redwoolf

Then perhaps it’s the offsides rule that needs revision. Do you think the spirit of the rule is captured by foot position analysis? If two players bodies are in alignment and the attackers leg is just beyond the leg of the defender, does that really matter? The rule was designed to stop attackers from sitting deep between the defenders and the goalie.

The on the pitch call was not a red card. VAR told the ref to go to the monitors to review and then the red card was given. If the on the pitch call stood, which was the right call, then we wouldn't be having the conversation.

The level of scrutiny we place on foot position when determining offsides with VAR is an example of the letter of the law vs the spirit of the law. Offsides was not meant to catch players who were half a foot length beyond the last non-goalie defender.

I'm not sure VAR is the net-benefit we think it is.

This is shameful. S3 buckets have not been public by default for many years. You have to make a choice to make them publicly accessible. And to not have the contents encrypted at rest. I just can’t.

The lack of respect that some companies have for their customers is appalling.

Can anyone suggest a good modem for DSL Fiber? I have CenturyLink/Quantum.

So I'm going to be that guy. It wasn't until Nixon and his southern strategy that the modern Republican Party became the Party we know today. The coalitions that formed the political parties before then were based more on tradition and geography than on ideology. The Republican Party has been moving ever more rightward (and pulling the Democratic Party along with it) since Reagan. America doesn't even have a Center-Left party anymore as result of this.

I did not know that. Thanks! But it's so rare that people even use honorifics at all these days.

I'm not talking about the 1st amendment. I'm talking about the rhetoric of those on the right in America. They are constantly congratulating themselves on being the champions of freedom. But if someone wants to read a book they don't like, or if someone wants to use a pronoun they disagree with, or if someone wants access to certain medical procedures then they pass laws to restrict those freedoms. It's incredibly hypocritical.

Republicans are the party of personal liberty until they don't like what you're doing.

What is the salutation for they/them pronouns?

I am most definitely over generalizing. I could have been more thoughtful in my word choices to narrow the scope of my comments.

I recognize what you’re saying and you’re right. I’m well aware of different approaches and traditions. And I completely agree that ignoring religious writings across history deprives us of understanding the full range of human experience. I for one am not one of those people. I realize that I’m engaging a bit in the very thing I’m criticizing, but this is a comment on HN not a well thought out and twice revised essay.

You're absolutely right. The thing is that in America, Catholicism isn't the cultural force that it is in other parts of the Americas or in Continental Europe. Protestantism is the brand of Christianity that fights the culture wars here. So for me "Christian" has become a shorthand for "Evangelical Christian." This is somewhat intellectually dishonest and definitely sloppy.

Right, which is probably part of why most Evangelicals think Catholics aren't Christian.

After I finished my BA in English, I considered going for a MA in Catholic Studies because it offered an opportunity to study Philosophy, Theology, and Literature in a way that was fascinating to me, but by that time my faith had withered and died.

You're right. I'm extremely colored by my Evangelical upbringing and the contemptuous American Evangelical community.

That being said, even if we did find Q or something like it, would it change much about our understanding of that time in history?

Worse, Assemblies of God (speaking in tongues).

Beyond this being an interesting puzzle and fodder for articles in academic journals, I have to wonder if such discussion has any value at all? Having grown up in the church and attending a Christian university, I see most Christians as completely disinterested and even actively opposed to scholarship like this. At the college I went to we were all required to take courses on the Bible and we all received a minor in Bible.

In classes like those on the Synoptic gospels where we discussed the Q hypothesis, most of the students were bored and frustrated as they were only interested in how they would write sermons based on the Bible and didn't want to know anything about the texts themselves. Very few Christian leaders know any Koine Greek beyond what they read in Strong's Concordance [1]. Indeed, the way that many pastors and preachers develop their sermons eschews any historical or textual context, with many using the aforementioned concordance to cherry-pick verses that have a topical relationship in order to the make the point they want to make, not the point the biblical authors were trying to make.

By and large, Christians are extremely anti-intellectual and hostile to research into the origins of the Bible as they believe the Bible is divinely inspired. Some even go so far as to talk about literal possession of the Bible authors by the Holy Spirit.

So who is this research for? Whether or not there was a Q of Jesus' sayings doesn't inform our understanding of the text or the history of the early church in any meaningful way. We can confidently assume that there were plethora of similar texts circulating through the ancient world that are lost to us today, but since the Council of Hippo anything non-canonical is seen with suspicion or contempt.

The two things I learned from my experience at the Christian "University" are 1) Don't discuss a topic that requires nuance with a Christian, and 2) don't expect a quality liberal arts education from an institution where a class on 20th century American literature is opened with prayer. I'm an atheist now.

[1] https://www.amazon.com/Strongs-Expanded-Exhaustive-Concordan...

Many years in the future, after global warming wrecks our world, when humanity rebuilds civilization, they will be glad for folks like this person. Without physical books there will be no way to reconstruct our time and tell our story. Digital media will be useless to future generations if there’s a blip in continuity.

Totally agree.

I think with the suburban explosion and rise of the personal automobile we’ve seen individualism trump collectivism. I don’t think we’ll ever see a new deal or social security like initiative in America until the power structures in our society are changed fundamentally.

And breaking a promise, siphoning money from a nonprofit, and making billions in the process.

The public has no stomach for collective action anymore. All for one and one for all? Nah, man, what’s yours is mine and what’s mine is mine.

One does not need to know someone personally to assess their character based on their public actions.

Did you read the article? The hubris and avarice required here doesn’t develop overnight.

And the downvotes to prove my point

[flagged]

Okay, but why is Aptoide on there[1]? If you're on Android, you've already lost the war with Google. Don't talk to me about custom ROMs. Those are only feasible for the technologically savvy.

[1] https://en.aptoide.com

Yeah, maybe. I don't disagree with the sentiment, but who is prosecuted for the crime? In US law, there is the concept of corporate personhood, but a corporation has yet to be tried for a crime. And even if it were tried and convicted, how do you sufficiently punish a corporation. You can't put it in jail. Fines don't seem to deter corporations as they're happy to either pay them or settle out of court and move one with business as usual.

If it is to be treated as a crime and we choose to prosecute the people responsible, how do we determine how widely or narrowly to distribute the responsibility? To the CEO of the company or the board? To the management that oversaw the environment damage? Or to the individual workers who were told to perform the actions leading to the environmental damage?

But as we've seen time and again "the shit rolls down hill." Blame will move from the CEO who will claim they knew nothing and will land on the field workers. And while these workers do bear responsibility for complying with directives that caused environmental damage, the power structures in corporations (at least in America with at-will employment and relatively few extant unions) make prosecuting such workers for these crimes an unjust outcome. Their burden of responsibility must be mitigated by the choices they were forced to make between feeding their families and performing a possibly harmful action. Not to mention the fact that such people would in many cases be acting in ignorance of the ramifications of such actions.

Environmental damage is a serious concern, but the way we have positioned private entities in our society makes it nearly impossible to affect any change in their behavior. Adding criminal penalties for such behavior includes the risk that the wrong people are charged and punished while those who bear ultimate responsibility jump from the burning plane in their golden parachutes.

I’m not a fucking troll

Nice try. I have nothing to contribute to this world.