OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
No bio...
User ID: 359
atheists to be outperforming the LDS by far.
Don't they? (Stephen King, JK Rowling, etc)
Otherwise it sounds like we're in agreement here... until you used the term "gnostic theology." Catholicism is pretty anti-gnostic. Bodies are great, Jesus has a glorified body, we'll have one in the resurrection of the dead in the world to come.
Do you mean Out of Pocket Maximum when you say deductible?
After reaching deductible the patient still pays more money the more money is spent. It is possible to reach the Out of Pocket Maximum (I did one unfortunate year). At that point they can't take any more money.
Most of the time I give birth I reach the deductible, but other considerations can make the amount I pay in addition to insurance anywhere from 2k to 6k. And these other considerations don't have much to do with how hard the birth was to manage - I always have a natural birth, 1 day hospital stay, pretty much the same experience every time. The things that change are things like an out-of-network admitting OB.
Out of Pocket maximums are going to be pretty high, like 12k even on a good plan.
Oh no! LDS theology has something in common with Hinduism? That's terrible! Anyways.
This wasn't meant as an insult. Hinduism has a pretty strong philosophical system. It was phrased as a question because I'd be interested if you saw parallels yourself.
I don't typically argue the Ontological argument because we no longer have the necessary (ha!) shared philosophical background to make the argument sound coherent.
Just the cosmological or rational argument will make the case just as well. I'm not going to go through the whole exercise now in my own words, but I pretty much agree with all said here. (extract from Chapter 3 of Brian Davies' "The Reality of God and the Problem of Evil")
If I were to try to distill it into a single comment instead of a chapter of a book, I would say it like this: "God's nature is that which does not need an explanation to exist. It is necessary that there is something that does not need to be acted on, and God is what that thing is. One of the attributes of God's nature is that it contains its existence."
Then perhaps I would give an analogy - "Everything in the world changes when acted upon. The existence of any one state of being depends on actions taken upon its predecessor. It's like a line of people who have the direction to only raise their hand if the person next to them raises their hand first. It doesn't matter if that line is infinite, unless there is someone who always had their hands raised, no hands will go up. Nothing will happen. God is that which already had its hands raised - whose nature isn't 'raise hands when something else raises hands' but who's nature is 'hands are raised by default.'"
And then we can extrapolate based on that other logical traits such a thing would also possess. But I'm expressing this as hypothetical as I have 0 desire to debate God's existence on the Motte.
But mostly, I was wondering if the world-view of LDS has to do with why LDS authors are becoming more popular and the world-view of Catholics has to do why Catholic authors were more popular in the 20th century.
I think, based on your responses to me, that you agree that there is a difference between the two attitudes towards reality. Catholics believe in things like Natures, and LDS does not. Catholics believe that we are creatures, LDS do not. There are other differences that perhaps we could work together on narrowing down. .
These difference might help explain why the rest of modern society likes the fictional contributions of the LDS more than devout Catholics in the past 20 years. It's not due to Catholics becoming less intellectual (look at the make up of the Judiciary.) It's not due to Catholics no longer writing. But LDS writers have been making blockbuster hits and that probably says something more about changes in society than changes in LDS or Catholic doctrine.
Catholic theology would not agree with "we pull off the natural man" but perhaps you define natural man as something like Catholic's conception of Original Sin or something. Cross-denomination communication is hard.
I don't know if I'm being clear but my specific and very minor gripe is that ICD has codes for everything under the sun but not a code for a physician phone consult (which would cover the time and hassle?) Or is there one and it wasn't used here?
Edit for clarity: This wasn't Out of Pocket, I had insurance. Not every insurance has a Co Pay system, even when you do have a "Co Pay" on the card you still get billed for more than the co pay later on, I've noticed this on your comments a few times over the years but you seem to have always had really good insurance and don't know what the average experience is like.
Probably they reviewed your chart and provided legitimate advice but didn't want to see you because it didn't alter management or was grossly inconvenient. Now they've done something and have legal liability so the hospital will insist they bill and it is somewhat legit. Radiologist and pathologist don't come to see you.
This is probably what happened but shouldn't there be an ICD code for that? It just seemed sketchy that they insisted I saw the Hematologist in person, as described it sounded like a office visit (this wasn't in an in-patient context, charge was a few weeks before admission for delivery). Hematologist should be paid if my OB asked a question, and I trust my OB to only ask good questions, but presumably the cost is less for a phone call vs. going into an office, paying office staff, paying for the examination room, etc?
For context I have Idiopathic Thrombocytopenia and I think my OB wanted to ask how to titrate Prednisone.
Kind of like Hinduism?
To be fully self-existent in Classical Christianity means to be fully actual, with 0 potential for change. If your idea of God is one that can change, then it is one that can be acted on. There is an explanation for why your God is in the current state instead of another state. This explanation pre-exists your God. Your idea of God doesn't really explain anything about the world and we are still left with the question of why is there something instead of nothing. Which is fine, it's something that the Greeks and other Pagans accepted and lived virtuous lives according to their customs for generations. It's not terribly satisfying to me, just like it wasn't satisfying to Plato and Aristotle. But it's not going to cause a huge cognitive dissonance on its own.
My point is that LDS teaches something like "God is just like us, just more self-actualized and powerful. Theosis is us leveling up according to the nature we already have that is equal to God's."
Classical Christian thought is more like, "We have a different nature from God's, but He promises Theosis anyways through the marriage of Heaven and Earth in the Person of Jesus Christ. Human nature has now been grafted onto a Divine Person and we are able to participate in the internal life of God through conformity to the perfected human nature of Jesus."
If these numbers are well understood, I wonder if you could buy "procedure insurance" instead of general insurance.
I remember once being billed for a 1 hour visit with a hematologist I never saw in person - my OB consulted with them. When I asked billing they replied, "That's because you saw the hematologist." No matter what I said, they kept insisting I had an in person visit with a hematologist, even had a specific date/time I supposedly saw him (though the visit did not show up in OneChart, hmmm?.) Eventually gave up because it was "only" 200 or so after insurance and I was dealing with the other hospital billing issues of being billed by the visiting hospitalist OB in a completely different system and it going to collections before I got a whiff of the charge.
It was remarkable for Lewis to be devoutly Christian and write a space trilogy specifically as apologetics against those who said that God can't care too much about Earth due to how large the cosmos are.
Catholics are still writing Science Fiction, but it's generally not getting as popular. I think the age of seeing the world sacramentally/semiotically is in the past. In our materialist age, the Mormon worldview appeals more (not Mormonism specifically, but generally the idea of a God who is more like a superhero than something fundamentally different from a creature. And then the pseudo-scientific philosophy that comes out of that.)
Other Catholic science fiction:
- Elfheim
- The Sparrow
- Lord of the World
- Sun Eater
- Voyage to Alpha Centauri
- The Golden Age
- Toward the Gleam
There's also a lot of Catholic-haunted sci-fi (often written by ex-Catholics or agnostics who are inspired by Catholicism):
- Hyperion Cantos
- Dune (arguably)
- I'm running out of time but I feel like this list should be bigger than the first.
Yeah, the art is busy. And shiny. When I first read it I mostly just looked at the dialogue bubbles, which was worth it on its own. Then once I caught up to the present, I took the time to look through the new comic pages as they were released, one at a time, and started picking up on the visual gags.
I wouldn't say it's my favorite art style, but I started to parse it better after exposure, then went back and reread it. It almost conflicts with the story. If you try to soak in the art, the story slows to a crawl (which is fine on a re-read, less fine for a suspenseful visual novel like this is.)
The writers are a husband-wife pair (I think they said the wife is mostly responsible for the story, the husband mostly responsible for the art), the title literally has "Girl" in the name, and the main character is a woman.
That said, it does have the old-style male adventure feel. Sometimes as parody, sometimes seriously.
I think we can say it has broad-spectrum appeal. I went to their Facebook page and looked at the names of the people who liked the latest comic page, it seemed about 50/50 male-female split.
I guess it all depends on what a "girl" story is. If girl story is only defined as a story that men avoid then of course we won't find any "examples of "girl" stories that aren't cringe pandering softcore-relationship-porn wish fulfillment only (lame) women find appealing"
Next morning edit:
I almost didn't suggest Girl Genius out of fear that it was one of the cringe pandering stories. It has a love triangle where the main character is pursued by a heir-to-the-empire and a boy with a past that haunts him. And the boys are terrible simps, totally head over heels for the main character. And also surprisingly chaste/respectful, averting their eyes and blushing if they see Agatha in her (Victorian-style) underwear.
It has a lost society of Amazon women warriors. It's kind of a Princess Diaries plot, "ordinary women finds out she's secretly a lost princess and must learn how to fit in with her new society" type thing.
I would argue that it's very much a female story, even if the females reading it are the ones making up the "39% of physical science degrees awarded in the US."
Girl Genius perhaps. Though there is a romantic subplot, the main female character explicitly chooses the well-being of her people/land over and above romance.
Christopher Ruccio is doing a pretty interesting job.
even I've been permabanned from /r/slatestarcodex of all places, because I've been too discourteous commenting on Kevin Bird's successful cancellation of the "eugenicist" Stephen Hsu
Oh, I thought you were banned for using Russian punctuation, ((saying something like this.))
I think they are thinking Project Manager or Customer Pleaser-type stuff. Which does tilt mostly female from what I have seen but isn't super automatable yet.
I edited it on him. He is. Correct
Sorry, you got the gist at least.
I know Copilot is used a bit here. They mostly use it to look up things and write tiny scripts.
From my company's perspective, a lot of AI use is limited by policy. We aren't allowed to provide proprietary information. Company policy is to, "only enter things that we wouldn't mind going viral on the Internet." This really limits anything I could do with it. At most I can use it as a Mrs. Manners guide. The coders are able to use it more, which frees them up to play Madden for longer or attend more meetings with the Product Owner.
Their lifestyle would change, they would face the 50% child mortality that plagued humanity most of its existence, but within a generation they would adjust to the new normal. They wouldn't die out entirely.
Huh, I always heard that Courage was just nofap for Catholics who were Gay.
How did you get started? I mean, the grandparent comment sounded like he wouldn't mind availing himself of this, if it is the One Weird Trick. How would he be able to access the therapy that you were able to receive?
Have you written more about this?

I think this is a mistake on GPT's part. The majority of plans have 20% co-insurance, meaning the patient pays 20% after the deductible is met. See https://www.healthcare.gov/choose-a-plan/plans-categories/ or even just try to look for an example of a plan without co-insurance.
I asked Gemini, "Is it possible to get a Health Insurance plan without co-insurance?" and the response was:
"Yes, it is possible to find a health insurance plan without co-insurance, but they are not as common."
I followed up with, "What percentage of Americans have a health care policy without co-insurance?" and got:
I think it does matter, because it's not solely insurance deciding how much the patient pays. How the hospital codes and the choices the doctor makes regarding patient care has a direct, visible consequence on how much the patient pays. It is interesting to see that doctors might not realize that.
More options
Context Copy link