site banner
Advanced search parameters (with examples): "author:quadnarca", "domain:reddit.com", "over18:true"

Showing 25 of 195294 results for

domain:betonit.substack.com

I'm trying to parse that translation you offered, but it's very dense and I'm having trouble making sense of it. Could you summarize the point of view Quenstedt is offering here? My guess is he's saying Christ's humanity deserves latria ipso facto, which would be fair, I get that, I'm actually rather uncomfortable with the whole presupposition here that we can separate our worship of Christ's humanity from that of his divinity, even in thought, I'd rather not even conceive of categories here, let's just worship Christ the Incarnate Son of God.

That being said, while there's clearly a strain of theological opinion here, I don't actually think there's a dogmatic definition on the matter even in Catholicism. I know of no teaching authority in the Catholic Church that focuses on this issue, though maybe one exists. More solemnly, Church councils have resisted talking about Christ's humanity and divinity separately, probably because talking about offering different worship to each hypostasis is incredibly misleading and dangerous.

I think it's enough to say that Christ deserves to be worshipped as God because he is God, and also to be devoutly honored as the greatest among men because he is the greatest possible man. Delving too deep into where both things come from and how that relates to the hypostatic union and such strikes me as perhaps scholasticism delving a bit too deep into the mystery of the Incarnation in a way that could easily lead someone who's not incredibly careful into serious error. This seems like something where a non-Chalcedonian could easily say, "see, look how Chalcedon is misleading!" Let's just agree not to send this to the Oriental Orthodox, hm?

I was on mobile when I typed my comment so I didn't see the hyperdulia reference in the Summa. Good catch! This is something that's never talked about in lay theology, I have never seen hyperdulia in reference to anyone but the Virgin Mary. It's generally treated as a gerrymandered category for her alone. But saying that Christ deserves hyperdulia with respect to his humanity makes a lot of sense, it puts it as essentially "dulia intimately connected with the incarnation of the Word."

The people taking the bet in question are articulating it specifically in the terms of the opposition within Elite Theory between Mosca and Michels. Neither side expects anything of Trump qua Trump because it's built into the framework of their worldview that figureheads have no power and that political movements are always and forever small organized minorities that compete on coordination. The B- and C-listers are the movers and shakers, that's a given.

To wit, you're probably right about foreign policy but this is still within the frame of the bet. A Trump 2 that focuses on Chayna and leaves aside all the culture war stuff is I think decently capable of "fresh prince" type reaction. So would Biden magically turning into Bill Clinton, but that's even less likely.

I can even tell you how you'd sell it by emphasizing the multiracial rainbow coalition that is tired of discrimination. "Lefties are the real racists" can absolutely work if the CIA, NYT and other government organizations agree with you (ask the Israel protesters). Do they want to and will that be enough is the question.

Eh Cathars still have a memetic presense, see how they were a pretty big story block in one of the recent MTG sets (and that card sees constructed play too, alongside a few other Cathar cards).

I'd expect it's more likely that the UK just gets flooded with more CE crap, while the bottom end of the domestic or near-business market lifts its skirt up over the floodwaters, same as the rest of the EU user privacy data stuff. Sorry if that's cynical, but the last time I went to the UK a coworker got zapped because none of the three-prong power adapters he'd locally-purchased actually had connections between the input and output ground plugs.

Some of these restrictions, even some of the good ones, aren't that readily implemented. SecureBoot is only a recommendation, which is good, given that even a lot of mid-range microprocessors don't support it, nevermind the microcontroller world where it's gfl. I've got two projects I'm running now (STM32F103Cx- and Nuvoton NUC980) that don't support it at all, and these aren't exactly ancient PICs. Same, maybe even worse, for the recommendation for memory access controls. Mandating a default-off mode for any debug interface is understandable from a Serious IT Perspective, but it also makes a lot of stuff e-waste in a wide variety of circumstances, and makes a lot of useful prosumer and enthusiast concepts unavailable.

More broadly, this reads a bit like it was written by a mid-studies electrical engineering student, for better or worse. There's a lot of good recommendations, but trying to make a clear distinction between IoT and 'constrained' devices as a simple binary... it's bad enough trying to split microcontrollers from microprocessors, but from a quick read this reg would put harder restrictions on an ESP32 lighting controller than solar-powered NVR system.

On net, it's probably not bad to have a document people can look at, even if they end up shrugging on actual implementations at points, but it's frustrating.

Do you think that this is enough to also say that no major IoT startup success is likely to be based in California any time soon?

Nah, California has inertia and the funding apparatus there is still stronger than anywhere in the world, which is more meaningful. Not to mention the regulatory framework for innovation in general is looser in the US.

But it's telling that the companies that exist right now that fit the bill are also in Texas and Massachusetts these days, that used to be more rare. I wouldn't be surprised if we see some exodus. But it's probably down to the taxes than line items from small regulation.

I don't think that's a requirement that is on the table anywhere, except for perhaps some niche customers

You're forgetting automotive and think that energy grid infra is a lot looser than it actually is, but other than that it's broadly correct.

that's kind of a nothingburger?

I think we're talking past each other. This regulation in and of itself is a nothingburger. It's the tendency I'm speaking to, which is what was alluded to in the OP.

Regulation is a dynamic process, it never stops at one law and very few of its slopes are not slippery.

aren't really "concerns" that can be addressed in context of the very specific document that we have in front of us

In this house we discuss the Bailey, not the Motte.

This situation seems analogous. I guess it's reasonable to ask whether the hatred is toward Catholics in particular, or Christians generally, but it's pretty clearly a wave of hate crimes aimed at a coherent target. It's especially notable since there's zero evidence the inciting incident actually happened.

Sure, that's basically my point is that it may be generally anti-Christian sentiment not anti-Catholic. Not saying either of those things are good, just that, it isn't necessarily what we were talking about.

As to the inciting incident, assuming we are linking it to the residential schools, it depends what you think the inciting incident was. I'd suggest the talk of deaths is only accepted because of the already existing animus about the residential schools. Even if every attributed death was debunked perfectly, I would suggest that not much would change in the feelings about the matter.

Like if the Holocaust was successfully denied, and all the Jewish deaths were just attributed to the horrors of war and a starving populace and not actual gas chambers, would Jews have no animus against Nazis? Seems unlikely.

So I would say the inciting event definitely happened. In that some of the native populace was forced into schools. That animus is WHY they believe that the schools were murdering kids during rugby practice, not the source of it.

Yeah, there was a recent interview with Trump about a lot of this stuff and he seemed pretty uncommitted. If you read this the author is entirely hysterical, but the substance is thin. A lot of what Trump appears to promise is actually him just repeating and agreeing with the question he’s being fed; “oh, Mr President, are you sure you’re really going to deport all 12 million illegals and put them in deportation camps and use the military?” “Yeah, sure, we gotta do it, sure”. KellyAnne Conway, that avatar of competence, says earnestly that he’s going to move a lot faster this time. We shall see. I think much of Trump’s personal attention will be devoted to trying (and likely failing) to prosecute people he believes have wronged him. So it really depends on his advisors.

From the article, it is clear that the rate of both men and women being murdered by intimate partners has decreased by a factor of about two since the 1990s.

To be sure, of the 0.45 Non-Indigenous women killed per 100k, 0.32 are killed by an intimate partner, who is very likely to be male. I am not sure what could be done about that, though. Encourage more women to join gangs so that they are more likely to be killed in gang warfare, like presumably the males (for whom the murder rate is twice as high, but only with a small fraction being perpetrated by intimate partners)?

In general, the price we pay for freedom is that sometimes people elect to do bad stuff with it. In theory, we could save a few women's lives by outlawing heterosexual relationships or locking up all men. In practice, that would not be worth it on a QALY basis.

If being murdered is among the ten leading causes of death, then we could consider talking about an epidemic. Traffic deaths are between four and five per 100k. We should roughly care five times as much about that than we care about murders (which should still not be a lot).

Also, Indigenous women are murdered at six times the rate of their non-Indigenous peers!!111 Should the intersectionist woke crowd be all over that fact?

Please stick to a single account.

It's a cliche: Bipartisanship is when the stupid party and the evil party get together to do something stupid and evil.

For now, I don't think it's going to go away: large portions of the Republican leadership still believe in bipartisanship. If you imagine (simplistically) any compromise to lie between two extremes on a spectrum, that compromise will fall somewhere in the middle. But probably not the middle. One side gets more. The question is: which side gets more? But it's probably frequently at least in somebody's interest to write a policy and appeal to bipartisanship. That's half the problem solved.

Besides, there are lots of small picayune daily humdrums, about which nobody really cares, on which members have to work together anyway. Trust or no trust, it takes a very specific kind of person who can get elected to Congress and then defect on the deal. Most of those such members now make up the wing of the Republican party characterized as "MAGA" and "extreme," and it requires them to constantly sail upwind against all other incentive. Just this morning I was listening to Katherine Clark explaining on NPR how Democrats would probably vote to save Mike Johnson's speakership, because, uh, we have to get back to the serious work of "governing," not "politicking". "But what are Democrats getting out of this," the interviewer asks? Uh, well, the American People know right from wrong, and we need to act to sustain our economic recovery, and in November when abortion access is on the ballot... ... ... ... ...

"shall not be infringed"

Well there are other words in the amendment. Words like 'bear arms', the meaning of which is pretty clearly up for debate even if you come down on the side of a broad interpretation.

I don’t understand why people expect that of Trump. When has he ever struck back at the civil service? “Putting away woke” (?) sounds like it’ll end with the same results as “draining the swamp.”

Most progress on this front has been made by the B- and C-list of conservatives. DeSantis, Abbott…I think Rufo is more credible as a reformer, and he’s not even pursuing office. Would Trump be making these particular mouth sounds if they hadn’t been pushing related issues in the midterms?

In my opinion, the most likely path for making idpol unfashionable is a foreign-policy presidency. Doesn’t really matter who. We’re not getting a “fresh prince” decade by cranking up the domestic outrage.

One could argue this is actually disproving the point. Opponents of Woke ideology are prompt to point out how it is iitself a gnostic dualism built in the shadow of Christianity the likes of Catharism and operates in very similar fashion. I remember even back in the early days people trotted out comparisons between the social organization of Tumblr and the Cathar Perfects.

Ideas abstract enough are immortal because they are mere reflections of tendencies inside of the human condition. They are modulated by technology, culture and other factors, but the patterns endlessly rhyme because we cannot escape our condition.

The elimination of anathema as a category requires the literal end of the world as we know it. This is no accident.

The nonprofit security grant program (NSGP) almost entirely goes to Jewish groups, including Synagogues. Jewish groups have recently lobbied for massive increases in these grants, which have been $275-305 million the past couple of years due to the lobbying by Jewish groups.

I also wrote a post about the ADL's "Day of Hate" hoax which directly coincided with a successful lobbying effort by ADL and other Jewish groups to massive increase the funding for that program.

That security outside the Jewish community center mentioned by OP is almost certainly paid for by DHS and American taxpayers.

Weren't they Gnostics? Gnosticism definately still exists.

Back in the Freedom Fries era, we occasionally saw someone attacking a swarthy individual wearing a turban while shouting something derogatory to Arabs, and then it turned out the victim was actually Sikh. My understanding is that these cases were generally chalked up to Islamophobia, even though the victim wasn't a Muslim, because the attacker's motivation was hatred of Muslims.

This situation seems analogous. I guess it's reasonable to ask whether the hatred is toward Catholics in particular, or Christians generally, but it's pretty clearly a wave of hate crimes aimed at a coherent target. It's especially notable since there's zero evidence the inciting incident actually happened.

I can easily commit to saying that no major IoT startup success is likely to be based in the UK any time soon.

Bruce Schnier noted that California had already implemented at least the number one item. Do you think that this is enough to also say that no major IoT startup success is likely to be based in California any time soon?

No chinesium lightbulb maker is ever going to bother with formally proving their code is correct because they don't care.

I don't believe anything in this requirement is aimed at formal code verification methods. I don't think that's a requirement that is on the table anywhere, except for perhaps some niche customers (e.g., military/space). Probably not even at most "critical infrastructure" places that could blow up or whatever.

I mean, honestly, if that's about all you have to say for what results from this, that no chinesium lightbulb maker is going to meet a standard that hasn't been proposed and that some critical application spaces are going to pay for good stuff anyway, that's kind of a nothingburger? Like, abstract senses about Europe (not even the UK) and wild references to John Galt aren't really "concerns" that can be addressed in context of the very specific document that we have in front of us. It really seems like you just don't have any meaningful concern that we can investigate.

Tell that to the Albigensians!

I genuinely cannot think of a single "smart" device that has made my life better but it's easy to think of a ton that have made my life a little bit worse. This isn't a privacy or security thing. The devices are genuinely pointless and annoying. We recently unplugged our Alexa because it was pointless and annoying. There was probably a week where I could come up with contrived tasks for it to help with so I could pretend it wasn't completely stupid. I'm tired of tech people telling me I need this or that and making it impossible to find a house in the Bay Area with a normal boring thermostat. It's an immense treat that the used grill I just bought has no electronics built in.

The best argument for IoT devices was that they were a lot cheaper than normal devices because a VC was spending some pension fund's money to "build market share."

There is no killing an idea for "the rest of human existence"

They were what? Note some of the non-Catholic Churches burned down were on reservations/native land as well. So how much increased risk Catholic churches have over churches in general still isn't clear.

https://tnc.news/2024/02/12/a-map-of-every-church-burnt-or-vandalized-since-the-residential-school-announcements4/

Note that "100 Christian churches in Canada have been vandalized, burned down or desecrated" is a different measure than number of churches burned down. Your source lists around 50 churches that with a fire or arson attack. Of those it lists around 27 as destroyed or razed, with another few have no description of the severity.

My count only covered those burned down. 33 looks to actually be consistent with your source as well using that metric.

So perhaps adjust your trust in the AI counting somewhat?

Depends on the economy, but I’d say they can if it holds. Racial hostility in America today doesn’t seem worse than it was at the low point of the 90s, between the LA riots and the OJ trial. President Newsom can spout Bill Clinton 2.0 talking points (he has no ideological principles anyway) about unity etc.

I think a Biden victory would see a linear decline along the current trajectory of extreme wokeness being less cool (note this is very different from the grander arc of liberalism).

Trump could go either way. The DEI zealots might become only more enraged and zealous, and those on the left who don’t like Biden will be quickly stirred up if Trump actually gives people like Rufo some amount of political power and attempts even a small amount of Project 2025 stuff. Trump is a controversial guy and most powerful people in America don’t like him, that can’t be dismissed.

But there is another possibility, which is that 2016-2021 sucked all the political energy out of the system, especially on the left, such that the whole thing just kind of crumbles ideologically. Again, not the grander arc of liberalism, which will continue, but a crisis of conscience, as happened to the left after Reagan and Thatcher won and the postwar corporatist consensus crumbled.

I think a lot of it will depend on the specifics of the election, whether it’s a landslide either way, conduct of both parties during the transition period, and on Trump’s rhetoric. As weird as it sounds, I don’t think it’s impossible that he leaves office at the end of his second term having accomplished almost nothing and yet being more liked, or at least more tolerated, than when he got in in 2016.