Back in the days they were just philosophers aka scientists.

That’s the one, funnily enough in a perverted twist, they tend to see wealth as a sign that God has picked them as favourites (graced them) and they storically gravitated toward seeing poor people as, well, sinners, even thought their principles state that anyone could be graced or not no matter the more evident aspects of life.

No, not really, it’s mostly a matter of power.

The Church itself is rooted in the idea that there are autorities on matter of faith and they adopted the Platonical Agostinean idea that faith is empowered by reason. Reason being a valid tool means you have experts that reasoned a lot about religion and people that know less and needs to be taught, ultimately by the Pope.

The “other” side tends to reject authorities, and take the words of the bible as sobjected to personal interpretation or, to an extent, make it into some sort of magical object that the faithfull subjects itself to, without questions. Accepting the contradictions, the illogal parts, are what that kind of faith is about because to question (throught reasoning) God is a Sin.

Unironically the question by witch many Christian faiths differ: does God needs abide to the rules of logic or not?

For the Roman Catholic, yes, for Calvinists and a bunch other (ok, many other but I’m not an expert), no.

Oh I assure you Timmy once you grow up you’ll appreciate friction ;) ;)

Maybe I went to bad schools, maybe my country has a dysfunctional education system, but I suspect the matter is widespread because it’s way easier to teach factual information rather than dive into the nuances of how confident we are about our explanations.

Some reductive examples: Pluto is / is not a planet, wings work because the path air takes is longer than on the other side, the cause for this war was xyz, you can’t subtract below 0 (that’s at a very early age of course), this philosopher thought X.

Oh I guess a CRUCIAL one is how most teachers are horribly unfit to answer “Why should I care about this?”, but that’s beside the point, in a way.

You broke nothing, it just annoys me that if you don’t hit university they refuse to teach you the unconfortable truth on plenty of things and you come out of school with a biased idea that everything has been explained already (history, math, physics…).

So the generic “particles just rubs” in the texbooks were lies and they didn’t know shit?

I though he was some kind of “ally”, like a white guy that jumped the fence and joined the Native cause or raised by natives.

I also thought it was basically Jack Sparrow 2.0

It is not the only point when it comes to adopting technologies, when it comes to maximizing privacy, yes maximizing privacy is tautologically the only point.

Because it makes the point for a more solid technology as far as privacy is concerned?

: wave :

Hello Mr Witty I am from Windows.

Can you read this?

They way I uderstand your comment, LTT is big enought so as to negotiate contracts with sponsor without being forced to share the metric related to the performance of the sponsored segment.

I doubt that’s true for many creators.

I’m pretty sure it does, they do see how many people play the segment.

This is your brain on drugs.

America has lots of issues, no need to make things up.

Extra petty? The question mark goes at the end of the sentence.

I’ve never experienced it but the somewhat obvious trick is that it turns into a race to the bottom, where if you want to outperform your peers (or even meet the expectations of the company), the number of days off you freely decided to take turns into a KPI.

So, people take even less days off when they are made free to take any amount.

It’s why in Italy, for example, you can not refuse to go to holiday.

Chit.