kodoman

I am not sure what your point is, I hold the fathers as at least partially authoritative, I do not hold the fathers above God, nor do I hold any theology or translation above God, God is the source of truth. If you feel you can simply disregard the fathers and the apostolic fathers, I would like to hear it. As though it seems we hold different theology how can you simply cast aside and not hold these sources with authority?

Those that tend to hold to ideas of singular anti-christ and as you pointed out identify anti-christ with the son of perdition and also the false prophet and sometimes little horn in Daniel, often still maintain the plural the plural quality of the word to mean those who follow heresy while still maintaining there is one false prophet who will exalt him or someone or something above god or sometimes simply deny god or gods true nature (basically any heresy). I think Tertullian has in mind Arianism or Marcionism or some other major heresy. My point was that Schmit is reading Tertullian and closely and holds very different positions to Thiel who holds very different things and the identification of the Katchon as a negative force seems unique and I have not seen before and goes competely against Tertullian and Schmit (who is making the consept corrupt but in a much smarter way then Thiel does In my opinion).

I do however think the views of the Fathers can not simply be dismissed and hold them in high esteem and as partially authoritative even outside counsels.

I am someone who is unsure of per-millenial post-millennial debate and would roughly consider myself a recapitulationist of some kind. I do not think you can use it in that way to argue against post-millennial for one the post-millennial would simply say that Pual is writing to the Thessalonians is still in the pre-millennial phase.

I feel are theology is different but I do not see the passage you gave as a good counter to identification of with the 70 AD. One can also hold that 70 AD was part of part of revelation but it's still to be fulfilled and completed. 70 AD seems to be something christ does predict and in astonishing fashion and a deeply important apocalyptic event.

One possibility that does accord very well with the events, but no fixed interpretation and no church dogma on positions of antichrist(s), man of sin, whore of Babylon.

One should read the Apocalypse of John/revelation and be amazed by the imagery and strangeness that is conjured up, as well as it's highly vengeful nature. Another great way to read it is with a word in mind hupopodion/ὑποπόδιον, and to think of this as god putting the world under his feed and conquering the world and look at it's accordance in Hebrews.

Yes I also don't like the language of my country, 'are' sounds like 'our' so I mix them up, I apologize, at least you know I am not an LLM!

Their was no consensus amongst the Fathers of the church or later Christians and little dogma on the subject. Tertullian did hold that the their is a figure of anti-christ, a singular figure teaching some kind of heresy and ruling, actually a looking a lot like premillennial low church Christianity today (not that I like these groups but there is some president though Tertullian would find plenty to disagree with elsewhere in particular the restraint on the antichrist is Rome and prays for the continuation of imperial rome) eschatology is highly contested and it's difficult to give one set answer and the actual positions of the Fathers varies so much and the reformers complicate this again.(Connecting to my other other post on my country, By law when the 'humble divines' settled this in parliament (because parliament under the protectorate had the authority to settle such things would you believe) set forward the Westminster confession one of the precepts is that you proclaim that the bishop of Rome the pope is the anti-christ.)

I feel like everything I have seen of Thiel is not as well thought out as people claim, I feel he came to lots of his positions from a sort of contrarian attitude and simply the limited things he has been exposed to (that of course is true of everyone but to me it seems striking how little the things actually fit together are are sort of all just mushed together), Take for example The Straussian Moment, though quotes Strauss not actually very Straussian does not really use ancient wisdom and I think he adopted it because of the connection that the left made (incorrectly I think) to the neo-cons and Leo Strauss.

His use of Girard does not actually fit at all and his whole Anti-christ prophesy thing is a kind of inversion of Girard and actually identifies the anti-christ with the katechon the opposite to tertuilian, Girard himself (I think) and Schmitt.

I don't think his views are all that meaningful or held with real conviction other then they are views that allow him to behave how he wants for now. If his views came into conflict with his desired behavior he would adopt new ideas no doubt.

From the UK are bill of rights from 1689 has a clause called free speech in it. When you actually look at it's free speech... for parliament and parliamentarians from the king, Citizens get no such right. We have a clause that is the right to bear arms, when you look at it predicated on being the a protestant and parliament allowing you. No one actually reads these things or the history surrounding it here because when you do you quickly realize how pathetic are 'glorious revolution' is how weak the the brave people petitioning a foreign king to come over to overthrow a king they did not like because he was a catholic and wanted more tolerance for Catholics.

Not the biggest fan of where America is at the moment but American founding fathers are some of the most impressive people and the American revolution is incredible, where as are revolution is one of the saddest affairs in human history and it's continuation is a disaster in my opinion.

I wondered about this approach for something I was trying but thought it was just stupid, I wanted to see if An agent could explore software development and work on hobby tasks so that it could come back and push against design ideas and develop it's own opinions. Then I realized it was dumb for SW.

It's was mostly a slightly more edgy 4chan with actually some more varied boards and wider range of political views (/leftypol/) was a thing If I remember. So mostly dumb teens and later the whole Q-Anon mentally ill boomers who took over once the board was brought by one of them much to displeasure of the edge teens. In short if that is a threat to a government and a society it's a weak government and society, comparing it to Al-Qaeda or some kind of comparable threat to anything government or nation is crazy.

Such a crazy take, It does not have to mean removing anything that users already like should they prefer click driven interface, only the option for both keyboard and mouse.

I have really come to think that most GUI's are misguided, they seek to be easy and intuitive to pick up from the get go hugely at the expense of of speed of the user once they are familiar with the software.

Although where possible software should be easy to learn for lots of programs the user can expect to use the program lots those ones would improve productivity of the user by focusing on speed of use for the user not discoverability and intuitive. Again there is plenty of intuitive design that is also fast once the user becomes familiar with the system but the discoverability and intuitive aspect is weighted higher then speed of a knowledgeable user.

I do think lots of programs would benefit from being more CLI accessible and allowing users to build scripts that lots of modern propriety programs do not allow you to do, at best they have some script engine running in the program that you can call with more effort then it should.

Second that it's unlikely that Plato agrees with Socrates on writing in the Phaedrus. When reading Plato you should think of him as writing dialogues for people to see various arguments and arguments develop over the books, for example Timaeus goes against positions held by Socrates and even more so later in the Parmenides.

Plato is not linear either and if you really want to understand what Plato held you have to look at what the academy taught and what the Platonism became. Though clearly Platonism develops and changes and has various different flavors that academics pick out such as middle-platonism and neo-platonism. I would say it's not definite what Plato believed and one might say that he entertained multiple ideas at the same time, though clearly despised many positions.

Not using Wayland I am not 100% sure, I think Xephyr works in XWayland and I think their is a similar tool to Xephyr for setting up an embedded Wayland session (I would have thought this is even easier and more elegant in wayland but not sure). So could be even better.

I personally use X11 as I am on exwm and exwm does not support wayland and no alternative to it does AFAIK (I think theirs a POC floating around somewhere). Also I know X11 even though it's a bit crap in many ways it's the devil I know.

Only issue is with Nix as a long time user, it does not provide a standard way to run your nix builds in some kind of container, there are so many different competing third party systems and some first party systems built in nixpkgs it's self like building oci or docker containers or running systemd containers or even building qcow2 images, each with their own draw back and positives.

More and more I have found myself simply using podman and dockerfiles finding that building nix systems simply gets error prone and annoying and all the containerization systems leave a lot to be desired. Though I have some custom scripts for utilizing btrfs snapshots to create different nix store snap shots for containers or vms running with nix stores with virtiofs. This works quite well but not ready to be released and fiddly when things break and requires BTRFS.

I do agree flatpak and friends are not great though.

I use podman for things like this, works perfect until you want desktop applications but you can hack it about a bit to work fine with pipewire and Xephyr and you have. I feel like a lot of these desktop container systems are horrible and are quite hostile to configuring in the way you want around permissions and such and podman or docker does a better job.

This is often what I find people do with AI now, give it the task to do when getting it to writing a script is the correct solution.

Further the issue of exposing all your sensitive data to the AI provider.

Not just that how the maintainer was treated by the attacker which tells you something about the way people feel entitled to maintainers time and efforts for nothing even by people not looking to exploit the project. And the abuse after he received despite it being an easy mistake that the culture encourages people to make.

I think opensource has decided to become big corporate cheerleader for a while and not actually done things strictly in the interest of users or developers, but providing the ideological justification as to why big companies can use their code and not give a dime back. I think aside from free software there could have been a movement where contributing to a free-software project would have allowed contributors to get payed and this would have to preclude companies simply using code as they can in say the MIT license and not give back.

Instead opensource is full of cynical projects and real important projects that do amazing work with maintainers who shoulder a great burden having to listen to people bitch about them for features and fixes while giving nothing and dealing with bad PR's (or even just having to evaluate good and mediocre PR's). Often the only pay is that you can go to HR and shit corp with your CV and say "Here is what I have done, can I now be treated like a bitch for more money".

I think opensource has allowed a lot businesses to treat developers with contempt and this is fully manifest with the way they conceive of AI agent's and Open source has probably become a vector for demoralization and devaluation more then anything.

The idea was minor a minor mode not to modify markdown mode it's self. You have a point on export from org mode to md or html or whatever but my issue with these has been that MD never rendered the way I wanted it to (simply as possible) and I probably did not try hard enough to play around with the rendering parameters.

The thing I have found more and more is separate from the actual rendering format is wanting org structures that are simpler to manipulate pragmatically I know that one could can simply manipulate as they would any text-buffer but that can be a little convoluted.

All that is to say my original proposal was probably hasty and poor and it sounds like you know org inside and out and I don't so although I use emacs heavily and love it I sort of fell out love with org mode and having this conversation it seems like I probably need to go and read up on it a lot more in light of all of this thank you.

I really don't dislike org-mode and respect it and you are right that org-mode was first.

The point is that markdown could have todo's or virtually any other aspect that org mode supports put into it without changing the markdown standard and layer org functionality and various features on top for example todo's could simply be italic's starting with todo: so `# todo:todo hello` could be parsed as a todo entry marked as todo.

Else where in this thread you can see my argument is that all org-mode features such as calendar dates, todo's, take your pick could be implemented separate to and utilize markdown (or any other format) for actually rending to. I am familiar with org mode but dislike how it sometimes pushes against simply using elisp for things like setting up todo nodes and possible todo values. couple that with the fact that one could in theory just render this all out to markdown instead and come up with some way to render todos into md.

My thinking was lean into lisp lists rather then the actual rendered format, so that instead of a text buffer (although you could always open up a text buffer that is the lisp list) you have a list that you can use normal elisp functions that is bindable to keys and highly customizable and your only really building fairly simple elisp machinery on top and you can just use an alist (though you could use a plist I think alist's work better for todos) to represent todo's and just use assoc and setf and friends to do your modifications.

Of course one might also want to actually build out todo nodes as CLOS style objects. Only caveat hear is that you would need to decide how the object should be serialized and deserialized and the deserializing has to be more precise.

serializing and deserializing to MD should be easy I think since all we need to do is read in headings and list items into lists with some denotation to the type it was.

Those are just my thoughts on the topic. My thinking has been I have gotten fed up with emacs modes that are good and a lot of effort to write but just end up adding a lot of stuff on top that make it difficult to customize or customize the the standard way and returning to simple lists could be good.

Yes must say I have found myself moving away from org and looking at it as an annoyance wrapping up many excellent features that could be wrapped up in simple elisp function and structures that could then just be encoded in what every way one likes, it seems to me that for example todo lists are actually better as nested lisp lists, And then you can simply render as what ever you like. Of course one might like to serialize back as well but I have often wondered about it.

I definitely think markdown has won (at org was never going to 'win' of course given it's limited scope) and actually is probably what we should just all be using and accept.

What is wrong with markdown mode? Is it that you would rather do the org agenda or calendar via md rather then org? I do understand that if that is the case.

They do look cute, but $400 is steep.

I guess we are really debating the semantics of the sentences now like lawyers but to me the verb show is not particularly difficult to achieve or ambitious or misleading to use in this sort of product. A toy with a that has a smiley face and a frowning face is capable of showing two different emotions.

Your second one point also does not seem like a lie to me since it's claiming to emulate natural ingredient (although here I guess to be just like means to emulate perfectly).

I don't really see why any one would look at the product and it's marketing as evil. It seems to me aimed at people who can not have pets and are want to create a simulation of a soothing positive interaction with a pet. I don't see this as exploitative (apart from it's exploiting a desire that people have in the same way that virtually all products do), I can not see someone forming a relationship with this to the detriment of human interaction or exacerbate some kind of mental illness or cause addiction. It does seem a little expensive and that would be my only criticism of the product so far as I can see.

Looking through the advertising.

> Through communication, Moflin’s emotional state changes. Your robot companion can show joy, sadness, and happiness, reacting just like a living creature would. Moflin does not possess actual emotions like humans do. Their emotional expressions are simulated by AI. And lots of bits of the advert seems to be explain how it's not real in the QA and that everything is a simulation.

I have not used the product, but nothing strikes me as dishonest about the advertising.

Honestly I feel that way for the whole AI friend industry that is developing, from AI boyfriends and girlfriends to just kind of AI 'friends'. But this sort of thing is a sort of robot pet and I think the dynamics are different. Some one replacing a robot cat with a cat is not an evil thing in the way that trying to substitute human relationships are.

why not?