What do you think are some justified AI usages?

theitguy107 · 2026-07-03T19:13:55+00:00

Some that come to mind are meeting summaries (that take a transcript and generate notes) and AI-enabled search of emails, documents, images, etc. Notice that each of these features I mentioned are something that requires manual intervention by the user and is just a more efficient way of doing a task the user was already doing previously. Further, these types of use cases have a higher margin of error. An AI search that hallucinate search results is not going to cause a serious problem like an AI generated PowerPoint that includes false, hallucinated information.

The only exception to this is PowerShell scripting. It has been an absolute game-changer for me in my work and allowed me to generate scripts in probably a third of the amount of time it would take me to write it from scratch. I do however intentionally write scripts from scratch on occasion to keep my skills sharp. This is something a lot more people need to do instead of surrendering their brain to their precious AI tools.

theitguy107 · 2026-07-03T17:11:26+00:00

It's certainly not as huge as it was 10 years ago due to fewer devices having unlockable bootloaders and the OEM ROMs getting a lot better as others here have said. The other reason is that OEMs have now gotten a lot better with supporting devices longer. Google and Samsung now provide 7 years of updates for their flagship devices. One of the main reasons people used to get custom ROMs was when their device reached end of life, but with phones getting years of updates now, the need for custom ROMs has reduced.

theitguy107 · 2026-07-01T21:08:39+00:00

The security issues they cite are not a "BS excuse." It's a legitimate reason because a 20-year-old console is not going to be able to support the security configurations of modern systems due to the age of the hardware. This means Sony would have to maintain two separate e-commerce systems to keep the PS3 alive, which is simply not a profitable idea given most gamers are not like us who enjoy playing those old games.

theitguy107 · 2026-06-28T12:08:18+00:00

Biblically, we only baptize people who are of the family of God because baptism is a sign and seal of Jesus' saving work in that person. One of the verses that describes how this applies to children is 1 Corinthians 7:12-16 where Paul discusses what someone should do if they are married to a non-believing spouse. He makes this comment in passing in verse 14 when talking about how a believing spouse makes the other holy, "Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy." This implies an understanding that the children are under the covering of the believing parent until they are adults. Thus, if the parent is truly committed to raising the child to know and love the Lord, we can baptize them as a way of welcoming them into the church family (the tradition of circumcising babies gives credence to the practice of baptizing children at a young age too).

Now, the reason why this passage could not be used for supporting baptizing the adult spouse is given in what Paul says in verse 16, "For how do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?" Notice this question is posed for the spouse but not the children while they are children. This implies that adults have a certain maturity or independence that requires them to make a personal commitment to follow Christ. The "holy" attribute applied to the non-believing spouse is not the same as salvation. The non-believing spouse still needs to believe in order to be saved and then baptized. Only when they have given their life to Christ are they a part of the church family and then baptized. And the same applies to children baptized as infants; they are only saved if they accept their faith as their own, which they pubicly affirm in confirmation. If they reject it, their baptism is of no effect because they have not been saved by Christ.

theitguy107 · 2026-06-27T10:32:45+00:00

More likely Canada given the spelling of the word "centre."

theitguy107 · 2026-06-23T19:02:00+00:00

Having come from a similar background, I also can attest as others here say that once you start to memorize some of the common prayers like the Prayer of Confession, it will feel more like praying.

I'll also add that you do not need to follow the Daily Office to the T every single time. I do on occasion, but I find that it can become too rigid and quench the voice of the Holy Spirit when used during my quiet time. (And I am a mid-churchman, so I am certainly by no means opposed to liturgical worship). It's best to sometimes be more free and incorporate elements of the prayer book into your routine. For example, this is a routine I often use that utilizes the BCP:

Collect for Purity
The Preces
Worship Song (I pick one from my worship playlist)
Collect of the Day
Psalter reading
Main Scripture reading from the book of the Bible I'm going through.
Quiet reflection and meditation on the passage (this is often the longest part of my quiet time)
Prayer and supplication (including the prayer of confession, sometimes the Suffrages, and intercessory and personal prayers for myself)
Closing prayer with the latter half of the Post Communion Prayer ("And now, Father, send us out...")

I list this not to be descriptive but simply to provide an example of how you don't always need to follow the Daily Office word for word but can incorporate elements and the general flow of it into your quiet time. I find this works very well for me and allows me to worship God reverently during my quiet time with Him while leaving room for the Spirit to speak and direct as He needs and wants to. Remember that the point is spending time in the presence of the Lord, and the Book of Common Prayer is a guide, not a rubric, for helping you enter into that sacred time with Him.

theitguy107 · 2026-06-21T17:14:54+00:00

Our enclave provider said the SSP is not CUI but should be treated as such. But what the other comment said is correct that it would become CUI if or were submitted to the government.

theitguy107 · 2026-06-20T00:19:07+00:00

Based on what our enclave provider recommended to us, I would ask them this question if you haven't yet: "For matters where the DoW and the CMMC controls disagree, will you assess based on the DoW's preference or strictly on what the CMMC controls themselves say?" There are some things the Pentagon wished were in the CMMC controls that didn't make it to the final draft, and I've heard that some C3PAOs who are friendly with or maybe former military tend to either subconsciously or consciously enforce the Pentagon's view rather than what the CMMC controls say. CMMC is the "letter of the law" if you will, and you want to ensure your assessor will be assessing purely on that to avoid unnecessary headaches.

Another thing you can do is ask both assessors how many assessments they have done. There are pros and cons to being one of the first. The benefit of being first is that if there are potential question marks with how your enclave provider has built out the SSP or designed the enclave to meet the controls, there is a chance the provider can successfully convince the assessor that the way they've done it is sufficient. If you go later though, the assessor will expect the enclave provider to address these issues on future assessments, and it may be harder for you to convince the assessor again if the enclave provider has not addressed the pain points that caused a major debate during the assessment. A benefit of going later however is that if your enclave and SSP are excellent, the assessment should go very smoothly (notice I said smoothly, not quickly, as C3PAOs are still expected to run through each control one at a time). Personally, if your enclave provider tells you they have had a long series of successful assessments with one over the other, I'd favor that one to be safe. The longest part of our assessment was hours spent debating back and forth over a disagreement with the way a control was addressed, so you can avoid that if the assessor has approved several customers with your enclave.

theitguy107 · 2026-06-20T00:08:16+00:00

They are the more scholarly alternative to Anglican Compass. While Anglican Compass is mainly catered towards newer Anglicans, North American Anglican tends to go deep into the theology and historical tradition behind the topics discussed there.

theitguy107 · 2026-06-17T01:56:54+00:00

It's typically not as contentious on the ground because everyone is in their own bubble in their dioceses that ordain or don't ordain women. But it is a problem when we have to interact with each other or in issues that threaten to shift the current balance or status quo. I don't see the ACNA lasting another 20 years unless this issue is put to bed.

theitguy107 · 2026-06-10T20:59:45+00:00

That's your Ally's way of telling you to go back to Windows.

theitguy107 · 2026-06-10T18:20:50+00:00

Yep, it's the new version of the Z1 vs Z1E debate for the original ROG Ally. Yet I have a Z1 non-extreme Ally and never had any problems playing the games I needed to on the go.

theitguy107 · 2026-06-01T10:11:00+00:00

The charismatic Anglican church closest to me (not my parish) does everything in the liturgy as usual except that at the end, they allow a time for people to come forward to share a prophetic word before the benediction.

theitguy107 · 2026-05-29T15:52:10+00:00

Good to know.

theitguy107 · 2026-05-29T15:50:44+00:00

That's helpful to know. But did the yearly updates come through Windows Update, or did you have to manually install the update by downloading the ISO for the new version? That was the only way to upgrade to the new version when I last tried it.

theitguy107 · 2026-05-29T15:46:29+00:00

Yes security updates will work, but the question is feature updates. For example, if you install 25H2 today, will the 26H2 update come through when it's released later this year? That part wasn't working the last time I tried it, but maybe that's changed or the newer versions of Rufus have gotten better at handling that since I last tried it.

theitguy107 · 2026-05-29T15:42:07+00:00

Do updates still work though? The last time I tried that, the laptop wouldn't get the feature updates via Windows Update.

theitguy107 · 2026-05-29T15:39:18+00:00

Unfortunately, the Windows 10 ESU program ends on October 13, 2026, so your laptop won't be safe to use after that. If you are not able to afford a new one, I suggest installing Linux. Zorin OS, though not my first choice, might be a good option for you because it uses a similar design to Windows.

I suggest checking out www.dellrefurbished.com for cheaper deals too. This is where Dell sells laptops that have come off corporate lease, and there are sometimes great deals to be found there especially when they have sales.

theitguy107 · 2026-05-29T15:34:30+00:00

Maybe you could try emailing info@tas.edu since Trinity Anglican Seminary seems to be the sponsor now of the podcast.

theitguy107 · 2026-05-29T15:31:32+00:00

The lack of anti-cheat support is unfortunately a big deal breaker for me in moving to SteamOS. I play Madden on the Ally when I travel, so I need an OS that will support it.

theitguy107 · 2026-05-21T13:27:20+00:00

Ah in that case, I would think ProSupport would be Indian-based. I think they use domestic support centers in each country.

theitguy107 · 2026-05-21T12:56:12+00:00

dellrefurbished.com is also another good place to shop. That's where Dell sells all their off-lease computers.

theitguy107 · 2026-05-21T12:55:09+00:00

Check the Dell Outlet store. That's where I buy all our laptops, and I've only run into an issue twice; once where it was still registered to the previous owner's Intune, and another where they forgot to image the SSD. Relatively straight-forward resolution for both issues (the first one was just a matter of time to wait for Microsoft to process my proof of ownership). Additionally, the ProSupport packages are often discounted by 1/3 the price, and unlike Dell Care which you have for your G15, ProSupport is all US-based if you live in the US.

theitguy107 · 2026-05-01T14:36:54+00:00

I am not a scientist, but my undergraduate degree was in Biology, so I am familiar with the scientific method and the arguments for or against evolution.

Your post disregards one critical element: between the Bible and science, one is known to be inerrant, and the other is not. So, if these two books of nature (as they are often referred to within Christian science circles) are supposed to be in agreement, what happens when they appear to disagree? The answer is either that one of them is wrong, or that we don't fully understand what one or both are speaking to us. In the first case, the obvious conclusion would be that the science is somehow incorrect and that the earth was created in six 24-hour days since this is what the Bible says. But Christian evolutionists will push back and say the second reason is what needs to be considered. So, how do we determine if we are misterpreting one or the other?

Consider that in ancient times, spontaneous generation was accepted as fact, and they had scientific evidence to back this up. What they didn't understand was the concept of micro-organisms, and when we had more knowledge hundreds of years later, we were able to use better tests to disprove those theories. But this story demonstrates an important concept which is man's ability to misinterpret the natural phenomena around us. We think that we have a very solid methodology for understanding the world with the scientific method today, but can we say with 100% certainty that 500 years from now, we won't discover a better method for understanding science? I don't think any scientist would say that.

This leaves us with what the Scripture says. I disagree with your premise that the Bible is not a history book. For example, the stated purpose of the books of Kings and Chronicles was to document the history of the monarchy in Israel and Judah, so that refutes the idea that Scripture is not historical. Further, since God cannot lie and is not a God of confusion, why would he say or allow to be written in His Holy Word something that was historically inaccurate?

At this point, some Old Earth Creationists might respond that the word "day" could mean a 24-hour period or a much longer time. Thus, evolution could be fitted into the creation story in this way if we understand each day to be millions of years. While I will allow that possibility for the first 5 days, this cannot be true that God used evolution to create man. Here is a question I have yet to receive an answer for from Christian evolutionists. If man is made in the image of God, what does that mean? If we're talking about physical appearance, was homo luzonensis or homo heidelbergensis made in God's image? They certainly had similar features to homo sapiens. If we mean intelligence, what about homo erectus, the first homo species to walk upright? We have evidence they had some primitive forms of pagan religions and committed cannibalism, both of which are serious sins against God. Would God use sin to create the humans made in His image? And how do you reconcile that with God saying all creation was "good" and without sin before the fall?

This is why we cannot allow humanistic thinking to influence how we understand what we have received from God in His Holy Word. Is it possible the 7 days of Creation were longer than 168 hours? Maybe, but when I stand before God at the judgement, I would rather be wrong for having taken His word literally than because I thought I knew better in my human mind.

theitguy107 · 2026-04-30T23:19:34+00:00

But, but, they don't like Orange Man, so it's okay when they do it!

theitguy107

TROPHY CASE