[-] dlrht@lemm.ee 7 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

It's pretty clear you dont watch long form video content, most of the time they're quite thoroughly written and well prepared. I haven't seen long form video content that actually is just pure rambling, they're pretty generally well structured. I don't even watch them typically but the effort that goes into them is above just rambling lol, and you can tell they were actually written and scripted... Almost resembling an essay.... How strange....

[-] dlrht@lemm.ee 8 points 8 months ago

Appreciate the honesty haha

[-] dlrht@lemm.ee 9 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

I have no idea why this meme caused you to say all of that, where does a lack of a niche community come into play with this meme? Just trying to understand

[-] dlrht@lemm.ee 6 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

No, it's pretty clear that this is a result of modern "AI"... key word filtering wouldn't push applicants mentioning basketball/baseball up and softball down, unless HR is explicitly being sexist and classiest/racist like that.

I mean, the problem has existed for sure before ML & AI was being used, but this is pretty clearly the result of an improperly advised/trained dataset which is very different from key word filtering. I don't think HR a decade ago was giving/deducting extra points on applicants for resumes for mentioning sports/hobbies irrelevant to the job

[-] dlrht@lemm.ee 7 points 9 months ago

That sounds more like an issue with that person not being open/receptive to her peers advice. And I think this is true for many people beyond the age of 24 as well

[-] dlrht@lemm.ee 7 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Uh, no. If you're just a kid at 24 according to OP, when do you stop being a kid? When OP arbitrarily says so now? Could've sworn legal age meant something like "when you're no longer a kid and can make your own decisions". I mean I agree, 24 year olds are basically kids and still have a lot of life experience to gain. But they're not actually children like you're weirdly implying I'm saying

[-] dlrht@lemm.ee 9 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

I see/hear about marriages started at 30+ 40+ 50+ all the time that fail. I see people pivot careers and industries in the middle years of their life. People tastes change all the time as they get older. Let's not pretend that when your brain finishes developing you suddenly have life figured out/know exactly what you want

I generally agree that getting married before 24 is a pretty risky move and you have to have thought it through very carefully, but the argument that "you don't know what you want for the rest of your life" is not the reason why that is. It relates more to life experience/emotional capability/massive foresight. Marriage is more than just "wanting something for the rest of your life", it's a commitment, it's not just some eternal desire you may/may not have

[-] dlrht@lemm.ee 50 points 9 months ago

At what age are you supposed to know what you want for the rest of your life? You will never have an answer to that in any capacity, and not just in marriage. You evolve as a person, you'll never have a fixed desire for your whole life. And that's the great thing about marriage and relationships, they also evolve. And it's about who you want to try doing that with

[-] dlrht@lemm.ee 9 points 1 year ago

They don't develop any particularly incredible tech aside from the one their whole product is based around and enabled them to be an industry leader 🙈

[-] dlrht@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

So... these are excellent questions and I'm afraid I personally can't answer all of them since I'm not that knowledgeable here. But I do believe people smarter than I have come up with better answers than I will give too. I'm afraid I don't understand your question regarding original sin being forgiven. I'll try to answer the rest from my experiences, though

So think of it this way: if God created humans to have free will, this means they can choose to be bad. You may be asking, why would God create a world where bad can exist? Doesn't that seem flawed? But if God were to create a world where bad can't exist, then humans wouldn't have true free will. God didn't create the world with bad things in it, he created the world as good (in Genesis, the first chapter of the bible, he continually says "it is good" after everything he creates.)

So God creates the world as good and put humans with free will into the world. And because they have true free will, they also have the choice of making the world bad, which is what ended up happening. The pint is, "Bad" as a concept must exist in order for there to be true free will

So if bad can exist, then logically there has to be consequences for bad things. Otherwise it's not bad. If there are no consequences it can't be bad, it just doesn't make any sense. So sinning, which is the bad we've been talking about, has the consequence of death. I hope that kind of answers the question of "why do people have to be punished for sins"

Humans were not intended to be ignorant, and they were already intelligent. They just didn't have specific knowledge. And this is true even to this day. We as humans don't know everything and we never will. But humans had free will even before they had the knowledge from eating the fruit. They willingly disobeyed God's instructions before they even ate the fruit. They were already intelligent. I guess in a sense they were designed to be ignorant if by ignorant you mean "does not have unending knowledge about everything in existence". Then indeed, humans were never designed to have 100% of all the answers. If they did, they would be no different from God. And this is clear even to this day. Not even science can explain everything and we're always discovering/learning new things. An aside: from here you can kind of see that the bible is pretty accurate about the way it describes humans objectively, from having free will to having gaps in complete knowledge of the universe

God didn't take anything out on Jesus, but Jesus sacrificed himself for other humans. I'm not sure of the imagery of hell, note that I could be wrong here , but Hell is separation from God, not necessarily a physical torturing session. And this makes sense, when you sin, you go further away from God since you're disobeying him. And when you disobey someone, that means you don't trust them. And if you don't trust them, you're not getting any closer to them. And hell is just eternal separation from God, which, to a Christian, is the worst thing you can experience if you truly believe God is the greatest gift and biggest form of love you can experience. That's kind of the gist of it

I couldn't answer your questions on humans in hell before crucification since I need to sleep now, but I do have some ideas/potential answers. I do think it is a question worth looking into, for both you and I!

[-] dlrht@lemm.ee 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You ask good questions, but if you're really interested you can look into Christian apologetics re: free will. There are some interesting answers awaiting you. But the gist of it is that God didn't create flawed beings, he created beings with free will that chose to be flawed.

And Christianity has never said free will is a flawed design, because humans having free will is one of the most important aspects of the religion and is very fundamental to what it means to be a human (a concept that is true both in and outside of Christianity, unless you believe in destiny or something). It is not a flaw to have free will, otherwise God himself would be flawed. In a regular context, it's kind of like you're not flawed for existing, but you're flawed if you do negative things with your existence. I would personally have to be convinced that having free will is a flaw/a negative thing

To quickly answer your first couple questions: death is the punishment for sinning and Jesus is supposed to be perfect and sinless and thus should not die. but instead he died in place of other sinners, kind of like taking the blame for them. And yes, torturing and killing the son of God was indeed a sin, the people who did it were sinful. I don't think anyone has said otherwise. The ones who killed Jesus were not his followers or supporters

[-] dlrht@lemm.ee 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

This doesn't make any sense, who distributes/gives out rights tokens? And if they lose publishing rights, why would the new owner of the publishing rights care about the rights tokens they didn't sell?

Blockchain doesn't fix anything new here, there's no point in decentralizing the rights ownership, verifying ourselves as owners of the right to watch the media was never the issue here.

Getting companies to be willing to give out non revokable rights tokens is the issue, and no company wants to do that because it's not profitable for them. It's not a technological issue that blockchain is going to solve

view more: next ›

dlrht

joined 1 year ago