of the Hebrew Bible as the canonical Old Testament, and hence classify all the non-protocanonical books from the Septuagint as apocrypha.

Those two points more or less support the points I'm making. Of course much of this is debatable, I'm not denying that, but I think the preponderance of evidence strongly suggests that these books don't belong.

There is no evidence that there was a closed Hebrew Canon prior to the time of Jesus.

If that's the case, then any argument that predates Jesus in favour of the Deuterocanon would also be invalid.

I'm not sure why you think that is relevant?

My argument against the Septuagint is relevant because it's often used as an example of why the Deuterocanonical books should be included in the Bible canon. The Septuagint is a direct translation of the Hebrew books (i.e. what would eventually become the Hebrew canon). If the Hebrew canon (even if it was just a loose canon at that time) never included the Deuterocanonical books, then there is no reason to assume the Septuagint would suddenly include them in its first copies.

Numerous Old Testament books, like Esther, that Protestants believe to be inspired are not quoted in the New Testament - does that make them not canonical?

No, of course not. I provided a body of evidence against the Deuterocanon. This is just one part of that argument. The argument is strengthened by all the points, not just one of them.

Numerous non-canonical works, like the Book of Enoch, are quoted in the New Testament - does that make them canonical?

No. Again, same as above. The point alone isn't extremely meaningful until you consider all the evidence.

And anyway, it's interesting to know that the original KJV of 1611 (which included the Deuterocanon) included 11 cross-references in the New Testament to Deuterocanonical books, where it believe New Testament authors were quoting from or alluding to parts of the Deuteronincals.

I think the key word there is "believe". Unless a writer says something along the lines of 'the prophet says...' then the argument is weak at best.

This is inaccurate, look at the historical record:

Well, according to Wikipedia: "Early church fathers such as Athanasius, Melito, Origen, and Cyril of Jerusalem, spoke against the canonicity of much or all of the apocrypha, but the most weighty opposition was the fourth century Catholic scholar Jerome who preferred the Hebrew canon, whereas Augustine and others preferred the wider (Greek) canon."

So it's certainly debatable, but there's much evidence to support what I said, as far as I can see.

Actually that's not the case - their "problems" are the same as those from the rest of the Protestant canon.

Examples: Tobit claims to have seen events in his lifetime that cover more than 250 years, but Tobit 14:1-3 says he died at 102 years of age. Judith contains geographical oddities that can't be resolved except with miraculous assumptions. Ecclesiasticus 25:33 blames Eve for human sin instead of Adam, which contradicts Apostle Paul's writings. Baruch says the Jewish exile would last '7 generations', contradicting the Bible canon which says it would be 70 years. That's just a small sampling.

It's definitely a less significant point, but the reason I brought it up is that many make the argument that because they were included as part of the Septuagint, then they must be part of the Canon. Which is ridiculous on its face because they were never included in any Hebrew-based canon.

The phrase by most Christian churches is somewhat misleading.

As someone else pointed out, I'm not talking about every individual church as a separate 'Christian church', I'm referring to the primary denominations, so Catholocism and Eastern Orthodox would be two churches. Most of the rest do not accept those books as part of the Bible canon.

And I don't agree that the reasons you give are valid – in some places I think you have the facts wrong, or are presenting them in a biased way.

When it comes to religion, every view is biased. But that's ok if a view is correct. I'm looking at the facts based on what happened prior to all the offshoots of Christianity (including Catholicism, which didn't even exist until at least 300 years after Christ).

The purely historical argument, outside of any denomination makes it clear that the Deuterocanonical books were not considered part of the Bible canon.

I don't think this site is the best place to debate it in detail,

I think it's fine if we remain civil.

but you can find numerous works by Catholic and Orthodox writers rebutting the arguments you make.

They are just as biased as I am. But like I said, I'm not looking at any denominational argument, I'm only looking at the facts of history prior to ~300 CE.

The later compilations of the Septuagint included the books, but that doesn’t mean they were included originally, which we cannot verify.