A quick skim of this tells me it’s a bit more complicated than one or the other. nto.github.io/AirPlay
It would appear to me that if you’re doing a traditional casting of the video it’ll not use your VPN. As it just passes through the information needed for the device to fetch the video. Unless everything is configured to use the VPN*
Whats the cheapest and most facile way to get AppleTV to run through VPN? Can I get something in-between router and device that enforces everything thru it?
So hard to answer exactly as Disney was included with my cell phone plan. I never asked to add or change anything and AFAIK I don’t have ESPN. One day I got an email from Disney that Hulu was now available in the app.
Piece of shit fascist. Fucking barricades on sidewalks. Anti everything. Hate that pathetic jackass. Always have. Never a hero. Just a decent attorney that did to the mob what nobody before him could. Then buildings fell on and killed all his friends and he went off the deep end.
Fuck yeah, you remember when he lost the fight against the Brooklyn museum of art for a painting of the virgin Mary made of elephant dung?
In other cultures, that dung symbolizes the potential for life, but it offended that sensitive fascist bitch to where he tried to cut 1/3 of our tax money to the museum until they took it down. Courts denied that loser for violating the first amendment. And that kept happening, repeatedly, he’d violate the first amendment, lose the associated lawsuit and cost the City millions in the process… Repeatedly. What a loser.
I think it was the black family burial grounds under that federal building on court st(?), but you might also be right. There was a lot going on in this big city.
Yes! That was the burial ground! I went to high school downtown but for some reason we never went northeast of city hall to that side of the plaza. I remember seeing it in person after reading that and feeling like a tourist. Meanwhile I was like 3 blocks from J&R where we used to buy tapes with our lunch money after starving all week
If you’re really interested in an answer and not only trying to dunk on religious people: I’d suggest reading a few philosophical critics of religion. Like Feuerbach and Marx.
Religion always fulfilled a certain function to people. Way back, it was used to answer questions which have been properly answered by science (where does the sun/thunder and lightning come from, etc.). But that’s not the whole picture of religion’s function in society.
People still have an urge to answer questions science can’t/won’t answer (what is right and wrong? *why are we here? how should we treat each other?). Religion fulfills the function answering a subset of these questions.
what is right and wrong? how should we treat each other?
You can make compelling universal arguments based on capacity to suffer. Suffering is inherently unpleasant and it morally follows that we ought to avoid inflicting it on others. (As basic and concise as I can be.)
Religion is not a good basis for morality. Look at all of the horrible conflicts and evil actions committed on the basis of religious beliefs. One religion can justify terrorism while another dictates that we must sweep the ground in our walking path to avoid killing insects (Jainist monks).
Also, studies have demonstrated that morality develops thru our upbringing; culture, our parents, peers, schooling, etc. When one reads religious canons, they are picking and choosing concepts that already align with their moral/ethical beliefs. That’s not to say religion can’t play a part in shaping a given culture, which in turn influences the moral development of everyone in that society (including atheists). He’s a good read on this.
An example I like to use for Christians is when God sent two bears to maul and kill 42 children for making fun of Elisha’s bald head. Source
Most Christians would morally disagree with that disproportionate punishment of children. That’s because their moral beliefs are derived from outside of that canon. There’s plenty of other examples (including in the New Testament) in which Christians reject. They are using their existing moral beliefs to interpret the Bible.
why are we here?
Does there really need to be a purpose to our existence? Cosmic chance is a sufficient answer in my opinion.
I understand you were posing those questions to convey why people turn to religion, and I’m not disputing that. I’m disputing the efficacy of religion in actually answering those questions.
You can make compelling universal arguments based on capacity to suffer.
I’m not saying that you can reach verdicts about morality without religion. But you’ve left the realm of science which was proposed as the religion killer.
Religion is not a good basis for morality. Look at all of the horrible conflicts and evil actions committed on the basis of religious beliefs.
It’s about as bad as science. Look at all the atrocities which were “justified” by science. E.g.: racism, eugenics, …
Also, studies have demonstrated that morality develops thru our upbringing; culture, our parents, peers, schooling, etc.
You do realize that religion is a societal construct, right?
That’s not to say religion can’t play a part in shaping a given culture, which in turn influences the moral development of everyone in that society (including atheists).
Yeah… That was my original point…
An example I like to use for Christians is when God sent two bears to maul and kill 42 children for making fun of Elisha’s bald head.
What exactly is it you are trying to prove? Why are you trying to dunk on Christianity? I don’t believe in god and I know of all that fucked up shit done in the name of the lord. I wanted to give an explanation of what functional role religion can have for humans.
Does there really need to be a purpose to our existence?
No, but try making people stop asking that question.
I understand you were posing those questions to convey why people turn to religion, and I’m not disputing that.
Sorry if I’m judging you too harshly, but you kind of seemed like you actually wanted to dispute that.
I’m not religious myself. But I have dear friends who are very religious and we literally never differ when it comes to questions about religion/morals. They belive, I don’t. I know it’s important to them and I hate it if some edgy atheists reduce the topic down so much. Not as much as I hate radical christians/muslims/jews being hypocritical asswipes. But religion probaply didn’t make them asswiper.
You most definitely did jump to a bunch of false conclusions about me and my motivation in my comment.
Both mind-reading and jumping to conclusions are cognitive distortions which you are guilty of committing here.
Is this not a discussion forum? I was trying to have a discussion about what you were saying.
You shouldn’t be so hostile or personally offended by simple conversation.
Me: I understand you were posing those questions to convey why people turn to religion, and I’m not disputing that.
You: Sorry if I’m judging you too harshly, but you kind of seemed like you actually wanted to dispute that.
Nope, just more unfounded conclusions you are jumping to.
And I’m not “dunking” on Christianity. It was just an example. You’re misframing me as an anti-theist, which I’m not.
Finally, you are incorrect about science being a justification for cruelty. Whether it’s the Tuskegee Experiment, animal experimentation, or Nazi experiments; science was not the means of justification.
Even if someone argues that the ends justify the means, that is a philosophical argument; not a scientific one. For instance, utilitarianism is often the basis for justifying immoral experimentation. Ethics is a branch of philosophy, even when pertaining to science.
Racism, speciesism, and extremism/fascism plays a part in those examples I listed as well.
You most definitely did jump to a bunch of false conclusions about me and my motivation in my comment.
Well, you know. Maybe I’ve read a bit much between the lines. But I think your last comment just wasn’t completely in the best of faith. I’ve read paragraph per paragraph and once I’ve read a bit further (after formulating an answer to that specific point), I see some sort of excuse of how your really don’t suggest the best stuff. I must say: I felt a little bit like you tried to insult me just a teeensy bit, by taking back some of the things you wrote two paragraphs before. And I feel a bit bullshitted if someone replies to me like that.
Both mind-reading and jumping to conclusions are cognitive distortions which you are guilty of committing here.
Could you please talk like a human being? Who talks like that? Get on with it!
Is this not a discussion forum? I was trying to have a discussion about what you were saying.
Yeah, well it’s less about what you say in the discussion, but more the way how you say it. I feel like you’re a bit … sketchy with how you throw your horrible arguments and excuse them two paragraphs later. Let’s say, I had to jump to conclusions, because you said some seriously bad stuff and I had to stumble a bit during your text. So please talk like a human being? Please remember that english is not my first language and I’m not the best at communicating by text in my second language.
You shouldn’t be so hostile or personally offended by simple conversation.
Didn’t feel like “simple conversation”. More like "debate bro says some heinous shit and tries to get away with it " vibes. Maybe I’m not the one at fault here by being illogical, but rather someone in this conversation has said some a bit… right-wing stuff.
Nope, just more unfounded conclusions you are jumping to.
They’re not unfounded. Please stop speaking so condescendingly. You’re seeming a bit like a dick. That’s what I was talking about.
And I’m not “dunking” on Christianity. It was just an example. You’re misframing me as an anti-theist, which I’m not.
Why did you bring it up in the first place?
Finally, you are incorrect about science being a justification for cruelty. Whether it’s the Tuskegee Experiment, animal experimentation, or Nazi experiments; science was not the means of justification.
Whoooo boy. Your first actual point it it sure is… a doozy. Where shall I begin?
Finally, you are incorrect about science being a justification for cruelty.
That’s one hell of a statement you make there. Surely, you can’t mean that in no point in history, science has ever been the justification for carrying out heinous acts. (in the business, we call this…)
Whether it’s the Tuskegee Experiment, animal experimentation, or Nazi experiments
Where are you getting these examples from? Why are you talking like you’ve made any point to disprove any of my statements by naming these random examples? I’m afraid you’re not getting my point? In what way would I have claimed anything about these racist/speciesist practices? And then you claim that…
science was not the means of justification.
Yes, you are correct. The name of science is never to blame for these things… or is it?
Tuskegee, animals, Nazi experiments. Why do you mash two human and one animal examples together? We were talking about humans, were we not? Why would you compare a human to an animal? Except… “Race” scientists have been claiming for centuries that africans (or less aryan peoples) are inferior to the human race. There are science books still used in education today claiming that black people have a higher pain threshold and other stuff in which the “science of the time” justified why some people can be treated like animals… or slaves. Mengele was standing on the shoulders of race science when he thought that it is ok to torture non-aryans. He was not a lunatic. He was a respected physician for the time, contributing to science. … and today we know, he was a monster. But he, as well as the people running the Tuskegee Experiment were raised on the “scientific discovery”, that non-white people are not human, justified for slave trade. You can even go into the origins of science in the west: In ancient rome or greece. They were f-cking slave cultures. You can’t have a slave culture and reach that level of “civilisation” without some sort of scientists trying to justify, why we have to mistrust our intrinsic instict to treat our brothers and sisters with respect and instead bind them as a slave. That was the science of the day, my friend.
So, you were saying that science didn’t justify racism? Like… ever?
Even if someone argues that the ends justify the means, that is a philosophical argument; not a scientific one.
Who are you talking to? Are you answering your own points just after you made them, again?
For instance, utilitarianism is often the basis for justifying immoral experimentation.
Will this be in the test, professor? /s Who the question that made you answer that?
Ethics is a branch of philosophy, even when pertaining to science.
Yeah… guess, which societal institution used to be the one who almost exclusively was concerned about philosophy and ethics for the last say… about 4 millenia? Starts with an “r”. Historical context is important.
I felt like you argued in bad faith and explained how I came to that conclusion. Please don’t invalidate my perception.
I’m not gonna bother reading and refuting your childish insults
Way to go proving what I figured: That you’re doing the equivalent of “liking the sound of your own voice”. You’re not engaging in conversation, you’re trying to lecture me. I don’t consider that respectful. When I point that out, you claim that I argue in “bad faith”. Seriously?
Then read the arguments I made and adress them. You’re smart, you’ll figure out which paragraphs contain arguments.
The fact is that text has no tone of voice, and you interpreted a neutral comment in a negative way. That’s on you.
Never claimed that it had a tone of voice. But the way written text is structured can still convey the feeling that you’re not being talked with, but rather talked to.
It’s less about tone, but “reading between the lines”.
Just because someone respectfully disagrees
I take issue with the word “respectfully”. Don’t invalidate my perception, please. I also explained why I felt like that.
Newegg, Amazon, BestBuy. Every so often one or the other will come out with a great price on a component. I keep my ear to the ground on Slickdeals and /r/buildapcsales and cherry pick anything that sounds good.
Religion is founded on belief, and belief allows people to feel certainty about things they’re ultimately uncertain about. As long is there is something that someone doesn’t fully understand, religion and god are a solution to bridge the gap.
When you are that person, the leap to a god is fairly logical and easy to them, since at a base level, it’s born out of a desire for someone to be in charge and in control. You understand some of the world around you. To understand it more fully, you just need a bigger, stronger, smarter version of yourself. That’s why in most religions, a god is not some transcendent, immortal, eternal, all powerful being. They’re just essentially Human+. There are way more religions with gods like Zeus than Allah. Saying that nobody is in charge, and nobody fully understands anything, and that’s all OK makes billions of people uncomfortable. And, screaming at them that they’re wrong and need to be more OK with some existential dread usually just serves to make them more uncomfortable.
human brain just wants patterns and will create it to satisfy itself. religion does not run counter to human knowledge, they’re the same process really.
I’ll take the boring route. I respect the gun design of the N7 weapons. They look like futuristic versions of our current weapons but the paint design is on point.
When I was 4 or 5 my 300 pound dad fell on me on the street.
Not well.
I basically still have a broken nose since then. The bone is blocking my left nostril for the most part. When I was at the hospital, none of the doctors noticed my broken nose. I did however need to get X-Ray or CT scan (I don’t remember which one it was) done urgently. The “urgently” took a month. “Oh, look, your nose was broken. You’ll be able to get plastic surgery at 18 for free, since it limits your breathing.”
Anyway, I’d still have bleeding face scraped from the asphalt. Perhaps even broken rib(s). It’s not unlikely for that to happen in such case, and it’s not like anyone would notice.
But this seems to be nothing special.
My dad broke his knee, called an ambulance, they took him to the ER. Then they took an X-Ray of his knee, someone just told him “It’s not broken. Go to checkup in a week.” He also had to get home somehow, on his own.
Well, anyway, he went to that doctor for the “Checkup” right next day. He looked at the X-Ray, said it’s very obviously broken and will need a surgery.
He also had some problem with his spine, took over 10 years for anyone to look at it, at which point it was late. Now his left leg is basically paralyzed and he’s on strong drugs.
My grandma had a badly done amputation, it kept bleeding and oozing pus. She also had some infusions recommended, but the doc who recommended those said she’ll need approval from GP. But the GP would have to visit her at home as transporting her would be too risky. Response from GP? “Not worth it, she’ll die soon anyway.”
Anyway, this kinda turned into rant. At the very least my whole mouth would be bleeding as I keep accidentally biting my cheeks and tongue.
I really like the holographic theory but again that’s a theory which gives us answers, but then opens up a bunch more questions. The point of my comment was about as long as we have these fundamental questions about reality, we will have religion. I wasn’t trying to say god did it.
If you’ve ever broken a bone, just assume you’d be dead of infection.
Actually let’s take this further: multicellular life wouldn’t exist. Life wouldn’t exist. Cell division requires both cells to heal themselves. This is a silly question.
This site will let you test different GPTs (far from all of them, but its a good list) in various ways. I particularly like the Arena, in which you get responses from 2 random models to your input, you say which you like best, and then it tells you which is which.
It’s got me considering Claude2 for local projects. I just need to revive the hardware I’d use to run it on.
asklemmy
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.