Hades meaning “the underworld” and not referring to the greek mythology. I believe also referred to as Sheol. It refers to just “the common grave of man” and not specifically “hell” as often depicted.

Basically, “everyone comes back from the dead.” A lot of this section has flowery prose for over describing everything. “Graves and death give up their dead” is basically just “the dead come back to live so they can be judged” (which just further illustrates that nothing happens when you are dead, because you have to be resurrected just to be judged)

The way a lot of it works out in the bible, is that when you die right now. you die. There is no afterlife, you’re in the grave. thats it. but then during the end times mentioned in 20:13-15, ALL the dead people are resurrected. And then the good ones get to stay alive and the bad ones go back to being dead. Thus a second death. So there is no “afterlife” then either… you are either eternally alive after armageddon, or eternally dead.

Being dead is basically just being non-existant. Fully unaware of anything. Which if you are to believe the bible, that means you’re cut off from god entirely, who despite having just murdered basically everyone, is supposedly pure love and joy. So the end result is living in eternal bliss that is so great that you can’t even fathom, or being cut off from that and never even having a possibility of anything. FOMO of god is the ultimate punishment.

I’m not even a religious person and the existential dread of “if it’s truly nothingness after I die, i won’t even have a way to experience the nothingness, everything will just stop” is enough to keep me awake some nights. So I can see how eternal nothingness was enough for the original authors to be considered horrifying consequence for not being religious enough, without having to resort to eternal physical torture.

If we’re ackshually things, lets cover the references to the lake of fire in the bible.

In revelations 19:20, there is the beast and the false prophet being tossed into the lake of fire.

In revelations 20:9, a bunch of people are explicitly consumed by fire from heaven. Consumed, not burned forever.

Then in revelations 20:10, the devil is added to the lake of fire with the beast and false prophet, and those three burn forever. But not the common folk.

Lastly, in revelations 20:13-15, hades and death give up their dead, and people are judged. Bad people are tossed into the lake of fire, explicitly labeled as a second death, but not mentioned as being eternal torment.

So in conclusion, the devil himself is spending eternity burning in the lake of “fire” (not lava or magma, nor is it underground, this is the apocalypse, this is happening on the surface of the planet that is being bombarded with heavenly shit), he’s not doing any torturing there. He is also not the one sending people there, and sinners don’t burn forever, they die when cast into the fire.

Both sides are being unbearably obstinate here.

The teacher’s meaning is clear and the kid should just answer what is being asked, not what is being said. So the kid is in the wrong. If you’re smart enough to be this clever, just answer the question.

The teacher says “You are wrong, failed” when the kid is technically correct, instead of clarifying the intent of the question. So the teacher is in the wrong. “Clever, but you know what I meant” solves the problem. “You get an A in math and an F in interpreting language”

On the flip side, I had a cousin who had a question on a test: “What is the largest SI prefix” … he answered “yotta” (which at the time was the largest)… And got it wrong. because the “correct” answer was “mega”. Because that was the largest the class had learned about at the time, and the teacher was very inflexible on this; they acknowledged that yotta was the largest, but my cousin had learned about it outside of class, so it couldn’t be an acceptable answer. The teacher couldn’t possibly fathom marking “mega” right for students who had only context from the classroom and also marking “yotta” right for students who had done independent research. No, the question was IMPLIED to be “what is the largest SI prefix [that we have covered in class]” and anything else was wrong.

For a purely semantic sake, you’re probably right. But for a colloquial sake, the term “valid” here, doesn’t mean “legally valid” or “medically valid”, but instead means “emotionally valid.” For some people, confirmation is therapeutic enough to help. Also “diagnosis” doesn’t exclusively mean “medical diagnosis”. There are many definitions to the word, and in a medical sense, it usually means what you’re describing. But “I think I have ADHD” is a diagnosis. Not a medically valid one, but something that might help me get through the day sometimes. And if that’s all I need, then it’s emotionally valid.

Being told “your self diagnosis is not valid” to some people is the same as being told “There’s nothing wrong with you.” (Because most people aren’t working on a strict legal medical definition of “diagnosis”) Emotionally validating your assessment that something is wrong can very well be what drives people to advocate for a medically valid diagnosis.

Also, saying “You don’t have ADHD unless it’s diagnosed ADHD” is wrong regardless of stance on self diagnosis. If my arm is broken, it is in fact broken, even if it hasn’t been diagnosed. Undiagnosed issues are still issues. Too many anti-self diagnosis claims come across as saying that if you don’t have a diagnosis it doesn’t exist. At most you can claim “You don’t know for sure you have ADHD unless it’s medically diagnosed”

As with all things, a self evaluation is a useful “what do I do next” step.

That didn’t take long.

I mean, it’s not like they had the name available to them when they made the meme. It’s not like they could just look at the words they were referencing to see the proper way to spell it.

Sure. but there are plenty of reasons to not read other than “uneducated”. And associating ability to focus with intelligence and education isn’t fair either.

If an American couldn’t tell me how many states there are, I would question their intelligence or education.

If an American told me that they don’t read books, I would just assume they find books boring.

I also hate “reading a book” as a proxy metric for intelligence. I know plenty of cultured smart people who watch documentaries but don’t read. And I know some dense, not that bright people who read a lot of Twilight style books.

I have a few cheap TLDs because as an individual I didn’t want to pay a lot of money for the dot com versions. But I’m not a company.

An epoch is a geological age and not a specific time span. So “65-145 Mya” (million years ago) would be the appropriate label. I can’t seem to find a label for “million years” (other than megaannum, which is just an SI prefix for years, but I don’t think Ive ever heard that used?)

You’re right. There are multiple definitions of the word stable, and “unchanging” is a valid one of them.

It’s just that every where else I’ve seen it in computing, it refers to a build of something being not-crashy enough to actually ship. “Can’t be knocked over” sort of stability. And everyone I’ve ever talked to outside of Lemmy has assumed that was what “stable” meant to Debian. but it doesn’t. It just means “versions won’t change so you won’t have version compatibility issues, but you’ll also be left with several month to year old software that wasn’t even up to date when this version released, but at least you don’t have to think about the compatibility issues!”

Debian aims for rock solid stability

To be clear, Debian “stability” refers to “unchanging packages”, not “doesn’t crash.” Debian would rather ship a known bug for a year than update the package if it’s not explicitly a security bug (and then only certain packages).

So if you have a crash in Debian, you will always have that crash until the next version of debian a year or so from now. That’s not what I’d consider “stable” but rather “consistent”

You’re right, it’s very likely he wasn’t intending to use a slur. But it seems to me like a lot of the reporting is “he didn’t mean to disrespect people!” when that’s not the case. The pope’s intentions were absolutely to disrespect people, just by his actions, and not by that specific word. the specific phrasing he used to do so doesn’t really matter.

the pope had made the remark while reiterating his position against gay people becoming priests.

It doesn’t matter what word he used, he was using it in an anti LGBT sentiment.

The 87-year-old pontiff was reported as saying that the Catholic seminaries were already too full of … gay men.

Here, I removed the slur. This isn’t any better. Italian fluency wasn’t the problem and didn’t change his argument.

I hate how these things always come up because “order of operations!” It’s mostly people who are bad at math remembering one topic they struggled with and finally got right, and now they know it’s a touchy subject so it will drive engagement. It’s the modern equivalent of “Mathematicians hate this one secret for solving equations! Click to find out!” Pure engagement bait.

But in all the engineering ive done, things never really come up like this. If there is any potential clarity issues, parentheses would be used, or it would be formatted in a way that makes it much more clear.

40 - (32/2), or 40 - ³²⁄₂ has no clarity issues imo. You don’t even have to think about order of operations because 32 halves is a number on its own. it isn’t an “operation” to do necessarily, it’s a fraction to reduce.

And yes, I get the joke. The joke is making fun of the engagement bait of “some people will get the order of operations wrong!”

Is 1/2 in base 13 not 0.65?