Yeah, I came across some article he wrote. He basically said if he hates someone, they deserve it because god says so, and if anyone disagrees with him, they are making it about “them” and not Jesus.
He evidently (understandably) got blowback on Twitter back in the day, and wrote some word vomit that sums up to “No no, you don’t understand, what I said is not as bad as you think it is (it’s sooooo much worse)”
Notably, I don’t think folks would consider Christian teaching would not explicitly declare that you should hate (that part is usually just implied).
Generally what they say is that while you shouldn’t just yield and let “bad” people walk all over you and society, you shouldn’t “hate” them either.
deleted by creator
Yeah, glad to see the specific instance but after trying to search I see this seems to be a broader doctrine. That you would absolutely hate people who “deserve” to be hated, accordingly to the viewpoint of whoever is preaching regardless of whether that person’s situation actually affects anyone other than themselves.
It’s kind of like the evil twin of “be tolerant, except of intolerance”: “be tolerant only of intolerance”
This thread has been inundated with links to the commenters. Maybe you could take umbridge with the use of the word “communist”, but largely that’s a label they assert for themselves, and most criticism of them ignores the communist part, since that doesn’t even in theory align with Russia, and is beside the point even for China.
The comment said point blank that China does slavery and colonialism. For wars, they refer to recent history and that’s largely accurate in recent history (at least directly, indirectly they supply and offset Russian military presence), they haven’t used direct military force to get what they want yet. Largely because people would just give them pretty much whatever they wanted for economic considerations. Biggest potential place for things to boil over directly would be if they finally went into Taiwan.
You might have a lot of phishing emails that the company filters out without you ever seeing them. For these tests, they do things to make sure this email will get through, even if the automated filters would have otherwise blocked it.
Of course my terminals outnumber my browser tabs by about 3:1 right now. Commenting on an internet site needs neither scale nor complexity and a WebUI is fine for that.
Ironically, in Linux, if I ever see a Terminal, it’s because I opened it. If I’m doing stuff in GUI, terminals never pop up.
In Windows, doing stuff in GUI a blank terminal opens up and goes away during GUI interaction, or while executing background tasks occasionally.
Like I get and appreciate the CLI and for networking, that’s pretty much all I’m using anyway, but I am shocked that enterprise networking doesn’t even bother to do any GUI. Once upon a time Mellanox Onyx bothered to do a GUI and I could see some people light up, finally an enterprise switch that would let them do some stuff from a GUI. Then nVidia bought them and Cumulus and ditched their GUI.
There’s this kind of weird “turn in your geek card” culture about rejecting GUIs, but there’s a good amount of the market that want at least the option, even if they frankly are a bit ashamed to admit it. You definitely have to move beyond GUI if you want your tasks to scale, but not every engagement witih the technology needs to scale.
While you don’t need to memorize button locations and menus, the frustration is that it takes longer, and memorizing those details slightly mitigates. It’s torture helping someone do something while they hunt for the UI element they need to get to the next level of hierarchy. They will do it, in time, but it just feels like an eternity.
The main issue in GUI versus CLI is that GUI narrows the available options at a time. This is great, for special purpose usage. But if you have complex stuff to do, a CLI can provide more instant access to a huge chunk of capabilities, and provide a framework for connecting capabilities together as well as a starting point for making repeatable content, or for communicating in a forum how to fix something. Just run command “X” instead of a series of screenshots navigating to the bowels of a GUI to do some obscure thing.
Of course UI people have generally recognized the power and usefulness of text based input to drive actions and any vaguely powerful GUI has to have some “CLI-ness” to it.
I suppose the point is that the way people interact with GUIs actually resembles how they interact with CLIs. They type from memory instead of hunting through a nested hierarchy to get where they were going. There was a time when Desktop UIs considered text input to be almost a sin against ease of use, an overcorrection for trying to be “better” than CLI. So you were made to try to remember which category was deignated to hold an application that you were looking for, or else click through a search dialog that only found filenames, and did so slowly.
Now a lot of GUIs incorporate more textual considerations. The ‘enter text to launch’ is one example, and a lot of advanced applications now have a “What do you want to do?” text prompt. The only UI for LLMs is CLI, really. One difference is GUI text entry tends to be a bit “fuzzier” compared to a traditional CLI interface which is pretty specific and unforgiving.
In a pretty high end high tech company, there’s still lots of people who see a terminal and think “ha hah, they are still stuck in old mainframe stuff like you used to see in the movies”.
My team determined long ago that we have to have two user experiences for our team to be taken seriously.
A GUI to mostly convince our own managers that it’s serious stuff. Also to convince clients who have execs make the purchasing decisions without consulting the people that will actually use it.
An API, mostly to appease people who say they want API, occasionally used.
A CLI to wrap that API, which is what 99% of the customers use 95% of the time (this target demographic is niche.
Admittedly, there’s a couple of GUI elements we created that are handy compared to what we can do from CLI, from visualizations to a quicker UI to iterate on some domain specific data. But most of the “get stuff done” is just so much more straightforward to do in CLI.
He says “assuming”, perhaps he could have further clarified for sake of argument. He’s saying even without debunking the claim, you can just wave your hand around and point the simple reality of relatively few people with autism despite majority of people vaccinated.
That’s not to say the claim is true, just that even if it were, it’s still stupid
They ditched radar at a time when radar only added probably about $50 a car according to some estimates.
It may technically get a smidge more profitable, but it almost seems like it’s more about hubris around tech shouldn’t need more than a human to do as well. Which even if it were true, is a stupid stance to take when in that scenario you could have better than human senses.
Hell, they don’t even have radar anymore, despite even a lot of low end cars having that.
Technically cost savings, but it seems mostly about stubborn insistence on cameras being enough.
Fortunately, not much respect is due
While true, it’s still nice that super-human senses are looking out for the driver on their behalf. Also it’s nice if super-human senses allow for braking earlier and closer to graceful rather than standing hard on the brakes because of late notice.
Fog is one example, but sudden blinding glare could be another situation that could be mitigated by things like radar and lidar. Human driver may unexpectedly be blinded and operating at unsafe speed without any way of knowing that glare was coming in advance.
As far as I’ve seen, any system would be additive. If it has lidar, it would also have cameras and radar. So that you get the best of all the technologies (e.g cameras are the only only of the three that can follow lane markings)
I think his point is that humans are meaningless little things made just to be in the image of “God” and should “get over themselves” since it’s all about God and not at all about humanity.
Seemingly, that somehow doesn’t apply to having him shut up and stop making it about himself.