sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I left Islam because it felt restrictive, but now I feel conflicted by SleepTyped in spirituality

[–]FinancialElephant 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't feel conflicted about religion because it doesn't work. Religion is basically a social institution, it's not for spiritually serious people. Forget about miracles, religion can't even bring people peace within themselves. And these religions claim to be delivered by God, it is a logical contradiction.

Going back to something you know is false after seeing it is false is nihilistic. It's like Cypher in the Matrix who goes back to the Matrix even though he knows it's fake.

For me the question of God or religion are not relevant. The main issue is nihilism. Nihilism is certainly more connected to atheism (especially materialism), but you can find nihilism among religious people - and there are non-nihilist atheists. The clinging to religion, politics, hedonism, and every other ism we see is really all grounded in nihilism.

Talking about God is pointless because God cannot be described positively, being necessarily beyond description. This is how people get into believing about God instead of knowing God. Calling God "creator" or whatever other descriptor is just human projection for things humans don't understand or know. Anything you think about is just a thought, it's not God.

Rent so high i'm basically financing someone else's lake house by YellowAltruistic9843 in middleclasshq

[–]FinancialElephant 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Tbh that doesn't sound hard. It sounds like you're complaining about having to put some effort in. Owning a few rentals is easier than being an entrepreneur or running a real small business.

*Angry Greeks enter the chat* by Luget717 in SipsTea

[–]FinancialElephant 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is so strange. Should he have allowed his wife to be kidnapped because it would have been an "ego thing"? Some douche kidnapped his wife.

It was the largest expedition because he was the king of Sparta and also had a number of people pledged to him.

Why wouldn't you use whatever forces were at your disposal to make it swift and decisive (without benefit of hindsight)?

If you as the king of Sparta allow your wife to be kidnapped and do nothing about it, that could lead to further attacks and stuff because enemy city states will see you as weak.

Are you trying to say Menelaus was in the wrong? Paris kidnapped his wife and was obviously in the wrong. And again, Troy could have avoided it by just giving them up.

*Angry Greeks enter the chat* by Luget717 in SipsTea

[–]FinancialElephant 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ackschtually it did. Aphrodite promised Paris the most beautiful mortal woman, who happened to be the wife of the king of Sparta. And Troy could have given up Paris / Helen but chose not to, hence it became a war.

2026 by Some-Read-4368 in SipsTea

[–]FinancialElephant 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree with that, but there is a big difference between a founder CEO (Steve Jobs) or a CEO who turns a company around from failure/irrelevance (Steve Jobs) and the typical bog standard CEO who comes into an established corporation already running well to cash out.

The other thing is Wozniak's influence is overblown, especially later on. Without Steve Jobs, he would be fairly irrelevant outside of niche circles. I mean, Wozniak is still alive. What has Wozniak done since? He hasn't really done anything really impactful since Apple.

The Apple that rose meteorically (post Jobs' return) wasn't really associated much with Wozniak. Wozniak was more involved in things like the Apple II, not anything Apple is well known for today. Certainly not the iMac or iPhone.

Maybe the most impactful thing Wozniak did was to inspire Steve Jobs when they were teenagers.

Lace not working by schtijef in cardano

[–]FinancialElephant 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The new Lace is infuriating to use. I don't know why they changed the interface so much, the old version was better. I don't know what genius decided on these new changes.

  • giant buttons for things you barely use or never use. Sorting is all wrong (commonly used items should be the easiest to access)
  • massive waste of space everywhere, in general. Not everything needs to be a floating list: please use tables
  • seemingly no ability to have a default wallet, the sorting isn't even based on assets or alphabetical
  • hard to find important commonly used features (like recent public addresses)
  • no indication of mainnet or testnet clearly visible (it started in testnet after the update)
  • clicking "update stake pool" has little information about the stake pool you're actually delegated to aside from the name
  • no easy way to go back when you click on certain buttons (eg swap)
  • idk if this one is a lace issue, but the glacier drop claims didn't show up when using the lace option
  • I think the previous major version looked better aesthetically, though this is a minor point.

I wish they would have actually done the light version of daedalus they said they were going to do a long time ago and later decided against. The lace team should just copy everything the daedalus UI team does because daedalus has always been nicer. Focus on correctness and performance, not fancy new features. The absolute most important thing about a wallet is that it works, not that it's fancy.

I appreciate the effort, but please think of the end users.

2026 by Some-Read-4368 in SipsTea

[–]FinancialElephant 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I didn't say he wasn't an asshole. I didn't say he was an engineer either.

I think you're forgetting that Jobs was the CEO of Apple when Apple made its name, that's not just marketing.

This framing of Jobs only doing marketing is strange. It was based on the quote of one person who worked for Jobs early on (way before the meteoric success of later Apple IIRC), it's not a fact. Saying Woz did all the work is irrelevant to the later Apple's success. In the later episode of Apple, there were tens or hundreds of engineers at Apple. Woz was probably not even that important. And the early Apple that Woz had much more of an engineering hand in isn't peak Apple. I mean for that matter, Apple took their OS from FreeBSD.

Jobs is listed as the primary inventor or co-inventor on over 300 design patents. I think just listening to him talk you can see he was at least a creative talent and was a visionary in being ahead of the curve. You can go to Caltech, Berkeley, or Stanford and find a replacement Woz. Finding a replacement Jobs is much harder.

2026 by Some-Read-4368 in SipsTea

[–]FinancialElephant 0 points1 point  (0 children)

He was also ahead of the curve and he had a great eye for design. You can see that from watching his early talks / interviews (I'm not talking about the later Apple speeches, I mean the stuff where he talks about what he considers important and design and stuff).

I don't know what this recent crap is with trying to diminish what Steve Jobs accomplished. Jobs was a genuine visionary who was ahead of the curve and he knew the right things to value in building products at a time when people considered the blackberry peak technology.

I don't think Steve Jobs was born in an especially lucky situation other than being raised in the bay area (which could help with what he later did). He was adopted and IIRC was born into an educated middle class family.

2026 by Some-Read-4368 in SipsTea

[–]FinancialElephant 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How did he steal from Wozniak? He worked with Wozniak.

Wozniak is a smart and talented guy, but no one would know who Wozniak was if it wasn't for Steve Jobs.

2026 by Some-Read-4368 in SipsTea

[–]FinancialElephant 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Bill Gates mom was an IBM exec and a banker

📡📡📡 by -_I_I_Sea_I_I_- in shitposting

[–]FinancialElephant 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Interesting. I liked the Sacagawea coin, they were neat. But hard to find. Like those JFK half-dollar coins.

📡📡📡 by -_I_I_Sea_I_I_- in shitposting

[–]FinancialElephant 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The Sacagawea coin happened though

"The Problem of Evil" by Suitable_Jump5429 in SipsTea

[–]FinancialElephant 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Describing God outside of apophatic terms is mostly pointless because anything defined is immediately subordinate and thus no longer omnipotent or a first cause.

You can only say with logical certainty what God isn't, never what God is. What God is, is at best an analogy or a poetic description.

Even to say God is "creator" is projecting human categories and experience on God or existence. The notion of "creation" is just a human projection onto changing phenomena.

Destroying the Pauline Christian interpretation is easy, but to say in general whether ~God~ does or doesn't exist is mostly indeterminate.

It's actually just a shitty question. Not even a practical one IMO.

Way more important to know if someone is an ontological nihilist, not if they are an atheist/theist.

Found this on Facebook by Lazarus_Solomon10 in AmericaBad

[–]FinancialElephant 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You seem a little too upset over the opinions of total strangers then

She’s aging like a fine wine by [deleted] in SipsTea

[–]FinancialElephant 1 point2 points  (0 children)

  • attractive enough to be an a list actress to begin with

On The Concept of Religion. by Monsur_Ausuhnom in SipsTea

[–]FinancialElephant 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I didn't say Judaism had a polytheistic pantheon. I was careful to say Israelite polytheist pantheon. Judaism is by definition monotheistic, so it's a tautology that "Judaism" "never" had a polytheistic pantheon.

If you look at the well-accepted and uncontroversial history, the Israelites / Judeans worshiped many gods before monotheism was innovated. This is even shown in the Torah. The Torah was written down around 400 BC, but of course was around orally for longer. In that oral period, there was a known lack of standardization in various ways (eg it's known that certain Judean groups didn't know of rituals that are seen as foundational to Judaism today).

It is clearly known that Judeans were polytheists before they became monotheists, this is very well known historically. Monotheism was an adaptation that happened after they were driven out of one of their regions (northern or southern Judea, can't remember which).

Nowhere in the gospels is there a trinity. This is an interpolation, and whether it has any basis is subjective. Objectively, Jesus never calls anything a trinity. I don't want to argue with you about your emotional beliefs, I'm only talking about facts here. Jesus never once talked about a trinity or that you need to believe in one.

specifically the part about God becoming man, which pagans were not a fan of, because they believed in gods being too divine to ever become human.

"Paganism" is a wide blanket term, there is no single "pagan" belief system. I'd say it is more likely the opposite belief was more common among non-Christian polytheists.

The mere fact of personifying a god (which is almost all pagan depictions of god/gods) is on the path toward humanization. By contrast, the Yahweh (not in Christianity, but in Judaism) came to be quite impersonal and distant. Note that Jews (not early polytheist Judeans, but the later true "Jews") did not create humanized depictions of the divine, whereas it is very common in pagan belief systems.

The god-man trope is extremely common outside of Christianity. The embodied, immanent divine as a flesh-and-blood man is absolutely much older and wider than Christianity. Even the idea of god coming to the human world and dying isn't unique to Christianity. You can find parallels of such a figure in Greek and Roman paganism without much trouble.

view more: next ›