Apepollo11 @ Apepollo11 @lemmy.world

Posts

2

Comments

203

Joined

2 yr. ago

I appreciate it might be hyperbole, but you're advocating causing actual harm to people who find comfort in religion. Honestly, that sounds more psychotic.

I'm taking a guess here, based on your spelling (all those 'z's) that you're American. It's probably worth me pointing out that the US has some pretty grotesque implementations of many religions, particularly Christianity - but they are a poor reflection of religion in general.

I'm not overly religious (didn't even go to Church on Christmas!), but know a lot of good people are. If they find praying, attending services or reading the literature helps them get through life, I won't argue against it.

I’m not sure if the metaphor of you anthropomorphizing an inanimate object is the best one to criticize the projection of one’s own desires and wills onto a fantasy deity.

I'm not criticising.

People are welcome to follow a religion if they want to.

I know that I can no more disprove the existence of a god than prove the existence of one. I know that anybody doing something bad in the name of a god is either lying or being coerced.

Projection?

I had a car that didn't like when the weather was cold and damp. It wasn't too happy about being parked on a slope, either.

Did the car actually have human emotions? No, of course not, but as a human it was both easy and natural to frame and process it that way.

Instead of it simply being "God made made in his own image", the truth is probably that there's more than a little of "man made God in his own image" too.

Theresa May essentially did this while she was Home Secretary in the UK. It was the trigger of the whole "Windrush Scandal", after it was revealed that the official paperwork of dozens hundreds of naturalised citizens was shredded without any record being made.

It caused people, most of whom were well into old-age to be deported, have their passports confiscated, and be denied access to healthcare services.

It's Futurama, from the episode "Fry and the Slurm Factory", which itself is a huge riff on Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.

Futurama riffs and nods to old Sci-Fi all the time, and this was just a nice throwaway for those of us old enough to know the source material.

Here's the exchange in full:

It was too good a line not to use here!

The whole Slurm factory episode has to be one of the finest pieces of comedy writing in history.

Soylent and Huel are both disgusting.

I don't know. I'd say Soylent Green varies from person to person.

I'm sure it's not the sole factor, but universities in many other parts of the world are partially subsidised by the government.

Double negatives are an integral part of UK English. Without them we might be forced to say something directly, which just wouldn't be on.

The only thing I've heard general consensus on is how good-looking he is.

The most well-known British King, Henry VIII, was a large bulky man with a bushy red beard, dressed exactly as you imagine a King would be.

I imagine he's something of a blueprint for the appearances of fictional kings.

I switched from "Boost for Reddit" to "Boost for Lemmy", found as many equivalent subs as I could, and just went from there.

Because I'm using essentially the same interface, it's a very similar experience.

You do realise that other countries have internet servers too?

Americans might lose access to social media, and the internet in general, but much of the world will still be online.

The way things are going, I fully expect to be turned into Soylent Green

From an outsider's perspective, I think a lot of people think you guys sailed past the point of no return back in the 80s.

I think the only correct answer will be "there are lots of different reasons".

My wife took my last name, even though it's not a good one and I suggested that we pick a new one.

Here are a couple of her reasons:

1. She wanted us to have the same surname.
2. She was very close friends with my cousins growing up, so the name didn't seem weird to her.
3. Tradition - she'd always assumed she would change her name to her husband's name, so that seemed the most normal thing to do.

We could technically do it now, but you'd need a ton of quality control.

A basic workflow:

Use an image generator to generate start (and optionally end) frames of each scene.

Use a video generator like Runway to create the scene.

Use something to generate the speech, either a realistic text-to-speech engine or a record the dialog yourself and use AI voice changing software.

Use a lip synch AI to match the mouth flaps to the audio.

Generate music using something like Udio

Job done.

All these technologies exist and in some capacity are available to use. The only issue at the moment is consistent quality. This is coming on in leaps and bounds, however.

Ah, ok - that's fair.

I thought you were implying that we had some kind of firewall like China or something!

I agree, US sites geolocking their content is sometimes a pain, but I get your meaning. We do tend to be more comfortable with our governments trying to protect us than the Americans seem to.

I'm really curious about what you think you're not being allowed to visit on the internet.

I can't think of a single thing that's 'blocked'.

Unless you're under 13, of course, in which case I concede there are a lot of restrictions - but that's a good thing.

At our GP surgery, there are a couple of doctors who won't consult on birth control matters for religious reasons.

There's just a sign at the reception saying that if you need to discuss birth control, please let the receptionist know and they'll be sure to assign a different doctor.