• 0 Posts
  • 17 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 30th, 2023

help-circle






  • Let me start with the calendar because I actually had to look up the history of calendars (which was super interesting). The first person to use A.D. was a monk called Dionysius who used it around 525. In the Roman empire years were counted by the year of the current reigning Consul. Dionysius wanted to avoid using the calendar based on Roman emperor Diocletian who widely persecuted christians. This new system was adopted by the church only.

    Centering the calendar around nativity of Jesus was only adopted as an official calendar by Holy Roman emperor Charlemagne in around 1600, and the rest of the world changed over to it over time until around 1900.

    So the people actually living in 1 A.D. had no idea they were living in the year of the lord.

    As far as I know we only really know that Jesus was a real man in the Herodian Kingdom at the time and that he was in fact crucified around 33 A.D. (which would not have been called A.D. at the time). Weather we believe he was truly resurrected is more of a question of faith, relying on religious sources. So basically applying Occam’s razor I would say that the resurrection was just part of the religious texts written by monks, not necessarily something that was 100% true.

    In maths there are definitely larger and smaller infinities. Take for example the set of all natural numbers [1, 2, 3, …]. This is an infinite set. Compare this to the set of rational numbers, these can be expressed as a fraction of two natural numbers [1/1, 1/2, 1/3, …]. There is already an infinite amount of rational numbers between 1 and 2, making this an uncountably larger infinite set. All this being said, the boulder thing always sounded a bit weird to me but it does raise the question of what we mean by omnipotence, and can we accept the existance of such a being, all of this gets very philosophical. (the paradox has several proposed resolutions if you are interested btw, some more satisfying than others)

    Which brings us back to the problem of evil. Let’s say our lives on Earth are just a test to see if we are accepted in heaven. This explains why bad things happen as they are a test of faith. But this just raises more questions:

    Why does it take God our entire lives to decide whether we are accepted? What about babies that die during birth or shortly after? How can they prove their faith?

    Anyway, this got way too long. I’d like to reiterate that I think religion has very positive aspects: community, belonging, purpose, an answer to what happens after death.

    But I’d also say that historically, religion (especially Christianity) was a tool to keep the masses docile and subdued, allowing the church to hold power over hundreds of years but also kept believers somewhat safe, at lest from their own community - commandments like do not kill, steal, or even Jewish customs of not eating specific types of meat. If they had to make up, or embellish things to keep it going, that was a price they were willing to pay.


  • Well, not to get into a theological debate here but there are many logical inconsistencies and paradoxes with religion in general.

    Stuff like the “can God create a stone so large that he cannot lift it”; or just seeing all the suffering in the world and trying to justify why a benevolent, all seeing, all knowing, omnipotent being would allow kids to get cancer - either god is not capable to fix it or doesn’t care, neither of which is a great outcome.

    Just applying Occam’s Razor in general makes religion pretty far fetched, especially the more hardline old testament you go: God creating the earth, Noah and the flood, etc. There is just a much simpler explanation to all of it.

    I mean no offence to religious people in general, in fact I think religion can be very useful for some to find a purpose or belonging in their lives. I just find the cognitive dissonance of religion impossible to reconcile with reality.


  • Not that I personally would ever switch to iPhone because there is still a lack of sideloading open source software; but could you just not use the chat gpt integration?

    It seems they are actually trying to not data harvest with all the AI stuff, there is quite a focus on privacy respecting server architecture and clearly defined conformations for the user for when something runs off device, or even off of Apple’s cloud (e.g. Chat GPT). I believe they even made their backend third party verifyable (although I’ve only seen their claims about this, I haven’t actually followed up).

    Anyway, plenty of reasons to dislike apple, I’m sure they still collect data, but why not just ignore the Chat GPT functionality?


  • I have to agree with this comment. I’d probably just set up the router regardless (probably in WiFi AP mode) and not worry about it too much. No one reads the terms and conditions anyway. If someone comes to actually enforce the thing I’d obviously take it down. Hide the ssid if you want to.

    As others mentioned, there are ways to also hide traffic behind a single device, maybe connecting to a VPN on the router level would help with this?

    Back when I was in uni I had terrible wired Internet so I’d try anything. At one point I was using a jailbroken iPhone to share its 4g connection without having to pay extra to the wireless ISP (basically data plan was unlimited but tethering wasn’t). It worked fine, I could use my data on any of the devices over wifi but it was barely faster than the wired network and it was a lot of hassle so I gave it up.