m1n1 · HackerTrans

4 เดือนที่ผ่านมาdiscuss

Only a few languages allow you to change a system while it is running (saving time on deploying new development versions and re-creating state) ... and have a recording debugger (saving time since you can inspect any part of a recording at leisure instead of accidentally passing the interesting spot and having to start over)

I hope more people get to experience this kind of joy :)

m1n1

ปีที่แล้วdiscuss

Could the same radio be controlling other nearby boilers unintentionally?

m1n1

ปีที่แล้วdiscuss

Forgot to add: multiple threads ... multiple DBs ... multiple topics on more than one kind of message queue ... hitting and serving REST endpoints -- all no problem for the REPL and the debugger[0].

If the thing was in Java, each fix attempt would mean waiting for startup and state re-creation. And each successful debug could have meant multiple sessions (vs visiting any mix of spots in a single recording)

[0] https://www.flow-storm.org/

m1n1

ปีที่แล้วdiscuss

I worked with a 60K LOC thing* that talked to multiple services and had complex configuration. Ran fine on my laptop pointed at the company's dev env.

The REPL let me test my changes while inside the thing as it ran. No problems. Someone wrote a nice *recording* debugger too which helped immensely -- no more "oops, I'm past the interesting part and have to start over"

* in prod we usually give it a small number of large instances

m1n1

ปีที่แล้วdiscuss

The involvement of Saul in the stoning of Stephen is generally seen as an established historical event - AD 34-35 - basically within a couple of years of Christ's bodily resurrection.

Many others were killed during the reign of the Roman Emperor Nero (54–68 AD), well within the lifetime of the 500+ eyewitnesses of Christ being around for 40 days after his crucifixion. They could have recanted if they knew it was false, but they knew it was true.

m1n1

ปีที่แล้วdiscuss

If a memory foam mattress makes a person's pain worse, how does it do that -- or how does a different type of mattress avoid doing that? (honest question)

m1n1

ปีที่แล้วdiscuss

So the squashing of a tomato or a human or a civilization -- they're just different rearrangements of matter and energy. Our feelings about each are also just chemical reactions. Any feeling or argument to the contrary has nothing to stand on. There's no such real thing as better or worse ultimately -- only better or worse within a context but not ultimately.

If you're on a hike and you see blueprints for a working automobile, you don't assume it assembled itself by mere chance. There's a language of a working design and you assume some minds created it.

But at the same time you interact with humans who have a working blueprint expressed in a 4-letter language and suddenly deny there is any mind behind any design?

m1n1

ปีที่แล้วdiscuss

You could imagine a God who is infinitely delightful. If he's the only thing in existence, he could delight in himself without end and would not be wrong in doing so, being actually delightful.

Having no limitation of knowledge or thought, he could think about himself. His thoughts would not be deficient in any detail, and thus would be an exact representation of himself. [1]

He could delight in that representation with his whole being, and that would be yet another full representation of himself. And thus he would not be alone or sad.

And he could have the propensity of emanating his delightfulness, expressing it outwards like light out of a star. And that emanation could be expressed as the creation of everything else. [2]

[1] https://ccel.org/ccel/edwards/trinity/trinity.i.html?queryID...

[2] https://ccel.org/ccel/edwards/works1.iv.ii.html

m1n1

ปีที่แล้วdiscuss

> the supernatural isn't real

So ... only what is physical is real? Like only matter and energy? Then there's no such thing as significance or value, only different combinations of matter and energy. Any opinion or argument, held however strongly, is only a set of chemical reactions, nothing more?

m1n1

ปีที่แล้วdiscuss

Some cultures had (have?) a tradition of naming each successive generation according to the next line in a poem or song.

If you ran out of verses, you'd pick a new song to start over.

m1n1

ปีที่แล้วdiscuss

Also found out a friend tore a ligament in her knee while skiing, got an MRI showing the tear, prayed, got another MRI showing the tear gone. Doc can't explain, and this has nothing to do with her susceptibility.

m1n1

ปีที่แล้วdiscuss

My Atari 2600 had an odd behavior with the reset switch. Holding it down at the beginning of the tank/combat game enabled your first shot to go through walls. Did you any Atari bugs while you worked on it? Pretty amazing that you could program these without the benefit of searching any internet for answers. (btw, I replied to you elsewhere :-P)

m1n1

ปีที่แล้วdiscuss

If you __sincerely__ want to understand the answer to your question about babies dying, you should try steelmanning. It’s the opposite of strawmanning.

Steelmanning would not take the evil committed by humans and hang that around God's neck and blame him. Steelmanning would accept that free will means people can do things that God wouldn't himself choose, and when they do evil, they don't represent him.

Steelmanning would accept that if a Supreme Being exists, then that being is indeed supreme -- even though babies are precious, the supreme being has even more worth because he is supreme.

You and I have the same emotional reaction to something that violates our top priorities (humankind esp loved ones for you, God and then humankind esp loved ones for me)

Everyone's got a top priority. If there is a supreme being, the right top priority arrow should point at that being. Including the supreme being's own top priority arrow!

Otherwise God would be an idolater.

Many will find this repugnant. I know. Probably because we are accustomed to thinking on the level of fellow humans, we're all each worth exactly one human, no more no less.

But if you honestly want to know how this other math works, this is it. We're in the middle of a symphony and parts might sound like they need some resolution. And in the end there will be resolution and the whole symphony will show his supremacy in the _end_ because only in the end are all accounts truly settled. Before the end, things will appear incorrect.

Actually the easiest way to reconcile this in your mind is to imagine you're, say, a Van Halen fan at one of their concerts at the height of their popularity. You want them to go absolutely nuts on stage showing off, because they're the best band ever. When they magnify themselves on stage, it's what you paid to see.

Either you honestly want to understand and you'll steelman or you really just wanted to be a critic and you won't. Btw, I replied on the other branch as well

m1n1

ปีที่แล้วdiscuss

The charge is Stranger tricked me. The Prosecutor (you) repeatedly rely on an unproven universal negative claim that miracles never happen, a claim that would require watching all of history and show every event has a natural physical explanation.

Defense submitted evidence which the prosecution refuses to consider closely because of the universal negative (unproven) claim.

Prosecution submitted evidence (youtube video) which the defense examined (demonstrating better involvement in the case than the prosecution) and found to be irrelevant: _all_ tricks required holding the mark's ankles/feet off the ground and required dexterity. Stranger's fingers were straight and I was on the ground.

It's as if Stranger was charged with murder using a blade and Prosecution submitted examples involving only firearms! What!

Prosecution refers to the prevalence of many other tricksters. But the defense points out simply the guilt of others implies nothing about the guilt or innocence of the Stranger.

Prosecution argues the mind can trick itself into feeling sensations that are easily checked and verified as imagined. But I ___did___ check by sight and touch over several seconds (not to mention X-ray).

So prosecution's argument contradicts itself --giving himself the benefit of the doubt when dispelling the sensation of an imaginary bug on his skin, but ___denying___ the same benefit to the defense without reason. This argument is tossed out of court with prejudice.

Prosecution refuses to put in the work of building a theory of the case: ___what___ is the recipe for tricking someone who is wearing jeans, seated fully on the ground, using only your fingers fully extended (no pinching of fabric, moving the mark's body in any way disallowed) ... Followed by an X-ray that shows the result (and proceeded by an X-ray that shows the contrary)?

Prosecution has high IQ but wants the defense to do his job. What? Try to figure out a recipe. Or __you__ go do the prosecution's research and see if they can explain it. You said watching the video would be hard but I did it. Now it's your turn.

By the way, if nothing exists outside matter and energy then you are deeply at odds with reality: your reactions to any violation of human dignity are all just chemicals bouncing around. There's no such real thing as human dignity either. Squashing a tomato or a human -- it's just a rearrangement of matter and energy.

m1n1

ปีที่แล้วdiscuss

> I haven't even watched the video

_Every_ trick in the video relied on the mark sitting in a chair with the illusionist holding their legs _off_ the ground for manipulation.

I was seated completely on the ground, wearing jeans. The only person touching me was the guy and only on my right shin and only with fingers held straight.

Imagine this happened to you, and please explain how he would be able to trick you into feeling your leg move against the jeans which are held in place against the ground, for several seconds, while you are examining the sensation carefully and watching your leg grow longer.

I don't think you can come up with a trick recipe for that.

Anyways my faith existed before this and would exist if it never happened.

  > Nature of existence is one of such useless questions.

Is that because science cannot answer such questions?

Or because it doesn't matter to you what existence really is?

I want to know whether you think matter and energy cover all of existence. Or is there anything outside that Venn diagram.

m1n1

ปีที่แล้วdiscuss

I asked because I realized there's something we probably already agree on, as long as one twist is accounted for.

But to get to the twist we should unpack this word Worship because it's a little nebulous. It could mean lots of things but I want to reduce it to its basic essence.

Let's imagine a dirty barefoot ignorant heathen Bob who carves an idol out of wood. It's a small figurine that he names as his brand new god Steve. Bob _claims_ to worship Steve, Bob bows down to Steve at regular intervals and burns incense to Steve, etc etc.

But over time Bob gets into a hobby like golf. And Bob spends all his free time playing golf, practicing golf, reading about golf, visualizing his next golf skill improvements, dreaming about golf.

Dust gathers on Steve's head and shoulders. If Steve were to suddenly animate, would Steve agree that Bob is a true Steve worshiper? No. I think if we simmer this nebulous word worship, we might get a more revealing word like "prioritize".

And maybe if we were to use more words, we might expand that to "hold (in thoughts, feelings, and resulting behavior) as most valuable"

And from Bob's behavior, we can see Bob cares more about golf than he cares about Steve.

Similarly, there are some people who claim to be Christians, but we see from their behavior that some of these people care more about, say, having a reputation as a miracle working faith healer -- or maybe they care more about the money they can rake in while faking miracles, than they care about God.

Even while we may disagree whether God exists, we can agree that such fake faith healers are criminals when money gets involved, right?

Then suppose for a second that God does exist, wouldn't you agree that a God who is supposedly perfect in justice should signify for anyone watching that these people are indeed criminals? Like, something has to be _SAID_ at least.

So in this supposed existence which has a supreme being, I think you can agree everyone's Priority Number One Arrow should point at God. When someone's arrow isn't pointed at God, that's idolatry.

If this makes sense, let me know and I can get to the twist. Or maybe you can figure out the twist before I say it.

m1n1

ปีที่แล้วdiscuss

I watched the video. My experience didn't match any of the 4 methods shown. Not sure why he didn't include the 5th "and possibly 6th" ways that he thought of in the video.

Again, I felt my leg moving against my pants while seated _fully_ on the ground and the guy only had his hands lightly touching my shins. I felt the legs moving against the pants against the floor where he couldn't have affected it.

The video's 4 methods show you have to hold both feet/ankles in order to pull off the trick.

Are you an athiest - and believe that existence is limited only to energy and matter?

m1n1

ปีที่แล้วdiscuss

Pretend to be a believer for just a second and think about these two questions:

What makes idolatry wrong?

How is God not an idolater?

m1n1

ปีที่แล้วdiscuss

This weekend I spoke with someone who (together with two others) prayed for a woman whose right arm was visibly shorter than her left (around 5 inches) -- so much so that she always had to roll up her right sleeve because otherwise it'd be too long.

The right arm was shorter because she broke it as a child and it healed in a way that interfered with proper growth.

After the prayer the arms were the same length. So no need for x-ray arguments or any concern about any single person being susceptible or gullible since this was a group of 4 individuals.

They knew the "patient" beforehand, and they continued to interact over the next several weeks. She was from Taiwan. Her chosen English nickname was Diane. And this occurred in London.

The anti supernatural supposition is not a moving of the goalposts. It is actually the removal of goalposts. You can't score a field goal if the goalposts are denied entirely.

m1n1

ปีที่แล้วdiscuss

The purpose of this post is to describe how a reasonable person can reconcile these two:

  - a good, compassionate, merciful, omnipotent, and omniscient God

  - the reality that innocent babies suffer and die 

  The purpose is not to convince anyone to become a believer.

  I maintain that anyone who remains an objector to the actual thesis (that these two realities can be reconciled) is really merely refusing to suppose for the sake of conversation and to hold the all thoughts described below _simultaneously_ and with enough weight for each

  If you find any tenet irrelevant or begs for your immediate objection, you are misreading this post, and on the verge of discounting a piece, and objecting to some other worldview, not the one I'm espousing

  I didn't spend any time making this palatable so don't foist this on a grieving parent as-is

  Also one might read this post and feel that God is severe or unappealing. But there are plenty of positives to delight about God, and some of them are described in the links below

The Excellency of Christ https://ccel.org/ccel/edwards/sermons.excellency.html

The Peace Which Christ Gives His True Followers https://ccel.org/ccel/edwards/works2.iv.xiii.html

Safety, Fulness, and Sweet Refreshment in Christ https://ccel.org/ccel/edwards/sermons/files/safety.html

God has always existed, eternally in three persons

Nothing and no one existed before God nor is above God. He is the sole true sovereign

The rest of existence came into being from nothing because he created it and holds it in existence. He "upholds all things by the word of His power." Heb. 1:3 as if the strong and weak nuclear forces came from him continually and intentionally

Let the rest of existence be howsoever vast, it is as the light dust of the balance and as perfectly nothing in comparison to the Creator

It is correct to value God over all else. The godly person prefers God over everything he has had, over everything he currently has, over anything he has the prospect of having in this world and in the next, real or imagined https://ccel.org/ccel/edwards/works2/works2.v.html

God was free to create whatever kind of universe he wanted, and also was completely free to have decided instead not to create at all, ever

He knows all things, including all things to come. It's like how you can know everything that happens in a novel that you've _already_ finished

Not only is he complete in knowledge, he is also perfect and unsurpassed in wisdom, moral beauty, love, and every virtue

Some virtues like love only make sense in the context of a relationship. God has existed from all eternity past in relationship within the trinity

Some virtues like mercy and grace can only be exercised when not deserved. Forgiveness can only be exercised after a wrong. This did not force God's hand in creation in any way -- he was completely free to possess a virtue and yet leave it unexpressed forever

But he decided to create the kind of universe where sentient beings such as angels and humans can decide to prefer God's wisdom or their own. Humans can, ... in our limited knowledge, .... moving only forward in time from one line of the novel to the next, ... only seeing what's next to us in the tall grass like a mouse, ... without knowing all that has taken place or all that will take place, ... with our few meager mortal brain cells that need regular sleep, ... continuing in our existence only by his say-so, yes we can choose to prefer our wisdom to God. It is the height of hubris, yet we all without exception do so naturally. We prefer the light dust of the balance, pegged at the top of the scale's range of motion, over the stupendous gold brick that is God Only Wise, Ancient of Days.

We don't want to answer to God. We don't want to live life his way. We have ideas and plans and standards of living that we think are better than his.

A penalty must fit the crime. Justice requires the penalty to be proportional to the crime.

The exact same insult levied against two different individuals can carry different weight, if there is an aggravating factor such as the identity, worth, majesty of one of the offended

God is infinite in worth. Our obligation to him is infinite

But this means our sin ("we know better than God") is infinite (however finite in number and duration yet having an infinite aggravation) and therefore justly deserves an infinite penalty. Since we have nothing to pay with that doesn't already belong to God such a penalty would never be paid in full by us https://ccel.org/e/edwards/sermons/justice.html

God was completely free to set the rules of his creation however he wanted.

Angels seem to be accountable to God purely as individuals.

With us humans however, God had a different rule: that one could represent a group as a surety. Either to represent all of us negatively as Adam did, or represent some of us (door open to all) positively as Jesus did.

Adam's responsibility was to heed the only prohibition God stated at the time with the consequence for disobedience being a fallen world and an infinite penalty hereafter. Such penalty already explained as consistent with justice, so also the fallen world being a lesser consequence is thus also consistent with justice.

Ignorance of the law or its consequences does not fly in court

If Adam and Eve had never eaten of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, then they would have never known evil, including suffering. This might have been a way for us to end up in a universe where babies never suffered nor died. But Adam and Eve succumbed to FOMO vs trust in the love and wisdom of God.

But if God had picked any other mere human to be the surety, that person would fail as well. We each prove this is true when we prefer our own wisdom or anything over God

We each earn an infinite penalty without help from Adam. And Adam's consequences are also present everywhere and unavoidable

"But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us" (Romans 5:8) as our second surety. Fully human, and simultaneously fully and eternally the second person of the Trinity, God the Son, Jesus lived the righteous life for us and paid the infinite penalty in finite time

You and I have committed offenses, each with infinite weight, and we each owe and infinite penalty to God. We could spend forever in hell and still never pay it off.

The alternative is to acknowledge this guilt and accept Jesus to pay for us

One illustration for this is if a child earned a spanking but the father covered the child's skin with his own hand before spanking his own hand

How was Jesus able to pay for more than one person in finite time? Because he has the full infinite worth of God the Son.

Jesus' death does more to repair God's honor than if all humanity were to burn in hell for eternity.

God did not have to provide this surety. He was completely free and justified to judge Adam and Eve immediately in hell. That would have been another way to have a universe void of suffering and dying infants.

So when an actual Christian parent mourns the loss of an infant child, one help is to consider that God himself in Jesus also died. And to imagine how much harder it would be to continue worshiping some other god who never tasted death personally.

And another help is the hope of reunion with the lost infant in the hereafter 2 Samuel 12:23

Life in heaven for one who died as an infant would put into perspective any imagined life they could have lived on earth -- to think otherwise is to suppose life on earth to be worth more than time with God and thus idolatry. We tend to imagine the good that a dead infant lost out on. But we don't know what their mortal future really would have been like.

And if he shows the mercy of healing an infant and protecting his life to adulthood, that healed person still eventually and surely earns an infinite penalty like everyone else and still needs God's mercy.

Can the wrath of God be reconciled with the mercy of God? See https://ccel.org/ccel/edwards/works2.iv.xii.html

The existence of the dying baby, the continued existence of the questioner, and the existence of the question itself contain within them the very answer to the charge. If God were malevolent, none of them would exist here in this world. This alone is sufficient to defeat the charge. But God goes beyond that by experiencing the death penalty we deserved. He didn't have to, but he did, and is thus the only deity you could come to who would understand your pain from firsthand experience. And not only that, he did this to make a way (to pay) for a reunion between a grieving parent and a lost infant. Adam was involved but we can't blame him because we too would have (and already have) failed, because men naturally are God's enemies: https://ccel.org/ccel/edwards/works2/works2.vi.i.html

In this worldview, any continued objection really boils down to the same original error (Adam's) of thinking one knows better than God, and so one does not want to answer to a sovereign God, and so one suppresses the truth with objections and excuses even though it is plainly evident from what has been made that God is to be thanked and honored. Romans 1:18-23

comments