He actually said much more. One of his most radical statements was to love your enemy. Even your enemies love their neighbors so why feel good about yourself for doing that. Even some evil people love their friends and it is therefore really not a thing to be proud of. To love your enemy is what all people are called to do.
He also threw moneylenders out of the temple and said it's nearly impossible for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.
The simple fact is that our society isn't organized in a way that optimizes for Jesus' teachings. We built practically the opposite kind of society - moneylenders (banks and investment firms) and the rich receive not only massive material comfort, but also most of the allocated power in our society, and are generally lauded by us.
Meanwhile the poor are, generally, considered to be reaping the reward of their laziness, or lack of self control, or spiritual malaise.
Could we save ourselves the cost of a military, and put that money to better use, without actually endangering the lives of our citizens?
I would suggest, certainly in the case of the USA, that the answer is "yes". The USA's military budget is larger than most of the rest of world's combined. Yet the USA is not in any danger of being invaded. This massive, massive, military force is entirely about projecting force elsewhere, diplomacy by other means. It's not "defence".
The USA has huge social welfare problems. Hundreds of thousands of homeless people, for example. If the USA chose to, it could redirect even a small part of the military budget to building social housing, and (imho) the world would be a better place.
So while I agree that having a military for defence (and purely for defence) is probably not a bad thing, that's not the purpose that most countries have a military for. Hegseth aside, most anglosphere countries have a Department of Defence that has never had to defend anything [0], but has been at war for most of the last 50 years. I think this is bad.
[0] Falklands war is a little bit dubious; technically a defence of a UK protectorate. But colonialism, etc.
I read through the link. The other pilot and the captain are complicit by the virtue of being there. Autopilot disengages at 2:10 and they crash at 2:14. Terrible.
My other immediate thought -- Tesla's autopilot. I've never used it so I'm not sure I'm fully correct here, but apparently it requires you to be vigilant and take over in certain situations? Wonder how well that works out in practice.
In practice, there's a camera in the Tesla that looks at the driver to make sure they're paying attention. If they're not, perhaps fiddling with their phone or looking at something in the passenger's seat, then the system gives a warning and then a strike. Get five strikes and you can't use FSD for the next week or two. So drivers are directly incentivized to keep their eyes on the road because if they don't, they can't actually use the system which would suck for a long road trip.
Well, maybe. It's projection, because I certainly don't make simple processes myself a lot of the time, but I do try to optimize them afterwards. I have a few decades of seeing people implement processes than I've had to use, and then had to simplify as I moved into more senior roles. I've had people push back quite forcefully when I've pointed out they do things like writing reports that no one reads or gathering data that teams ignore. People often fight for added complexity because their perception is that it's important, and that means they must be important because they're the one in control of it.
There is an element of projection because there is in most things people talk about; I'm speaking about this through my filters and biases after all. But it's grounded in a fair chunk of experience.
Maybe you are saying the same thing, but couldn't that be explained better by those people being afraid to be made obsolete? Or at least, afraid if having to retrain?
I pretty much always read the first sentence of an article, then the last paragraph, and then the full first paragraph, then the beginning sentences of middle paragraphs, until finally reading an entire piece. Often times, along this process I'll abandon the piece.
I appreciate when an article can so clearly tell my mind to stop so soon. Anyways, I clicked on this article, saw that line you linked, clicked the comments and was pleased somehow to see someone else point that line out.
Humans going around the moon will be amazing every single time for the next 10,000 years it happens for anyone who isn't already a miserable person. Going for a swim in the ocean is an amazing experience every single time and I can do it every day. It's still a great feeling. Going to the moon is so much more extraordinary in the literal sense of the word. The fact that any collection of creatures is able to do it is remarkable.
Both. Whatever works for you I'd say. I targeted the Raspberry Pi (Cross-Linux From Scratch variant), and a fake root (via chroot) and qemu. This was circa 2014 though.
These days the ARM64 processor on the Raspberry Pi 5 is probably fast enough to just build natively on it, no cross-compilation necessary. Cross-compiling adds a metric ton of complexity.
Having done this way back when on both: go with a VM first.
Targeting a known set of virtual devices makes a lot of things much easier when building LFS. Dev ux is also much nicer:, you get faster restarts, a socket and optional snapshots to go back to a known less broken state.
In my opinion having it on a separate computer is easier,
but you can also run this in one or three KDE konsole tabs,
for instance, on an external hdd/sdd.
