Extrabiblical sources

kertcu · 4時間前

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ancient-sea-rise-tale-told-accurately-for-10-000-years/

Flamequeen · 13時間前

108 state diplomacy?!

mcc5159 · 14時間前

A young Topher Grace would have worked well.

kertcu · 14時間前

an oral tradition tracing all the way back to the flooding of the Black Sea basin 5,000 years before we have the earliest recorded story. Is it completely impossible that this is the origin? No. Is it plausible? Come on.

I mean, Australian aboriginal oral traditions accurately describe the flooded interior of the continent some time before the last ice age. They also mention the world being sung into existence by a rainbow serpent. So... Maybe?

Lerc · 16時間前

I like it a lot. There's a simplicity to the mechanics, and a nice progression before it gets so maddeningly hard I quit...

csheldondante · 1日前

Warning: most annoying audio ever. Fun game though.

shrouded_reflection · 1日前

Sure you can say that you don't agree with my answer, but I already gave you a damn answer, many many times.

You didn't. You've repeated yourself many times, but simply asserting you're right over and over doesn't answer a question. I'll rephrase it in the simplest way I can think of: "Why do you believe that automation will not complement labor, causing jobs that are currently high skill to become low skill, thus creating new Entry Level work?"

As I've said many times

Tell me about it.

this automation is different

Why? This is what you keep skipping over. Why is it different?

economically, because it replaces ENTRY-LEVEL work.

That's an effect. You're saying it's different so it will have a different effect, but you aren't explaining why it's different.

Besides which, this is irrelevant to my questions. I've asked over and over why automation won't have the same effect all technology has ever had, which is to make difficult work easier. So if this automation is different because it replaces entry level work, that's not different. Working on a farm was low skilled labor, and working in an office was high skilled labor. Technology replaced entry level work (working on a farm) and made high skilled labor entry level (working in an office). Why won't this happen this time? Saying that it replaces entry level work doesn't answer this questions.

At this point, there's literally nothing I could say that would satisfy you

That's always been true, but it would be nice to see you try.

look at the evidence that has been gathered in 5 years time.

We already have 200 years of evidence. Why is 5 years going to make a difference?

At this point, your answers are just disingenuous. I've pointed out over and over the questions you aren't answering, and you still haven't even tried to answer them. You are so non-specific in your answers about automation that I suspect you aren't an automation engineer, but an agricultural one, because the only expertise you seem to display is in bullshit.

ColbyStein · 1日前

I'm curious why BYU Studies should be the premier Mormon Studies journal?

Because due to it's institutional history, funding, and let's face it, position near the academic center of Mormonism (BYU) it has an opportunity to be THE Mormon Studies journal. But that can't happen for exactly the same reasons.

For example, Mormon Studies should be the venue where critical research into the history and authorship of the BoM takes place. But there's no way an article concluding that, for example, Joseph Smith was the author of the BoM get's published in BYU studies.

shrouded_reflection · 1日前

You've said a lot here, enough that a casual reader might not notice that you didn't answer any of my questions.

I asked why automation is different in economic terms - that is, why does this technological improvement in productivity function so differently in your eyes from previous technological improvements in productivity. You answered that we're creating self-driving cars...

That isn't an answer to the question. Do you not understand this? ATMs automated teller functions, yet they led to an increase in the number of teller positions in banks because they lowered the marginal cost of establishing new branches.

I asked you why you believed that automation would not take things that are currently high-skilled jobs, and make them low skilled jobs, like data-entry used to be. You didn't answer.

You seem to think there's these two categories - low skilled and high skilled, and once machines take over all the low skilled jobs, only high skilled will be left. You've completely ignored what the linked paper here points out, which is that technology, in addition to replacing jobs, often complements it as well (as I pointed out with bank tellers.)

You say that tools replaced our hands, machines replaced our muscles, and AI will replace our brains. I say that tools made our hands more efficient, machines made our muscles more efficient, and AI will make our brains more efficient. I can point to the entire history of technology as evidence for my view. The only thing even resembling an argument you've offered in favor of yours is "those things weren't automation."

You haven't answered the questions you've been challenged with, and you haven't given any justification for your views. So why are you so confident that you have nothing to learn from this entire field you're dismissing?

ColbyStein · 1日前

What's sad to me is that BYU Studies should be the premier Mormon Studies journal, but they're still positioned or perceived as being part of the apologetic cottage industry.

ColbyStein · 1日前

While I appreciate and respect your response, I will say that there's a problem when there's an entire inbred cottage industry of Mormon Scholarship interested in proving aspects of the BoM historical. All the FARMS research, not getting published in archaeological journals and so forth, does give outsiders an impression of a field that can't tell the difference between history and theology.

besttrousers · 1日前

This paper reminds me of a thought experiment my brother and I worked through about the implications of magic for the economics of D&D. His is better, of course, because all hail '90's Krugman.

czokletmuss · 1日前

As you can see, this is just an ordinary rock mineral.

First of all, I'd like to point out that in the askscience thread about these pictures, geologists were being way less definitive than you seem to be, preferring to defer a number of questions until they could examine the rock in person. I think that's the difference between actual science, and the sort of New Atheist Scientism you see a lot in this sub. But I digress.

To me, saying this is a regular stone has nothing to do with Mormonism. Mormons don't believe that Joseph Smith found a magic stone that he used to translate golden plates. They believe that God allowed him to translate. I see no difference between an ordinary stone, and a stone that God miraculously caused to glow.

Now, none of this has anything to do with whether or not I find Joseph Smith's story plausible (though the fact that I'm no longer Mormon might give you a hint.) But I think it's odd how many atheists say things like "religion can be investigated by science" dogmatically, without thinking the implications of that through. It's like the prayer studies - no, those studies don't prove prayer doesn't work. They prove that prayer doesn't work as a natural phenomenon.

TL;DR. Theists don't believe religion is magic, so proving something isn't magic has nothing to do with theism.

Kolbykilla · 2日前

Right? I hated him as president, but I think it's super cool that our process treats him just like any other citizen.

TheManOTheHour · 2日前

I could say no, but that's exactly what a brainwashed liar would say. :)

TheManOTheHour · 2日前

I grew up Mormon, in Utah. My experiences as an ex-Mormon are fairly similar. Nothing really dramatic.

shrouded_reflection · 2日前

I'd like to point out that despite your grandstanding, you never responded to my challenge on this topic: namely, why will the fact that technology increases productivity, which has never before caused unemployment, cause unemployment now just because the technology is automation? You keep repeating "It's automation! It's different!" but you've never explained why.

I pointed out to you that data entry used to be a highly skilled job. Technology and mass literacy have made it a low skilled job. You replied that data entry could be automated. Yes, I get that this specific job might become antiquated, but that's irrelevant. Why does that mean that technology won't make things that are currently high skilled jobs into low skilled jobs?

In other words, you seem to think that arguing that every job that exists today could be automated, therefore there will be no jobs. But that doesn't follow, as every economically literate person keeps trying to explain to you. Almost every job that's ever existed in human history doesn't exist anymore, and yet human labor still has value.

You keep saying that people don't understand automation, and ye you haven't explained how the ways in which automation are different make your argument different from the Luddites'. You say that a tractor isn't automation, but you can't explain why when tractors replaced 99 agricultural jobs out of 100, why automation replacing that last job is a game changer. Why do we not have 90% unemployment from agricultural job loss?

Every time you're faced with specific questions highlighting your economic illiteracy, you spout something off about how automation is different. So I'm challenging you: explain why it's different.

commentsrus · 3日前

I made a joke which didn't quite work.

commentsrus · 3日前

I was making a joke that, in retrospect, was really abstract and obscure.

commentsrus · 4日前

And yet the idea that what I was talking about with 'unemployment' was connected to what the author of the article was talking about - long term, structural unemployment due to automation - was too subtle for you?

commentsrus · 4日前

<-- Didn't read the article

DietSnappleFacts · 4日前

You simply say you do not know which is quite true of both positions

This could also accurately be called agnosticism. Most people (though yes, not all) associate atheism on its own with at least a stance that theism is probably incorrect. It doesn't require infallible knowledge, just leaning towards nonexistence.

commentsrus · 4日前

This article asks an important question - where are all the unemployed, if automation kills jobs? I'd like to ask a related one - where are all the automation engineers, if this thread title contains 'automation'?

EDIT: since this joke clearly failed, I need to explain - I was asking where the automation engineers were in the comments to this thread, because the last several times automation has come up, some automation engineers have appeared to tell us that their expertise overrides all of economics.

OntocentricBias · 4日前

If God exists, then why does Sam Harris exist? Check mate theists.

Seriously, you know how Al Ghazali was so revered he was called 'the proof of Islam?' I'm going to start calling Harris the 'proof of atheism.'

OverBiasedAndroid6l6 · 4日前

Anything by the Rolling Stones. I don't know how many Stones songs my band tried to cover, but they all went down in flames. The problem is, it sounds simple, and it is, but simple doesn't mean easy.

The rhythm is the most important part of a Stones song, and getting that loose but in the groove feeling is ... well we never managed it. You can learn a Keith Richards guitar part note for note, and it won't sound right, because it isn't about the notes, it's about the groove. You have to get into the soul of the riff, into the idea of it, so instead of playing it exactly like the record, you're playing the kinds of variations Keith might play, in the moment.

Listen to Beast of Burden. You can learn the chords in 30 seconds, learn the main riff in a minute. But that's not the song. There's a constant push and pull between the guitars and the rhythm section, between the band and the vocals, and it has all these different levels of intensity that need to sound different but still recognizably the same.

Then you listen to something that actually sounds hard, like the intro to Tumbling Dice. I can't even.

Kai_Daigoji

次のモデレーターです

トロフィーケース

本日のreddit gold目標額達成率

Three-Year Club	Verified Email
Team Periwinkle