TLDR: He doesn't forgive anyone who sins, he forgives those who repent. Repent not meaning "feeling sorry" as many seem to explain, but actually meaning "to turn away" which means changing fundamentally as a human being. From a bad person to a good person.
Someone who doesn't change and act good most of the time isn't repentant, so isn't forgiven. So basically, you prove it with your actions and how you live your life, not with just words only. By this measurement, Republican "Christians" aren't repentant and so aren't forgiven.
Not a Christian anymore, but I used to be for a very long time. Sidebar: "You will know a tree by it's fruit" AKA you'll know what kind of person someone is by what they do. Anyone who's even skimmed the bible (especially the new testament) would easily understand that most conservative "christians" aren't Christian at all, but rather like the Pharisees (phony religious types) that Jesus constantly argued with and condemned.
Other note: Sikhs actually live the way Christian claim to. I could easily make a "hard to swallow pill" meme which said: "Sikhs are better Christians than actual Christians are."
Welp you don't want to hear it but the best explanation is religion is a system to scam commoners of their devotion and money. If things start not making sense then you should stop believing in Santa Claus
Some great answers, but none of them ELI5, so I’ll have a go.
When electricity passes through a non-metal, it’s like trying to push a person through a wall, the person just bounces off. When electricity passes through a metal, it’s like you put lots and lots of doors in the wall, so the people (electricity) can pass through it easily. Different metals have different conductivity (more or less doors).
Superconductivity is like taking the wall away completely, 100% of the people can freely pass the threshold. But, so far, we’ve only been able to make superconductors that work at very, very, very low temperatures; or very, very, very high pressures. Of course, it’s not viable for our computer or electric cables to be cooled that much, or pressured that much.
In our modern world, with so many devices running on electricity, we lose lots and lots of energy & money to resistance (those pesky walls with not enough doors). If we had a superconductive material that works at room temperature, and normal pressure, it would mean we can send electricity around the world with very small amounts lost to resistance; it would mean our devices would become incredibly efficient; and likely lead to the development of incredible new technology.
I'd like to add to your excellent ELI5 explanation that removing the walls also means that super conductors don't generate heat. Normally those people would bounce off the walls and all that bouncing makes the room warmer. They're also wasted energy - you pump those people into the system, but all they do is make things warmer with their stupid bouncing. Since lots of electrical components will melt if the temperature gets too high, this also means you have to either waste power on cooling equipment to keep things cool, or limit how much power you pump into the system to ensure the rooms don't get too hot.
This heat generation is putting some hard caps on current hardware designs and speeds especially for computer components.
But if you could build computer components with superconducting circuitry, it would firstly use a lot less power, and secondly you could make it go much faster without risking cooking the components. So for personal devices and PCs, this would have huge potential.
most of heat generated in CMOS like in every digital chip since 80s comes from transient shorting of source voltage during switching between states. you can’t help that with superconductors. You can decrease heat load by either lowering voltage (bad for stability below some point), lowering frequency (your phone/pc already does this when needed) or making the transistors smaller (hard but worthwhile) and improving chip design in general
The reason is because a programmer at some point decide that & should indicate the start of a special symbol in HTML. In programming parlance this is a means of “escaping” characters which are reserved.
For example, in HTML, things look something like this:
The p in the less than and greater symbol symbols means “paragraph” where the ending version with the slash means “the paragraph is done”.
However, there’s a problem. What if you wanted to actually type out <p> to the end-user and have it not be treated as HTML? You use the ampersand syntax to write < by using < and > by using >.
Their absence encourages you to check your phone more often, which means you’ll unlock it and look at some content more often, which means as revenue for someone.
Genuinely wouldn't be surprised if this was the truth. The tactics these companies employ are both putridly-covert, yet brilliantly executed - especially so if it also saves a few cents.
Being honest I think the opposite of this is more likely true. Seeing a flashing indicator for all the notifications my phone “thinks” are important is going to make me more likely to constantly check my phone. Barring that I check when I want to. And with the new passive display modes I can glance and decide whether to even unlock or not.
This is the real answer for OP. Those lights were replaced. Maybe OP (and maybe me as well, I haven’t really thought about it) would prefer to still have the notification LED, but to the hardware manufacturers they replaced those with something “cooler”.
This is all kinda blind speculation and there will be a formal report eventually, but as a general outline:
-When carbon fiber fails, it tends to fail spectacularly: completely and suddenly. So you can think of it not as "crushing a tin can" but more "smashing a glass lightbulb, but from all sides at once".
-If we randomly assume they were halfway down (no idea on where they actually were but as a blind guess 50% is a good starting point) that's about 200 atm of pressure. 1atm = ~15 psi, so thats about 3,000 psi. For comparison, a typical firehose is roughly 100 psi. And that can do serious damage to people: if a badly threaded cover pops off a charged hydrant, there is enough force behind that to break bones. If you were sitting next to the hydrant it'd hit you faster than you could react - you'd only know it after you'd been hit. The water outside the sub is at 30x that pressure.
-Lets assume just as an arbitrary approximation that in the first instant of the carbon fiber failing catastrophically, an area roughly equivalent to a 3ft diameter circle fails (it probably actually fails by buckling in a line then milliseconds later splitting and shattering, but we're just approximating). This means that the water that flows through is pushed by 30x as much pressure as a firehose, and that pressure is coming in across 200 times as much area as a firehose (which are typically 2.5in diameter), so there are basically 200 of those 30x-power-firehoses coming through at once.
-A 2.5in firehose will do ~300 gpm. 6000 firehoses would be 1.8 million gpm. The internal volume of a 2m diameter/4m long cylinder is about 2,500 gal. That would be completely full of water in 0.001 seconds. Of course in reality water doesn't hit full speed instantly, fluid flow is far more complex than just multiplying through like this, etc. But this just drives home that we're talking very very small fractions of a second.
-Yes, compression = heating and when its super fast there isn't much time for heat transfer so its adiabatic: wikipedia has an example under "adiabatic compression" for 10:1 compression going to about 500dec C (in an engine) and this is more like 200:1. But remember that air has low specific heat capacity and also doesn't weigh much. The specific heat capacity of water (i.e. humans, plus those 6,000 firehoses worth of water) is ~4x that of air, and the density is ~1000x as much. So if you have equal volumes of air and person, and you heat the air by 4,000 deg C, that contains roughly enough energy to heat the person by 1 deg C. And also refer back to "there isn't much time for heat transfer". So chances that this actually matters beyond detailed physics calculations are slim.
Bottom line: completely obliterated by the force of so much water under so much pressure. By the time any water entered the sub it should have been over faster than a human could perceive. No explosions or incineration though, just force.
Also, common misconception: pressure alone doesn't hurt you. You would not be directly hurt by spending time anywhere from the complete vacuum of space (0atm) to the challenger deep (1,000 atm). Obviously there are other little complications like you can't breath in 0atm and that'll kill you quickly, but the pressure itself won't. Conversely at high pressures oxygen becomes toxic which isn't great for staying alive, but the pressure itself isn't the issue. Very rapid and therefore very violent pressure CHANGE, however, can and will kill you in many horrible ways.
If we randomly assume they were halfway down (no idea on where they actually were but as a blind guess 50% is a good starting point)
The wreck was found 500m away from the wreck of the Titanic, the Titan descends in a curve and not straight downwards, gives pretty good indication that they were near the depth of the ocean floor. Combine that with the fact that they descended faster than anticipated and that they lost communication right around the time they were supposed to reach the lowet point, I think they were close to the ocean floor.
The data you post isn’t more private like other commenters have mentioned.
On the other hand, lemmy and other open source social media platforms won’t collect behavioural data like other privately owned social networks.
Instagram for instance will track exactly how much time you spend looking at each post to determine your interests and predict which ads you are most likely to click on. Others than that they will also run experiments of changing some features and track your engagement with them.
So in essence, they collect more data on stuff that you don’t explicitly share.
A YouTube channel named “Gamers Nexus” made a video criticisms about LTT hardware Review process.
Due to having the pressure to make videos as quickly as possible, the quality control of hardware reviews has suffered, even with the Lab they assembled for testing hardware and presenting detailed benchmarks.
A startup sent Linux a watercooling prototype to review, but they tried it on a video card it was not designed for, giving bad results.
Then the “sold” the prototype apparently without the full approval of the creators.
Linus was dismissive at first, but now the company has responded and said will take quality control more seriously.
Now an ex employee named Madison came out telling basically that there is a Guy Bros type culture on LTT, where they made inappropriate comments to her, affecting her mental health, overloading her with work because she had the “funny job” of social media managment, and even verbally abused her. Some instances can be considered sexual harassment.
The new CEO of LTT said he was “shocked” by these revelations and will hire an external investigator.
Sorry but that sounds like bullshit. There is no logical sequence of actions leading from “your employer being an asshole” into “you having to slash your leg open” which wouldn’t first pass through “handing in your notice”. Unless you are a literal slave.
Had a shit boss and company owner years ago (and they were two different people, just to be clear). I was mid-senior in my field. At last straw of incompetence and greed I looked for a new job. Handed over my resignation two weeks later. Work in IT, live in Europe. Don’t take shit.
Would love to emigrate to Europe myself. Familial and social reasons make that difficult. A lack of funds make it unfeasible. So for the foreseeable future I’ve gotta deal with the crap I’ve got.
In my experience, in Europe also, it really depends on the country, how senior you are and whether what you do inside IT is in high demand or not.
A junior/mid-level level social media marketing person in, for example, the UK, isn’t going to have the same de facto possibility to tell them “screw you” and quit, as a senior systems designer-developer in, say, Germany.
Mind you, even in the UK, if said junior/mid-level social media marketing person is a permanent employee, he or she will have way, WAY, WAY more legal rights than in the US.
But honestly, explain how this makes sense please. Why would anyone physically harm themselves to be able to stay with a company that’s apparently filled with assholes anyway. Money? There’s no paycheck large enough to make me slash my leg for it (edit: well, of course not none whatsoever…but nothing within an order of magnitude of a realistic salary). And surely unemployment benefits must be a thing in Canada too to keep you alive while looking for another job (in case you really feel you have to leave before finding something else).
I can’t speak for Canada but the American unemployment system is broken like the rest of them are. It won’t pay enough for a lot of people. I know more than one person who wouldn’t get it at all after they got screwed over on an appeal which meant that they had to pay back what they were already sent, often many weeks later. If it’s not paid back then you just won’t receive unemployment until it is.
There’s also fields it can be hard to break in to. They tend to be small and insular so getting a bad rep from one can blackball you from your dreams. Doubly so or more if you’re a women or otherwise not a straight white Christian guy.
Cutting is also not an uncommon mental health issue. With any number of other things weighing down it can easily become a more reasonable seeming option.
There’s a whole world of experiences out there. A lot of people are desensitized to things you’d probably find outlandish.
Humans are emotional beings. Working for LTT is a dream job for lots of people in the industry including Madison. She was told to tough it out by numerous people (managers/coworkers) and that’s what she was trying to do until she broke and had to come up with an excuse that they would have to accept.
Right, but still nobody is forcing you to continue in a job which it turns out is not a good fit for you. I for my part would consider working on SpaceX rockets a dream job but I know I need at least 16h of downtime every day and a weekend, so that is just not gonna happen.
And even if other company cultures are not as mercifully transparent, IMHO complaining about having to mutilate yourself when you could have just as well simply quit and not mutilate yourself is a bit much.
edit: And I’m not saying a company with this sigma grindset bullshit work culture is perfectly fine. It’s not! That’s why it makes even less sense to me to pour your lifeblood into it when this crap doesn’t suit you.
She didn’t “complain” about harming herself. Nobody is asking what you would do in this situation. Somebody reiterated what she said and you called it bullshit. I was simply giving you the context of the situation. You’re going to have a bad time in life if you expect everyone to act logically. Hell even your responses are emotional. I would suggest you read her messages
It’s the greatest irony of all: pure logic would dictate there is no point in keeping on disputing this in the face on negative feedback and with nothing to gain from it.
In fact pure logic would dictate there is no point in commenting in social media if it’s not going to lead to some concrete upside for the one commenting.
If you are in enough mental distress self harm starts looking like a real good idea as an excuse to not go to work. Of course it’s not logical or reasonable. It’s a reaction to stress. It’s an irrational intrusive thought.
If I hadn’t experienced something similar I would feel a little skeptical. :(
Also, lets remember that when activison Blizzard got shit about the gigantic amounts of sexual harassment allegations, they pulled a “we investigates ourselves and found we did nothing wrong” and is still avoiding being investigates by independents.
Immediatly jumping to hire an external investigator is a good move from the CEO, given how low the bar is.
I can believe the new CEO is surprised since he just stepped in (including the previous months of negotiations) but obviously there are things that Linus hasn’t told him. And since most of the important people at the company are Linus year long friends, they had covered each other up.
And yeah, self harming to take a sick leave is fucked up, pretty sure denying sick leave to an employee in Canada is ilegal since there they actually give a shit about labour laws.
It depends on the province. Usually labor laws should be a provincial power, although there is some federal laws too. Like here in Quebec our labor laws are generally quite good. No idea what it’s like in BC tho, it’s generally a more economic-right leaning province so I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s bad.
Want to quickly point out that this whole thing was probably prompted by LTT’s Lab folks (who’s responsible for testing I guess), publicly name-dropping Gamers Nexus when comparing how their own testing methodology was seemingly better.
Yeah, most of the answers here seem to miss that part. The LMG lab tech also called out Hardware Unboxed, who responded via Twitter, got flamed by Linus’s fans, and that was the end of it. But it sounds like Gamers Nexus was already sick of LMG’s shit and that clip was the last straw.
Electrolytes are chemicals that can ionize to carry current. Table salt is one electrolyte, but potassium and magnesium salts are also required by the human body. Nerves work by sending electrical signals, so they need these electrolytes in order for them to carry those signals throughout the body. The problem is, the amount of electrolytes available to nerves depends on the amount present in the bloodstream, and when sweat glands pull water out of the bloodstream, they also take some electrolytes with it. That’s why you need to replenish them after sweating. If you don’t, your nerves won’t work as well and your muscles will have a hard time coordinating. The specific ions you need to organize muscle contraction are sodium, potassium, and magnesium, so if you’re low in any of those, then you risk weakness and cramps. So it’s not quite as simple as just drinking table salt.
I’m curious how many other tools have been silently killed like that or destroyed that we’ll never know about.
I’m still shocked about the mastodon integration… “free” services make users the product so how does allowing anyone without an account to interact with your platform make sense monetarily if you don’t have some nefarious long game in mind.
I could see that it would cause a problem if half the content came from one instance and then that instance de-federated.
People might move to that instance to join the communities that they were previously following which could reduce the content on other instances as they would probably only use one main account.
Here’s another maybe: It might be a good if all of these content consumers moved on to another server. If they don’t understand/appreciate the point of the metaverse, what are they contributing?
In this scenario it doesn’t matter wether they understand the point or not. The communities that they used to follow and contribute to aren’t available to them anymore so they create a new account that can access them.
They can keep both accounts if they want to but they might not want to do that.
Instances had problems with just people signing-up. Imagine Meta’s server farms federate. Everything is smooth and bug free on Threads. “Sign up on Threads” because it’s a convenient and smooth experience. Imagine the smaller instances loosing users. Now when Threads has lots of users they will decide to stop federating. They will take all their user with them.
“There are rumours that Meta would become “Fediverse compatible”. You could follow people on Instagram from your Mastodon account”
Are there examples of this? Or is this just the fear? This all seems like a knee jerk reaction to something we are already avoiding by being on Lemmy/mastodon. The point of having decentralized instances isn’t popularity. It’s to avoid the corporate bullshit, which is inherently less popular.
Except it doesn't work and no corporation does it any more because it doesn't. Look at the two main examples, internet browsers and email. Both of them remain open platforms with viable foss alternatives because google knows that doing this sort of stuff will get them in trouble with anti-trust suits.
While other browsers technically exist, it is foolish to think that web browsers are a thriving diverse ecosystem right now, when 74% of all web-browsing is done using a Chrome-based browser. With their influence, if Google decided to start forcing changes on how websites function on a technical level, they could absolutely do that with little to stop it;- what are websites going to do, alienate a supermajority of their users?- And that is why people are so worried about things like Threads, because once a single company has supermajority control of a market, they can use that control as a weapon to get what they want.
I say this as an avid Firefox user: Firefox is niche. And the only reason Safari has 20% is because it is integrated with apple products, if it weren't for that, Chrome and Chrome-reskins would effectively be the only option.
They already do. If they want an api for their next web project, they just create it. Sure, first they offer to make it a standard but if others disagree, they just make the api and encourage people to use it. This is IE all over again.
If any instance becomes large enough to have an undue influence, which Meta would likely have, then they effectively control the entire ecosystem. At that point, it effectively stops being decentralized (See: The 51% Attack, although this wouldn’t happen at a certain number/ratio). When it becomes convenient to them, they can pull the plug, and destroy the rest of the ecosystem that isn’t theirs.
It’s exactly what happened with XMPP and Google Talk.
Clients, no. We have no way (currently) to individually block an instance, nor would it be effective in preventing this problem. Threads users, as a whole, need to be blocked from the Fediverse, so that Threads is not viewed as a way to interact with Mastodon users.
Our particular instances can defederate from Meta, which would stop certain issues - but not the EEE concerns that are usually brought up. It has to be a widespread block.
XMPP was and still is a buggy mess, and the reason Google unlinked it was that while it had a fraction of the legit traffic, it was like 80% of trolling and spam and other crap.
And Google killed xmpp? No, xmpp killed xmpp, if you can kill something that’s already dead.
People started using other networks because they got used to
Messages arriving
Messages being readable by the recipient
Media like images actually being shown properly.
With xmpp messages frequently got lost with no error, different clients having different encryption and encoding settings, different ways to encode and decode media… A complete mess.
People using that as an EEE example are clueless, or stupid.
Also, if meta starts federating, it will eventually stop it for the same reason Google stopped talking with other xmpp servers. Because it’ll be the source of most of the crap, but very little legit content.
Yes, because it was a decentralized messaging protocol, like ActivityPub. The problem in the end was not the 'OG' XMPP Users but the new Google Talk users and how Google treated the protocol. This, theoretically, could happen with 'the fediverse', too.
If Facebook has over 50% of the users of fediverse on their instance and they decide to cut the rest off because we don’t play nice with them it’s not like we just wither away. The fediverse just splits in half where Facebook apologists are on one side and everyone else on the other. Basically where we are right now.
I’m sure there’s enough people that want nothing to do with Facebook to keep our side of the fediverse active enough to be relevant.
I wouldn’t count on 50/50 split. I imagine it would probably be closer to 90/10 if threads is seen as enjoyable.
A lazy search showed currently there are 6.5 million users in the Fediverse. A similar lazy search told that Threads reportedly had 30 million signups in the first 24 hours.
Even that makes me feel like we’d be in a hidden away corner of the Fediverse just based on sheer size.
Is that necessarily a bad thing though? Two things come to mind:
Do I want the kind of user here that’s willing to sign up for Facebook’s new social platform?
Do I want +100 million users here flooding every interesting discussion with thousands of comments to the point that my reply is immediately going to get lost in the flood of new messages?
I wouldn’t be surprised if even now with our 6.5 million users the quality of discussion here is far greater than it is on Threads with their 30 million users. Obviously too little users is a bad thing but I imagine there can also be too many. Back in my reddit days I much more enjoyed the more slow paced niche subs than the popular ones with 10 million subs. Replying to AskReddit thread with 1000 messages is a complete waste of time. No one is going to read it.
Keep in mind that’s just registered users from what I saw. Not active users. I believe in terms of active users it’s about 2 million. Don’t quote me, that was off memory of reading a different thread.
I quote the lawyers: “it depends.” Are you here for a more personal community? Do you love endless masses of discussion? I’m sure there more questions to go along with this.
For me as well, I never really participated much in Reddit due to the sheer size of most discussions. I do enjoy being able to make a comment that isn’t washed into the void instantly, but I don’t know how much that would actually be affected my Threads. There’s a chance that the majority of Threads folks won’t even bat an eye at the rest of the Fediverse.
What I’m more worried about is the fact that this is a massive, for profit, information harvesting corporation is trying to squeeze themselves into a five times smaller system. Why not start their own thing? They hyped up the Metaverse before, why not build off that?
I conclude that they see a way to maximize profits by setting up here. Be it as innocent as that they hope for more traffic from the Fediverse or something like hoping to snuff out competitors, I don’t trust it. On the same level as I don’t trust them with my data.
Meta does not want to "consume the fediverse" , it's not worth it. Threads has been up for a day and it already has 10x the number of active users than mastodon. Mastodon and the fediverse as it currently stands, is a blip compared to instagram and Twitter. They're doing activitypub so they can claim there's a free market and avoid any anti-trust litigation for owning the three largest social media platforms. If that means a relatively small number of people stay on mastodon instead of threads that's a small price to pay.
I had a teacher in school who believed in predestination. Basically, whether you go to heaven or hell is pre-ordained before your even born and there's nothing you can do to change it. I told him that sounded to me like I should be a Satanist because if I'm predestined for heaven I've worshipped Satan all my life for nothing and I get to chill in heaven. If I'm predestined to go to hell I've spent so much time worshipping Satan it probably won't be too bad. I'm personally not really religious myself but I really was dumbfounded at the whole predestination thing.
That's an... interesting take on predestination. The idea is that God already knows what you're going to do, because he's omniscient. It's not a matter of just picking you and then whatever you do is fine. He already 'knew' what you were going to do. So if you're good, he already knew and you're in.
If you wanna get into a religious debate about predestination, though, strap in. It's a doozy.
It sounds like you know more than this about me so correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding is there's a difference between just plain omniscience (which sounds like what you're describing in your comment, and is pretty widely accepted among Christian denominations) and actual predestination (which to my understanding is almost exclusively a Calvinist belief).
Writ on a broader scale, if someone has power over you (say a government) but chooses not to get involved when you do something, is that free will? Or have they just not prohibited the action you chose to take? I think you have to scope what you mean by free will for there to be any semblance of it given how nebulous "will" can be. If you believe that outcomes are even to some degree deterministic (say, for example, we are predisposed a certain way because of our background, but may act differently because of our beliefs), then it is compatible with a definition of Free Will that has an omniscient being knowing what we will do.
Writ on a broader scale, if someone has power over you (say a government) but chooses not to get involved when you do something, is that free will?
yes.
Or have they just not prohibited the action you chose to take?
Not relevant. You still had the free will to act.
? I think you have to scope what you mean by free will for there to be any semblance of it given how nebulous "will" can be. If you believe that outcomes are even to some degree deterministic (say, for example, we are predisposed a certain way because of our background, but may act differently because of our beliefs), then it is compatible with a definition of Free Will that has an omniscient being knowing what we will do.
I have no idea what you are trying to say with this word salad. Being predisposed doesn't negate free will. You could be a coward for example and be predisposed to run and hide when there is danger but you have the free will to act bravely when the situation presents itself. You or me or anybody else can't know for sure what you will do. More absurdly you or me or anybody else can't know how you will act in any given situation the minute your fathers sperm penetrated your mother's egg.
That's the situation here. The minute the egg is fertilized god knows exactly what you will in every moment of every day for the rest of your life. That means you don't have free will. You can't surprise god, you can't do anything he didn't foresee.
Sounds like your teacher followed the calvinist branch of Christianity then?
Predestination (in terms of religious salvation but also in general, like in determinism) is something that I always found fascinating. Because, if you are predestined to something (either to salvation or to just wake up today), why do we even try so hard if the outcome is already preset? Why try to be a good person if you are already destined to go to heaven or hell since you've been born? Or why do you set the alarm to wake up early in the morning and go to work if you have no influence on what will happen? Couldn't you just sleep the whole day and the result would be the same because it's already preset?
I guess you wouldn't really have that choice. If a full determinism is true, there is no room for free will and even trying to affect the result is something you are already predestined to do and any choice you think you make (or even vacillating over the choices you make) is still something you were predestined to do and only an illusion of free will.
He sure did! And yeah, that's pretty much how I felt about his beliefs. If everything is decided already, then there's no point in having any motivation to do anything because it won't matter. Your destination is decided no matter what, so just do whatever you want regardless of if it's morally just or not.
The term "free will" is not in the Bible, and there are instances of God overriding people's will, such as God hardening Pharoah's heart so that he wouldn't release the Israelites.
One view is that God knows how people will end up not because He is forcing them to act a certain way, but because He has a perfect knowledge of the outcomes of their actions. Kind of like how a parent knows what the outcome of a small child's actions will be.
Humans believe they have free will. If you think that you have free will, in what way does that differ meaningfully to you from actually having free will?
This gets weird, because the human brain appears to make decisions unconsciously before you consciously make that choice. It appears that our "rational" , thinking brain is making up reasons why we did a thing, rather than those reasons actually driving the choice. So did you--the consciousness that you conceptualize as being yourself--really make that choice, or is there some other 'dark' you that's driving, and you only think you're in control?
They have free will but omniscience means it's known ahead of time what that free will will lead to.
If you give a 3 year old the choice between watching either the news or baby shark, you can pretty reliably predict the outcome. That but on a bigger scale.
At least that's the explanation that was given to me.
I know I'm preaching to the choir but omniscience will have to do much better than that. Let's say someone decides to make a choice depending on the outcome of a throw of a dice. You might say it's trivial for omniscience to predict what a dice shows by perfect physical knowledge.
But how about if someone makes a choice depending on the content of opening a Schrodinger's cat's box? Omniscience will have to be able to predict what is currently physically impossible to predict.
Then someone might argue it is not impossible for omniscience to do that but then we're back in "believe it" territory and not "there is a logical explanation" territory.
The omnipotence, when combined with the concept of omnipresence creates a situation of god existing outside our concept of time. It’s similar to how we exist outside the concept of time held by those characters contained in a movie. At our will we can exist at any point(s) in time in the movie, because of this we already know the ending.
Your brain doesn’t distinguish between “processing” and “storage.” In order to remember something, you essentially have to get a lot of the same neurons that fired during the original event to fire again in the same pattern.
When you sleep, your brain is “copying” memories by replaying them while also firing the neurons that will associate those memories in long-term storage, along with associations that need reinforcing. Think of this as indexing and cross-joining the memories.
When your brain does this–replaying snips of memories to associate them–you perceive and experience them: that’s dreams. When you wake up, the actual memories have been properly associated and attached, but the many “clips” weren’t actually related. Your mind tries to relate things together into narratives, because that’s generally how we best recall things. You remember how to navigate to a place by recalling a little story of how you get there. When you wake up, the brain starts trying to put those snips into a sensible order. You start to construct a narrative that links those clips together into a weird story of the dream you had.
Or you don’t! If the brain can’t find the links, or if you just have other things to think about as you wake up, then the faint echoes of the dream memories fade off and don’t cohere into a narrative. That’s all our continuity of thought and being really is: echoes.
This same effect is part of why false confessions are pretty easy to get. If you tell someone a good enough story about themselves, and especially if you can provide some evidence, then their mind will start making up appropriate details to fill in the narrative gaps. Your mind really wants there to be a cohesive story so it can link memories up properly.
I don’t think it’s consistent with lucid dreaming where you’re actively taking part in an experience rather than passively experiencing memories being encoded and other parts of your brain believing it’s a new experience.
It might be a part of what’s going on, but I believe there’s more to dreaming than that. Something involving the imagination/creative centres. If I had to guess, I’d say part of the reason we dream is the brain trying to learn by fitting random pieces of information together to see if it notices something new, though it’s the subconscious that gains most of any benefit from that.
There is a lot more of course, I didn’t endeavor to explain all of mental function and dreaming in one forum post. Lucid dreaming, and very creative or even psychedelic dreams, and sleepwalking; there are many additional elements.
Even if they "only" died as fast as that shows, if you are on the inside, you get crushed by the pressure on your body so fast you likely wouldn't realize anything.
I can't find where I saw it, but the friction of the water as it poured into the submarine at those depths would have been so strong that it would have heated the internal components hotter than the surface of the sun. Supposedly they cooked to death before they were crushed. But damn I can't find the link anymore, lol. Someone with better google-fu please link to the article
One network interface has just one IP address, but it can have a bunch of different programs listening and talking.
A server might have both a webserver and a mail server running on the same machine - and they don't want each other's network traffic.
So you mark each packet with a destination port number, to let the server work out which program you're talking to.
Your web browser will mark all its packets with port 80 or port 443, and when the server gets those, it knows it's web traffic, and passes it to the webserver software.
Your email client will mark all its packets with port 25 or 993, and when the server gets those, it knows it's email traffic, and passes it to the mailserver software.
Typically each separate kind of network service will have its own well-known port number assigned to it.
There's also a source port field on packets, so that your computer can get return traffic back to the right program running on your machine.
Mostly history. Numbers were chosen rather than other identifiers because they were simpler to use over the wire back in the day when the protocol was written when every bit cost, and nobody at the time could imagine a single physical machine managing more than 65535 programs at the same time, since that was how you conventionally hooked things up. The IANA (International Assigned Numbers Authority, https://iana.org/) is responsible for maintaining a list of "registered" numbers, but those are largely by convention, not by requirement. Web browsers associate https traffic with port 443 by default, but as a developer, we can set up a webserver on port 50443 and send our browser to if we specify that number explicitly. It just wouldn't know about it by default.
Nowadays, with virtual machines, NAT subnetworks, and the absurdity that is involved in port-per-transaction networking (We're looking at you nginx proxy frontends), it's gotten a bit congested. Fortunately, IPv6 has relieved quite a bit of that, and we now have a much larger pool of 2x(IP/Port) quads to draw from, but it was a real issue there for a while.
No reason, they're conventions. Check out this list and you'll get a better idea. It's simply a number that the developer assigns without a particular meaning. It's kinda like telephone help lines, one thing that a developer might want to try is to find a pretty memorable number while trying to avoid conflicts with other programs running at the same time.
id say your telephone number example can be extended:
1800 is for free numbers, but why? no particular reason, just that’s the number that got chosen at some time… same with port 80 being HTTP: that’s just the number that got chosen!
you can also have an HTTP server running on port 25 (usually mail); it’s just bad practice… just like there’s no reason why your phone company couldn’t make a regular phone number toll free!
what’s pretty normal though is running an HTTP server on say, port 5000: this is just for more technical users though, because you have to know the port; your browser doesn’t “remember” it for you
explainlikeimfive
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.