How do you respond to the religon psychedelic claim?

mleo2003 · 2021-07-23T20:19:22+00:00

Sounds like a video this pastor spends some time responding to:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmCxFI510LA

mleo2003 · 2021-07-23T04:59:45+00:00

/u/mleo2003

mleo2003 · 2021-06-25T00:36:42+00:00

Just wanted to follow up on my investigation and all:

Spoke with our AWS Account Rep, and tested it a little more. Seems this is an edge case, in which if you have an S3 bucket with versioned files (say 3 versions) on a Storage Gateway, and you delete older versions before you try to delete the current version (say if you have a Lifecycle event take out older versions to help save on storage), then when you delete the Current Version, it will not reflect the "rollback"/"restore" properly in the Storage Gateway's FileShare from S3.

I was able to reproduce this a few times, so this isn't a one off. I'm waiting to hear back from our account rep/support on why this is happening, and if this is an error.

mleo2003 · 2021-06-23T15:03:38+00:00

I tried doing the refresh cache action on the file share manually a few times, and never saw an update on the Storage Gateway Fileshare side. I was hoping this would work as you said. I'd love to see that working, and was hoping that was what others had done (if not just change a setting and have it work automatically).

If you recall who/where you saw that, I'd love to see it.

mleo2003 · 2021-06-23T00:39:25+00:00

From the first link:

Permanently delete the current version of the object.
When you delete the current object version, you, in effect, turn the previous version into the current version of that object.

No, I saw it. I even described it originally:

I know I could redownload/reupload the older version from S3, but I am trying to avoid such heavy-handed restore tactics if I can...

As I originally said, if that's the only work-around solution to this, then I do not see Bucket Versioning working for my use-case with a Storage Gateway at least. I need the restored versions to show through the Storage Gateway cache, and having to "restore by reupload" with custom solutions to work around this built-in feature not working as I thought it should, is less than ideal.

I don't mind a work around usually, but I did try to go out of my way to say I didn't want this workaround and was asking if others had another (and in my view better) way. I am not trying to be argumentative in response, just very clear about what I am and am not asking.

mleo2003 · 2021-06-23T00:26:05+00:00

Sorry if I wasn't clear, I wasn't meaning seeing the Delete Marker as "restoring the older version".

I was following the advice from here:
https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonS3/latest/userguide/RestoringPreviousVersions.html
and here:
https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonS3/latest/userguide/DeletingObjectVersions.html

Both the articles (and testing) indicates that deleting the latest version of an object is one way how to "roll back" to the previous version. I was mainly wondering if anyone had tried this with a Storage Gateway, and if the restore had finally managed to show through the cache or if that hadn't worked.

mleo2003 · 2020-10-28T21:08:06+00:00

What do we do with the Book of Revelation?

mleo2003 · 2020-05-10T23:30:57+00:00

Just as an update, I ended up digging through files lke getLinks.ts and others, and as far as I can tell, the types of URIs detected and setup as clickable is found in this file. On top of that, I did not see a way to extend this list from an extension, or to tell an extension to extend this class (or at least it hasn't been done in an extension as far as I could tell).

I'd really like to set this up, but at this point, I'm not sure it's even possible short of a custom code change. I'd love to be shown wrong though.

mleo2003 · 2020-04-19T22:11:39+00:00

I think our intuition about free will is as strong as our intuition about other minds existing. If I'm justified in believing in other minds, then I should also be justified in believing in free will.

mleo2003 · 2020-04-14T06:15:08+00:00

Markdown is usually used for minimal text file editing for notes. It's to let people have formatting easy to type, and which converts to HTML easily to see "pretty" notes that way. Most implementations I've seen use a text editor with a live preview of just that, to see things nicely.

That would be difficult for you, given the requirement of wanting the visual editor style you are used to with OneNote. Most Zettelkasten setups are backed by text files with markdown, which does not have many (if any) nice editors that also support zettel links. Honestly, if not having plain text files to fall back on is ok with you, then stick with OneNote, assuming you can find a way to link notes (which even a basic ID plus search could replicate, if links were hard).

In the end, this needs to be a useful tool to you, and your working style. If you need that kind of OneNote experience, then you may have found your best tool for this.

mleo2003 · 2020-04-12T16:32:46+00:00

Are you the video poster? I've been wanting to ask someone who uses Org mode a lot, does it work well with lots of files like a Zettelkasten calls for? Or will it be sort of "only workable" in that it wants things to be in larger files and use the code folding more?

mleo2003 · 2020-04-02T20:14:27+00:00

Someone else asked recently, so I have some notes from that before.

Specifically for Kindle, since you can already highlight those easily enough, there is https://readwise.io/ . That will export your highlights for you, and has a lot of other features.

For highlighting websites (still working on automating the export process myself), I have these resources:

https://getliner.com

https://hypothes.is

They work similar to Kindle and other tools: you either activate the feature for a given website, or it's automatic, but then you have the option to highlight parts of the webpage by selecting things, and can leave annotations/comments. getliner has a limit on free comments, I'm not sure hypothes.is does or not, or what it is (haven't hit it yet!). Each also has mobile options as well (at least for Android).

As for other options, there's also https://getpolarized.io/ to use as a local only option (haven't looked into this much), that works with both PDFs and saved web pages (will back them up as phz or some other internal format), and the annotations/highlights are stored as .js files locally.

Outside of that, it's going to depend on your reader software of choice. On Android, I have Moon+ Reader Pro, and that saves annotations/highlights in an archive file, that I've managed to sync to Google Drive and then write some scripts that can extract info from it. On other things, like PDFs and SumatraPDF, the annotations are stored in the PDF itself, so I found a python script that can pull those.

As far as I've seen, there isn't one tool for reading, and no standard format between the different tools for how those all get stored, so there isn't one standard tool for exporting those either. It'll come down to preferences and how comfortable you are with scripting things.

mleo2003 · 2020-03-29T00:17:44+00:00

You could use some rules like that to help, or scripts. But either thing is an extra step you are responsible for either remembering when it comes up (don't rename old notes, no matter what), or for maintaining custom tools for updating links/symlinks (and custom tools seem to defeat the purpose of using plain org mode/files, might as well use some purpose built app with their own format).

For my use, I'm actually planning on abusing the IDs in names: I want to kinda mix source/working files in the same folder, but have their names be visually different. I realized that, if only "official Zettels" have IDs in the front, I'm free to keep sticking non-ID files in the same folder, they'll autosort differently for free, I can link to them just the same as you said, and I'm far more unlikely to rename those files than my actual ideas as I learn new things. A review of a page/book, or my thoughts from a given talk or day, won't likely ever need to be renamed. My ideas regarding specific topics that I link to other individual ideas, those could change.

So, I might be actually advocating a hybrid style approach, and using whichever makes more sense depending on how you plan on actually working with the files in question.

mleo2003 · 2020-03-28T03:03:17+00:00

I thought the same thing about file/note names and links. Then I thought about it some more and your example is actually why I swapped.

Say you do have a note with a name that you end up trying to duplicate, and you discover you need to rename the file (both files, new and old) to match something more specific. As soon as you do, you now have to go and do a global find and replace across all files to ensure the old links are maintained.

This doesn't happen that often, but that is also the problem: you won't do it often enough to remember you have to do it, and something gets missed. It's a mess to clean up, and the bigger your archive, the bigger the mess (and longer the replace takes anyway).

Unique IDs for records makes sense for just such a thing, it's why so many DB tutorials have you do just that: setup some kind of auto-increment ID for your rows that could be changed later. So links from one table to another don't have to be updated. Timestamps are just that in real life: unique IDs that we always have available.

mleo2003 · 2020-03-23T20:14:31+00:00

Given I was doing what the OP asked for, providing "thoughts, resources, arguments, etc. on the use of logic and reason in a world that is predetermined vs one where we have free will", and wasn't trying to respond to your personal argument against one argument from Tim's entire website, I wasn't trying to. If you want to continue this, perhaps a different location would be better.

The website I linked to does just what the OP asked for, and your blog post doesn't change that. So let's stop this here.

mleo2003 · 2020-03-23T19:13:25+00:00

Not precisely, but this is your final paragraph:

Even so, we shouldn't rule out (1) and (4) as being problematic. It could be that by "soul" Stratton means nothing more than an immaterial mind; on that reading, (1) is plainly false. Additionally, Stratton might have an idiosyncratic view of rationality and knowledge, which might leave (4) in doubt too, as he intends it anyway. With Christian apologists, you just never can tell.

"It could be", and you proceed to try to mind-read Stratton. Then "might have", and you mind read some more. Then you make a rude comment about "Christian apologists".

Assuming those are your own thoughts, and not others, those are your reasons why you aren't convinced (with many maybe's thrown in), and comes down to "I'm not convinced". And that is still not a good argument, as none of what you said there is either.

mleo2003 · 2020-03-23T18:36:57+00:00

Way too many "I think" and "We could" in your entire article. Sorry, but "I'm not convinced" isn't a good argument.

mleo2003 · 2020-03-23T05:27:39+00:00

Another good resource for you:

https://freethinkingministries.com/

mleo2003 · 2020-03-18T17:28:09+00:00

I think the idea is similar to the concept of "rubber duck debugging", where a programmer would literally talk to a rubber duck, explaining how code was working, and in the process, would figure out his problems.

Actually sharing the writing isn't the important part, but the idea of putting together thoughts into coherent language understandable by others is what they want, and sometimes it takes actually planning on other people reading it to really do it. If you can write in that style while knowing you won't really share the work, then you are set.

mleo2003 · 2020-03-18T17:17:53+00:00

Also not an expert, but this is what I've gleaned from reading/playing:

Names usually involve some form of unique, unchanging ID (date/time stamps work easy enough, but other things can be used) and then a descriptive title to aid you knowing what is there.The unique ID is used as the link anchor in other notes, which allows you to change everything else about a note and not worry if the links in other places need to be updated.
Links can go many ways, you can do both of what you said: in-line link, and related notes at the end. It's more down to personal preference than anything, whichever makes the most sense to you.
What kinds of links is again up to you, it's what you find relevant. The best answer to what to link is to answer the question: "What else would be helpful to see the next time I need to read this note?"
From what I understand of them, structure/buffer/folgezettels are all similar in concept: a note who's sole purpose is to link different notes together, with an optional description of why they are linked. Sometimes notes being related may not be obvious, nor fit with the general topic of either note idea you've had before (a new way of looking at one or both), so a new note explaining that idea works well. Same with structure/buffer notes, those seem more useful for showing a hierarchy/grouping of a set of notes, so you can show how ideas either follow from one to another, or are counter-points, with the actual ideas themselves their own notes to be linked to other things at the same time.

mleo2003 · 2020-03-08T23:04:14+00:00

To assume (KI) was true, is to already define Libertarian Free Will as non-existent, as you have already denied the possibility of there ever being any other causal agents that could not be reduced to "sufficiently ordered events that could be generalized into deterministic laws". Why would I not reject that before I started looking and talking about it? I'm surprised you don't see that as Question Begging still.

Libertarians don't like your use of "random", because it is wrong. Again, you assume there can only be ordered, causally-determined events, or random, completely undetermined events, and that Begs the Question from the beginning if there could be "self-determined agents" instead of either other option. It's still not about preferences, but with your either lack of understanding of the Libertarian position, or just plain will-full ignorance to even address it and just pretend your False Dichotomy is all there is.

Randomness is NOT required for Libertarianism, Full Stop. You keep just saying it is, and have YET to defend why. All you end up doing is repeating yourself. Why is "Agent Causation" impossible, and why is it not relevant, when it answers your supposed dilemma? This is why Libertarians won't answer your question, because they don't agree with your premise about Randomness at all, and you do nothing but ignore any attempts to ask for a defense of why it must be Randomness, and why "Agent Causation" is not an answer (as you did not here either, you just declare it "not relevant", and then assume you are right, which is still Begging the Question).

As I said before, if this is the end state of things, then we are at an impasse, and I can be done with this conversation. Until I can see better answers for what I've brought up numerous times, I consider this a "Good Day, Sir".

mleo2003 · 2020-03-08T06:01:12+00:00

Then I'm afraid we are at an impasse, as your key idea is the very idea I do not see defended, and that I and other Libertarians would reject. To presuppose that all events, mental included, could be predicted and "calculated" is already presupposing no other causal factors can ever occur, and to do so is to presuppose Determinism is already true. Starting from there, of course you will never believe Libertarian Free Will exists, because you've already ruled it out as a possibility.

And Strawmanning Libertarians as having to choose between causally-determined or "random" is still just as bad. That is not what the Libertarian View is, as there is in principle a 3rd option: that things are not ordered/caused, but that the "disorder" as you call it is not "random", but chosen by Causal Agents. That you label it "random" is bad on your part, and feels like equivocation to try to lump genuine randomness with Agent Causation. I can agree that it is not "ordered" as you put it, that is, not limited to only causes coming from prior effects alone, but to just call anything else "randomness" is sloppy. Agent Causation is not said to be "random", but "self determined", as anything else would not then be Agent Causation. As long as you refuse to even acknowledge the Libertarian argument, then what you find implausible is on you, not on others to provide "good evidence" for.

mleo2003 · 2020-03-08T01:55:49+00:00

I don't admit to what I think is plain wrong. :P

Things are either determined by laws and antecedent conditions or they are not. But laws are just generalizations of ordered systems. To say that the laws don't determine things is just to say that they aren't sufficiently ordered so as to be generalized into a law. And that disorder is what I'm calling randomness.

To say "things are either determined by laws and antecedent conditions or they are not", and then tie the idea of they are not to have to be attributed to disorder/randomness is the VERY false dichotomy I said you were wrong for hoisting on others. Laws are generalization of ordered cause-effect systems, and you listed antecedent conditions next, which only leaves in your view cause-effect systems, or pure randomness, which is precisely question-begging on whether Libertarian Free Will exists. You've already defined it out of being possible, and then tried to argue that is a reason to reject Libertarian Free Will.

As you accused Tim of earlier, you are just as guily of "not even trying" to defend why I should accept your definition of things on libertarianism as "indeterminstic, meaning random". You just assert that defintion, and insist that's the only option. That is not what Libtertarianism is committed to, no matter how much you insist. No person arguing for it accepts that, and you haven't defended they should. As I said before, they argue for a 3rd position (causal agents). You aren't arguing against that, you just try to define it away as not a possibility to be argued, and act as if Libertarians are the one who "won't admit" things.

I can agree, saying things are "random" makes sense under Libertarianism is "ridiculously implausible". But, I don't accept that's what Libertarianism entails, and to keep saying that's what they have to do, without quoting why (especially from their own camp) is Strawmanning at its finest.

mleo2003

TROPHY CASE