Lol, no. I'm talking of a general trend of the religious establishment against innovation and understanding.
Edit: Also i never said "science and religion must always oppose". I said religion is against science. The hate is mostly unidirectional as science has mostly just indifference towards religion.
That priest, Lemaitre, was opposed to mixing science and religion and said that there was no contraddiction between his theory and what the bible says about the origin of the universe. This is a 1984-level cognitive dissonance event imo, and shows that mixing something ever growing like science with something immutable like religious establishment is very difficult especially in one direction.
Religion is against science. It teaches that you must have faith unsupported by evidence, which is incompatible with progress and is just an excuse for making up rules in the name of an unseen authority.
Edit:
Religion is also vile: whenever they are winning, they try to squash science and its methods. Whenever they are losing, they play the martyr.
Because that's a bullshit take. Effective at what exactly? Oppressing people? Killing minorities? Certainly not effective at making people's lives better, unless you are part of the ruling class.
You are removing the most computationally intensive part of the process in your example, that's making it sound easy, while adding it back shows that your process is not practical.
just have to tell them the prompt, along with a few variables
Before you can do that, you have to spend hours of computation to figure out a prompt and a set of variables that perfectly match the picture you want to transmit.
What does this have to do with the question?
Having samples of the data they want to compress is fundamental if you hope to find an algorythm to compress 200x.
Sounds very reasonable