explaininjs

You're projecting hatred into a simple historical account, re-evaluate your biases.

The sources you think are helping your point are not, BTW. Which is as one would expect, given your point is basically: "This crowd of people referred to once as Jews, who lived where Jews lived and were interested in the teachings of a Jew who was at that point only talking to Jews and had strong objections to that Jew implying he might be their Jewish-prophesize messiah, those guys? Yeah, that crowd? There's no evidence they were Jews". It's on its face ridiculous, even more with the "evidence" you provide.

> he came out again towards the Judeans and says...

Yes, exactly.

> the chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowd to ask for Barabbas and to have Jesus executed

> the high priests they spurred the mob

Do you think the very small amount of non-Jewish Romans in the area would be interested in the spurring of the Jewish priests and elders?

There's nothing anti-semetic about understanding a historical event as it happened. Do you also think calling for ceasefire in Palestine is also anti-semetic?

I have no ill-will against Jews, I love them as I love all my neighbors. That means I'd stop and provide one food and lodging if I saw they were in need, but I'd share the gospel with them and ask them to repent and join the Kingdom while I was at it. Just as the Lord instructed.

One of the most central themes in Christianity is that these folks were lying through their teeth in oder to falsely convict Jesus, and they knew it. That's what makes it the story of the individual who did no wrong being falsely put to death, willingly carrying out His sentence, and in the process absolving mankind of the wrongs they did or ever will do. It wouldn't be all anywhere near that powerful of a gesture if he did something illegal, was caught doing it, and was killed for it.

You can see in the passages directly surrounding what you quote how obvious the Bible makes it. Paraphrasing and injecting context that would have been obvious to the Jewish audiences:

    Jews: Should we pay taxes?
    Jesus: This item was made by Caesar in the image of Caesar, therefore it's safe to assume it's Caesars property and if he wants it back you should return it to him. But you on the other hand were made in the image of God, you are God's property and you should return to Him.
    
    Jews: Are you the King of the Jews? 
    Jesus: That is what you have called me.

    Jews: This guy says we shouldn't pay taxes and that he's the messiah! Kill him!

    Judge: “You brought me this man as one who was misleading the people. And after examining him before you, behold, I did not find this man guilty of any of your charges against him. Neither did Herod, for he sent him back to us. Look, nothing deserving death has been done by him. I will therefore punish and release him.”

    Jews: But we really really really really want you to kill him! And we'll probably have an uprising and cause a ton of trouble if you don't!

    Judge: Screw it fine, I'll let this other murderer and insurrectionist we had previously held captive go free and crucify Jesus instead.

How's that for foretelling?

God is not concerned with trivialities of coinage. Indeed it is explicitly stated that `No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other; or else he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You can’t serve both God and Mammon.` (mammon meaning "riches"), which draws a clear distinction between those things that are of Godly import versus those that are merely earthly.

The point is that those items made in Caesar's image should be considered his property and reunited with him, whereas those items made in God's image (humanity) are God's property and should be reunited with Him.

Where do you read that in Luke? To me, the message is very clear:

    This item is Caesar's. It has his name on it, his face on it, he made it, it's his. You should return it to him. 
    You, on the other hand, are God's. You are made in His image, and you should return yourself to Him.

And I do not see any evidence of the listeners rejecting the message. Instead we get a jumpcut to a seductress.

I saw this first hand when I dropped my brother off at college and sat in on some late night group conversations. I'm only a few years older than him so I expected the vibes to be similar to when I was there, but instead of the talk of interests, hobbies, past projects, life goals, accomplishments, etc. etc. that I was used to, everyone just went around sharing the bad things that happened to them as children. I got the sense folks were trying to one up each other too. Maybe it helped them, idk. I thought it was bizarre and certifiably not-fun. But what do I know.

    And these children that you spit on
    As they try to change their worlds
    Are immune to your consultations
    They're quite aware of what they're going through

There's a long history of "this looks hard, I won't implement/fix it" in GitHub issues the LLM can train on.

The standard doesn't have anything to do with TypeScript, not sure where you got that from? https://github.com/tc39/proposal-explicit-resource-managemen...

Except one is already built into the language? And it provides all the upsides of signals with none of the downsides? (Modulo proper use of `using` directives)

But then so are signals.

The only "benefit" signals as proposed here give you is less control over the exact dispatch pattern of the graph, for instance things like debouncing, throttling, batching, etc etc etc. Aka all the things you absolutely must have control over if you want to make something resembling a high performance application.

This pattern is precisely what everyone's favorite "look, JS/electron can be high performance!" example uses. (VS Code).

The new `using` feature handles RAII just fine. This proposal is entirely unnecessary given the existence of `using` and the already-existing event listeners. https://iliazeus.github.io/articles/js-explicit-resource-man...

No, they don't. In fact, if you search "event" in the proposal you get exactly one result, the prefix of "eventually". This is a serious shortcoming of the proposal that should be addressed.

Similar to how the interesting number paradox relies on a "shortcut statement" to force-up the number of non-interest, If Kolmogorov complexity were computable you could create a "shortcut program" to force-down the shortest length of the program:

Given: TM length of a JS runtime is 1,000,000 cells.

Assume: KC is computable, and TM length of a `function KolmoglorovComplexity(string s)` is 4,000,000 cells.

Known: KC's of values grow infinitely large - only 2^n-1 possible values can ever be encoded by n bits.

Take: function Shortcut() { for (const s in generateEveryStringFromShortestUp()) { if ( KolomoglorovComplexity(s > 10,000,000) ) return s } }

You see that the Shortcut function is encoded in 5,000,135 cells (plus that string generator, but that's small/constant), but it computes a value of arbitrarily large complexity (rather, one cell increase in the program length causes 10x increase in the complexity). A contradiction.

They call it entrapment - the officials put him in a position where be believes he's required to shoot in order to pass a test, but he sees no reason to. So finally he has to go with his gut and shoot the most probable target, even if he would have if not placed in that situation with those expectations.

Well of course he passed - they immediately after offer him the job and neuralize everyone else.

I'm not sure how you'd determine the least real root to that, given all three have equally zero imaginary component.

Now I want Men In Black mode, where your job is to identify the threat posed by the popup and shoot accordingly:

Alien doing pull ups? Fine. 8 year old girl holding a Quantum Physics book in a dark alley? That's sus...

Collect it yourself. I don't have a detailed log because the results were immediately obvious. You pretend to claim nothing can be obvious. I'm sure if you saw 12 people in a row guess your sign you'd think the correlation was obvious. My experience was similar.

> I didn't say "seeing things that aren't there" either. I said reading more into things than are there and seeing patterns where they don't exist.

Ha.

And it's not an ad hominum when the trait is something directly related to the topic at hand.

Your point has been telling me my experiment isn't valid because it doesn't align with your preconceived notions, telling me I'm "seeing things that aren't there" and that you know better than me about what I went through, then coming up with bogus claim after bogus claim to try to justify that position, then back in reality after a half dozen messages you finally self-admit to having a mental condition that makes you reluctant to see patterns clear as day.

That's rude.

Ok then just try it yourself. I'm sick and tired of an online person I've never met acting like they know more about statistics and experimental design than me regarding downright trivial experiment with results as obvious as day that they've never even bothered to run themselves. Good day.

Edit: You could have mentioned that you have a mental condition characterized by an irrational fear of pattern recognition in your diatribe about biases. I'd have known not to waste my time.

I'm well aware of the tricks that can be played, but there's simply no other explanation for the sheer volume of people who have said to me point blank, no hesitation, no beating around the bush, no listing out options to gauge responses, no nothing: "Oh that's easy, you're a XXX". Even totally disregarding confidence filtering, it's a staggering proportion.

There's really nothing not "fair" about it, but folks like you are so perverse to the idea of anything that doesn't fit your perception of the "scientific consensus" that you'll make up hoops in the name of "bias" to throw out every experimental result that doesn't agree with your preconceived notions up until the point all you have left are those experiments that you didn't see fit to invent hoops for because they already matched what you think you know. It's honestly terribly ironic, when you take the time to examine it.

I really do hope you can take the time to try this yourself and see for yourself what your own personal results are, there's no use at all for me to waste my time debating my own personal experience with someone so hell-bent on discrediting it on the basis of "actually I once read a paper that said..." and "well actually I know X Y Z errors with your experimental setup that you've told me next to nothing about and I never was able to even observe..."

I'm not particularly interested in what constitutes a "real astronomical prediction", I'm more interested in the crux of the topic: Are there common traits shared amongst people with similar birthdates that experienced astrologists can identify and use to correctly place an individual into one of 12 buckets based on a short interaction?

I originally was like you and thought the answer was "no, my birthday says nearly nothing about me". However, over the past few years I've made a point to ask all new strangers I meet ("met at a bar" type folks who I had 0 prior connection to, so excluding friends of friends/etc.) who display an interest in astrology to guess my sign and state their astrological confidence. Roughly 85% folks who are "very confident" in their knowledge of astrology correctly guess it first try, often with little to no hesitation (N = ~8). The folks who are not as confident vary: some will also get it first try, some will take a couple, some give up after like 6.

Science is observation, not consumption. I ran the experiments, I got the data I needed to inform my opinion. You're more than welcome to do the same. But if all you will listen to is what scientific journals want to publish, you've already made up your mind, and there's little use pretending otherwise.

If you ask me, nothing could be more "complete bunk" than some "scientist" claiming they've somehow blinded someone to their own birthday.

Astronomical signs (in the west) are entirely related to the time of year when you were born and not at all related to the "arrangement of the planets", besides of course the position of the earth relative to the sun. The idea that some voodoo around the position of your bed relative to your chair relative to your door has more impact on your life than your spawning phase shift in the (second?) most significant cycle of our existence is pure absurdity.

As a simple test: ask N self-proclaimed astrology experts to guess your sign, and perhaps the signs of some others around you. Run a Chi-squared on the results. Come to your own conclusions.

Alternatively, plot some user data against birth month. Observe dependence.

I mentioned a practical implication for interacting timescales in the sibling comment.

Could those processes, for instance, have configured the initial state of the entire universe in 6 of their days, but 13.8B-6,000 of our call years? I see no reason why not.

You're certainly welcome to completely ignore the question at hand, it's just surprising that you'd use so many characters to do so.

The question is if there's a different sort of thing beyond our idea of time. We have our concept of N caesium oscillations is the base reference for everything, and the duration of all action is derived from it. Could there be more depth to the rate at which things occur than that, especially on cosmic scales? Could other processes, which operate at different base clock levels, be interacting with the universe we observe in ways we don't yet understand? Could those processes have clock levels that vary over history with respect to our caesium definition?

You can claim not, that's its precisely that shallow. But neither of us can provide evidence either way, and your belief is simply much less interesting to me.

I'm aware. What I'm saying is if that's how much you don't know, you'd better not make any claims like "X can't be accurate because it doesn't match what I think I do know".

I think the hubris comes in when folks assume that because that answer is presented by Science/Observation rather than Religion/Philosophy, it's somehow guaranteed to be "more accurate", when in reality both are guesses with equally unknowable error bars.

`This talk about the "rate of execution" doesn't make any sense to me. A cycle takes one cycle, and always has.`

The root of the question is whether there exists an external "system clock", and what that would even mean.