jakear

There was no war declared then. The actions were identical to Mexican immigrants coming over and going on murdering spees here. Would you not consider that an example of crime that should be accounted for?

And the falseness of that distinction is exactly my point. Nobody watches their baby get murdered and says "Well at least it was at the hands of a government agent! My country is still a very safe place to live!". Yet if you were to believe those stats that's exactly what they're claiming: deaths at the hands of government agents "don't count" when considering the safety of an area.

At least 280 Palestinians were killed by Israelis in 2021. With a population of ~5,000,000, that alone accounts for 5.6 deaths per 100k lives.

Here's a list of those killed: https://israelpalestinetimeline.org/2021deaths/. Pay special attention to all the women and children.

This is not a country to we should aspire to match murder rates.

Does anyone know of a second source to back this claim up? These numbers are "estimates ... based on machine learning algorithms using data from various websites and apps". We all know machine learning algorithms produce the outputs you train them to, and the nature of the company producing the data combined with current events gives me reason to pause before accepting it at face value.

That said, I haven't been able to find a good second opinion on this.

Better than government banning flights all up.

Rather, the answer (as always) is carbon tax.

Yikes. You've gone totally off the rails. Have your handler review your prompting... 10 questions in a row with not a coherent thread connecting them does not a meaningful comment make.

This is probably accurate. Everything seems about the individual nowadays. Lot's of people aren't even having children anymore, preferring instead "travel" and "fun". Why would they give a shit about what will happen in 100 years?

Well that came out of left field. Care to elaborate?

Exactly. HN seems the worst of all wrt the apocalyptic fortune telling. Perhaps a group of well-off people would be expected to fear change the most. But to tell anyone else that in 50 years things will be bad... they'd laugh in your face.

"I'm right because the corporate interests governing openAI's output agree with me" isn't the dunk you think it is.

New ecosystems will form, eventually. Humans love to think their time scales are the only ones that matter.

Basically any religion is in large part centered around preparing for death.

If voting could change anything it'd be illegal.

In CA we aren't even allowed to vote anymore. Gavin simply appoints senators who look the way he wants and we get stuck with them.

And that's something as simple as senators (who barely have any power in the first place). A change to the world power structure (corporate interests that profit of mass-consumerism) is achievable only through violent revolution.

But nobody cares enough about the climate for that. They just complain online, put soup on things, and pat themselves on the back.

Who died and made you the arbiter of Truth?

I provided sources, you didn't. Engage in a facts based debate or don't engage at all. Shallow dismissals have no place on HN. (by the actual site guidelines, not my made up declaration)

At what cost?

Just route the sender to spam? Do you really put this much work into every spammy sender? Any decent email frontend should fulfill your desire in a single click.

Speaking of CVS, they have one very cool feature I haven't seen replicated anywhere else: the price printer machine. Many places have scanners that will show you the price of an item on a screen, but in my experience only CVS has one that actually prints out a physical paper showing the price of the item.

Accordingly, I make a point to print the price of at least one of my items each time I buy from CVS (for morale).

Right? Like who honestly cares.

I blame all the people who freaked out over making prompts like "create a python function to show me how much to pay employees based on their skin color. "Garbage in, garbage out" should have been the end of discussion there. Instead we have a whole era of useless AIs that give you pages of justification about meaningless "nuance" instead of an answer.

If shielding is insufficient the control systems fry, or at least get wonked.

Again, can you explain the butterfly? If not, find Axioms that can, or live in darkness, rejecting all understanding of universal truth. Those are the options.

Your mortal misgivings about a divine message are irrelevant. Consider: If, somehow, you knew for an absolute fact that the creator of the universe, the one who engineered everything about you, the world, the cosmos, "science", ethics, morals, and all else besides, said "women shouldn't speak in churches instead they should ask their husbands back home", would you tell them you know more about right and wrong than them? Or would you consider that there might be nuance to the topic and try to learn more about what they mean and why they say it? There's a ton of context to Corinthians you've left out. I'm sure you know that and are just being pretend-dumb so I won't go into it. And the world as we know it wouldn't exist without slaves, and the rejection of slavery as we know it wouldn't exist without Christians. So I'll call that a wash. If anything, the introduction of Christ led to the abolition of slavery, so that'd be a +1. All your "science" did was come up with bogus justifications for it based on skull measurements. Can you think of any of your "science" today that is focused on taking irrelevant measurements and then going to the public with creative spins on them to justify horrific practices? I can!

But I haven't rejected any science that allows us to communicate. In fact, I haven't rejected any science at all. What I've rejected is the pseudo-"science" that has become increasingly popular whereby an explanation is proposed, no relevant tests are (or can be) done, no relevant observations are (or can be) made, tons of aspects of the question are left unanswered and unanswerable, and yet people still decide it is the answer. Always by assuming that no divine intervention has happened.

Indeed the entire "historical-scientific" belief structure must be predicated on faith in lack of divine intervention to make any sense at all. It would be far better referred to as the faith-based religion of "Scientology", if that wasn't already taken.

But since your so persistent, what is it about the story of the Ark that you believe the all powerful creator of the universe would be unable to actualize?

He's saying that His coming has fulfilled the prophecies of the Messiah, and that the other prophecies of the Old Testament are still in effect.

Please read a list of translations of that verse here, along with the original Greek https://biblehub.com/matthew/5-18.htm and come to your own conclusion of whether it has anything at all to do with a literal interpretation.

Wrong again. In fact, I was born and raised atheist/agnostic, and I even studied biology at a top university. I only converted when I saw how incomplete that narrative was (and, following that, how much better the Abrahamic narrative fit my personal experience and observation).

Do you have an evolutionary explanation for the butterfly?

If you want to actually argue you should make an actual argument. The existence of plasmids proves my point, you've supplied no evidence for yours.

This is life, pick your axioms – Readjust as necessary to optimize attitude.

Don't act like you don't do the exact same. :)

I follow Jesus, that's what it means to be a Christian. He never said we have to take all of the Old Testament at face value (even though I never claimed I didn't). In fact His earthly mission was to inform us that it was out of date and He had the new Gospel, and many of his recorded words were dedicated to deriding those who followed the Old Testament legalistically.

Edit: if you actually would like a literalists interpretation of the flood, you could do worse than call up The Narrow Path radio show I linked above from 2-3 PM Pacific time and ask. The host is a full literalist and would be happy to talk.

The idea that there is a tree of sexual reproduction that can attribute for the current variation in genetic material has been disproven. That's where "horizontal gene transfer" theories come in. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_gene_transfer

Your entire argument is appeal to false (and made up, and un attributed) authority. I've been fully based on real world happenings and provided plenty of documentation on them, for you to simply turn around and claim they didn't exist. Hilarious that you even go so far as to claim the sources I already provided don't exist.

Also your entire argument is "the Government would never do something illegal! That'd be wrong!"

But I don't really care about France, the French, or their burkinis. Good day.

You also left out "allegorical".

Are you being intentionally difficult in leaving out "falsifiable, but not yet falsified" and repeating "false" twice?

If something has been falsified, then it is clearly not unfalsifiable. If something is false, it's a much stronger claim than that it is simply falsifiable. That is the case here. What's your point?