IIRC, "Christianity" used to be very much tied to monarchy in Europe, as well as feudalism. Then it was used to justify slavery. Then apartheid. And now it's sometimes used to justify stripping minorities of their rights.
There is no Christian ethics, only people justifying there political views by invoking Jesus.
But Christian swallowed Greece Philosophy, until to the point where it is a core part of Christianity. There are much less a break between different high-cultures as people make it be after the fact, but more of a continuous morphing into each other.
Ancient Greeks and Romans spent more time in the Middle East than they did in Northern Europe. If Christians borrowed from anyone, it was Middle Easterners... ie: themselves.
Granted, Islam is not the same as Middle Eastern, but European and the Middle Eastern cultures have interwoven for millennia. The Middle East is not monolithic, either. They have had their own Christian communities ever since the religion was invented.
Neither is Europe free of Muslim thought. Spain is an obvious example, but there was also trade, which is how algebra came to Europe.
I don't get you claim. Greek philosophy existed earlier than Christianity, and borrowed e.g. from Egypt, and not really from Israel, which is the cultural branch Christianity evolved from.
Yes, what I meant to convey is that the lands around the Mediterranean constituted a coherent region more than the Northern Mediterranean combined with Northern Europe.
Greeks and Romans traveled throughout the area. To a Roman, a northern Barbarian was more exotic than the peoples South of the Mediterranean.
We are more similar to Middle Easterners than it might seem, though, granted, Islam today is a huge differentiator.
Oh, by 'themselves' I wanted to point out that the first Christians were, obviously, Middle Easterners. There have been Christian communities throughout the region ever since.
Yes, I gather Islam incorporated both Judaism and Christianity.
Another impact on solar adoption in the United States is that many home insurance companies are refusing to pay on claims against roof damage from poor installs. And there are a lot of poor installs, which has led to this problem. So now the homeowners are taking all of the risk on a solar install that already has an 8-10 year ROI.
Those diseases are back because of rampant immigration. People from other countries bring them here. It has nothing to do with "obscurantist beliefs", whatever those might be.
Oh, well, it turns out that keyboard sounds leak enough entropy to make it easy to attack even very strong passwords.
Microphones on devices such as Ring doorbell cameras are explicitly exfiltrating audio data out of your control whenever they're activated. Features like Alexa and Siri require, in some sense, 24/7 microphone activation, although normally that data isn't transmitted off-device except on explicit (vocal) user request. But that control is imposed by non-user-auditable device firmware that can be remotely updated at any time.
Finally, for a variety of reasons, it's becoming increasingly common to have a microphone active and transmitting data intentionally, often to public contexts like livestreaming video.
With the proliferation of such potentially vulnerable microphones in our daily lives, we should not rely too heavily on the secrecy of short strings that can easily leak through the audio channel.
Using a password manager is an easy and useful protection against audio leaks of passwords.
But this is an example of the kind of thing the OP is talking about. You're probably not at a very realistic risk of having your password hacked via audio exfiltrated from the Ring camera at your front door. Unless it's Mossad et al who want your password.
Like "you're probably not at a very realistic risk of having your phone wiretapped", this is overindexing on past experience—remember that until Room 641A commenced operations in 02003 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A), you weren't, and after it did, your phone was virtually guaranteed to be wiretapped. Similarly, you aren't at a very realistic risk of having your password hacked via audio, until someone is doing this to 80% of the people in the world. As far as we know, this hasn't happened yet, but it certainly will.
But again, that’s the Mossad scenario - NSA in this case. You’re essentially reinforcing the OP point. There are three threat models given in Figure 1 of the OP doc, and what you’re saying really only applies to the third.
I wouldn't say it "eliminates" it. Even without ethanol, gasoline still goes bad far faster than diesel. Gasoline is full of aromatic hydrocarbons that eventually will break down, and after a few years you're left with a brown stinky liquid.
Up until a year ago where I live, Chevron 94 Octane was ethanol free. I had issues with older carbureted engines after leaving gas in them for ~2 years. With E10 I wouldn't dare go that long as it can be so corrosive.
"However, animals like us do not experience salt desire as a powerful, controlling drive as we do with oxygen, food and water." (from the article).
I disagree with that, especially when I was young. I would crave salt. I would lick my hand and sprinkle salt on it, then lick the salt off. I would break chunks off the salt lick block we had for our horses. I would lick the homemade play-doh my mom would make because it tasted like salt.
There's no substantiation for the claim in the article that we lack a salt craving. Apparently, the author hasn't, but I know a lot of people that do.
I would contend that empiricism is inadequate to discern what is real and what is true. Much of human experience and what is meaningful to being a person is not measurable nor quantifiable.
The act of curating facts itself is required to communicate anything because there are an infinite number of facts. You have to include some and exclude others, and you arrange them in a hierarchy of value that matches your sensibilities. This is necessary in order to perceive the world at all, because there are too many facts and most of them need to be filtered. Everyone does this by necessity. Your entire perceptual system and senses are undergirded by this framework.
There is no such thing as "objective" because it would include all things, which means it could not be perceived by anyone.
The subjective/objective split is useful. What good is raising the bar for objectivity such that it can never be achieved? Better to have objective just mean that nobody in the current audience cares to suggest contradictory evidence.
It's for indicating what's in scope for debate, and what's settled. No need to invoke "Truth". Being too stringent about objectivity means that everything is always in scope for debate, which is a terrible place to be if you want to get anything done.
reply