OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
No bio...
User ID: 359
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
1mo ago
I have noticed that Bitcoin goes up in times of uncertainty, and then goes down when things get calmer. But the first rule of Bitcoin is not to buy it when it's back in the news, and it's been reaching highs. So probably don't buy Bitcoin now.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
1mo ago
It's the SLA (Service Level Agreement) that the customer service company set up with the brand.
I don't know what company you're emailing, whether it is large or small, but it is likely they outsource some of their support to a multi-client service desk that can handle tier 0 or tier 1 requests. The company is paying for a 3-4 day SLA, and if the service desk goes over that length of time there are penalties. Because the multi-client service desk has a multitude of clients, each with a different cadence for emails, the service desk will prioritize emails according to SLA, ensuring all emails are answered with the least financial penalty to the service desk.
I don't have any experience with 3-4 day SLAs (that seems excessive to me) but I have seen emails sit in a queue all day, getting answered by the night guys at 10 PM, because the SLA was 24 hours and other companies had <2 hour SLAs.
Sandman, if you haven't already. The other graphic novel I would recommend is Batgirl (2000—2006). It stands on its own and is quite beautiful.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
1mo ago
"If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us."
The saints are very disgusted with their faults, more so than the average sinner. But that verse also does not exclude the possibility of a saint having sinned in the past, but over time has shed the habit of sin. After all, the next verse is "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
1mo ago
But because I do not think that we will meet the standard of God's law in this life
I think you are correct for many, if not most Christians. But I also genuinely believe that many of the saints were able to completely cease all inclination to sin in this life. And I believe that for the the rest it happens during Purgation after death.
We do not enter heaven by loving God and our neighbor
100% agreed here, we can only enter heaven by Jesus's sacrifice.
When a sin is forgiven it is forgiven because God forgives it. God does not count the sin on you, yes. Jesus has told visionaries that He can't even remember the sins they've confessed. (Obviously a bit of a metaphor, as God knows everything.)
I think the radical thing Catholics believe, that you disagree with, is that the forgiveness of sins is not itself sufficient for Heaven. (The forgiveness of sins means that a Christian is going to Heaven, but it doesn't mean by itself that the Christian is ready for Heaven.) In order for Heaven to not be a tyranny, the people in it need to have willingly let go of attachments to sin as well. We lose this attachment in this life, little by little, by willfully forming the habit of conforming to God's will. And if there is any attachment to sin left over at the moment of death, it needs to be removed by the cooperation of God and the sinner. (Put out of your head any specific idea of a place of Purgatory. I'm referencing just the idea of purgation, whether that's an instantaneous change or a difficult trial.)
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
1mo ago
But Paul isn't talking about that. What Paul is referring to is specifically that having one's sins forgiven, covered, not counted against oneself suffices to make one blessed. The focus is not on how that is attained, but upon how the blessing (and, per verse 6 and verse 9, righteousness) consists in the forgiveness of sins.
Catholics believe in the forgiveness of sins. What are you arguing against?
The proposition that there will neither be sin nor attachment to sin in Heaven?
The proposition that at some point, (in this life or in the next) sinful people lose their attachment to sin through the graces of Jesus' death and Resurrection?
That this purification requires some assent of the sinner's will, some kind of cooperation with Jesus?
Can you go to Heaven without loving God and Neighbor?
Can you love God without keeping His commandments and repenting if you fail?
Can you keep God's commandments without doing good works?
Do good works happen automatically, or does the Christian need to accept Jesus's graces? In other words, can a Christian reject Jesus' graces and refuse to do good works?
I view it as nothing short of tragic that a people who suffered so much due to being viewed as inferior, who struggled for so long to be viewed as equals and treated with dignity, who endured all kinds of injustices in the hope that we would overcome...only for science to prove that it was fruitless all along. It's so dispiriting the possibility that all the problems in our community: crime, poverty, ignorance, are intransient. How are you supposed to deal with that without becoming utterly nihilistic?
There were many hundreds of African societies pre-Colonization with their own codes of conduct and methods for enforcing it. Genetic descendants from these societies may have a harder time conforming to English Common Law, but that doesn't mean that crime and poverty follow necessarily from a lower average IQ score.
I don't view it as a racial thing. Take race out of it and we can have more productive conversations with people outside the Very Online Right. Everyone knows that some people are smarter than others (even if someone believes everyone is smart in their own way, they have to admit that the child with Down Syndrome has less than most.)
How do we as a society accommodate this? How do we provide everyone with a role that challenges and interests them, while providing for their needs? How do we include everyone in the social contract, so that breaking the law becomes offensive to everyone? How do we ensure that top talent goes into the positions that need it, and these positions are rewarded enough to encourage the smartest people to do their best? How do we do this without screwing everyone else?
I'm not talking about changing laws, but first societal attitudes. We first have to agree that these are good things. Right now, the conversation shys away from acknowledging differences and puts everyone into the same grind together.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
1mo ago
My sister in laws kids still end up in one on one meetings with their priest and so on.
If this is true, it needs to be reported to the parish's safety coordinator (assuming she's in the US.) The only circumstances where that should be happening is during confession, and now the standard for children is to have confession in a place that is visible from the outside (like through a window or in an unblocked corner of the church) or completely physically separated, like an old-style confession booth. Now, the sister-in-law might be bringing her children to a normal (adult) confession time, but if there are no specifically-labeled confession times for children, it is within her right to schedule a child-safety-compliant confession for her kids.
"If there is a need for a confidential discussion or training session with a minor, it should occur in a location that is in view of other persons, and the minor should have first and immediate access to the exit."
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
1mo ago
It supports the narrative that most Israelis can just "go back where they came from."
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
1mo ago
But for every person like me, there's someone living at their parent's house (parental support), that their parents own (home ownership), with a long term girlfriend. There isn't a material difference between them and the requirements you list. The things keeping them from having kids are attitude and perception.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
1mo ago
To some extent this is just what being settled in a place looks like, though.
My parents moved into the state when I was 4. Six years later, they moved into a new-build neighborhood. My mom talked up the opportunity with friends and a couple of her friends also moved into the same neighborhood. I. Those six years in between, she had made friends with dozens of families, just by exchanging phone numbers with other moms at the playground, meeting their friends, arranging play dates, going out to coffee, etc.
My experience with cities, apartments, and dorms is the physical proximity creates emotional distance. People don't even look each other in the eye, let alone learn each other's names. It's too intimate by default, so people take steps to create boundaries.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
1mo ago
I loved growing up in the suburbs. I knew everyone on my culdesac. We were a ten minute drive from various friends of my mother who had children around my age. We went to church activities every week, sports, library events, etc. We weren't bored or bereft of social interaction.
In NYC I feel like being friendly puts a target on your back. But it might just be that I was socialized for one type of friendly, and don't recognize other forms.
I recently moved to a suberb outside a small city in a flyover state. I was quickly invited to attend a Welcome New People catered dinner at my new church, where we were paired with another family who checks up on us all the time. I am constantly invited to more parish activities, including a program that just pairs families with similar aged kids to meet up at least once a month to do whatever they want.
The nearest coffee shop has a consignment store with crafts made by local patrons. There's a festival every week in the downtown. I know most people on my street.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
1mo ago
I'm confused about your list of needed things. I don't know anyone who grew up with all of them. Looking at just my family tree I have:
-
One set of grandparents had their first son on a US Base in West Germany. Moved back to the US to a part of the country far away from other family, bought a house in the suburbs, and had five kids all told. (Missing: house at first baby, labor support)
-
Other pair of grandparents had moved from Ireland, didn't have any relatives to help. Had 12 kids on a single policeman's salary. (I'm not sure when they bought their first house, but they were missing labor support.)
-My parents had me and my brother in a one bedroom condo, about a five hour drive from my father's parents. My parents both worked at the time and I was in daycare. After my brother's birth they moved to a lower cost of living state and bought a house. My father had a job lined up, my mother did not. She transitioned into a Stay at Home role, which ended up being mostly permanent. Three kids total, but my mom was 33 when she married so she did her best. (Missing: house at first baby, family support.)
-My husband and I rented a two bedroom in a quadplex when we had our first. We couldn't afford daycare in the region, nor could we afford for one of us to stay home. We worked split shifts that first year so we could watch our daughter. He started working at 5 AM, I worked from 1:30 PM to 10. We were far away from either of our families. Eventually we saved up, had promotions, rented a house, had three more kids with an au pair to watch them, and bought a house in a lower cost of living state.
Getting married is a common thread, but having a house or a nearby family caretaker is not as essential as you stated. My experience has taught me it's mostly a matter of wanting a child. I don't know anyone my age who wants a single child half as much as my husband and I wanted a big family.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
1mo ago
I think when rightists say they want to ban Critical Race Theory, they have in mind someone like Ibram X Kendi, and to stop public school teachers from teaching his books to kids. Which is very reasonable! He's a lunatic! But he doesn't self-describe as a Critical Race Theorist, so if you banned it, he would just shrug and keep on doing what he's doing.
Let's compare to another controversial topic: Common Core Curriculum. If a Governor ran on withdrawing from Common Core in their state, they might accurately state "Common Core is taught in our state's schools." This doesn't mean that any particular teacher is passing out copies of the Common Core standard and telling students to turn to page 68. The candidate means that the schools are teaching through the lens of Common Core, with the goal of teaching the topics preferred by the common core, skipping over topics that are not covered.
When someone on the right says they want to ban Critical Race Theory, they aren't trying to imply that teachers are going into obscure legal theory. Instead, a more charitable way to understand them is that they do not want Public Schools teaching through the lens of Critical Theory (particularly as it pertains to race.)
When looking at the specific bans that have passed through state legislatures, I haven't seen "Critical Race Theory." Instead, I see bans on teaching any single race is worse than another or uniquely bad for the ills of the world. For example, the Indiana SB 386 states:
A school corporation or qualified school shall not compel or promote, as part of a course of instruction or in a curriculum or instructional program, a person to adopt, affirm, adhere to, or profess an idea that:
(1) a person or group of people of one (1) age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, marital status, familial status, mental or physical disability, religion, or national origin are inherently superior or inferior to a person or group of people of another age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, marital status, familial status, mental or physical disability, religion, or national origin;
(2) a person or group of people should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of the age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, marital status, familial status, mental or physical disability, religion, or national origin of the person or group of people; or
(3) a person or group of people of one (1) age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, marital status, familial status, mental or physical disability, religion, or national origin cannot and should not attempt to treat another person or group of people equally and without regard to age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, marital status, familial status, mental or physical disability, religion, or national origin
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
1mo ago
Off topic, but how are you leaning on the DIS fight? Do you think Trian would be an improvement? Is Blackwell Capital even a contender?
A lot of people see it as a fight against woke Disney, or unaffordable Disneyland, or whatever their current complaint is, but I don't think that's a priority for anyone in the fight.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
1mo ago
This is an independent DIY search engine that focuses on non-commercial content, and attempts to show you sites you perhaps weren't aware of in favor of the sort of sites you probably already knew existed.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
1mo ago
conditions that affect women differently.
This makes me hopeful that it will go into hypertension/heart disease/etc stuff. As a woman, I really don't want women's health care to be Birth Control and nothing else.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
2mo ago
Yes, I am in favor of more palliative care options and honest counseling. But the question isn't whether you would let the child die but rather would you let the parents kill the child? Maybe the distinction is meaningless to your ethical system, but it is not to many people's ethical systems.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
2mo ago
Let's say a child was missed in screening and was born alive with Trisomy 18. Is it ok to kill the child then and there?
If the argument jeroboam is making is that after the first trimester the child is old enough to resemble what we value in a human, and therefore should have a basic right to life, then why would the presence of a disease change that?
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
2mo ago
https://www.exfatloss.com/p/show-me-the-bcaa-studies
This whole substack would probably be interesting for you, but this article in particular argues pretty hard for high fat/low muscle protein (but maybe more gelatin/collagen than normal.)
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
2mo ago
I think I'll say that his faith was counted as righteousness at both times, and was justified throughout
I think this agrees with the Catholic perspective. Abraham received initial justification through faith, and multiple acts counted as righteousness.
I wouldn't argue that Paul is arguing for this specifically in Psalm 32, but are you aware that Catholics believe that we receive initial justification at Baptism (an act of faith that makes us adoptive siblings of Jesus Christ) and that at this initial justification all prior sins are forgiven?
Paraphrasing verses 2-9:
2 - Abraham wasn't especially just by himself.
3 - Abraham's belief in God is a righteous act.
4 - Wages as a due - ties back to verse 2, Abraham wasn't getting just wages because he wasn't justified by his own abilities.
5 - Ties back to verse 3, Faith in God is righteous. (side note, in Hebrew poetry it is common to have two repetitive stanzas, back and forth, with slight differences to distinguish between. I'm not saying Paul is writing poetry here, but he seems to have a similar rhythm. I highly recommend reading Robert Altar's The Art of Biblical Poetry if you haven't already.)
6 - David said that God can credit righteousness apart from works of the law.
7 - Blessed are they whose lawless acts have been forgiven and whose sins have been hidden away.
8 - Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord does not count.
I think our differences in our readings of this passage might be smaller than I thought
Are you aware that (some) Lutheran leaders and (some) Catholic leaders got together, hashed out our differences and realized we mostly agree on Justification?
I think where the difference is going to stay is the imputation vs infusion. Catholics believe God's word is efficacious, He can neither deceive nor be deceived. (Numbers 23:19: God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind.Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?)
From our perspective, imputed righteousness seems like God both deceiving and being deceived. But does Romans 4 really argue for imputation?
In context, versus 5-8 quote the first verses of Psalm 32. Traditionally, quoting the first verse of a Psalm means to draw someone's attention to the whole psalm. Hence, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"
What is the rest of Psalm 32?
When I kept silent, my bones wasted away through my groaning all day long. For day and night your hand was heavy on me; my strength was sapped as in the heat of summer.
Then I acknowledged my sin to you and did not cover up my iniquity. I said, “I will confess my transgressions to the Lord.”
And you forgave the guilt of my sin. Therefore let all the faithful pray to you while you may be found; surely the rising of the mighty waters will not reach them. You are my hiding place; you will protect me from trouble and surround me with songs of deliverance:
I will instruct you and teach you in the way you should go; I will counsel you with my loving eye on you. Do not be like the horse or the mule, which have no understanding but must be controlled by bit and bridle or they will not come to you.
Many are the woes of the wicked, but the Lord’s unfailing love surrounds the one who trusts in him Rejoice in the Lord and be glad, you righteous; sing, all you who are upright in heart!
Or basically - Guilt, repentance, confession, forgiveness. Paul isn't referencing a passive forgiveness of sins after an initial justification of faith, but rather another act of righteousness that lead to forgiveness. This one is interesting because Paul isn't referencing an act of faith, it's an act of repentance.
It is commonly believed that Psalm 32 is in reference to 2 Samuel 12. What Paul was likely emphasizing is that the forgiveness of David's sins took place outside the law. 2 Samuel 12:13, "Then David said to Nathan, 'I have sinned against the Lord.' Nathan replied, 'The Lord has taken away your sin. You are not going to die.'" There's no Levitical sacrifices, no Yom Kippur. Just an honest confession and sorrow for sin.
This "counting" as righteousness word is going to require a word study. The word for "counting" here is elogisthe and logizetai. So where else is the word used in the New Testament?
For I consider [logizomai] that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us (Romans 8:18).
Paul later uses the word in this letter (and others) to describe earnest acts of the mind: considering and regarding. It's not reference to a modern financial accounting system. Another couple strong examples:
When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason [elogizomen] like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things (1 Corinthians 13:11).
Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, dwell [logizesthe] on these things (Phillippians 4:8)
It it is not a word used to show some outside force providing a title that is the opposite of the real object. In each of these cases, the subject is thinking about reality.
Applying that to this passage, God truly is considering, reasoning, regarding Abraham as doing something righteous when Abraham performs his act of faith.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
2mo ago
My husband bought a matching set of a wedding band and an engagement ring. He was trying to plan a "will you marry me" thing, but I accidentally called him my fiance at one point, and in response he gave me the engagement ring unceremoniously. He held onto the wedding band until the wedding itself, where rings are exchanged in the ceremony.
My engagement ring has a sapphire centered, with several small diamonds and sapphires studding the band of the engagement ring and the wedding band.
Before the wedding, around when I went dress shopping, I bought a wedding band to give my husband. It is a simple band, with no engravings or settings, that matches the band of my rings.
We're both conservative, but counter-cultural. We didn't follow the script from movies, TV shows, or internet advice columns. But we also talked about marriage and starting a family for a long time before our official engagement. We knew what the other thought was important about the engagement process and what we didn't care about at all.
But in the normal course of events:
3 rings total. The man gives the woman a ring with a large stone during the engagement. Then at the altar, the man and the woman exchange simple rings. It is possible and recommended for the man to buy a set upfront if he's confident the woman will agree to the engagement.
The man "pops the question" on a date. Usually a more fancy date than usual.
Diamonds on a gold band are still favored. Find out ahead of time if your Girl Friend has any aesthetic or ethical reasons that they do not like diamonds. You can go necklace shopping for her birthday, for example, and see how she reacts to the suggestion to get a diamond necklace. Sapphire is a very good alternative, about as durable as a diamond for all practical purposes and come in some nice colors.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
2mo ago
I know anecdotes aren't data but there are two people I know:
-
A software developer at my company was on a performance plan for poor quality of work and poor communication with others. Also, the thing he excelled at and the reason he was hired, web development, was no longer a thing our company needed, so he was stuck doing something he wasn't interested in. People throughout the organization constantly complained that the tools he built were terrible. His bosses were discussing firing him for years and were about to pull the trigger.
Then he transitioned, divorced his wife, left his kids behind, and told everyone he was a woman. Suddenly she was untouchable for six months. No one dared criticize her or her work for a while. Then eventually the effect wore off and she was fired about a year after transitioning.
-
Someone who transitioned as a teen who then worked odd jobs but had poor attendance due to the side effects of her medication. At one point she was my kids babysitter, but she would have to leave the baby alone for 30 minutes at a time while she processed her bowel movements. After she left us, she went to work for a major tech company as a game tester, where she was let go a month later due to poor attendance.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
2mo ago
Given that the public terms of the ceasefire Hamas rejected was predicated on 1) Proof of life for the remaining hostages and 2) releasing the hostages, that is the plain reading of the tweet. Hamas was unable or unwilling to provide proof of life for any of the remaining hostages.
If Hamas agreed to release the hostages, then there would have been a ceasefire for at least six weeks, possibly forever.
Have you ever read "The Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down" by Anne Fadiman? It is a pretty tragic book that should be read by any medical professional. Whenever someone doesn't take their meds or has a bad experience with a doctor I think about this book.
Spoilers, a little Hmong girl with epilepsy is treated by American doctors who run into issues such as 1) her family doesn't know how to read instructions in any language, 2) her family doesn't understand time the same way, and 3) her family isn't really certain that epilepsy is a bad thing and think the doctors are possibly harming her by trying to take her seizures away.
Sometimes there isn't much a doctor can do.
More options
Context Copy link