hawkesnest

I expect the modern equivalent would be "-inator" as a suffix.

Here's a similar take from Joel Spolsky:

A long time ago, it became fashionable, even recommended, to disable menu items when they could not be used.

Don’t do this. Users see the disabled menu item that they want to click on, and are left entirely without a clue of what they are supposed to do to get the menu item to work.

Instead, leave the menu item enabled. If there’s some reason you can’t complete the action, the menu item can display a message telling the user why.

It's funny how the author in the same paragraph notes that solar power isn't common in the "Sunshine State" of Florida, and then also points out the problem of hurricanes. Turns out, insurance companies won't compensate you for replacement cost of the panels, only cash value (which is constantly dropping). That is, if they cover them at all.

Buying new panels every 7-10 years is not a worthwhile investment.

Get a bike and you don't have to worry about roads or fuel either.

Still waiting to hear what punishment is befitting a person of non-belief.

Really, just say it. Say the quiet part out loud.

It's clear you've not researched ethics thoroughly. I guess all those philosophers just needed to agree to use the same exact interpretation of the same holy books and there would be no need for discussion, right?

The Methodists are hardly a fringe group.

Atheism is "disastrous" only in that it is based on non-belief, not that Atheists themselves are detrimental to society.

The hundreds/thousands of protestant sects counter your statement that "religious texts have a meaning." They are long, often self-contradictory, and open to many interpretations. Not "a" meaning, but many "meanings." Again, the things you are claiming to be strength do not bear out in reality.

I think you to be better than the sociopath you claim to be. Do you only abstain from murder and rape and lying and cheating to avoid punishment in the afterlife? Because while I may have "baseless" moral conjectures, a simply moral code of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is superior in a myriad of ways.

You admit yourself, morals are based off standards. We can agree to those which bear out healthy, happy, productive societies or ones which do not. It's funny how most people consider theocracies to have a negative connotation.

Still waiting to hear what punishment is befitting a person of non-belief.

Religion is in no way a force for bringing people together. Anti-Semitism is rampant among many Christians. Catholics and Protestants have quite a history of not seeing eye-to-eye. Shia and Sunni Muslims are pretty notorious at this point for their battles.

Your examples are counter to your own point. Jews don't seem to have the same views on abortion that the evangelicals appear to have. The United Methodist church is splitting because of differing views on homosexuality and other LGBTQ+ issues.

Having common values is very important, but predicating it on all the doctrine of a set of religions or a single religion seems shaky at best.

I also noticed you still haven't given a good reason. Your opening line is circular - violating the monoculture is bad because it disrupts the monoculture. Instead of proposing a broad set of morals outside of religion, you intend to (by force?) push a set of morals that YOU dictate based off ancient texts of dubious origin.

>We need only concern ourselves with what's external and the impact it has on society.

This I can wholeheartedly agree with.

In what way is atheism a danger or harm to society except that it violates your proposed monoculture?

I do want to hear what they have to say. It sounds like they have some pretty out-of-the-box ideas about how society should function. Admittedly, it seems as though I would oppose those positions, but rather than dismiss them as the muses of a sociopath I prefer to get to specifics and address the idea in its entirety.

The notion of forced religion certain could lead to the worst versions of theocracy imaginable, but surely someone would think things to their logical conclusion before professing something so heinous. Right?

I have so many questions. How would one determine whether I were a non-believer? What is an appropriate punishment? Why are Abrahamic religions whe ones which are allowable but all others are not? What benefit would this provide? Do the benefits outweigh the harm?

Is it ok to be a non-practicing Jew, or is it required to be orthodox? Are Mormons acceptable? 7th Day Adventists? Jehovah Witnesses? Why or why not?

How does one believe something when they simply and sincerely do not? Is it possible to force someone to believe something?

Can you cite examples of blasphemy laws which have proven to be a net positive in society? How do we deal with people having similar beliefs but exercising them wildly differently? Is that ok? Why or why not

I'm all for thought experiments and playing what-if, but if you're going to make the statement that my sheer existence should be illegal, I need quite a bit of clarity!

This article is accurate, but it doesn't talk about causes. Is the market looking for larger vehicles? Are the auto-makers in cahoots with the oil industry to use larger engines? Is marketing convincing people that having larger vehicles is universally better?

What about the increases in safety over that time span? Crumple-zones in some areas and stronger structural members add weight. Air bags add weight and decrease interior space. A-pillars used to be dainty for visibility but have been thickened to provide rollover protection.

The analysis provided doesn't give any reasons for the changes, only pointing out that they trend toward larger/heavier.

Do you really think that ChatGPT can analyze the work done by a human and provide meaningful and accurate feedback? It's very easy to make a claim, but have you perhaps tried it?

My experience with ChatGPT is the generation of text based off a prompt. If you have actually done something similar to what you claim that would prove very interesting. It might eliminate most forms of management.

Are we laughing at the death of middle-schoolers now? Yeah, if that's your view, you and the "good" Lord can fuck off.

Would the House be more or less effective if there were 10,000+ representatives to meet the 30,000:1 ratio in the original Constitutional setup?