throwawaylolx

"Learn to reason like a robot"

Back up already.

The emperor of "Byzantium" literally was the emperor of the Roman empire; it was not merely a claim like in the other cases but an administrative and historical fact. It is more accurate to say that "the Byzantine Empire" not being the actual Roman empire is merely a modern claim.

Not really buying it. I mostly liked the same type of books all my life. I read a lot out of my comfort zone and I never particularly enjoyed it, nor do I think they impacted me much. I read what I am, not the other way. Maybe others are more influenceable.

None of this is relevant to my comment.

>It’s not that I think the companies are the problem, it’s the machineries and imperatives of Late Capitalism, which for a while we foolishly thought Internet companies could route around.

A pseudo-communist critique of Google.

>But those Ten Blue Links surfaced by the PageRank-that-was had a special magic. I found them intensely human, a reflection of the voices populating what remains of the Web, the only platform without a vendor. This was true when I was there and I said so, but was laughed at.

A nostalgia-driven critique of Google.

This post is a bit of a mess. There is valid criticism too, but it sounds like the author doesn't know exactly what he doesn't like about Google anymore.

I can also say I used to find better articles on HN but clearly the userbase of this website has changed, despite the guidelines trying to insist HN doesn't change and it's just a "semi-noob illusion, as old as the hills". No, HN is worse just like most of the tech space.

Do you think that the difference between journal publications and blog posts are the use of capitalisation?

"Cosmetic filtering" sounds unimportant, but it's what most people expect from ad blockers. It's a bizarre term.

There's no need for an ecumenical council to reject every single doctrine other confessions come up with. The Orthodox believe that the Fall changed human nature, which means that every human after Adam was affected. Since Mary was also a human, she was also affected. It was the Incarnation, the Crucifixion, the Resurrection, and the Exaltation which allowed human nature to exalt itself back to regaining communion with God. So the Immaculate Conception is rejected by the mainstream Orthodox faith and there is no need to have a council about it.

>Yet all the Eastern Churches agree that Mary is sinless. [..] They agree that Mary never sinned, before, during, after birth, during her life, and that she entered Heaven with body and soul intact.

Not a dogma in Orthodox Christianity.

>So IMHO, the East agrees with the West in substance, but not in form.

You don't seem to care to make distinctions between Eastern Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox, so maybe that's why it seems so to you.

>The Eastern Orthodox Churches, typically, will deny that they accept any such thing that comes from Rome (the Immaculate Conception is a novelty, they say) and they will deny that their doctrines agree with Catholic doctrines.

Correct, Eastern Orthodox dogma does not give Mary's birth special theological status. So if you want to refer to Eastern Catholics rather than Eastern Orthodox, you should do that rather than arbitrarily ascribing your beliefs to other denominations.

>Yet all the Eastern Catholic Churches have accepted the underlying dogma

Ah, when you said Eastern Churches you did not mean Eastern Orthodox Churches then.

What are you talking about? The Eastern Orthodox reject giving Mary's birth special status, you're just hand-waving doctrines with no explanations, entirely from a Catholic perspective.

One of the best software I've used. A timeless standard for quality software. Rest in peace.

>It’s just a title to a web page meant to be interesting

It's called clickbait and it's widely acknowledge to be a dishonest method of promotion.

Is that all revenue, including subscribers, donations, ads, etc.? The numbers are not that large considering it's data for almost 2 years and a half.

edit: I saw it mentioned in that /g/ thread that these numbers are without the donations.

When I noticed HN was loading slowly, I already knew FB was down.

>Thank you for proving me right fellow HNer.

Well, who do you think does the censoring in the West? Companies that employ people browsing this very forum.

Opinion pieces can be framed to dictate whatever narrative the author wishes to promote, and a nice story isn't substitute for evidence.

That's about Visa, MasterCard, and PornHub. This thread is about OnlyFans and _banks_, not payment processors. Are banks swayed by religious groups to block payments related to adult materials?

Edit: Also even for PornHub, it is alleged that Nicholas Kristof's actions [1] had an important impact on the decisions surrounding PornHub, and Kristof is a self-described progressive who doesn't seem to act on religious grounds, so I don't really see sufficient evidence that religious groups play a significant role at all.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Kristof#Child_pornogr...

It matters because that's where their customers have accounts and presumably they don't wish to make a new account for each new person they want to follow.

That's just a link dump. Is there any evidence that their campaign is linked to the decisions made by OF?

>mixed with religious driven activism against sex work.

Is there any evidence that this played any significant part or is it just a conspiracy theory? The CEO said:

>“The change in policy, we had no choice — the short answer is banks,”

>Stokely claimed OnlyFans had been unfairly targeted by media reports into “incidents of illegal content” that failed to mention how porn-free social media platforms grapple with similar issues. “Banks read the same media as everyone else,” he said.

>Stokely said he would “absolutely” welcome porn back were the banking environment to change.

>OnlyFans declined to name its current banking partners, citing a desire to improve relations.

Sounds like they requested a new deal in exchange for not naming them.

So now they'll come back because OF still has the larger community.

I checked the FT link pasted in this thread, and the founder seems to claim that it was an issue strictly with the banks, not with the payment processors:

>“We’re already fully compliant with the new Mastercard rules, so that had no bearing on the decision,” he said.

https://www.ft.com/content/7b8ce71c-a87a-440e-9f3d-58069ca04...

This just sounds like wishful thinking from cryptocurrency enthusiasts. There is no precedent of this happening, so I doubt they were so terrified about a completely hypothetical scenario.

Since when does Mastercard / Visa care about minor backlash like this and why would they? Most of the hysteria died down pretty quickly, and it's not like people were going to boycott the biggest payment processors by far.

Mass flagged?

Well, all the links at the bottom of the letter seem to 404, so it seems like they didn't mean to publish this yet.

Even less adventurous would be to consider that counselling has no effect. But in any case, the study can only provide information regarding counselling with respect to couples that refuse it, not regarding counselling in general.