Worst case? Someone who really doesn't like you writes a script that auto-pings you via a POST request to the site according to a Poisson distribution with a rate of 1 hour during business hours. If you get a Poisson burst, it could ring like 3-5 times in a few minutes, and you could never be sure if any individual ring is legit.
Best case? A unique and more annoying alternative to email?
@kristinmbranson You should hook it up to a website called "Get Kristin's Attention" that's only a red button, so we can try it for you!
Oh, weird, lemme send you this video, this is how I've usually heard the argument. You can also include William Lane Craig, Red Pen Logic, and a bunch of other theologians.
Back to the original post: the actual argument most intellectually consistent religious folks make is that atheists cannot *justify* their morality. **Not** that they cannot act in a moral way without God/the threat of hell/something else.
In fact, if we take the Christian ethos, the crux is that nobody can merit salvation (including Christians) hence "being a good person" by human standards is insufficient to merit divine intercession on our behalf. Hence why salvation is called grace, or unmerited favor, and is a free gift that need only be accepted. Additionally, most people don't argue that atheists are incapable of behaving in a moral way by human standards, as we believe that God's moral law is written on the hearts/minds of everyone (the conscience) and serves as the way by which we can know right from wrong, thus, can obey or violate the moral law by making decisions based on our innate knowledge of it.
Additionally, (again, from the Christian perspective), it is not that we attempt to "be good people to avoid hell", it is that we understand that we *deserve* hell (as all have fallen short of the glory of God), and that because of Christ's sacrifice for us that we love Him, and it is our love for Him that drives us to keep his commandments. This is actually a critical distinction, particularly in my own life and faith, and within the Bible as well.
Finally, the justification point: either morality is objective or it is not.
If it is objective, it does not change over time: that is "thou shalt not murder" is universal for all people of all times, regardless of culture or other complicating factors. Then the question becomes, "what is the source of this immaterial, unchanging source of moral truth"? This, in many people's view, points to God since many people have such a strong sense of the moral and immoral.
If morality is subjective, it is necessarily unjustifiable, as the changing whims of society, the ruling class, etc can then dictate what is and is not moral at any given time. Definitions of murder can vary, for example. Thus, the atheist is faced with the conundrum of being unable to condemn or affirm any given behavior as moral or immoral, only that they think it's moral or immoral (or really it boils down to: I like that vs I don't like that). This follows, because if we're being logically consistent in a morally subjective universe, the conclusion is that there is no morality from which we can reference, thus everyone can behave as they want.
Of course, there are arguments for group-constructed/consensus morality, but these are fundamentally subjective as well, as they will vary as the group does.
Science: "Embattled Harvard honesty professor accused of plagiarism"
https://www.science.org/content/article/embattled-harvard-honesty-professor-accused-plagiarism
I note that correct citation is not that difficult.
I'm working on the next post in my series, which will include a full write up on the project and multiple demos, but I figured I'd go ahead and share the overview as a preview.
This is JournalHub. It's an academic publishing platform I've been working on since deciding crowdsourcing was a dead end. It's still in early alpha and there's a lot of work left to do.
But it gives you an idea of what is possible.
This is excellent work; bravo!
I've been working on a similar project recently, and have some recommendations if you would like them, and would love to try to contribute some PRs if you're interested in having some collaborators. In particular, I have some comments on identity validation, among other things, primarily with regards to your current review mechanisms (and citations for why I think said adjustments should be implemented).
Just let me know if you'd like to chat about it at some point :D
So Google is completely getting rid of less secure app support, basically gutting my ability to use IMAP to access my email, thus my ability to use mu4e with isync.
Looks like I'm migrating completely to mailbox, and using gmail for random trash even more than I already was.
I'm so sick of them getting rid of functionality under the guise of "security". It's really annoying.
@lispi314 @teidesu @a1ba I never said it was mutually exclusive. I said it was more difficult and an underfunding issue, not a lack of funding issue. Relying on donations isn’t a great practice to make a living in most cases, particularly for software.
If you have some scheme in mind, I’d love to hear it, but just because someone wants to monetize their work doesn’t mean they are intentionally being malicious. That’s where my disagreement was and is.
@duetosymmetry Amazing work!
@lispi314 @a1ba @teidesu I’d normally agree, but at the same time I think there are plenty of reasons to want to be able to monetize your work, which becomes much more difficult with free software unless you rely on donations. I mean, look at the log4j fiasco , and you can easily see that FLOSS projects are underfunded. So if we can square that away, I’m 100% in agreement.
It's #FossFriday again!
Today's project is #Zulip. Zulip is an open source chat client similar to Slack or Discord but IMHO better: it has a threading-first design philosophy that works great for following many conversations at once. They also offer free access to the paid cloud plan for small non-profits, researchers, and open source projects. I don't use Zulip a ton bc of network effects. People don't want to use yet another chat tool. But it's such a great tool!!
I can't think of one that neatly encapsulates the idea of the situational separation of the two states. To express the idea in the clunky terms I have on hand, I would say such a pathogen would be "beneficial or harmful depending on the environment/situation".
Idiomatically, it's akin to a "thorned rose" or a "blessing in disguise", but this still refers to something within a singluar circumstance, not two separate ones.
Awhile ago I invented a word for something similar, and I'm going to try a derivative of it here.
The word I made was ambiatives, meaning "of or related to both sides", implying both positives and negatives. It's meant to be a direct replacement to "pros and cons".
For this, I'm gonna use "ambificial": "ambi" from the latin for both, and "ficial" from ficus latin for "making, doing". Thus, a beneficial thing makes something good/better, and an ambificial thing can make things better or worse. (And it's all latin, so I don't feel bad gluing some roots together and calling it a day, lol).
Something situationally beneficial makes something better or neutral under the correct conditions, and something "situationally ambificial" can make things better or worse depending on circumstance.
If someone can find a better (real) word, please let me know because this is gonna bug me.
Quick shout out to CasaOS providing the FileDrop feature (like Mac's Airdrop but for your local network or anyone currently accessing the app).
It's an amazing little piece of file transfer tech that has made me feel much safer regarding certain sensitive document transfers at my house, that's for sure!
@queenofhatred Thank you for the well wishes, I'm trying q.q
(Oh, one more question, did you install via melpa-stable or melpa?)
@queenofhatred Okay, thank you for sending that! Sorry I fell off the face of the earth for a few days, I'm unfortunately quite sick
@neotoy *Edit* How do I inline an image on mastodon, it would have been much funnier without having to click the link
A previous analytical biochemist, (functional) programmer, industrial engineer, working on a PhD with a focus in complex systems.