domain:houseofstrauss.com
dr_analog
razorboy
6hr ago
I am getting some banding in texture maps but I'm sure I'll figure that out eventually.
This ended up being caused by only some of the faces in the 3d model having textures, with the rest relying on material color and phong shading, but my fragment shader didn't know that so it was trying to use a junk texture for those which just led to this banding effect.
Creating another vec4 and treating the x component as a boolean to signal to the fragment shader whether it should sample from the texture is the best I could figure out how to solve this.
Anyway, looks much better now. Ride or die time with the homies is one step closer.
Still having trouble finding a 360 degree panorama I could use. I might just go to a parking lot in a scenic skyline park of town and take a photo sphere with my phone.
TitaniumButterfly
6hr ago
Amazing finish
Mantergeistmann
6hr ago
I think Benedict had 3:1 odds at one point. Francis was a bit less likely, but he had been noted in the previous election as having some support, so it wasn't out of the blue.
Crowflies
6hr ago
Sort of. He was the front runner on the "Papability Index" but dropped to the fourth place just before the conclave due to the "bad press" factor in his model. Still, this guy was better than anybody else in predictions. Prevost had about 1% chance on betting markets.
yofuckreddit
6hr ago
MTG and in-person gaming is always going to be less "damaging" than vidyas. I strongly disagree with the other comment here about that. Especially if you're getting them exposed at 7, they'll get over the insane excitement phase before the most important part of their development, and you still have a huge amount of control over when they play (What are they gonna do? Drive themselves to FNM and invest in a $300 booster box? I think MTG sucks compared to 10 years ago but whatever.
Another point for it over modern video games is they're all completely devoid of a social element. Every single one is locked down for no cross-gamer communication. To me this is a point against them - yes you're developing hand-eye coordination and problem solving, but you're doing so in isolation.
I'm a couple of years behind you, but my plan is to replay co-op games with my kids to start and give them single player games to get into. Once they're older I may open up the floodgates for multiplayer stuff, but probably I'll have them scratch that itch with MTG and board. We'll see!
TeknOShEeP
7hr ago
"building bridges"
One of the Pope's formal titles is Pontifex Maximus, which literally translates as "supreme bridge builder," and along with the Keys of St. Peter bridges feature heavily as motifs in papal proclamations, bulls, teachings, etc. So generally very on-theme for a new Pope.
As much as the meaning of Matthew 16:18 has been stretched to assert papal primacy, let me be the first to dunk on the central conceit of faith of Mormonism: Joseph Smith and his golden plates. As a recent convert to Catholicism, I spent quite a bit of comparison-shopping between the Christian denominations. Mormonism, even in comparison to the other sects of Christianity, is too much to ask to believe in without being born into it.
Joseph Smith does not claim to be a prophet, but merely the reciever of revelation of historical apocrypha: translated to him from the original 'Reformed Egyptian' created from a Native American script. This is an article of faith of the Mormon Church: you cannot be a Mormon without accepting this. You can probably guess that I'm not a Mormon because I don't believe this for a second.
Now, you might say from a secular perspective: isn't this the narcissism of small differences? You believe in the resurrection of Christ, don't you? You believe in miracles? Surely, you can't give the benefit of the doubt - or even faith - to an American finding golden plates with the word of angels on it? Yes. Yes, actually. I'm not a midwestern subsistance farmer with less than a grade-school education. Egyptians never crossed the Atlantic, and even if they did, they certainly wouldn't have passed their script in such a way that there is no sign of the language anywhere else than the Book of Mormons attests.
Catholicism, on the other hand, has thousands of years of writings of church fathers in Greek and Latin. Is the New Testament an 'add-on' to the Old in the same way the Book of Mormon is? Perhaps. But the New Testament is the description of the life and ministry of Christ (with added prophecy.) The Book of Mormon describes events that no human being could plausibly witness the entirety of (the post-Resurrection ministry of Christ in the Americas.) The Gospels, at least, are written to be the accounts of different church fathers all witnessing the same thing. We only have Smith's word that it is relevation of God at all.
As a Christian, and as a Catholic, even if the papacy is so astray as to have broken the church of Christ, it was certainly not amended or renewed by Smith. His claims to being a prophet hinge on the legitimacy of a dubious forgery. By Nicene standards, his followers are not even Christians - being non-Trinitarian in belief and dogma. No doubt you've heard of these arguments before. You might even have been taught how to rebut them. But you can't get away from the golden plates.
If he had merely asserted that he was a prophet from the beginning, no such artifice would be necessary.
So why didn't he?
Christ, was, at some point: a living person. The Church fathers were real people who attested to him: the writings of early Christians that formed into the Catholic Church exist. Secular analysis into the Bible has even analyzed the different authorial voices and styles within it. Doctrinal discord within the Catholic Church is nothing new. But the basis of Mormonism is in an article of faith that is transparently a fraud. If the plates aren't real, then everything he teaches and every commandment he pronounced is a falsehood.
Celestial-body-NOS
🟦 'We have a golden rule: "Mind your own damn business!"'🍞🌹
7hr ago
· Edited 7hr ago
People of my grandmother’s generation could and did accept that.
And people of her grandmother's generation accepted that women would have to toil endlessly hand-washing clothes.
Her grandmother's generation accepted that childbirth would be a pit of suffering.
Just because our ancestors endured something does not mean that we must or should.
The existence of organisations like NICE in the UK also tacitly accepts this fact.
They could support more people if the government hadn't underfunded the NHS!
telling parents that if they raise 500,000 dollars it will increase their child’s survival rate slightly
In some cases it is a lot more than 'slightly'. There are reliable treatments for many cancers which would have been considered terminal 40 years ago; however, these can be expensive.
Thus, my question is "There is a medical treatment which, if given to Timmy, means that he is almost certain to live; without it, he is almost certain to die. His parents can not afford to pay for this treatment, and do not have insurance that will cover it. What is the right thing for them to do?".
Being hard-hearted
Shrike
8hr ago
I'm glad to hear that! Really appreciate you taking the time to reply, that is very encouraging.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
8hr ago
Well of course LDS truth claims as a whole depend on Joseph Smith but the core idea of authority to me seems Biblical and pretty innate. At least in the respect that the chain of custody for priesthood is important, and that having some sort of claim to divine permission to conduct rites also shouldn’t be glossed over.
prungus
8hr ago
My father made me play and complete some of his "old man" video games before he would allow me to get a gamecube when I was around your son's age in 2001. Mainly it was Dungeon Master for the Atari ST. Things are different now with the always-online attention farming microtransaction slop that we call modern video games - but maybe some older titles/consoles at first. I cant imagine what my brain would be like if I was exposed to something like Fortnite at age 7.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
8hr ago
You can't just say "we want to end the argument, you just have to give in to all of my demands that actually matter to you" and expect it to work.
See, that's not clear to me that this is the schism! For me, I think I'm asking that the East just goes back to believe about the Roman Pontiff the same things they believed before the 800s. Even Photius and Cerularius, the critical players in the East-West schism, never argued that the Petrine doctrine could justify schism.
For example of a Pope exercising primacy:
Before Sergius died, in 638, he assembled a great Synod at Constantinople, which accepted a "one will" formula as "truly agreeing with the Apostolic preaching." This synod was without any Papal legates nor did it receive Papal approval afterwards. The outcome of this council is not considered infallible or orthodox.
Subsequent Popes and Patriarchs rejected Monothelitism (with one Pope refusing to confirm Paul as Patriarch of Constantinople until after he stopped using the "one will" formula), but there was still some confusion about if Jesus had "one operation" or "two operations."
To clear all this up, Pope St. Agatho sent legates to the General Council in Constantinople in 680. The legates brought with them a letter in which the Pope defined the "two wills, two operations" terminology with authority as the successor of St. Peter, binding the council to accept. The council did and rejected the Monothelites.
That seems to me like the Pope undoubtedly exercising Primacy and the East recognizing this. I can point to dozens of other examples of the Pope settling disputes among various other Apostolic Sees, like when Dennis of Alexandria was accused of heresy, he appealed to Rome and was cleared. Let's look at a council document:
Philip, presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See said: We offer our thanks to the holy and venerable Synod, that when the writings of our holy and blessed pope had been read to you, the holy members by our [or your] holy voices, you joined yourselves to the holy head also by your holy acclamations. For your blessedness is not ignorant that the head of the whole faith, the head of the Apostles, is blessed Peter the Apostle. And since now our mediocrity, after having been tempest-tossed and much vexed, has arrived, we ask that you give order that there be laid before us what things were done in this holy Synod before our arrival; in order that according to the opinion of our blessed pope and of this present holy assembly, we likewise may ratify their determination. (Ephesus 431, Acts of the Council, session II).
To me, the source of the schism is the liturgical intolerance exhibited by the Byzantine Greeks towards Latin customs and usages. In every council document and story of the schism that I see, that is the primary difficulty that starts the argument. Even Photius admitted to Papal Supremacy in his letters to Rome, when he is appealing to Rome to help his case.
Instead, arguments about Papal Supremacy seem to be ad hoc justification, because the best reason not to be in communion with the Pope would be something like a lack of agreement on the Petrine doctrine. But that wasn't the actual disagreement.
veqq
8hr ago
Described here: https://x.com/pope_predictor/status/1892995523340058889
Tenaz
8hr ago
In general, the Orthodox are much less focused on 'figuring things out' so to speak in a material way. We are more comfortable with divine mystery. It's hard to put into words exactly, but from what you describe of Mormon doctrine I think a lot of Orthodox would see these things almost as distractions, needless confusion arising from trying to be right in an intellectual sense.
That makes sense. The beliefs I've described are very rarely addressed anywhere in the church for the same reason--they're fundamentally meaningless compared to the core doctrine of Christ.
Many Christians think heaven and hell are physical places God sends us to reward or punish us after we die. They think salvation means simply getting into heaven and avoiding hell. But the Orthodox Church does not believe in this model of salvation. Instead, we believe God is “everywhere present and filling all things.” Moreover, we believe Heaven and Hell are not physical places, but are actually different responses to, and experiences of, God’s unconditional love.
I've got to say though, this isn't off to a great start. If heaven and hell are not physical places, where is Jesus' physical body? Does it cease to exist when he goes to heaven, and then he puts it back on when he visits us? Or are they purely metaphorical/spiritual places except where Jesus is concerned? And where will our physical bodies be when we are resurrected?
I ask because I think Jesus made a concerted effort to convince the apostles of the resurrection. It was important for us to learn, not just that Christ ascended to the right hand of God (which could be true in a purely spiritual/metaphorical/non-physical sense), but that his body came back to life, and even possessed some of the same functions as mortal bodies, such as being capable of eating food. He was really trying to prove, not just that death is not the end, but that the resurrection specifically is a real thing.
Lykurg
We're all living in Amerika
8hr ago
Has the guy published his model somewhere, or do you have to piece it together from a twitter feed?
Lykurg
We're all living in Amerika
8hr ago
There was a time when the pope was basically chosen by italians only, but with the elections today, is there really a relevant way in which Rome is asserting primacy here, if the doctrinal points are compatible? It seems to me that the church would be "overall democratic" either way - its rather about more vs less centralisation.
TheDag
Per Aspera ad Astra
8hr ago
This is a great overview of Orthodox belief on heaven: https://www.saintjohnchurch.org/the-truth-about-heaven-and-hell/
In general, the Orthodox are much less focused on 'figuring things out' so to speak in a material way. We are more comfortable with divine mystery. It's hard to put into words exactly, but from what you describe of Mormon doctrine I think a lot of Orthodox would see these things almost as distractions, needless confusion arising from trying to be right in an intellectual sense.
That being said I'm new to Orthodoxy myself so please take all of this with a grain of salt!
Tenaz
8hr ago
This is also a caricature of the Orthodox view on God.
The only part of what I said that I can see as a caricature is calling heaven a "dimension". Which, I mean, it is, right? You can say something like "the real heaven is way holier and more profound than the crass connotations of the word 'dimension'" but fundamentally it does match the definition.
Were you talking about the "all things spiritual are physical too"? I wasn't trying to caricature Orthodox beliefs there--that's an LDS belief. We essentially believe that nothing is not made of matter. Spirits are made of spirit matter which may well be composed of spirit atoms. There's not necessarily a fundamental difference between spirit matter and regular matter either.
My admittedly limited understanding is that Mormonism literally believes in God the Father having a basically human physical body though...
Yes we believe God the Father has a perfected human physical body. The exact details, like whether he has blood, or is made of atoms, are unknown, but you have it right.
That being said, the Orthodox have little problem connecting the spiritual and the physical.
My impression is that most Christian sects find the physical fundamentally distasteful. Jesus' current physical body is de-emphasized. The final resurrection is de-emphasized--most people sort of see heaven as a place we go when we die, and the resurrection as an afterthought. Heaven is seen as a place wholly empty of physical matter, except perhaps for Jesus' body, which is the only thing in the entire realm with a physical form. God the Father having a physical body is seen as worse or inferior somehow than him not having a body.
We see this aversion to physical matter as an artifact of Gnosticism which made its way into the Catholic church over the centuries.
This leads to much deeper theological differences--like ancient Jews, we do not believe in creation ex nihilo. We don't believe God can violate physical laws--though the true laws of physics may be quite a bit different/deeper than what humanity has discovered so far. We don't believe in a God "by definition"--God doesn't need to be the Greatest Conceivable Thing in order to be God. (He may well be, but it's not necessary).
Does the Orthodox church not have this attitude towards the physical?
TheDag
Per Aspera ad Astra
8hr ago
Fair point! I do think that Mormons are relatively up front about things at least from my interactions. I disagree but haven't personally seen a lot of dishonesty, just focus on the more 'normal' parts. Which every religion does, hah.
Tenaz
8hr ago
That's fair, but getting something wrong isn't the same as keeping it secret. I'm happy to debate the truth claims (sometimes... it's quite time-consuming) but first we have to agree that they're truth claims, not lies concealing what Mormons actually believe.
TheDag
Per Aspera ad Astra
9hr ago
But more to the point, I'm not sure that the default mode of interpreting a confusing 1st century apocalyptic passage in Scripture should be modern literalism! I don't think that this is special pleading on the part of Christians, either, Jewish pre-Christian literature has a lot of similarly (and intentionally) vague passages – Christ is quoting Daniel in this one – and I think that reading them symbolically/non-literally predates Christ. So I'm cautious about reading the text and taking the most obvious and straightforward surface-level interpretation (particularly in a translation) as the correct one. (That's part of what's been very interesting and helpful to me about this discussion, is getting a feel for why people think it should be interpreted this way. As I think I mentioned, I do not have a settled opinion).
Thanks for this! Actually helped me settle some of my own doubts here. Well said.
TheDag
Per Aspera ad Astra
9hr ago
I would say desecrating the Eucharist in 1054 and killing/expelling/enslaving all Italian Catholics in 1182 are both examples of Constantinople being in the wrong politically first.
Both of the churches were wrong politically in many ways - I'll be honest I haven't done a full accounting of the details as I frankly don't have the time or inclination. Part of my decision is based on looking at the 'spirit' of both churches today, and since the schism. Another part is just the fact that Rome essentially took what was an overall democratic church, and demanded to have sole power over all of Christendom. Those two things together are strong evidence from my perspective that Rome was in the wrong.
Frankly I think even the 5 sees being somehow more "legitimate" than other churches is a bit suss, although I'll say that I'm definitely a Nicene Christian.
I don't think there's anything we'd require the other side to change, just reconfirmation of Rome's primacy.
See, this is the problem! Basically the entire schism comes down to Rome asserting primacy that is not apostolic! You can't just say "we want to end the argument, you just have to give in to all of my demands that actually matter to you" and expect it to work.
TheDag
Per Aspera ad Astra
9hr ago
OK. It sounds like when you say "it's a bit tough to actually find what the Mormons believe" what you mean is that it's a bit tough to track down the apologetics addressing contradictory evidence. For that I'd invite you to check out https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/. Or, again, just ask me. You're not going to see every piece of evidence for and against a claim addressed in a post called "Mormonism 101".
Yeah I think that for me, and many other Mormon-skeptical Christians, the truth claims of Joseph Smith and his status as a prophet are the big breaking points. It seems @Stellula is stuck on the same place.
I can only assume it's to make it easier to charge suspects when there isn't enough evidence for anything else.
More options
Context Copy link