derek

You're correct.

Check out "The Separation of Church and Hate" by John Fugelsang. It's an almost comprehensive teardown of Christofascist ideology using the words of Jesus directly. No extras and no oulled punches. It's excellent. The author is a comedian and while the content is serious and presented well it's dressed up as an easier read than I expected.

I grew up Christian in the American South. I left religion in college and faith generally a few years later. I was initially compelled to leave organized Christianity exactly because it demanded exercising cruelties which Jesus clearly opposed.

Fugelsang's book gathers all of the major contradictions between Jesus and modern right-wing Christianity then dismantles any justification for each one just by quoting Jesus. I'm recommending this book to every reasonable person I know as required reading for the present moment. Not just in the US but the world over.

Fascism respects nothing and if it takes root in a land with the means to export then no shore is necessarily safe harbor.

An surprise, I'm sure, but a welcome one.

Eyes don't normally do that. I think you should ~~squirt~~ see a doctor.

Yes but, also, no.

You already seem familiar but, for the uninitiated playing along at home, Wikipedia's entry for Simulation Theory is a pretty easy read. Quoting their synopsis of Bostrom's conjecture:

1. either such simulations are not created because of technological limitations or self-destruction;
2. advanced civilizations choose not to create them;
3. if advanced civilizations do create them, the number of simulations would far exceed base reality and we would therefore almost certainly be living in one.

it's certainly an interesting thought. I agree it shouldn't inform our ethics or disposition toward our lived experiences. That doesn't mean there's zero value in trying to find out though. Even if the only positive yield is that we develop better testing methods which still come up empty: that's still progress worth having. If it nets some additional benefit then so much the better.

I'd argue that satisfying curiosity is, in itself, and worthy pursuit so long as no harm is done.

That all still sets aside the more interesting question though. If such simulations are possible then are they something we're comfortable creating? If not, and we find one has been built, what should we do? Turn it off? Leave it alone? "Save" those created inside of it?

These aren't vapid questions. They strike at the heart of many important unresolved quandries. Are the simulated minds somehow less real than unsimulated ones? Does that question's answer necessarily impact those mind's right to agency, dignity, or self-determination?

The closer we get to being able to play god on a whim the more pressing I find such questions. That's not because I wring my hands and labor anxiously at truth or certainty for lack of better idols. It's because, whatever this is, we're all in it together and our choices today have an outsized impact on the choices others will have tomorrow. Developing a clearer view of what this is, and what we're capable of doing in it, affords future minds better opportunity to arrive at reasonable conclusions and decide how to live well.

I'm not confident you're participating in good faith here but, on the off-chance you are; I'm not sure I take your point.

Can you substantiate your initial claim? "The floor on confidence in knowledge is now basically nothing" seems too broad a statement to meaningfully defend.

Even if we assume you're talking about US 8th graders you'll have to be more specific. The US has seen degraded academic performance across the board but the degree varies by State (and often again by County).

What's "necessary help" is up for debate as well. There's a hint of something I can agree with here though. I do agree that, for certain vocations, it's important for individuals to have firm graps on the fundamentals. Programmers ought to be able to code without IDEs and Mathematicians work problems without calculators. I don't agree that the common use of good tools by those professionals results in the brain-drain bogeyman you seem to be shadow boxing.

What am I meant to be alarmed about, exactly?

An exquisite typo.

For the curious:

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/746684/why-does-a-microwaves-faraday-cage-block-microwaves-but-not-larger-wavelength-r

The metal screen on the microwave door is designed to block the specific wavelength being used to heat your food. It isn't a full cage and isn't effective at blocking other frequencies.

This is an affront to Starfish everywhere.

I'm using wiki.js right now. It's the best tool for the job right now but still lacks some niceties that would elevate it to an enterprise-level solution. I took a look at outline. Seems nice but it's Open Core, not truly open source, and their pricing for business and enterprise licenses while self-hosting are insulting. They also go on the SSO wall of shame.

This is concisely and shockingly poignant.

True. Poor wordsmanship on my part. My intent was to disabuse our friend of the notion the bargain is favorable. 😉

I'm afraid there is no reason to suspect that ingesting higher-than-suggested doses of vitamins and minerals will make your penis larger. Even while passing the kidney stone.