Motherfucker have you tried looking at a browser implementation? It might just be the single most complex piece of software on the planet today. It’s basically an OS, JS environment and GUI toolkit in one
That would make sense as to why it’s such a dogshit piece of software, wouldnt it? That’s why windows is bad after all.
Also fun fact. I recently had a spat with firefox taking like 30s to startup, apparently for SOME fucking reason, someone thought a 25s timeout would be sane in the event that discord doesn’t detect xdg-desktop-settings or whatever the specific was.
So for some reason Firefox doesn’t work most of the time on my parent’s ISP. It simply doesn’t find sites 80% of the time. I can take the same wifi adapter and move it to my place and it works fine. I’ve messed arounfld with different DNS and stuff, and I just can’t get it to be reliable there.
The problem I have with this meme post is that it gives a false sense of security, when it should not.
Open or closed source, human beings have to be very diligent and truly spend the time reviewing others code, even when their project leads are pressuring them to work faster and cut corners.
This situation was a textbook example of this does not always happen. Granted, duplicity was involved, but still.
In many ways, distributed open source software gives more social attack surfaces, because the system itself is designed to be distributed where a lot of people each handle a different responsibility. Almost every open source license includes an explicit disclaimer of a warranty, with some language that says something like this:
THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED “AS IS”, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT.
Well, bring together enough dependencies, and you’ll see that certain widely distributed software packages depend on the trust of dozens, if not hundreds, of independent maintainers.
This particular xz vulnerability seems to have affected systemd and sshd, using what was a socially engineered attack on a weak point in the entire dependency chain. And this particular type of social engineering (maintainer burnout, looking for a volunteer to take over) seems to fit more directly into open source culture than closed source/corporate development culture.
In the closed source world, there might be fewer places to probe for a weak link (socially or technically), which makes certain types of attacks more difficult. In other words, it might truly be the case that closed source software is less vulnerable to certain types of attacks, even if detection/audit/mitigation of those types of attacks is harder for closed source.
It’s a tradeoff, not a free lunch. I still generally trust open source stuff more, but let’s not pretend it’s literally better in every way.
It’s a tradeoff, not a free lunch. I still generally trust open source stuff more, but let’s not pretend it’s literally better in every way.
Totally agree.
All the push back I’m getting is from people who seem to be worried about open source somehow losing a positive talking point, when comparing it to close source systems, which is not my intention (the loss of the talking point). (I personally use Fedora/KDE.)
But sticking our heads in the sand doesn’t help things, when issues arise, we should acknowledge them and correct them.
using what was a socially engineered attack on a weak point in the entire dependency chain.
An example of what you may be speaking about, indirectly. We can only hope that maintainers do due diligence, but it is volunteer work.
In the broader context of that thread, I’m inclined to agree with you: The circumstances by which this particular vulnerability was discovered shows that it took a decent amount of luck to catch it, and one can easily imagine a set of circumstances where this vulnerability would’ve slipped by the formal review processes that are applied to updates in these types of packages. And while it would be nice if the billion-dollar-companies that rely on certain packages would provide financial support for the open source projects they use, the question remains on how we should handle it when those corporations don’t. Do we front it ourselves, or just live with the knowledge that our security posture isn’t optimized for safety, because nobody will pay for that improvement?
There are two big problems with the point that you’re trying to make:
There are many open source projects being run by organizations with as much (often stronger) governance over commit access as a private corporation would have over its closed source code base. The most widely used projects tend to fall under this category, like Linux, React, Angular, Go, JavaScript, and innumerable others. Governance models for a project are a very reasonable thing to consider when deciding whether to use a dependency for your application or library. There’s a fair argument to be made that the governance model of this xz project should have been flagged sooner, and hopefully this incident will help stir broader awareness for that. But unlike a closed source code base, you can actually know the governance model and commit access model of open source software. When it comes to closed source software you don’t know anything about the company’s hiring practices, background checks, what access they might provide to outsourced agents from other countries who may be compromised, etc.
You’re assuming that 100% of the source code used in a closed source project was developed by that company and according to the company’s governance model, which you assume is a good one. In reality BSD/MIT licensed (and illegally GPL licensed) open source software is being shoved into closed source code bases all the time. The difference with closed source software is that you have no way of knowing that this is the case. For all you know some intern already shoved a compromised xz into some closed source software that you’re using, and since that intern is gone now it will be years before anyone in the company notices that their software has a well known backdoor sitting in it.
None of what I’m saying is unique to the mechanics of open source. It’s just that the open source ecosystem as it currently exists today has different attack surfaces than a closed source ecosystem.
Governance models for a project are a very reasonable thing to consider when deciding whether to use a dependency for your application or library.
At a certain point, though, that’s outsourced to trust whoever someone else trusts. When I trust a specific distro (because I’m certainly not rolling my own distro), I’m trusting how they maintain their repos, as well as which packages they include by default. Then, each of those packages has dependencies, which in turn have dependencies. The nature of this kind of trust is that we select people one or two levels deep, and assume that they have vetted the dependencies another one or two levels, all the way down. XZ did something malicious with systemd, which opened a vulnerability in sshd, as compiled for certain distros.
You’re assuming that 100% of the source code used in a closed source project was developed by that company and according to the company’s governance model, which you assume is a good one.
Not at all. I’m very aware that some prior hacks by very sophisticated, probably state sponsored attackers have abused the chain of trust in proprietary software dependencies. Stuxnet relied on stolen private keys trusted by Windows for signing hardware drivers. The Solarwinds hack relied on compromising plugins trusted by Microsoft 365.
But my broader point is that there are simply more independent actors in the open source ecosystem. If a vulnerability takes the form of the weakest link, where compromising any one of the many independent links is enough to gain access, that broadly distributed ecosystem is more vulnerable. If a vulnerability requires chaining different things together so that multiple parts of the ecosystem are compromised, then distributing decisionmaking makes the ecosystem more robust. That’s the tradeoff I’m describing, and making things spread too thin introduces the type of vulnerability that I’m describing.
Getting noticed because of a 300ms delay at startup by a person that is not a security researcher or even a programmer after doing all that would be depressing honestly.
The people “ranting about cancel culture” are not the generalized group “Christians.” What can you do though? Lemmy fully embraces hate against Christians.
Don’t like the fact that you belong to a group known for being shitty? Clean your fucking house or leave the group. Don’t tell us they don’t belong in your group. Tell them.
Yeah Christians are so persecuted. I feel so bad for them. Good thing you’re here to defend them or they wouldn’t be that most powerful group in the country.
Nobody would fuck with churches is churches stayed quiet and stopped trying to impose their morality on the rest of us. Because of religion we are losing fundamental human rights. I’d be pissed too.
Ok, you are entitled to your opinion, but the claim was that Christian churches and Christian church goers weren’t being targeted or “demonized,” which I’ve shown is false. Both with an example from yesterday morning, and an aggregate data set which shows some level of significance. Now, whether you want to argue if it is deserved, or proportional, or whatever else is up to you and your morals. However, the original claim that Christians are not the target of harassment because of their religious affiliation is simply not true.
Ok I’ll spell it out for you instead of joking around then. This meme is incredibly accurate. There has been nothing in human history that has caused more pain and harm than religion and Christianity is the worst offender. It absolutely deserves critique and you’re being unreasonable for saying that Lemmy is wrong for doing so.
Delusional. Also Lemmy doesn’t criticize religion, it just promotes hatred for Christianity in the general sense. If the same memes were posted about Muslims moderators would remove them.
I actually agree with you that Islam is equal levels of shit compared to Christianity. “Islamophobia” is a bullshit word that I’m still confused why it exists. Of course people are afraid of Islam lmao.
Still though, the death tolls thanks to both religions are so high you can’t even find estimates. Who knows which one killed more millions of people.
There you go again pretending that Christianity is being oppressed when: 1) it’s not and 2) it deserves to be so even if you weren’t full of shit it would be appropriate
Hi, Jew here. You have no fucking idea what hatred means. Oh boo hoo, people were mean to your religion on the Internet.
I’m guessing no one ever kicked the shit out of you personally because you were a Christian. I wish I could say the same.
I’ll leave it to you to guess what religion the people who have done that to me adhered to. Hint: Not Islam, Jainism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, Confucianism, Shintoism, Baha’i, Wicca, Unitarian Universalism or any traditional indigenous religions.
Christians and religious people in general make up a substantial portion of charitable work around the work. So I think that easily disproves your claim that they cause nothing but pain.
Really your statement just comes across as childish and uninformed probably because of the large amount of propaganda you consume from places like this.
Why shouldn’t you hate 55%+ of the world? Do you really believe more than half the people in the world contribute nothing but pain?
Also why didn’t you include Jews? They’re the root of Abrahamic religion and currently the “Jewish homeland” is engaging in genocide.
It’s just silly but also worrying that you could have such a skewed view of reality.
I also feel the same about Jews. There aren’t very many religious beliefs I am tolerant of.
Charity and religion have nothing to do with each other btw lol. People can be charitable without being religious.
Christians, for example, are only “charitable” because they are trying to recruit members. Do you have any idea how much wealth is sitting at the top of the catholic church hierarchy?
Ever been to eastern Europe and visited the fancy gold plated cathedrals? Notice who is driving the new Mercedes s550 parked in the parking lot, and notice what the church attendees are driving. Charitable my ass.
You have anecdotal claims. They don’t rise to the level of proof that the studies I mentioned do. Your claim is easily proven false, it doesn’t matter if you can’t accept that.
Well, go give poland a visit, it’s not the watered down version of christianity that americans are subjected to. They literally run the entire country. That’s what happens when you let religion take over.
I’m not downvoting you btw, it’s kind of refreshing speaking to a religious person on lemmy haha
my brother in hell, if I believed in religion, and my religion says giving some amount to it or someone else gets me express pass to heaven, i’d be donating like crazy too. I’d be donating more if I know I’ve done horrible things and need more “blessing.”
The charity doesn’t negate the bad things religion has done.
If Christians didn’t hamstring non -Christian groups and government services at every turn, there would be no need for these charities and/or the most popular charities would not be the ones feeding bibles to starving people.
I dont mind Christians being charitable. I do oppose them using it to recruits or to pressure people in need to listen to their preachings. That’s not charity that is exploitation. True charity wants nothing in return.
Religious charity work is a recruitment tactic. It exploits the vulnerable, converts them into religious people and voters. And by voting for the right, they’ll contribute to the rotting of the very same social services that churches exploit.
I work as a desk clerk in a Hungarian social institution, and the people that should be responsible for mental health instead more preoccupied with converting people to some form of christianity, all while we supposed to be “secular” on paper.
Yeah exactly. If you look at the top bad guys of last century, the names that will roll into your head should be; stalin, mao, hitler, pol pot. And what you will notice as none of those guys had a paticular religion and were maybe even anti religion. So the idea that religion is the thing that causes the harm doesnt make any sense.
In the private Tabletalk interviews Hitler talked about his deep Christian beliefs, which he had always talked about publicly. He wanted to create a German National Christian church in the same model that England has its own national Christian Church with the King as the head. (Anglicans).
If Hitler wasn’t Christian, then British Anglicans (the majority of all Christians in Britain and North Ireland) aren’t Christian either.
If he wanted to create a national “church” then it would have been a church to use as a tool/organization, and he was still not a christian. Which would still be the attempted destruction of the church.
Building a German National Church so that German Christians would be free to practice their faith outside of foreign control is the opposite of destroying the church. Henry VIII didn’t destroy the church.
Anglicans exist. George Bush Senior is a Christian.
Hitler was following the teachings of Martin Luther, the founder of Protestism.
I quoted Martin Luther. “We are at fault for not killing them.” Was Martin Luther a Christian?
Hitler said he wanted to create a church in the model of the Church of England. He couldn’t have been more clear. Wanting to create a Church of Germany exactly like Church of England isn’t destroying a church.
Anglicans are Christians despite being members of the Church of England. Henry VIII didn’t destroy Christianity in England.
I will tell you this once because I feel like I am going to waste my time, but maybe it will stick. Christianity has a bunch of rules, and it has nothing to do with controlling people, it has to do with the best functioning society and what is actually good for people. It is the reason why western civilization has done so well for so many centuries. Things like cheating on your wife is bad for society and for the individuals, that is why it is prohibited. My comment is an outside observation of what the religion of christianity does, other religions have different features.
There are some non-christian made up rules, paticularly with the catholics, but many of the things you are referring to are differences in interpretation.
No, the rules are in the bible but people can interpret them differently. I think the issue you are probably referring to are probably the cult types that twist and turn things to not mean what they mean.
Yes, and then they write down those interpretations. And then they judge behaviors of others against those interpretations. So the Amish interpret the Bible to establish a rule against technology. Jehovah’s witnesses interpret the Bible to establish a rule against blood transfusion. They say their rules come from the Bible, you say their rules are interpretations, and only your own interpretations are actually rules.
The clergy writes the rules. The clergy invents god in their image, and “interprets” rules that benefit themselves.
Sure, but the basis for all of their rules is the bible. And you are right in how its dangerous and that was a big problem and Martin Luther is the example of someone pointing out when they clergy got out of hand and made unbiblical rules.
They dont write, they interpret and enforcement is done on a personal or community level typically. Its like you saying that the laws originate with the state not the constitution. No, the constitution is (supposed to be) the main document that the applicable laws are based on, states can go against it, but the basis is the constitution (or at least it is supposed to be).
The constitution is not the basis of law, nor is it supposed to be the basis of law. Laws do not originate from the constitution.
The constitution establishes government. The government establishes law.
If the Bible is analogous to the constitution, then the clergy is analogous to government.
To make the constitution analogous to the Bible, we would need a couple dozen different variants of the constitution, written at various times, to and from various languages. We’d have to do away with states, and the three branches. The clergy would consist of every county sheriff throughout the nation. Every sheriff would hold the full power of government, dictating what rules are important and what can be ignored. But, the sheriffs wouldn’t agree with each other on what is important.
Most importantly, we would have to remove the amendment process from the constitution, and let the sheriff’s take care of that, too.
That’s why you’re not allowed to eat shrimp or wear cotton polyester blends. It’s also why you can beat your slaves but not kill them. It also caused the crusades, Salem witch trials, justified slavery in the US, justified the prohibition against interracial marriage, started the KKK, actively works to have women killed if they have a non viable fetus, actively works to kill homosexuals who won’t stay in the closet, burns books, is currently committing genocide in Central Africa, molests little boys, caused the Bosnian Genocide, preaches “love thy neighbor” while lynching folks, celebrates when a trans person is shot, sends people to conversion camps that literally tortures them, molests even more kids, blames weather events on gay people, and comes to my fucking house, right to my fucking door, to try to tell me that I need to accept Yeshua ben Yosef or their magic fairy that they don’t have any real evidence of is going to spank me.
I don’t need that kind of hate to tell me not to go around murdering people. I already don’t do that. I don’t need it to tell me not to rape. The Bible says that’s cool as long as I pay her dad but I’ll go a step further and just not rape anyone. I certainly don’t need that jackass Paul telling me anything because he didn’t teach the same thing Yeshua ben Yosef taught, but there’s a whole shit pile of his rules and regulations in the New Testament. And if I wanted a drugged out weirdo telling me about the end times I’d go listen to Crazy Tommy talk about his vision of the Neverending Story while he’s dropping acid.
Practice your religion. If it keeps you from raping and killing then I’m all for it. But practice it in your closet, not on the digital street corner for all to see. Because if you do that then you already have your reward.
The lie the new atheist movement led everyone to believe was that religion is the problem, and that when we get rid of religion then everyone will be happy and get along. America is the furthest from religion it has been in its history, are things going great?
The whole culture is influenced by religion, its not just paticular issues. I would argue that america is literally falling apart right now, and we are in for some serious issues. I understand that much of it can be associated to other things, but I think much of it has to do with loss of purpose and morals.
I can see why you would think that society is failing. You are religiously motivated, and religion consistently falls on the wrong side of issues. As mentioned, LGBTQ. Society is rapidly improving for transgender individuals, despite religiously-motivated efforts to block and reverse such progress. To the religious, this is a failure of society, a degradation of morality.
To trans individuals, their friends and family, it’s a sign of improvement, and cause for hope.
Same with reproductive rights. Non-religious people believe that banning abortion creates more tragedy than it prevents. Religious people believe the opposite. So when Ohio, Kansas, and every other state that has asked the question has arrived at a pro-choice answer, religious people think it a failure, and non-religious think it progress.
Religion is losing control of the people. To the religiously-controlled, that’s a bad thing. To the non-religious, it’s a welcome relief.
I am stepping out from my personal beliefs and looking at things on a cultural level. The problem with your argument is that you are isolating everything and not looking at the overall picture. You cant just point to a thing and say that it is good but not look at the other impacts or influences that caused it to happen or are a consequence. Right now I can look at the overall situation in america and see we have people that lack purpose and unity, and many people that literally want to destroy it all and rebuild it in a false utopia. So even if you think all religion is false you should be able to recognize the overall stability it provided.
Yeah, you’re not. There is no objective viewpoint underpinning your arguments. They are based entirely on your subjective opinion, and are only valid for those sharing your opinion.
Right now I can look at the overall situation in america and see we have people that lack purpose
That you cannot see my “purpose” says more about your vision than it says about me.
many people that literally want to destroy it all and rebuild it in a false utopia.
Yes, I would like to see religiosity slowly and systematically destroyed, and society rebuilt on humanistic principles rather than “theistic” concepts that benefit no one but the clergy.
One thing that has make me successful is that I have the ability to step out and make decisions and opinions that are almost entirely objective.
You are right that you can have purpose outside of religions, but typically the purpose is vapid, or in the case of people like antifa, directly harmful.
And one thing you will find is that most of the “humanistic principles” you desire are based on religion, and the ones that are not tend to be a negative on society.
You have not presented any objective basis for any of your opinions. You have stated a belief that society is somehow failing (I’m paraphrasing from memory) but you haven’t stated or otherwise identified any sort of objective foundation for that belief.
I have presented an opposing opinion, supported with my subjective foundations, to whit: the advancement of LGBTQ acceptance and reproductive rights. You’ve pointed to some nebulous concepts, and (falsely) declared them objective truths. (Again, paraphrasing).
You keep claiming the ability to maintain objectivity, but you have not even demonstrated comprehension of the concept.
If you want specifics that is fine, you just have to ask. The main problem that I think is happening is that people dont have any real purpose outside of religion. What they tend to have is beliefs in things that are manufactured problems, or there is no real solution to, or are not problems as all. For example, antifa will burn down cities to fights against racism or something, when of all the problems that we have, racism is pretty small. Or on the other hand the bigger problem is that maybe the majority dont have any purpose at all and will just seek out pleasure, which is society killer.
The main problem that I think is happening is that people dont have any real purpose outside of religion
That is a subjective opinion. That is your subjective opinion. That is not you separating yourself from your own beliefs. That is not you presenting an objective fact to support your opinion, or taking a broader look at culture. That is you presenting your opinion.
There’s nothing wrong with developing a subjective opinion, until you claim it is something other than a subjective opinion.
Do not elevate opinions beyond the mind that created them.
Of course that is your opinion, you have been trained by the modern atheist types that religion is bad and that when its gone the world will be a better place. That idea is so obviously wrong with just a momentary glace at history.
There is a distinct possibility that God exists. There’s another distinct possibility…
Scientists conduct experiments. Trials. They want to see if a drug is effective, so they arrange two groups of people, give one the drug, and the other a placebo. A “blinded” study. They hide as much of the study as the can from the participants, to rule out confirmation bias and other experimental errors.
When these scientists discover that their subjects have become aware of experimental conditions, the data is contaminated from that point forward.
Scientists don’t just conduct experiments on people. They also conduct experiments on lab rats. They have a grand purpose for each and every rat in their study, but that purpose is to further development of a drug that will be used to save humans. They are completely unconcerned with the lives of their rats. The wants, needs, and noble purposes the rats might have for their own rat society.
The interesting part is when the scientists realize that the rats have discovered the scientists, the experiment. When they comprehend the objective of the scientists. What happens when the rats become unblinded to the experiment?
To answer your question, the likelihood that the Christian god exists is about as high as the likelihood of God being the principal investigator in some cosmic study, and our reward for discovering him is annihilation.
I answered your question, at length. You skipped over the first sentence in my lengthy response.
There is a distinct possibility that God exists. There’s another distinct possibility…
The likelihood that the Abrahamic god exists is equal to the likelihood that the Principal Investigator god exists, and if it turns out that those two are one and the same, you are responsible for annihilating all existence.
I have no reason to believe either of these scenarios is true, but both are distinctly possible.
I very directly asked a question and your answer was not an answer. Your opinions are really not interesting enough for me to keep asking over and over.
Alright, I addressed one aspect of your question. Let’s hit another. You inquired about probability.
The probability of rolling a 6 on a standard 6-sided die is 1 in 6. 1 actual solution from 6 possibilities. 1 in 6.
What’s the probability as we go to dice with more and more sides? The more possible solutions, the less likely any particular solution will occur.
Rolling a 6 on 1d8 is theoretically 1 in 8, assuming we actually have a die, we actually roll that die, and we actually get a result. The chance of rolling a 6 on a 1d8 is less than 1 in 8 when “it landed in the campfire” is a possible outcome. That additional possibility doesn’t make it 1 in 9, though, because “it shattered when it hit the table” is another possible outcome. “A meteor came through the roof and destroyed the die before it landed”.
The set of possible outcomes of throwing a 1d8 is only 1 in 8 when we exclude every possibility except a single number between 1 and 8.
When we talk about the probability of the existence of a particular god, we can’t limit the set of possible solutions to a finite number. we aren’t just selecting between all of the gods ever actually conceived of by mankind, but all gods that can be conceived of, all gods that can’t be conceived of, and the complete absence of a god at all.
The probability of god is one in an infinite number of possibilities.
1/♾️
Mathematically, this concept is indistinguishable from zero. That doesn’t actually mean impossible: it just means that the mathematical discipline of “probability” is not equipped to describe the selection of a single (or finite) solution from an infinite set.
Asking the probability of of God is like asking the molecular formula of free speech, or the temperature of a vacuum, or how many kilograms are in a mile. The question is meaningless.
My previous answer ignored the impossibility of your question, and attempted to address your intended meaning instead.
When you can tell me the proper temperature for baking a pound of philosophy, I’ll answer your question directly.
You use too many words to answer the question. The question is not meaningless, literally I used the word guestimation, as in give it a wild guess. You writing an extremely long response to a question I can answer in a couple sentences doesnt make you look smarter, it just makes you kind of annoying.
I didn’t say it was close to zero. I said it was mathematically indistinguishable from zero. “Mathematically indistinguishable from” and “=” are synonymous. Distinguishing between 0 and 1/♾️ would require the use of a tool other than mathematics. I do not know of a useful tool for addressing such a distinction. I do not think there is much utility in even considering such a distinction. I would say (and have said) that even contemplating such a distinction is meaningless.
You understand the 1/♾️=0 concept by simple recitation, not by comprehension. When you actually comprehend the meaning of that concept, you will understand why your question is indeed meaningless.
Asking for the probability of God’s existence is like asking for vernier calipers to measure an amp of electrical current. Probability is a very useful tool, but the “measurement” it provides is entirely irrelevant to the object we are trying to to measure. It’s the wrong tool for the job.
“Mathematically indistinguishable from” and “=” are synonymous
No, it is zero, this is not an argument, I am just telling you the answer to the math problem.
And again, not answering the question doesnt make you look smarter, it makes you one of those annoying teens that think they are smart but dont have experience to know what actual smart people are.
An actual answer would be- “My guess is that the is W% chance there is a God, X% chance of pure evolution, Y% chance of simulation theory and Z% chance of this other one or something else”.
When you do the thing where you write 20 paragraphs about simple concepts and pretend its deep, its just eyerolling.
And on what basis am I evaluating those possibilities? You suggested probability, mathematically, and yet you recognized that mathematically, W, X, Y, and Z are all zero.
You are standing at a welding table, with tool clamping your part to the bench, and you’re asking me to tighten it up for you. I keep telling you that the tool you’re using is a micrometer, not a C-clamp, and you keep calling me an idiot for not knowing how a clamp works.
I patiently explain that even if we ignore the idiocy of using an expensive, precision instrument for work holding, a micrometer is physically incapable of being tightened enough to secure your workpiece properly. And you tell me to shut up and crank it down.
I can think of three possible routes past this impasse. To stay with probability, we can find some way of limiting the infinite possibilities to a finite, (albeit unknown) number of possibilities, so that our probabilities are no longer 1/♾️, or “zero”. Or, we can abandon probability and delve into a field of mathematics that can accept infinities. Or, we can leave mathematics behind, and move to philosophy.
Yeah I get it you keep a lot of words to convey very little meaning. I am fully able to use a micrometer, but you for some reason think its impossible, so you inability to do the task doesnt mean its impossible.
You are the one that erroneously has been using infinity not me. If you have no explaination for the existence of humans its fine, but then dont use math to pretend its relevent to this situation.
You are the one that erroneously has been using infinity not me.
I clearly explained why I was using infinite. This is the first time you have challenged my use of infinite. I eagerly await a rebuttal against my infinite argument.
If you have no explaination for the existence of humans
When did “existence of humans” enter the discussion? I thought we were discussing the existence of god(s). The probability of humans existing is 100%.
but then dont use math to pretend its relevent to this situation.
You brought math into the discussion, not I. I initially assumed you were speaking colloquially, and I responded with my “Pascal’s wager” answer. Only when you doubled down and demanded probability did I respond with my mathematical, 1/♾️ answer.
If you don’t like the answer, ask a different question.
How many answers do you want? I’ve given you the colloquial answer; I’ve given you a reasoned, rational answer, and I’ve given you the simple, mathematical answer 1/♾️, which you recognize and acknowledge to be zero.
I’ve answered you three separate times, respectfully and considerately, while ignoring your insults and denigration. I’ve patiently clarified and explained those answers, with reason and analogy, while you have mocked and belittled.
I’m going to move on from your question now, and ask one of my own: as a person you have mocked and denigrated and insulted and belittled, what would you now have me know about religion in general, and/or yours in particular?
Yeah they’re just the loudest and proudest people who wear crosses around their neck and only vote for other people who are loud and proud of their Christian love wanting to ban anything remotely “sinful.” Everyone knows that Christians are the most oppressed in the West! Truly no one knows how hard it is to be a follower of the majority belief, and never need to defend it from the state.
Also here’s a brief list of things Christians tried to cancel in the United States: Comic books, rock and roll, jazz, dungeons and dragons, magic the gathering, radio, television, other forms of Christianity, anything remotely queer, Italians, Irish, Chinese, Jews, abolitionists, civil rights marchers, feminists…
And here’s the entire list of times Christians were oppressed by laws pushed by non-Christian groups/state actors in the United States and the West in general:
Truly no one knows how hard it is to be a follower of the majority belief
That’s the thing, it is the majority belief (well over 50% of the population) and yet the draconian over reach you are complaining about does not have the support of nearly 50% of the population. Therefore there must be a large number of Christians that are also against it. They are on your side. I don’t know why you are trying so hard to insist they are your enemy.
Well, yeah, but it’s not supposed to happen to them. They’re the ones who are supposed to be in charge, not just morally and ethically, but also economically. If they can get called out for their bullshit it’s a warning sign to them. Their massive privileges are being eroded and it scares the shit out of them.
How much have you read about the history of religion?
If they’re not doing it to others, they’re doing it to themselves. The last time there wasn’t a Christian church leader ranting about an evil person was around year 0.
You can’t really debate on whether to trust science or have faith. They are antipodal way of thinking.
One thing you could do is reduce the two to their consequences for society and pick which one is wrong using your moral instinct or personal philosophy.
(You can even do like some people and choose when to apply each one…)
But you sure won’t make people shut up about their own morals and vision for society. It’s too involving, we’re bound to be obnoxious.
You can’t really debate on whether to trust science or have faith.
They really aren’t. Science is about understanding how things work, and religion is about pondering our place in the universe, and morals. It’s really only fundamentalists that take scriptures literally and the fundamentalist atheists that believe all religious people are fundamentalists.
The only thing worse than being cornered by someone saying “have you been saved by Jesus Christ our lord and saviour” is being stuck talking to an atheist that’ll go on for much longer about their belief that religion caused all the world’s problems. At least a religious person is capable of saying something positive now and then.
God is the creator of the universe science describe. God itself, if he existed, would be a topic of science.
Science is answering our pondering about our place in the universe. We can also be scientists and create a moral belief system that’s not based on God.
Separating them is part of the compartmentalization we do to avoid conflict or our self contradictions.
Fundamentalists in both religion and atheism think the other view is wrong and should not exist. That’s very different from just recognizing we have different point of views.
And atheists aren’t all such morons to think religion is such a problem. Most atheist can respect religious people as long as they’re not fundamentalist.
Science is answering our pondering about our place in the universe. We can also be scientists and create a moral belief system that’s not based on God.
That wouldn’t be science. It would be a religion.
For most of history science was done by the religious because few other people were literate. We long ago decided it would be better to have people specialized in science, and separated science from religion. And it worked really well.
Now you want to turn science into a religion? We already know that wouldn’t work very well. Why would you want this? It seems to me you’re not really against the concept of religion you just don’t like the religions we currently have.
Science isn’t about beliefs. It depends on people being skeptical of everything. Searching for empirical evidence that’s contrary to current theories so those theories can be improved and sometimes even replaced. Science is a process. Mixing morals and beliefs into science makes for bad morals and bad science.
Science is a method to find truth by telling us how to construct proofs.
What we call rationality in general, in which science is based on, is to use proof to believe in something.
Whereas faith and so religion is believing without proof.
So as a scientist you do believe in any theory that has been proven. And of course you change your beliefs with each new information.
Believing isn’t just a word we use for religion, it also means to accept something is true.
I don’t think most scientists were religious, but for the one that were, people are never coherent, they can use science for some beliefs and religion for others even if that’s contradictory.
As for moral, i didn’t explicitly say it’s science, because it isn’t, it’s philosophy. But scientists that don’t want to believe in God and his morals have created other philosophies and morals.
Some based on the same premise of rationality as science. For which science can even be a tool.
Conversely the foundation of science always was motivated by philosophical questions about reality. And it’s application always had concerned about morals.
P.S. I don’t have faith, and i do think most current religions have bad morals and are just manipulative organizations. But most religious people are not part of them, most of them are good people. Their faith isn’t a problem for me or anyone, and can even be good driving force.
To paraphrase Dr. Jones… Science is the search for FACT. Not truth. If it’s truth you’re are interested in the philosophy class is down the hall.
You seem to have science mixed up with philosophy. There is an argument for science being a subset of philosophy since it’s governed by a philosophy. But mixing up science with other parts of philosophy is just bad science. If you declare a theory to be the Truth then it’s impossible to make changes to that theory.
Back when it was the Earth being the center of the Universe was considered to be the truth then people have to create some crazy complicated models to explain the movement of the planets. Perhaps if they had more advanced mathematics they would have been able to accurately predict the movements of the planets while keeping the Earth at the center. But since science isn’t about The Truth, it is only concerned with theories that work, everyone switched over to the Copernicus model for the solar system because it worked.
Someone other than scientists can debate how central the role of humans (and therefore the Earth) are in universe. Science shouldn’t have to worry about having to weigh in on those debates.
If a theory best fits the evidence then that’s the theory that’s used until more evidence requires the theory be changed or replaced. The philosophical or religious ramifications are for the philosophers and theologians to discuss.
You’re right, it’s probably not right way ro put it, it’s not The truth in the philosophical sens.
Although science is based on the premise such a truth exist in regard to reality. Aka what we call realism in ontology. So i think we can see science as a subset of philosophy in that sens.
However i don’t think science is just about facts, it’s also about understanding them to a point we can predict them. That’s what we call theory or model. Hence the distinction between experimental and theoretical science.
So what i really meant by truth is what we think is the true theories to explain phenomenons.
That’s why i said we adapt our beliefs to proof. We don’t know if a model is correct or not, and we say we believe it’s true if there is enough evidence.
However, what allows us to change our mind is the fact that we can’t never be 100% sure if something is true. Leaving always a possibility to correct our belief if new proof is found.
(This idea to use probability for our beliefs is based on Bayesian epistemology.)
…
For your exemple, Greeks already had pretty good geometrical knowledge, Ptolemy created this idea of epicyclic trajectories to explain geocentrism. Which is what the model of Copernicus would have resulted in earth’s frame of reference.
(Of course Greek’s models were not as good as Copernicus, mostly because of their obsession with finding mathematics in the universe.)
What made Galileo say his observations proved heliocentrism, and so Copernicus, is the movement of other stars around Jupiter.
But dispite being close, Copernicus model didn’t actually worked, and so neither did Ptolemy’s idea of epicycle, because they had circular trajectories.
It was Kepler, based on the observations of Tycho Brahe, who created a model that actually worked using elliptical trajectories, later formalize by Newton.
(Einstein later explained how frames of reference are all physically equal. Making geocentric frame of reference not technically wrong.)
Just to end on your last point, what i mix up isn’t science with philosophy but rather scientists. Scientists are the one that needs philosophy, they are the one concerned by moral decisions, not science itself. That’s an important distinction in most context…
Edit: what the fuck?! I did not expect this much hate for recommending an open source, privacy preserving, technologically superior browser. You guys need to touch grass.
I’m all for people using Firefox instead of Chrome, but RAM being used up shouldn’t be a complaint unless something else needs that RAM. If it’s there, it should be considered usable.
I’m referring to the philosophy behind the usage of said allocated ram.
If you allocate 5 cookie jars to store 1 cookie in each jar, then that’s not good.
If you store 2 cookies per jar, that’s better already, but still kind of crap.
If the websites keep putting rocks in those jars, then you’ll obviously run rampant with usage. (Read: tonsky.me/blog/js-bloat/ )
The goal is to store as many cookies in least amount of jars. You might crumble them down and reconstruct them later (compression and/or clever code) but that could take more brain (processing) power (of which we kinda have, especially on the desktop).
As you’ve said, it’s often a tradeoff between processing power and memory usage and depending on the application, you can configure things the way you need them (at least when you’re coding it).
The winget package manager should already be installed on updated systems, but if not, you can install it from the Microsoft Store app. It is listed as ‘App Installer’ and is authored by Microsoft.
Oh whoops, I should close some windows, because I currently have 623 open tabs in Firefox across 107 windows. It’s working fine, even with all my plugins running. Firefox is good at unloading dormant tabs.
They’re probably talking about their experience on their hardware, we don’t know what machine or what version of Firefox they’re talking about. (It’s possible it’s a really old version and not really relevant now or it’s possible their experience is valid for their hardware)
Well, I HATE having many tabs open. Just bookmark them for later. So far, FF is friendlier with how I go whereas the last times I tried Chrome, it often allocates RAM at launch for a thousand tabs that will never exist (hyperbole but you get it)
Man, my friend got all his D&D stuff taken away in 1984, he bought new stuff and left it at my house, which was fine by me as he said I could use it even if he wasn’t around.
I believe the culture war junk is part of distract and divide tactics. ‘hey parents don’t worry about all the bloodshed from neoliberal policies, your kids are summoning demons!’
I love that there’s a reference to the Tom Hanks classic Mazes and Monsters in there.
Funny thing about the eighties. I was absolutely forbidden from playing dungeons and dragons but was totally allowed to play wizardry, Ultima, and bards tale.
Explain that parental logic.
I do feel I missed out. Never did get to play the real deal.
I think tabletop gaming and D&D are having a renaissance in recent years - I bet you could find folks to play with easier than you think.
I haven’t played in decades myself, but my son does, and so does a good friend of mine (who is even older than me) and his kids, and seemingly half the people I know.
I would theoretically love to play, but I have other life circumstances that have required me to cut gaming time of any kind to 0 for awhile.
You should give it a shot if you can!
I love that there’s a reference to the Tom Hanks classic Mazes and Monsters in there.
That’s been on my rewatch list for awhile. I don’t think I’ve seen it since it was new. One of these days… :)
lemmy.ml
Hot