paskozdilar

Fun fact: People born in 2004 are all turning 18 this year :)

And still, 2004 feels "a few years ago" to me. I don't know if I'll ever get used to it.

Human learning itself is a little like copying the work of hundreds of other artists at once.

This is so awesome :)

That's a hard question, like any other question concerning human freedom. I suppose a good rule of thumb is "if you're not forced to subject yourself to it, you don't get a say in it".

> Yes.

That's were we disagree. I believe there are some human freedoms that nobody has the right to deny. I suppose I'm just an idealist.

> The current form of government in the United States is a representative republic that has a constitution that defines processes for dramatic change including a constitutional convention that allows for open-ended changes to the constitution itself.

I'm sure the goal of such openness of constitution was to protect the liberty of people, not to open doors for authoritarianism.

> I don't think it's productive to continue this conversation. Sadly, you've decided to take the position that Christians should have their right to vote curtailed

If that's all you took away from this conversation, then I agree - it's for the best to end it now. But I'll try to elaborate anyway.

I am not taking the position that Christians should have their right to vote curtailed, I'm taking the position that nobody, not even Christians, should have the right to impose their own standards upon others, unless they made sense outside of the Christian worldview. Abortion laws only make sense in the Christian worldview (and maybe a few other, equally intolerant, worldviews). The fact that Christians are the majority in the US only makes it de-facto a Christian state, while still pretending to be a secular democracy.

Here's a thought experiment:

If Talibans somehow became a majority in the US, would you still consider it "their right" to vote away the democracy and establish Sharia Law?

I think the point of that statement was that we should assume the worst case, for the sake of making code easier to deal with for everyone. If the code is easy to deal with for the meeting-ridden hypothetical person, it will definitely be easy to deal with for a non-meeting-ridden hypothetical person.

I understand and agree with your frustration, but I don't agree that the statement undermines the parent comment at all.

Personally, I love 60fps+ videos. They just seem more "realistic" to me, as if the person moving on the screen was right in front of me. Ordinary 24fps is okay, but there's a certain "not real" feeling I get while watching it. It's like playing a videogame that stutters all the time.

Would you care to elaborate?

I always thought npm was open-source-centric. If npm somehow ran opaque binaries, I'd really like to know about that.

> Life is hard. Individuals consistently fail to act with everyone’s best interests in mind.

Yes, but Christianity gives people the excuse not to question their core beliefs - they just confess, repent, blame it all on Satan and carry on with business as usual.

> The offensive thing about Christians is that they’re a people that have acknowledged that they aren’t behaving appropriately in the first place and have come to the conclusion that they want to behave accordingly to the standard set in the Bible

The offensive thing about Christians is that they are constantly trying to impose rules from the Bible upon other people (e.g. abortion laws in southern US).

> When everyone is out there living their own truth, it can be offensive to learn about a group of people who reject the idea of their own truth and put their trust in the God of the Bible.

In other words, Christians consider themselves eternally right, and everyone else eternally wrong, no matter what evidence is provided.

This seems like a good tool to turn <60fps videos into 60fps videos.

> However, you should be aware that your examples aren’t just wrong

I've personally witnessed every single thing I've written, so they can't be completely wrong. I was also raised in a Christian family, in a Christian neighborhood, so I'm pretty sure that what I've observed is at the very least plausible.

> The TLDR on the Bible is John 3:16-21.

You should note that Bible is huge, full of contradictions and open to interpretation. You should also note that many Christians have never even read the Bible, and don't follow it to the word, but rather follow the culture of their peers, which is usually focused on observable behaviors (don't eat X, don't work on Y, don't do Z, etc.), rather than deeper, more complex points (love thy neighbor as you love yourself, turn the other cheek, who is without sin - throw the first stone, etc.).

Note that (except for the "suffering fetish" comment) I'm not even trying to tackle the Bible or Christianity as a philosophy here. I'm talking strictly about the sociological aspects of religion.