I don't. It looked stupid even in concept and utterly failed the window test. And that was in 2019, after the pedophile tweet, so his true colours were starting to show.
In addition to what others have said about the worship not really being genuine, in the Bible, the evil of Satan (whichever flavour that story is using) is mostly tied to his defiance of Yahweh. By definition, their god is everything that is good, therefore anything in opposition must be evil.
The only time he performs unambiguously evil acts is when God gives him permission to fuck with his just loyal follower, just to prove to Satan that he would still be loyal, which has them both looking bad.
Other examples of "evil acts" include encouraging humans to seek knowledge, encouraging David to perform a census, telling Jesus to try something else, "entering" Judas so he'd betray Jesus (which was also a necessary part of the whole Jesus salvation plan), accusing Joshua in front of God and being rebuked for it (which makes his whole timeline questionable because apparently he fell from heaven before humans were a thing but he's there to accuse Joshua so Yahweh can rebuke him and reestablish Joshua's legitimacy in a time when his grip on his spiritual power was tenuous).
Because of all of this, there is a school of thought that says, if the characters and events in the Bible are real, maybe the whole thing has been a smear campaign against Satan because once you drop the whole "defying Yahweh is evil" assumption, Satan's record looks a lot better than Yahweh's.
But the more I look in to the Bible, the more it looks like a transparent power grab and hold. Which was specifically the reason Constantine adopted Christianity for Rome, because he was having a hard time convincing people in Iberia and Gaul they should be fighting wars in Anatolia and the Middle East and wanted to use religion to give a common identity.
That's a part of it. Another part is that it looks for patterns that it can apply in other places, which is how it ends up hallucinating functions that don't exist and things like that.
Like it can see that English has the verbs add, sort, and climb. And it will see a bunch of code that has functions like add(x, y) and sort( list ) and might conclude that there must also be a climb( thing ) function because that follows the pattern of functions being verb( objects ). It didn't know what code is or even verbs for that matter. It could generate text explaining them because such explanations are definitely part of its training, but it understands it in the same way a dictionary understands words or an encyclopedia understands the concepts contained within.
It removes one of the angles that made attempting to bribe someone risky: they could just take the bribe but then do what they were going to do anyways. Can't really retaliate legally without admitting you tried to bribe someone and if they told anyone about it in private, then there's a good chance that motive will come out if the official ends up dead.
But now the whole process is going to be the official does the act and it's the briber's choice if they follow through.
Then each QA human will be paired with a second AI that will catch those mistakes the human ignores. And another human will be hired to watch that AI and that human will get an AI assistant to catch their mistakes.
Eventually they'll need a rule that you can only communicate with the human/AI directly above you or below you in the chain to avoid meetings with entire countries of people.
I think the same about anyone who fears LGBT+ trying to convert their kids like they believe someone can be convinced to be gay rather than just convinced to accept their sexuality.
Like I don't see any problem with being gay but it's not for me. I sometimes think dating would be easier if I was bi, but it's about as appealing as knowing it would be easier to fill my stomach if I ate sawdust.
So it's very telling when someone talks about gays tempting them or that they worry about a gay agenda of turning everyone gay like it's a realistic possibility.
Yeah, one that I always think of is the see-saw one where a sky diver's parachute failed so he aimed for a see-saw with a girl sitting on one end which resulted in the girl launched shot upwards and then landing safely on top of a building.
Their first test used basically a metal plank on a fulcrum and the forces did more to bend the plank than they did to launch the girl and she didn't get high enough.
Their second attempt used a see-saw that was built using suspension bridge tech to essentially make it instructable, resulting in fatal forces from the launch. At this point, they called it busted.
But I see two unrealistic extremes where reality would exist somewhere in the middle where see-saws are designed to not break easily but not to the point of being indestructible and there might be a sweet spot where the forces are high enough to launch girl several stories up but not high enough that she dies from the forces.
Also, for the bull in a china shop one, I'm guessing that saying resulted from a bull ending up inside a china shop during a running of the bulls event, where stress would be high and there wouldn't be an easy and obvious path out on the other side, plus maybe a shopkeeper suddenly trying to get it out in a panic. I think that would get the expected result, especially after a few shelves have broken and each step makes more broken sounds.
Opposable thumbs and ability to vocalize a wide range of sounds also helped. Though with the brains, we probably would have figured out a way to communicate with more complexity than other animals regardless of the 2nd one.
And the mechanism for that infinite stamina also enabled our hands to be even more useful (and if I had to guess, bipedalism probably arose as a result of our ancestors wanting to hold things while they moved instead of that being an extra bonus).
Case in point:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oEEY_c9KunA
They do hurt him, but it's more of a case of being too enthusiastic about greeting and playing with him than wanting to cause him harm because they are wild animals.
The wild animal part means they are unpredictable, not automatically homicidal. All of our domesticated animals descend from wild animals, so at one point they would have been relationships between humans and wild animals. There might have been different levels of bonding as they were bred for sociability, but given the guy in the video's bond with lions and knowing that he is far from unique in that with big cats, I'd say there were probably some humans early on that befriended wolves or wild cats with strong bonds.
And there were also likely many that were killed by wild animals they had bonded with or were trying to. And that might still be the future fate of that guy in the video and it might even be over before he realizes it's any different.
That first one is trolling. And you might be right about it not being smart to goad on those who fear them as an existential threat, but sometimes people just get to the point where they don't care about the consequences and just want to give some of the negative feelings they've felt back to some of those who gave them to them.
For the second one, did you listen to the song after the "we're going to convert your kids" bit? Because they aren't talking about converting anyone gay but converting them to not be hateful about shit that isn't worth being hateful about.
On that note, I don't understand how any straight person can even believe that converting people gay is a thing. There's nothing anyone could say or do that would make men sexually interesting to me. There is no temptation I have to fight, even though I think it's ok to be gay and that it would double my pool of potential sexual partners.
For the third one, I do struggle with listening to choirs, but the parts that I did catch sounded more like "your children aren't your property whose thoughts and feelings you should control if they don't line up with yours" than a "those aren't your kids, they are ours". The "through you, not from you" bit did sound more religious (personally, I'd go for more of a "from you but once separated, they are separate"). But I only listened to half of it and was distracted by the comments for part of that so maybe someone else can comment more on that last one.
I hope you aren't banned for any of this conversation. For what it's worth, you do seem more genuine about this than most who come to places that are as hostile to your beliefs as this place is. And I don't think just censoring the other side does anything but polarize anyone's positions.
Car doors that aren't on teslas don't fail open, they are reliable enough that I can't think of hearing about any failures that don't involve a collision and deforming of the door (in which case it's a fail closed and they use the jaws of life to get people out, or another door).
An electronic latch is either engaged or it isn't. Fail open would mean that in the absence of an electronic signal saying it should be closed, the latch will default to not being engaged, which would mean there's nothing holding the door closed if another force acts on it.
Don't assume any benefit of the doubt about Tesla's. I made no comment one way or another about what I think of their doors vs other doors. For the record, I agree completely that they fucked up this part of the design. The purpose of my comment was to say that taking that design and adding "fail open" to it won't fix it. Fail open and fail closed both have problems with an electronic latch and the only way to fix it without causing other big problems is to design it in a way that still functions as a door that can be open or latched closed whether or not the electronic part of the latch is working.
And I'm "deliberately misinterpreting" what fail open means? I'm having trouble understanding how it can mean anything other than how I'm interpreting it, even with your clarification, given the disagreement about other car doors failing open. Maybe it's a misnomer that I'm misinterpreting but why are you assuming I'm doing this in bad faith?
The downvotes themselves don't matter, I asked because I wanted to know the reasoning behind them, well aware that bringing them up at all will probably result in more of them.
I don't think I've ever seen a pizza place sell small pizzas for a decent value. They price them to not sell. I'm guessing because they aren't as predictable for the amount of volume you might need.
It wouldn't have been cheaper to go for bigger (ignoring deals), but it wouldn't have been much more and you'd have leftover pizza for lunch the next day.
You cannot say that with statistical certainty. There's about 8 billion people who haven't eventually died yet and all it will take is one of them to break that 100%. You should include a disclaimer with an error range or you might get sued by someone who spikes someone's drink with dihydrogen monoxide and then they don't eventually die for botching their assassination.
That said, the statistics are pretty strong. 99.9% is basically 100% plus wiggle room so no one can sue me, so readers should be aware that this dangerous chemical can also go by the name of hydrogen hydroxide and some food manufacturers try to sneak it by with the name aqua in their ingredients list.
For the fail-safe bit, if the latching system fails to an unlatched position, then the inertia of the door itself could cause it to open on braking and turns (or if someone leans on it or bumps it), since nothing else would be holding it in place.
Obligatory fuck Elon Musk lol.
It's not generally as bad here as it is on Reddit. I still see the occasional comments that make me wonder if their author has any reading comprehension skills, but Reddit seemed to have representation from those kinds of posters in most comment threads. Even on the topics where Lemmy has general biases for, comments can still go off the beaten trail without getting crucified.
Though with the smaller sample size of voters, I think Lemmy might see more cases where a comment initially goes one way and then swings the other way, which seems to be the case with my comment above, at least for now (and is part of the reason why I try to refrain from ever commenting on the votes, but usually there's also a spicy or bolder part of my comment where I'm not as surprised if it goes negative).
IMO you should post the videos. The context might make which case it is clearer, or at least rule out or confirm the "they are making fun of people who believe this" possibility.
The whole thing is just too absurd to do anything other than not take it seriously. Like I'm skeptical of pretty much everything you said there other than the drag queen part (though are schools hiring them or are some volunteering to do a reading thing for kids?).
Do you have any examples of that homosexual erotica in school libraries? That statement about teachers teaching kids things that have nothing to do with actual education is very broad and vague, but some examples would also be helpful, along with being more specific since that statement would include random trivia a teacher might mention for fun and parts of the curriculum that have debatable usefulness (like cursive writing), which I don't think you're talking about.
And drag queens are just men in dresses or other women's clothing. The purpose of their reading thing is for them to provide a good service for children to specifically show that they aren't evil delinquents who will predate children at any opportunity.
I wish it was that easy to protect children from predators, just picking some bad groups of others and putting a fence between them and our children. But just like a man wearing a dress or being interested in other males doesn't imply they will be interested in children, a man not wearing a dress or being interested in other males doesn't imply that they aren't interested in children.
The reality is that we need to pay attention and communicate with our kids, and most importantly educate them about sexual stuff so that they can know to tell us if something does happen to them. Don't you see that keeping them ignorant about all this stuff means that it leaves room for a groomer or molester to "educate" them? That treating homosexuality the same as actual sexual crimes when it's not a choice could mean some gay people will decide it's no big deal to predate children since they are already "doing evil" just by being gay?
Agree on your overall sentiment, though I'd say it is a bit more complicated than that for car doors. You don't want it to fail and come open while moving, for example, especially if the car is coming to a stop and inertia forces the doors fully open. That Boeing door failed open and it was not very safe.
Vehicle doors should be fail functional rather than open to fail safe. As in designed to be very unlikely to fail and/or still functional even if one or several components do fail.
Edit: I normally avoid commenting on my downvotes (you win some, you lose some) but this one is baffling. What's controversial or unpopular about what I said?
With sarcasm, one might say that it is desirable to have obviously undesirable thing. Your interpretation is one way, but I think they really meant "stupid" instead of "smart".
Manual release or you die, just like that lady that drove hers into her pond.