I've been reading through a kids bible with my son and trying to understand the stories as we go. I'm not very religious, but the stories are very interesting and multi-layered in the themes they express.
In Jeremiah 24, Judah had been conquered by Babylon, and many of the people of Judah were captured and taken back to Babylon. Jeremiah was shown two baskets of figs by God, and God said that the two baskets represented the two groups of people who stayed in Judah and those who were taken to Babylon. God said that the people who were taken to Babylon would know suffering and they would learn to follow God's teachings, but the people who stayed in Judah were like the bad figs, and they would ultimately be destroyed.
The thing I was trying to understand from an allegorical standpoint is why it's the people who were captured that are the good figs. Maybe it's because they suffered and they went through the journey and it's through their journey and their struggle that they will be equipped for the future, and they'll get the wisdom through that suffering to know they need to follow God's teachings?
The one thing I didn't get is... Did God choose the people who would be brought into captivity, or was it random? Or does it not really matter and the story isn't about that, and sometimes allegories contain things you shouldn't think too hard about?
In a literal sense, if God chose certain people to be taken to Babylon and certain people to stay behind, it sort of seems like a dick move -- like whether you had a chance for redemption would be totally random.
This sounds odd, but I read bible stories from a more secular viewpoint, where God is an allegorical vehicle for following morality, and those who follow god follow morality and those who do not follow god do not follow a robust morality. In that view, it's a more complicated thing to think about. In one viewpoint though, maybe it suggests that we shouldn't hate those who are immoral totally because sometimes the difference between a moral and immoral person is simply the journey they've travelled. If it was truly random, then the people who went through the tribulation of slavery in Babylon becoming more moral thereby wasn't their choice ultimately so while they ultimately made the right choice, you should recognize that they just as easily have made the wrong choice had their experiences been different.
In Jeremiah 24, Judah had been conquered by Babylon, and many of the people of Judah were captured and taken back to Babylon. Jeremiah was shown two baskets of figs by God, and God said that the two baskets represented the two groups of people who stayed in Judah and those who were taken to Babylon. God said that the people who were taken to Babylon would know suffering and they would learn to follow God's teachings, but the people who stayed in Judah were like the bad figs, and they would ultimately be destroyed.
The thing I was trying to understand from an allegorical standpoint is why it's the people who were captured that are the good figs. Maybe it's because they suffered and they went through the journey and it's through their journey and their struggle that they will be equipped for the future, and they'll get the wisdom through that suffering to know they need to follow God's teachings?
The one thing I didn't get is... Did God choose the people who would be brought into captivity, or was it random? Or does it not really matter and the story isn't about that, and sometimes allegories contain things you shouldn't think too hard about?
In a literal sense, if God chose certain people to be taken to Babylon and certain people to stay behind, it sort of seems like a dick move -- like whether you had a chance for redemption would be totally random.
This sounds odd, but I read bible stories from a more secular viewpoint, where God is an allegorical vehicle for following morality, and those who follow god follow morality and those who do not follow god do not follow a robust morality. In that view, it's a more complicated thing to think about. In one viewpoint though, maybe it suggests that we shouldn't hate those who are immoral totally because sometimes the difference between a moral and immoral person is simply the journey they've travelled. If it was truly random, then the people who went through the tribulation of slavery in Babylon becoming more moral thereby wasn't their choice ultimately so while they ultimately made the right choice, you should recognize that they just as easily have made the wrong choice had their experiences been different.
Totally a result of a decadent system that isn't required to successfully achieve anything real. As long as it distributes money to the maximum number of states to placate congress and the senate, it never has to be a usable weapon or practical when in a state of war.
One thing with proven reserves is that they can be deceptive. It's only worth proving reserves so far. It's expensive to prove reserves, and even if you think they're definitely there, that expense to prove they are there only makes sense to actually prove them if there's a reason to do so -- if you're trying to get investment dollars, you only need to justify enough to get your initial investment and enough to stay in business. There are some mines for example that start off with a 8-10 year mine life and run for maybe 50-100 years because they just keep proving more resources every year, but each year the official proven reserves remain 8-10 years until the place closes.
So it's a limited non-renewable resource with a clear environmental impact on extraction and utilization and when we do start to run out there's going to be global consequences in many industries that people don't even understand yet because its use is so prolific, but we have to be careful about using certain numbers because accurate predictions are important to getting long-term buy-in on stuff like this. Consistently predict wrong, and people start to assume the prediction is fundamentally wrong when it's only wrong in the specific details.
So it's a limited non-renewable resource with a clear environmental impact on extraction and utilization and when we do start to run out there's going to be global consequences in many industries that people don't even understand yet because its use is so prolific, but we have to be careful about using certain numbers because accurate predictions are important to getting long-term buy-in on stuff like this. Consistently predict wrong, and people start to assume the prediction is fundamentally wrong when it's only wrong in the specific details.
Based on the references in issue 1, it's probably 2002, so the 4 issues would have been released between 2002 and 2004.
So whaddya think? Is QB dying? :P
So whaddya think? Is QB dying? :P
As the author of a qbasic magazine back in the day, I approve of this message.
https://fbxl.net/issue1/
https://fbxl.net/issue1/
It's a pretty common story in remote locations where some City slicker will come in, see the pepper spray bear repellent, and assume that it works the same way as mosquito repellent and blast themselves all over this the face with it. I guess this is what that looks like.
There are even busses that don't rely on batteries whatsoever. Cities just mount overhead wires over bus routes and then run the busses off of grid power. They've been available for 80 years! Unlike most electric vehicle technologies they've already been proven in the most extreme weather environments on earth.
I speak often about technologies that won't make anyone rich but we could deploy today. We don't need to do any new research, we don't need to create new patents to lock it away under one company that makes all the money, we don't need to give a trillion dollars to a bet that's always just a few more years away. We can just build the things, and have the things, and enjoy the dividends of having a public good.
I speak often about technologies that won't make anyone rich but we could deploy today. We don't need to do any new research, we don't need to create new patents to lock it away under one company that makes all the money, we don't need to give a trillion dollars to a bet that's always just a few more years away. We can just build the things, and have the things, and enjoy the dividends of having a public good.
According to conspiracy theories of the 1700s:
1. People were being turned into vampires in New England
2. Magical witches were casting spells in the new world
3. A magical werewolf was attacking people in France
4. The American colonists are planning to overthrow the British
Obviously, vampires aren't real so American colonists aren't planning to overthrow the british. Conspiracy theories are stupid.
1. People were being turned into vampires in New England
2. Magical witches were casting spells in the new world
3. A magical werewolf was attacking people in France
4. The American colonists are planning to overthrow the British
Obviously, vampires aren't real so American colonists aren't planning to overthrow the british. Conspiracy theories are stupid.
You're right, and the other side of it is you've got to be posting and participating with what's here. Otherwise you end up with a party where everyone wants to go onto the dance floor but nobody wants to be the first person to go onto the dance floor.
I can sort of see the logic in the post, since most rights are derived from property rights under English common law. On the other hand, that abstraction doesn't mean that everything that one has a right to is property.
Theres a right to publicity, a right to privacy, a right to vote, and none of these strictly apply to property, but the property framework is the basis for these rights since there's something valuable and important individuals control.
Theres a right to publicity, a right to privacy, a right to vote, and none of these strictly apply to property, but the property framework is the basis for these rights since there's something valuable and important individuals control.
There are places with actual cheap green energy. In those places, people choose to use that energy not because it's the moral thing to do, but because it's the practical thing to do.
Ask someone from those places what their power bill looks like and it's lower, not higher.
Ask someone from those places what their power bill looks like and it's lower, not higher.
You don't just get in either. There's a big body of knowledge you need, and they won't let you transmit without having that body of knowledge.
A lot of these people in media don't realize that the masses have been watching their content and a lot of the so-called "right wing conspiracies" came directly from their mouths. Sometimes complaining about something that they'll later pretend is a myth, but other times celebrating that a thing is going to happen.
Cut to a few decades later and they call something a baseless right-wing conspiracy theory and it's like "what do you mean? We saw you guys celebrating it like 15 years ago!"
Cut to a few decades later and they call something a baseless right-wing conspiracy theory and it's like "what do you mean? We saw you guys celebrating it like 15 years ago!"
I agree with you, but I also realize that there isn't much of an option. By the time you retire, a dollar just saved in year 1 is maybe 30 cents. To keep your dollar, you need to put it at risk.
It's really shocking seeing inflation calculations for things within just my lifetime so far, and inflation calculations are bullshit designed to understate the increased cost of living over decades.
It's really shocking seeing inflation calculations for things within just my lifetime so far, and inflation calculations are bullshit designed to understate the increased cost of living over decades.
One big interesting thing is going to be what holding money actually looks like in the future.
Nobody with money holds money of any kind. You put your money in financial instruments because they might actually grow whereas money is constantly shrinking (and cryptos are a bit too far out on the other side of the risk curve). In a world where money has a relatively stable value, what then? Maybe definancialization since once you have enough money you have enough money?
Nobody with money holds money of any kind. You put your money in financial instruments because they might actually grow whereas money is constantly shrinking (and cryptos are a bit too far out on the other side of the risk curve). In a world where money has a relatively stable value, what then? Maybe definancialization since once you have enough money you have enough money?