m1n1 · HackerTrans

m1n1

no profile record

コメント

4 か月前議論

Only a few languages allow you to change a system while it is running (saving time on deploying new development versions and re-creating state) ... and have a recording debugger (saving time since you can inspect any part of a recording at leisure instead of accidentally passing the interesting spot and having to start over)

I hope more people get to experience this kind of joy :)

昨年議論

Could the same radio be controlling other nearby boilers unintentionally?

昨年議論

Forgot to add: multiple threads ... multiple DBs ... multiple topics on more than one kind of message queue ... hitting and serving REST endpoints -- all no problem for the REPL and the debugger[0].

If the thing was in Java, each fix attempt would mean waiting for startup and state re-creation. And each successful debug could have meant multiple sessions (vs visiting any mix of spots in a single recording)

[0] https://www.flow-storm.org/

昨年議論

I worked with a 60K LOC thing* that talked to multiple services and had complex configuration. Ran fine on my laptop pointed at the company's dev env.

The REPL let me test my changes while inside the thing as it ran. No problems. Someone wrote a nice *recording* debugger too which helped immensely -- no more "oops, I'm past the interesting part and have to start over"

* in prod we usually give it a small number of large instances

昨年議論

The involvement of Saul in the stoning of Stephen is generally seen as an established historical event - AD 34-35 - basically within a couple of years of Christ's bodily resurrection.

Many others were killed during the reign of the Roman Emperor Nero (54–68 AD), well within the lifetime of the 500+ eyewitnesses of Christ being around for 40 days after his crucifixion. They could have recanted if they knew it was false, but they knew it was true.

昨年議論

If a memory foam mattress makes a person's pain worse, how does it do that -- or how does a different type of mattress avoid doing that? (honest question)

昨年議論

So the squashing of a tomato or a human or a civilization -- they're just different rearrangements of matter and energy. Our feelings about each are also just chemical reactions. Any feeling or argument to the contrary has nothing to stand on. There's no such real thing as better or worse ultimately -- only better or worse within a context but not ultimately.

If you're on a hike and you see blueprints for a working automobile, you don't assume it assembled itself by mere chance. There's a language of a working design and you assume some minds created it.

But at the same time you interact with humans who have a working blueprint expressed in a 4-letter language and suddenly deny there is any mind behind any design?

昨年議論

You could imagine a God who is infinitely delightful. If he's the only thing in existence, he could delight in himself without end and would not be wrong in doing so, being actually delightful.

Having no limitation of knowledge or thought, he could think about himself. His thoughts would not be deficient in any detail, and thus would be an exact representation of himself. [1]

He could delight in that representation with his whole being, and that would be yet another full representation of himself. And thus he would not be alone or sad.

And he could have the propensity of emanating his delightfulness, expressing it outwards like light out of a star. And that emanation could be expressed as the creation of everything else. [2]

[1] https://ccel.org/ccel/edwards/trinity/trinity.i.html?queryID...

[2] https://ccel.org/ccel/edwards/works1.iv.ii.html

昨年議論

> the supernatural isn't real

So ... only what is physical is real? Like only matter and energy? Then there's no such thing as significance or value, only different combinations of matter and energy. Any opinion or argument, held however strongly, is only a set of chemical reactions, nothing more?

昨年議論

Some cultures had (have?) a tradition of naming each successive generation according to the next line in a poem or song.

If you ran out of verses, you'd pick a new song to start over.

昨年議論

My Atari 2600 had an odd behavior with the reset switch. Holding it down at the beginning of the tank/combat game enabled your first shot to go through walls. Did you any Atari bugs while you worked on it? Pretty amazing that you could program these without the benefit of searching any internet for answers. (btw, I replied to you elsewhere :-P)

昨年議論

If you __sincerely__ want to understand the answer to your question about babies dying, you should try steelmanning. It’s the opposite of strawmanning.

Steelmanning would not take the evil committed by humans and hang that around God's neck and blame him. Steelmanning would accept that free will means people can do things that God wouldn't himself choose, and when they do evil, they don't represent him.

Steelmanning would accept that if a Supreme Being exists, then that being is indeed supreme -- even though babies are precious, the supreme being has even more worth because he is supreme.

You and I have the same emotional reaction to something that violates our top priorities (humankind esp loved ones for you, God and then humankind esp loved ones for me)

Everyone's got a top priority. If there is a supreme being, the right top priority arrow should point at that being. Including the supreme being's own top priority arrow!

Otherwise God would be an idolater.

Many will find this repugnant. I know. Probably because we are accustomed to thinking on the level of fellow humans, we're all each worth exactly one human, no more no less.

But if you honestly want to know how this other math works, this is it. We're in the middle of a symphony and parts might sound like they need some resolution. And in the end there will be resolution and the whole symphony will show his supremacy in the _end_ because only in the end are all accounts truly settled. Before the end, things will appear incorrect.

Actually the easiest way to reconcile this in your mind is to imagine you're, say, a Van Halen fan at one of their concerts at the height of their popularity. You want them to go absolutely nuts on stage showing off, because they're the best band ever. When they magnify themselves on stage, it's what you paid to see.

Either you honestly want to understand and you'll steelman or you really just wanted to be a critic and you won't. Btw, I replied on the other branch as well

昨年議論

I asked because I realized there's something we probably already agree on, as long as one twist is accounted for.

But to get to the twist we should unpack this word Worship because it's a little nebulous. It could mean lots of things but I want to reduce it to its basic essence.

Let's imagine a dirty barefoot ignorant heathen Bob who carves an idol out of wood. It's a small figurine that he names as his brand new god Steve. Bob _claims_ to worship Steve, Bob bows down to Steve at regular intervals and burns incense to Steve, etc etc.

But over time Bob gets into a hobby like golf. And Bob spends all his free time playing golf, practicing golf, reading about golf, visualizing his next golf skill improvements, dreaming about golf.

Dust gathers on Steve's head and shoulders. If Steve were to suddenly animate, would Steve agree that Bob is a true Steve worshiper? No. I think if we simmer this nebulous word worship, we might get a more revealing word like "prioritize".

And maybe if we were to use more words, we might expand that to "hold (in thoughts, feelings, and resulting behavior) as most valuable"

And from Bob's behavior, we can see Bob cares more about golf than he cares about Steve.

Similarly, there are some people who claim to be Christians, but we see from their behavior that some of these people care more about, say, having a reputation as a miracle working faith healer -- or maybe they care more about the money they can rake in while faking miracles, than they care about God.

Even while we may disagree whether God exists, we can agree that such fake faith healers are criminals when money gets involved, right?

Then suppose for a second that God does exist, wouldn't you agree that a God who is supposedly perfect in justice should signify for anyone watching that these people are indeed criminals? Like, something has to be _SAID_ at least.

So in this supposed existence which has a supreme being, I think you can agree everyone's Priority Number One Arrow should point at God. When someone's arrow isn't pointed at God, that's idolatry.

If this makes sense, let me know and I can get to the twist. Or maybe you can figure out the twist before I say it.

2 年前議論

Pretend to be a believer for just a second and think about these two questions:

What makes idolatry wrong?

How is God not an idolater?

2 年前議論

The purpose of this post is to describe how a reasonable person can reconcile these two:

  - a good, compassionate, merciful, omnipotent, and omniscient God

  - the reality that innocent babies suffer and die 

  The purpose is not to convince anyone to become a believer.

  I maintain that anyone who remains an objector to the actual thesis (that these two realities can be reconciled) is really merely refusing to suppose for the sake of conversation and to hold the all thoughts described below _simultaneously_ and with enough weight for each

  If you find any tenet irrelevant or begs for your immediate objection, you are misreading this post, and on the verge of discounting a piece, and objecting to some other worldview, not the one I'm espousing

  I didn't spend any time making this palatable so don't foist this on a grieving parent as-is

  Also one might read this post and feel that God is severe or unappealing. But there are plenty of positives to delight about God, and some of them are described in the links below

The Excellency of Christ https://ccel.org/ccel/edwards/sermons.excellency.html

The Peace Which Christ Gives His True Followers https://ccel.org/ccel/edwards/works2.iv.xiii.html

Safety, Fulness, and Sweet Refreshment in Christ https://ccel.org/ccel/edwards/sermons/files/safety.html

God has always existed, eternally in three persons

Nothing and no one existed before God nor is above God. He is the sole true sovereign

The rest of existence came into being from nothing because he created it and holds it in existence. He "upholds all things by the word of His power." Heb. 1:3 as if the strong and weak nuclear forces came from him continually and intentionally

Let the rest of existence be howsoever vast, it is as the light dust of the balance and as perfectly nothing in comparison to the Creator

It is correct to value God over all else. The godly person prefers God over everything he has had, over everything he currently has, over anything he has the prospect of having in this world and in the next, real or imagined https://ccel.org/ccel/edwards/works2/works2.v.html

God was free to create whatever kind of universe he wanted, and also was completely free to have decided instead not to create at all, ever

He knows all things, including all things to come. It's like how you can know everything that happens in a novel that you've _already_ finished

Not only is he complete in knowledge, he is also perfect and unsurpassed in wisdom, moral beauty, love, and every virtue

Some virtues like love only make sense in the context of a relationship. God has existed from all eternity past in relationship within the trinity

Some virtues like mercy and grace can only be exercised when not deserved. Forgiveness can only be exercised after a wrong. This did not force God's hand in creation in any way -- he was completely free to possess a virtue and yet leave it unexpressed forever

But he decided to create the kind of universe where sentient beings such as angels and humans can decide to prefer God's wisdom or their own. Humans can, ... in our limited knowledge, .... moving only forward in time from one line of the novel to the next, ... only seeing what's next to us in the tall grass like a mouse, ... without knowing all that has taken place or all that will take place, ... with our few meager mortal brain cells that need regular sleep, ... continuing in our existence only by his say-so, yes we can choose to prefer our wisdom to God. It is the height of hubris, yet we all without exception do so naturally. We prefer the light dust of the balance, pegged at the top of the scale's range of motion, over the stupendous gold brick that is God Only Wise, Ancient of Days.

We don't want to answer to God. We don't want to live life his way. We have ideas and plans and standards of living that we think are better than his.

A penalty must fit the crime. Justice requires the penalty to be proportional to the crime.

The exact same insult levied against two different individuals can carry different weight, if there is an aggravating factor such as the identity, worth, majesty of one of the offended

God is infinite in worth. Our obligation to him is infinite

But this means our sin ("we know better than God") is infinite (however finite in number and duration yet having an infinite aggravation) and therefore justly deserves an infinite penalty. Since we have nothing to pay with that doesn't already belong to God such a penalty would never be paid in full by us https://ccel.org/e/edwards/sermons/justice.html

God was completely free to set the rules of his creation however he wanted.

Angels seem to be accountable to God purely as individuals.

With us humans however, God had a different rule: that one could represent a group as a surety. Either to represent all of us negatively as Adam did, or represent some of us (door open to all) positively as Jesus did.

Adam's responsibility was to heed the only prohibition God stated at the time with the consequence for disobedience being a fallen world and an infinite penalty hereafter. Such penalty already explained as consistent with justice, so also the fallen world being a lesser consequence is thus also consistent with justice.

Ignorance of the law or its consequences does not fly in court

If Adam and Eve had never eaten of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, then they would have never known evil, including suffering. This might have been a way for us to end up in a universe where babies never suffered nor died. But Adam and Eve succumbed to FOMO vs trust in the love and wisdom of God.

But if God had picked any other mere human to be the surety, that person would fail as well. We each prove this is true when we prefer our own wisdom or anything over God

We each earn an infinite penalty without help from Adam. And Adam's consequences are also present everywhere and unavoidable

"But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us" (Romans 5:8) as our second surety. Fully human, and simultaneously fully and eternally the second person of the Trinity, God the Son, Jesus lived the righteous life for us and paid the infinite penalty in finite time

You and I have committed offenses, each with infinite weight, and we each owe and infinite penalty to God. We could spend forever in hell and still never pay it off.

The alternative is to acknowledge this guilt and accept Jesus to pay for us

One illustration for this is if a child earned a spanking but the father covered the child's skin with his own hand before spanking his own hand

How was Jesus able to pay for more than one person in finite time? Because he has the full infinite worth of God the Son.

Jesus' death does more to repair God's honor than if all humanity were to burn in hell for eternity.

God did not have to provide this surety. He was completely free and justified to judge Adam and Eve immediately in hell. That would have been another way to have a universe void of suffering and dying infants.

So when an actual Christian parent mourns the loss of an infant child, one help is to consider that God himself in Jesus also died. And to imagine how much harder it would be to continue worshiping some other god who never tasted death personally.

And another help is the hope of reunion with the lost infant in the hereafter 2 Samuel 12:23

Life in heaven for one who died as an infant would put into perspective any imagined life they could have lived on earth -- to think otherwise is to suppose life on earth to be worth more than time with God and thus idolatry. We tend to imagine the good that a dead infant lost out on. But we don't know what their mortal future really would have been like.

And if he shows the mercy of healing an infant and protecting his life to adulthood, that healed person still eventually and surely earns an infinite penalty like everyone else and still needs God's mercy.

Can the wrath of God be reconciled with the mercy of God? See https://ccel.org/ccel/edwards/works2.iv.xii.html

The existence of the dying baby, the continued existence of the questioner, and the existence of the question itself contain within them the very answer to the charge. If God were malevolent, none of them would exist here in this world. This alone is sufficient to defeat the charge. But God goes beyond that by experiencing the death penalty we deserved. He didn't have to, but he did, and is thus the only deity you could come to who would understand your pain from firsthand experience. And not only that, he did this to make a way (to pay) for a reunion between a grieving parent and a lost infant. Adam was involved but we can't blame him because we too would have (and already have) failed, because men naturally are God's enemies: https://ccel.org/ccel/edwards/works2/works2.vi.i.html

In this worldview, any continued objection really boils down to the same original error (Adam's) of thinking one knows better than God, and so one does not want to answer to a sovereign God, and so one suppresses the truth with objections and excuses even though it is plainly evident from what has been made that God is to be thanked and honored. Romans 1:18-23

2 年前議論

So this has happened twice now:

  - I refer to the evidence of something in the past (Jesus' empty tomb, the change in my leg)
  - Instead of stepping closer to learn more about the evidence, you keep as far away from it as you already are and imagine things about the evidence
  - From that distance, you think your evaluation is reasonable and mine isn't.

But that second step isn't reasonable. You're free to take it of course. But doing so precludes this from being a type (B) conversation. It's yet another kind of conversation (C) demonstrating the ease of maintaining objections by maintaining distance from the actual evidence and objecting to an imagined version of the evidence.

What you say about my X-rays arises not from any familiarity with them whatsoever, but starting from your conclusion and stepping backwards to what must be the cause.

If instead you learned more about my X-rays, you'd hear from me how the chiropractor showed the sideways bending of my spine (how many degrees to the left here, and back to the right there) by adding lines between corresponding vertebrae points and showing the angle deviation from vertical.

And then he showed me the cause which was the top of one femur was higher than the other, because one leg was longer than the other, the X-ray being captured in the standing position, barefoot with heels firmly planted etc. On the X-ray, he drew a line across the top of the femurs and showed the angle that deviated from horizontal.

And then he said it's like I've been stepping in a pothole my entire life and my spine has compensated by bending sideways. The difference is big enough to affect my spine but small enough that other people never noticed. And since it happened gradually as I grew, I never noticed either. But you'd also hear from me he wasn't hedging like there was any doubt about the X-ray's interpretation.

(The chiropractor lost my business because I could just put a little shim in one shoe and my spine wouldn't have to compensate anymore, and in fact this was his suggestion. No, he didn't try to sell me a shim. Yes, if a different interpretation of the X-ray were possible that'd allow him to keep my business, he would have said so.)

But the stranger noticed entirely independently and weeks later. I wonder if you suppose this was at some big tent revival where someone advertised a healer was in town.

No, if you had asked, if you had stepped closer to the evidence instead of keeping your distance and reasoning backwards from your chosen conclusion after imagining whatever you did, you would learn this was an ordinary boring Sunday at a boring church where I never saw or expected anything like this to happen, and he (truly a random dude that no one announced) singled me out, did his unexpected deed, and left. No one knew him, no one paid him, he didn't gain anything from it. He approached me unbidden, I didn't seek him out for a healing nor did I expect to ever see one much less experience one.

What is the reasonable explanation how this happened in separate places instead of the chiropractor and this stranger knowing each other and trying to gain from this?

You mentioned susceptibility. I wonder if you suppose I might be the gullible type who goes to big tent revivals. But if you stepped closer and asked, you'd learn I have two degrees from MIT and have spent more than two decades dealing with computers where the only thing that counts are facts. My friends from MIT who are believers are not susceptible either. Given a choice between one church that is known for good Bible studies vs another that has people speaking in tongues etc we would all prefer to go to the former.

I opened my eyes during the experience so I not only felt it, I saw it. The follow-up X-ray was the exact same setup body position. It's what the doctor ordered after I described the chiropractor's conclusion about my legs. Perhaps you are reasoning from an anti supernatural presupposition -- that anything supernatural is immediately dismissed. But as I said before, it's easy and reasonable to accept that IF God exists, then he can resurrect just as easily as you dragging a file back out of your trash.

The same goes for Jesus' tomb. If you would step closer and look at the evidence, you would see that the hoax theory is weak. My goal is not to convince you to change your mind because that's a type (A) conversation. My goal is to show you that resurrection is a reasonable explanation. Or rather, my challenge to you was to come up with a reasonable explanation of the empty tomb given the evidence. But now I realize it'd only feel like a difficult challenge if you're familiar with the evidence, which you are not. You could be, if you came closer to it and looked.

One fellow who looked at the evidence was a member of President Nixon's Watergate scandal. He experienced from the inside how hard it was to keep a conspiracy going. He saw what it's like to crack under the pressure. There's no way he could believe Jesus' disciples could carry to their painful deaths the supposed secret of a staged resurrection. This person was Chuck Colson.

Another is Lee Strobel who wanted to disprove Christianity. But the key is he came closer to the evidence with his skills as a professional investigative journalist to really attempt a direct undeniable smack down on it. He wanted to know it in exacting detail to totally refute it in a hit piece. But the evidence is so strong that he became a believer.

If you or anyone else is interested, here are some resources

Evidence That Demands a Verdict vols 1&2, Josh McDowell

Included in volume 1:

  - think the Bible is no different from any other book? See chapters 1 and 4
   - how can you trust the Bible when it wasn't officially accepted by the church until 350 years after the crucifixion? See chapter 3
   - how do we know what we have today from the Bible authors was not changed from the originals? See chapter 4
   - how can you believe in Jesus when all we know about him comes from biased Christian writers? See chapter 5
   - *how can Christians say Jesus rose bodily from the grave? There are lots of possible explanations ...  see chapter 10*

Included in volume 2:

  - are the gospels a reliable record? See chapters 16 through 27

The Testimony of the Evangelists, Examined by the Rules of Evidence Administered in Courts of Justice -- Simon Greenleaf

Case for Christ, Lee Strobel

If you are willing to step closer to the evidence and take an honest look, these are available.

If you remain unwilling, then this branch of the conversation dies here. The record will show you maintaining the hoax/misremembering explanation as reasonable _only_ from a position of unawareness of the evidence. And I would then move to the other branch that you're waiting for. This wasn't a delay tactic. Perhaps I don't have as much free time as you, or my posts take longer to compose than yours -- they contain more as you can all see.

2 年前議論

There are two kinds of conversations we could be having.

(A) Where one person tries to change the other person's mind

(B) Where one person explains how a rational person can hold a position ... This is different from showing how the position is the only one a rational person can hold

Let's agree not to attempt (A)

Are you willing to try (B)?

The root of this thread was someone else saying "I honestly don’t understand how anyone who has been proximate to childbirth can believe in intelligent design"

I explained how: It's one Consequence imposed by the Governor. He would have been completely justified if he imposed the Punishment immediately instead. The root question didn't ask about goodness or mercy, only intelligent design.

The question (yours) now is: can a rational person reconcile the claim that God is good with the reality that a baby could die of cancer.

And on this particular branch of the discussion we're comparing explanations for Jesus' empty tomb.

It's entirely rational to consult Simon Greenleaf who was one of the foremost experts in judicial evaluation of evidence (he wrote a classic textbook on it used in many law schools).

There are rules about judging documents as evidence in the court of law: where were the documents found, in what manner, in what condition, how do they compare with other known examples.

There are guidelines for comparing copies, tracing and evaluating differences, and dating documents.

And there is Jewish and Roman history.

It is rational to accept the evidence as indicating that things were as I described in GP. Which is that Jesus' disciples maintained they interacted with the risen Christ _to their deaths_ and this happened _during_ the eyewitness generation. And the written documents are very numerous (thousands) and many are legitimately dated within the same generation.

It is rational to think this explanation is more credible than a hoax or deliberate deception. We're free to weigh things differently, but I'm just showing it is quite a rational option. The hoax approach is opposed by the evidence.

I'm sure some will object that it's irrational to believe in miracles. But:

One-- that is not in the spirit of the supposition "Assume omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent God." (I chatted with a co-worker once who simply could not suppose for the sake of conversation even though he was a software engineer and should have easily been able to pretend Jesus had what we computer folks call write permissions or root privileges. Actually I don't think his difficulty was intellectual so much as emotional.)

Two-- I have personal experience: a complete stranger performed a miracle on my leg. Before he did, I was shown a bone defect on an X-ray by someone else. Then, without knowing this, the stranger told me about the defect, and then he fixed me. I was sitting on the floor straight legged and actually felt my leg moving against the floor as the fix took place. Then I got another X-ray from Kaiser Permanente and it showed the defect was gone, even though I specifically told them what to look for (meaning they took exactly the correct X-ray to show it).

2 年前議論

Ok, I'll put the amoral monster response as a direct reply and keep this branch about the tomb.

The location of the tomb was well known to three different groups.

One -- Jesus' followers: It was Joseph of Arimathea's tomb. Joseph and Nicodemus prepared his body for burial. In addition to moving the body, they had forty pounds of spices. (The amount of physical effort involved probably made their destination more memorable) And some women saw him placed in the tomb (Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee). That women are listed as witnesses is notable because in that culture, the testimony of women was not acceptable. This was messy reality, not a clean fiction.

Two -- The Jewish religious leaders did not want Jesus' followers to stage his resurrection. So they asked the Romans to guard the tomb. "The chief priests and the Pharisees gathered together with Pilate, [63] and said, “Sir, we remember that when He was still alive that deceiver said, ‘After three days I am to rise again.’ [64] Therefore, give orders for the grave to be made secure until the third day, otherwise His disciples may come and steal Him away and say to the people, ‘He has risen from the dead,’ and the last deception will be worse than the first.” [65] Pilate said to them, “You have a guard; go, make it as secure as you know how.” [66] And they went and made the grave secure, and along with the guard they set a seal on the stone."

Three -- The Romans knew where the tomb was because they guarded it. Roman guards knew any security failure could be penalized by death ordered by their superior officer. The Romans were also the ones approached by Joseph of Arimathea so there's a second reason they'd know where Jesus' body was. They set a seal on the stone as well, and the penalty for violating the seal was death.

The Jews and the Romans were motivated to keep the status quo. But Christianity and copies of his followers' writings sprang up like wildfire within the lifetime of eyewitness. The Romans could not squash the new movement. One thing would have helped: if they could just produce the rotting corpse from the correct tomb. But they couldn't. Neither could the Jews ask the Romans to do so (it being forbidden in Jewish custom to touch a corpse). Because the tomb's location and emptiness was well-known.

Besides, his eleven remaining disciples and other close followers said they interacted with the risen Jesus for a period of 40 days (including being served fish by his hands, touching him, his appearing to over 500 people, and many other convincing proofs). And these eyewitness refused to recant on pain of torture and horrible death (or exile in the case of John).

This is very unlike their former manner, which was cowardly. (Another hallmark of a reliable record -- it didn't protect the disciples from appearing as stupid as they were, fighting over who'd be the greatest or misunderstanding Jesus at times)

Such a change in courage is consistent with seeing that their leader really was God the Son come back to life, in the flesh.

It's not consistent with the idea they mis-remembered or lied deliberately at the cost of their own lives.

2 年前議論

I can make an effort to. Meanwhile, you can explain the empty tomb of Jesus similarly.

2 年前議論

what are you referring to when you say a language can sell out?