FSR exists, and FSR 3 actually looks very good when compared with DLSS. These arguments about raytracing and DLSS are getting weaker and weaker.
There are still strong arguments for nvidia GPUs in the prosumer market due to the usage of its CUDA cores with some software suites, but for gaming, Nvidia is just overcharging because they still hold the mindshare.
I've noticed that words that are considered "profanity" tend to be vernacular words that express negative emotions (pain, anger, frustration, etc). The fact that these words are considered profane seems a bit unhealthy, because it limits our ability to verbally express how we are feeling internally. Nevertheless, I think some people might use these words too often. If one is cursing every other word all the time, then it's a bit like "crying wolf" once they use it when they're actually experiencing a strong negative emotion.
I was engaging with a collective in the US, and they seemed to be wishing for a global revolution; so excommunication would not be an option like the Kulaks unless the idea is to remove them from Earth.
I guess I can't judge all collectives when I only engaged with one (go figure, right). I appreciate you taking the time to share information with me. It was enlightening.
I appreciate you sharing the model of god suggested by Orthodox Christians, but I fail to see how this information alleviates the Paradox.Could you present your information in a way that relates to the Paradox? I am discussing with good faith, so I am actually curious how a person who believes the Christian model of god would find a way to solve this Paradox.
This being said, I do have some questions and comments regarding your statements.
If god has already defeated evil through Christ, then why is evil so prevalent today, even among those who worship him? God would rather damn people to burn in hell for eternity for doing evil than remove evil from the universe all together? To me, this is, in and of itself, an evil course of action which puts to question god's goodness.
I am not sure if I am understanding you here. If evil is the absence of good, then does this mean that evil and good cannot coexist? In other words, can an action be both evil and good, or does every action fit in a bucket of either good or evil?
As for your final statement regarding how god is good and without god, neither good or evil can exists: I can't help but relate this to the concept in Eastern Philosophy of ying and yang. Not sure if you are familiar with it, but the basic premise is that when you have two opposite concepts (for example, good and evil), one cannot exist without the other. For instance, if we lived in a universe that was only "good" then "good" would not exist, because without "evil" then there doesn't exist a concept of "good". In other words, if everything is "good" then the concept of "good" is irrelevant.
Reading your closing statement and relating it to ying/yang made me think that it kind of goes both ways. If god is good, then evil must exist for god to exist, since evil must be present for good to be present.
This is a fair point, but a general premise to Marxism is a bloody revolution where the working class takes the assets from capitalist bosses. Perhaps some Marxist are interested in alternative methods, but the group of communist members with which I was able to discuss this topic with were not concerned with that.
They demonized and dehumanized capitalist and talked about them as if they were not worth saving, and it was this kind of rhetoric that turned me off from their cause.
Though, it was also their rhetoric which presumed racism and sexism would be solved if we all just view eachother as workers. This seemed to underplay the effects these caste systems have on people.
I agree, this is not a good argument against the existence of god, but it seems to be a fine argument against certain models of god. To get out of the paradox, one must be willing to give up certain notions about god. Either:
I think there are a lot of theists who would have trouble accepting one of these notions, which would keep them stuck within this paradox.
Is it possible that there is a better a solution to the issues of Capitalism which doesn't involve the liquidation of entire groups of people?
Being a person who have visited communist meetings, this is my biggest gripe with the ideology. Yes, capitalism today has become corrupted, perhaps even beyond repair. But, I refuse to believe that the only solution is to round up and kill the capitalist bosses in order to bring back power to the working class. At this point, we would be dehumanizing an entire group of people which wouldn't make us much better than what the far-right does.
To be fair to Clinton, she did do some pain. Remember when she called many of the people who supported Trump, "deplorables". This riled up America as if she was going too far with describing them this way. Here we are almost a decade later, and we are starting to realize that she was right.
The political landscape is far different now than it was when it was Hilary vs. Trump. Trump has done his four years, and we have now seen the damage he and his constituents have done. We see now that the republican party watched Handmaid's Tale and agreed with the fictional government in that story. There is no hiding how deplorable some of these folks are especially with the publishing of Project 2025.
Folks, we do understand that when Kamala was a senator, her vote on topics were statistically aligned with Bernie Sanders.
While a senator, Kamala's votes aligned almost 100% with protecting the environment (according to the League of Conservation voters.
She agreed with Bernie Sanders "College for all" act which would fund tuition for lower income students looking to go to a public university.
She co-sponsered a bill to ban assault rifles, high capacity magazines, and to limit gunstores advertising campaigns.
She backed the "Medicare for all" bill sponsored by Bernie Sanders, which would have established a government funded Healthcare system which would provide health insurance to all Americans and remove private health insurance.
In terms of immigration, she wanted to put ICE under a microscope and reexamine their practices, she supports DACA, opposes a border wall, and wants to investigate a means to alleviate illegal immigration by attacking the problems in central and South America which is causing these folks to try to run to the USA.
At the end of the day, I would not be surprised if Biden was influenced by her ideas, because if you look at what he has done in his four year term, he has moved his political needle more left.
The reality is the civil rights movement is both about increasing the social power of non-white citizens AND decreasing the social power of white citizens.
The former is what usually feels okay for white citizens, but the latter tends to be what white folks call "reverse racism". It doesn't feel great losing the social power tied to your caste, but it's necessary to create an equal opportunity society.
Stephen Hawkings had an interesting perspective regarding the creation of our universe. When people ponder our universe's creation, they ask questions like "what caused the big bang?" or "what caused the universe to exist?". Hawkings would have responded with the sentiment that these kind of questions were pointless. When one asks such a question regarding cause/effect, this presupposes the existence of a timeline. Cause and effect explanations have no merit without time; therefore to ask what caused the creation of the universe is silly, because time did not exist which means the notion of cause/effect would not have existed either.
Nevertheless, I think a lot of the folks commenting here have a problematic understanding of science, which is resulting in them agreeing with the toxic meme. Science and Religion don't compete because they are fundamentally different in the way they approach understanding the universe. Religions relies on "truths" whereas science relies on "models". There are no scientific facts or truths, there are only models that can accurately predict things we observe.
For example, the atomic model (atoms, +ions, - ions) can accurately predict a lot of different phenomena in our universe (electrical phenomena, chemical reactions, thermal phenomena, etc). Nevertheless, no good scientist should confidently tell you that atoms actually exist in reality. The atom is a model that functions well in explaining our universe, but that doesn't mean it is "The Correct Model".
The smartphone is a different beast. Hardware and software companies spent millions of dollars of R&D to create the most psychologically addicting and attention demanding device as possible.