m1n1

Only a few languages allow you to change a system while it is running (saving time on deploying new development versions and re-creating state) ... and have a recording debugger (saving time since you can inspect any part of a recording at leisure instead of accidentally passing the interesting spot and having to start over)

I hope more people get to experience this kind of joy :)

Could the same radio be controlling other nearby boilers unintentionally?

I worked with a 60K LOC thing* that talked to multiple services and had complex configuration. Ran fine on my laptop pointed at the company's dev env.

The REPL let me test my changes while inside the thing as it ran. No problems. Someone wrote a nice *recording* debugger too which helped immensely -- no more "oops, I'm past the interesting part and have to start over"

* in prod we usually give it a small number of large instances

The involvement of Saul in the stoning of Stephen is generally seen as an established historical event - AD 34-35 - basically within a couple of years of Christ's bodily resurrection.

Many others were killed during the reign of the Roman Emperor Nero (54–68 AD), well within the lifetime of the 500+ eyewitnesses of Christ being around for 40 days after his crucifixion. They could have recanted if they knew it was false, but they knew it was true.

If a memory foam mattress makes a person's pain worse, how does it do that -- or how does a different type of mattress avoid doing that? (honest question)

So the squashing of a tomato or a human or a civilization -- they're just different rearrangements of matter and energy. Our feelings about each are also just chemical reactions. Any feeling or argument to the contrary has nothing to stand on. There's no such real thing as better or worse ultimately -- only better or worse within a context but not ultimately.

If you're on a hike and you see blueprints for a working automobile, you don't assume it assembled itself by mere chance. There's a language of a working design and you assume some minds created it.

But at the same time you interact with humans who have a working blueprint expressed in a 4-letter language and suddenly deny there is any mind behind any design?

> the supernatural isn't real

So ... only what is physical is real? Like only matter and energy? Then there's no such thing as significance or value, only different combinations of matter and energy. Any opinion or argument, held however strongly, is only a set of chemical reactions, nothing more?

Some cultures had (have?) a tradition of naming each successive generation according to the next line in a poem or song.

If you ran out of verses, you'd pick a new song to start over.

Also found out a friend tore a ligament in her knee while skiing, got an MRI showing the tear, prayed, got another MRI showing the tear gone. Doc can't explain, and this has nothing to do with her susceptibility.

My Atari 2600 had an odd behavior with the reset switch. Holding it down at the beginning of the tank/combat game enabled your first shot to go through walls. Did you any Atari bugs while you worked on it? Pretty amazing that you could program these without the benefit of searching any internet for answers. (btw, I replied to you elsewhere :-P)

If you __sincerely__ want to understand the answer to your question about babies dying, you should try steelmanning. It’s the opposite of strawmanning.

Steelmanning would not take the evil committed by humans and hang that around God's neck and blame him. Steelmanning would accept that free will means people can do things that God wouldn't himself choose, and when they do evil, they don't represent him.

Steelmanning would accept that if a Supreme Being exists, then that being is indeed supreme -- even though babies are precious, the supreme being has even more worth because he is supreme.

You and I have the same emotional reaction to something that violates our top priorities (humankind esp loved ones for you, God and then humankind esp loved ones for me)

Everyone's got a top priority. If there is a supreme being, the right top priority arrow should point at that being. Including the supreme being's own top priority arrow!

Otherwise God would be an idolater.

Many will find this repugnant. I know. Probably because we are accustomed to thinking on the level of fellow humans, we're all each worth exactly one human, no more no less.

But if you honestly want to know how this other math works, this is it. We're in the middle of a symphony and parts might sound like they need some resolution. And in the end there will be resolution and the whole symphony will show his supremacy in the _end_ because only in the end are all accounts truly settled. Before the end, things will appear incorrect.

Actually the easiest way to reconcile this in your mind is to imagine you're, say, a Van Halen fan at one of their concerts at the height of their popularity. You want them to go absolutely nuts on stage showing off, because they're the best band ever. When they magnify themselves on stage, it's what you paid to see.

Either you honestly want to understand and you'll steelman or you really just wanted to be a critic and you won't. Btw, I replied on the other branch as well

The charge is Stranger tricked me. The Prosecutor (you) repeatedly rely on an unproven universal negative claim that miracles never happen, a claim that would require watching all of history and show every event has a natural physical explanation.

Defense submitted evidence which the prosecution refuses to consider closely because of the universal negative (unproven) claim.

Prosecution submitted evidence (youtube video) which the defense examined (demonstrating better involvement in the case than the prosecution) and found to be irrelevant: _all_ tricks required holding the mark's ankles/feet off the ground and required dexterity. Stranger's fingers were straight and I was on the ground.

It's as if Stranger was charged with murder using a blade and Prosecution submitted examples involving only firearms! What!

Prosecution refers to the prevalence of many other tricksters. But the defense points out simply the guilt of others implies nothing about the guilt or innocence of the Stranger.

Prosecution argues the mind can trick itself into feeling sensations that are easily checked and verified as imagined. But I ___did___ check by sight and touch over several seconds (not to mention X-ray).

So prosecution's argument contradicts itself --giving himself the benefit of the doubt when dispelling the sensation of an imaginary bug on his skin, but ___denying___ the same benefit to the defense without reason. This argument is tossed out of court with prejudice.

Prosecution refuses to put in the work of building a theory of the case: ___what___ is the recipe for tricking someone who is wearing jeans, seated fully on the ground, using only your fingers fully extended (no pinching of fabric, moving the mark's body in any way disallowed) ... Followed by an X-ray that shows the result (and proceeded by an X-ray that shows the contrary)?

Prosecution has high IQ but wants the defense to do his job. What? Try to figure out a recipe. Or __you__ go do the prosecution's research and see if they can explain it. You said watching the video would be hard but I did it. Now it's your turn.

By the way, if nothing exists outside matter and energy then you are deeply at odds with reality: your reactions to any violation of human dignity are all just chemicals bouncing around. There's no such real thing as human dignity either. Squashing a tomato or a human -- it's just a rearrangement of matter and energy.

> I haven't even watched the video

_Every_ trick in the video relied on the mark sitting in a chair with the illusionist holding their legs _off_ the ground for manipulation.

I was seated completely on the ground, wearing jeans. The only person touching me was the guy and only on my right shin and only with fingers held straight.

Imagine this happened to you, and please explain how he would be able to trick you into feeling your leg move against the jeans which are held in place against the ground, for several seconds, while you are examining the sensation carefully and watching your leg grow longer.

I don't think you can come up with a trick recipe for that.

Anyways my faith existed before this and would exist if it never happened.

  > Nature of existence is one of such useless questions.

Is that because science cannot answer such questions?

Or because it doesn't matter to you what existence really is?

I want to know whether you think matter and energy cover all of existence. Or is there anything outside that Venn diagram.