my unwillled physical direction of my neurons disagree

as with all technology though, as they become more accessible with newer models being made and other companies making foldables, the price for the same kind of quality product we have today will inevitably be less in the future.

this is already happening with cpu performance, display quality, etc… it’s finally very affordable to get a 120 hz phone with a fantastic display and snappy processor, specifically thinking of something like the Galaxy A54 or Pixel 8 (on a sale)

a general rule i use regarding technology purchasing is that newest featured top of the line products are best left to rich people who can afford it, as badly as i might want it.

this goes for cars, phones, etc… one benefit to this is that it gives the product time to become not just more affordable, but better quality as well.

the earliest foldables cracked at their fold points, but Samsungs newest fold phone survived JerryRigEverythings bend test which is impressive.

in a few more years, this quality will surely be available at sub 1000 dollar prices, containing the most modern hardware which will be even better than is available now.

that has nothing to do with the ideology of centrism itself and would be ridiculous to even pretend so.

it has to do with the complexity of the situation, and more specifically for everyone supporting Israel, having to do with maintaining country relations moreso than the edit: humanist ideals unfortunately.

i’ve never seen centrism so badly misunderstood.

indigenous, aboriginal, and aborigine, mean exactly the same thing. anyone getting offended at any of these word usages probably doesn’t know the definiton.

i’ve been raised as a Gen Z to learn “first nations”, though aboriginal (from the root word aborigine) also means the exact same thing, so i personally don’t comprehend how someone can find offense in using that word.

maybe they are used to seeing aboriginals to describe aussi natives? still, it essentially means “first of the region”, or in other words, “first of the nation”.

deleted by creator

i know truth itself is not relative, so what is moral truth? to me it sounds like saying that following X persons subjective view of morality we can objectively say that Y is bad. this just then makes objectively proving a persons subjective morality a relative truth though, and not an objective truth, because we could express any side of morality, good or bad, objectively, and as you said, truth is not relative and only one truth must exist.

if you’re talking about things like Sam Harris’ definition of morality being a sort of “majority wellbeing”, i’m sure that while we can theoretically allow for the redefinition of morality and make some objective truths regaridng that subjecte moral viewpoint, but as it is not being absolute in the universe and moreso being related to subjective wellbeing of the most amount of living things, i feel that this is still just fulfilling the subjective definitions.

interestingly though, Sam Harris will go on all day about how we can’t redefine free will as being the ability to make choices which all life evidently has in common. just because these choices aren’t ultimately free, he rejects the “compatibilist” redefinition of free will.

searchengine.party also has the query string links for a multitude of different search engines, as well as a comparison of security tests and privacy policies and other functions

isn’t moral truth determined by people making moral judgements?

Sam Harris doesn’t like this idea, lol. “morality is wellbeing!”, well then what is wellbeing to a bad person? it’s all relative

i generally like reuters so i submitted feedback (bottom of reuters website) regarding that article in the hopes that something will come of it. i agree that it does seem very weird to do

i do chaotic neutral cause it’s essentially neutral evil but with at least the illusion of a more secure seal

lawful neutral, then chaotic neutral when i lose the thingy

i don’t think it matters how expert of an opinon one has when considering confidence on whether someone truly existed or not.

being an expert in history wouldn’t help you confidently confirm that anything you read wasn’t part of a big popular information conspiracy unfortunately.

their examples of Shakespeare, Socrates, etc. are much more strongly suggestive of being true because of a larger sample size of “historical evidence” from people claiming to exist at the same time as those who wrote about them, and the several events popularly known to be directly caused by them, and not some 50 years removed gospels which may very possibly have been hear-say. (told indirect information, then made a claim based on that)

regardless, it pretty much doesn’t matter in philosophy whether someone exists or not since the important thing is the idea associated with the person. the issue is that theology is associated with Jesus, and since theism is a confident belief position, it just doesn’t make a ton of sense to live and believe by historical evidence alone. i think complimenting historical evidence with empirical science is a lot more reasonable

to me this would be like if someone had a box, and i really wanted to know what was in it, and they told me it was a carrot and sent me off. now i can believe it was a carrot because they were right there and if they were honest then it should be a carrot in the box, but to personally commit myself to that belief, i would have the see inside the box myself.

jeez you gotta close some tabs, but also “existing historically” literally means that it’s essentially hear-say whether Jesus existed or not, which in my opinion is incredibly weak evidence.

historical evidence never claims to be proven evidence, you’re incorrectly interpreting it to be that way.

none of the four gospels even make the claim to be eyewitness to Jesus!

what you claim is “all the reason to believe” is literally an indirect assumption(and cope) that, “well the writers must have at least known someone who knew Jesus, because that is the only way they could have obtained that information!”. this assumes the information wasn’t made up narratively.

i find it weird that you attacked the very idea of asserting that the gospels never witnessed Jesus when there’s nothing to directly suggest so even from the gospels themselves…

your logic is literally “4 people wrote about Nosferatu, therefore Nosferatu can be historically assumed to exist.”

you can worm your assumtion even deeper by also making the claim that “anything that looks like what people describe to be Nosferatu is, IS Nosferatu”, which is a massive logical fallacy.

even something like a direct eyewitness account of what appears to be a real a man transforming into a bat would not prove that man was Nosferatu…

hell, this wouldn’t even prove that the man was a vampire as opposed to a zillion other narrative shape shifting ideas which are more accurate in describing what truly happened, or even that the person turned into a bat at all! it could have been an incredibly clever magic trick.

history is ultimately an incredibly unreliable source of true facts. there are some things in history we can be reasonably sure of, such as the evolution of language, in which historical texts themselves would count as a sort of evidence if we can confirm the age of the texts, but otherwise, evidence has to confirm history, not the other way around…

i heard someone put it well, that if you had to fight a court case to prove that Jesus existed, you would lose based on hear-say and a lack of evidence, as well as having a ton of reasonable doubt for anyone claiming John Wick or whoever existed based on words in a book alone.

the critic reviews have always been complete dogshit. too many movies get 100% or 0% on rotten tomatoes.

if i’m not mistaken IMDB ratings are only user based, and in my opinion, i almost never disagree with IMDB ratings and i think it’s because it has a vastly larger voting group to get a more accurate viewer consensus even if a small number of critics give a 0/10 or 10/10