I read another article about this from the New York Times and I am pretty confused about a lot of this. Mostly- where the Hell is he getting all the money for this? That article mentioned another instance where he hired a bunch of child actors to act like he was a celebrity and fawn over him and they mentioned how much some of the actors in this scheme were getting paid and it would have cost a LOT of money. Another detail- the child and her mother (who was apparently complicit in this scheme) are Ukrainian refugees. It is possible this man has lied to the mother or is otherwise using coercive tactics against her. Anyway, I want to know where this guy got all this money and why he’s not locked up in jail when he has shown himself to be a pedo pervert time and time again.

I’ve been to one of these! There was a hill within the house that is way steeper than it looks and it was super freaky and disorienting. Just being in that place gave me motion sickness

If you want to see unhinged shit just make a new tik tok account and look up the word adrenochrome. The algorithm will get you real quick.

Plenty of conspiracy theorists on Lemmy just mention that Luigi Mangione killed Brian Thompson or Trump falling out with Elon Musk and they come out of the woodwork

There are probably plenty of right wing instances you’re not federated with, but now that mainstream social media has been overtlu taken over by fascists there’s not as much reason for it. When I first heard of Lemmy I remember there were a shit ton of far fight instances because that’s who was getting kicked off of reddit back then. Now, though, the owner of Twitter is straight up doing seig heils in front of crowds and you can get banned on reddit if you criticize him too much. So if you’re a conservative, why would you bother using a weird open source platform like Lemmy when the big dogs are all in complete agreement with your beliefs and all your heroes are on those platforms, especially when your ideology is based on hero worship?

TL;DR if you’re a right winger you’re just on the mainstream platforms or on an explicitly right wing alternative like Truth Social

I’ll join some kind of neo-Amish community and live without the Internet before I put up with a shitty Internet that’s locked down to that extent.

Sounds like someone is still in high school lmao

Calculus. That is the first thing that comes to mind.

Usually that works best before you burn the factory down

Idk. On one hand I really appreciate the energy but on the other hand this is kind of fucked up for everyone else that works there, and I assume there were people inside when he did this. Like what are all his coworkers going to do for work now that the factory is burned down? I know that’s part of why capitalism sucks but it’s not like they can do anything about it as individuals.

Nah gatekeeping is good. I agree this place and the fediverse in general are massive echo chambers and that’s bad, but the more of the general public that gets on a platform the worse it gets. Obviously you can’t have an IQ filter or a test to get on, so a janky hard to use interface is good enough to scare away Facebook drones and brainrot zombies.

Stupid people thinking little Lemmy is too complicated to use is a feature not a bug. If someone can’t figure out how to use the Lemmy interface why would we even want them here?

Yeah it’s a very old concept and used in fantasy even before Eragon.

Yes. God’s name is super interesting because of the extremely strong taboos surrounding saying it, stemming ultimately from the Third of the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:7)- “Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD they God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guitless that taketh his name in vain.” Note the emphasis on the name of The LORD, and how the word “LORD” is all caps- this is a sort of censorship of God’s actual name, which goes back to the ancient Greek translations of the Hebrew scriptures. When you see “LORD” in a Bible passage in English, the original passage has God’s name in Hebrew. Jews have historically said the word “Adonai” (meaning Lord) instead of God’s name when reading aloud, and almost all translations follow this and just use the word for “Lord” (Kyrios, Dominus, etc.) instead.

Anyway, the name is rendered in Hebrew as “” which is roughly equivalent to the letters “YHWH” in the Latin alphabet. Hebrew doesn’t use vowels, and the vowel sounds hsve intentionally not been recorded by scribes. The modern academic reconstruction is “Yahweh” for the pronunciation based on names for people and places that include parts of the name. You may also see “Jehovah” in some contexts which is based on older German scholarship that incorrectly rendered the vowels of the word. The name’s meaning is given to Moses in Exodus 3:14 where Moses asks who he should tell his people to worship and God replies “I AM WHO I AM” “Say this to the people of Israel: I AM has sent me to you” (in Hebrew, I am who I am is Eyeh Asher Eyeh). Modern scholarship agrees that the name has some connection with the word “to be” and means something along the lines of “The Existing One.”

Myself, I interpret God’s response in the story and the meaning of His name as a declaration of self sufficiency, that God is what exists in His own right, and doesn’t need anything or anyone else to exists. It’s not only a declaration of montheism, but a declaration of supremacy over all of the universe. But yeah, not only does your Bologna have a first name, but God does too if you’re Christian or Jewish.

There are definitions of “God” that I feel are hard to prove, but others that are easy. For example, of your definition is “God is the ultimate cause of the universe” then it’s pretty trivial that if everything has a cause there must be an end of the chain. Of course, this the could be a computer program running the universe simulation or even just the laws of physics themselves if those are truly causeless. But nonetheless, it’s still a somewhat satisfying definition of “God” so I’m comfortable saying I believe in God. Harder definitions include “God is an omnipotent being” (which most of God’s traditional attributes can be derived from) and “God is the being described in the Bible/Qu’ran/other religious text” which I feel like are unprovable.

A lot of religious apologists will make arguments in favor of the easier definition and then try to claim that this means their specific view of God is real. Personally I think that’s insane. Like “there must be some end of the chain of causality therefore God became a Jewish carpenter in the ancient Roman Empire.” Even if you’re Christian that should be a bad logical jump.

I’m Western esotericism, names have power beyond simply being signifiers for the thing they represent- they embody some part of the thing they represent. The word “fire” contains some intrinsic “fire-ness” but not the whole picture. After all, everyone has different names for the same thing. It is thought that everything has a “true name” that perfectly encapsulates all things about it in their entirety, and this true name could be found by intense study, meditation, or etymology. The Bible pays a lot of attention to names in this way. Adam, the first man, names all the animals. Genesis pays a lot of attention to the names of places, and a lot of stories in Genesis are essentially folk etymologies of locations. God’s own name is of special importance, and its meaning was revealed to Moses by the Burning Bush. Even today Jews believe that even saying God’s name is powerful and dangerous and that only the High Priest would be allowed to say it once every year during Yom Kippur. Jewish folklore says that even this name is merely a part of God’s true name, and that Moses pronounced a longer more complete form of The Name to part the Red Sea, and some systems hold that there are even longer and even more complete forms that have been known to rabbis in the past.

EMP shielding. Nuclear explosions release an absolutely insane amount of electromagnetic energy and it fries electronics. This is actually where the first EMP was observed - a high altitude nuclear test fried a bunch of electronics. The idea is that it needs to be able to keep flying even if a nuclear blast goes off even quite some distance away. There’s obviously no way to actually nuke proof a plane, it would get vaporized or knocked out of the sky if it were close to the epicenter.

Highlander 2 is unsalvageable. That movie sucked so bad it wasn’t even fun to watch with friends to make fun of it

I say no because vampire myths developed in a time and place where only a tiny minority of people were even allowed to own property and almost everyone lived on land they didn’t own, and in those stories the vampires are invited by the resident, not the owner.

Here are some related questions that inform the answer to this one

1. Can a vampire cross a country’s border without approval from that country’s government? This relates to how a vampire’s inability to cross thresholds relates to governments and concepts of control, occupation, and ownership as they relate to this rule. My gut instinct says yes, a border doesn’t count as a boundary in this case because a vampire can only not enter your house but can go on your yard. Disregarding that, I would lean towards no a vampire would need permission, especially at a defined boundary like a border crossing checkpoint. I don’t think it would necessarily have to be from the government, though, based on concepts I will explore later

2. Can a vampire enter your home if you’re a tenant and give them permission? I say yes, because during the time period when vampire myths developed barely anyone actually owned their own homes or the land they lived on, and said myths don’t state that the vampire must receive permission from the local lord to enter the homes of his serfs. This establishes that residence is sufficient and ownership isn’t required.

3. If you are at a friend’s house for a party and a vampire shows up and you say “come on in!” Does that count as an invitation? I would say yes, but there is some argument to be had here. The answer to this question determines if residency is not only sufficient, but required. If you say yes, then, it seems that merely occupying a space is what gives one authority to invite a vampire in, not residence or ownership. If you say no, then it seems that residence or control over a space is more important.

4. If you give a worker a garage door code and tell him he can use that while you’re not home and he turns out to be a vampire, can he enter your home? I would say yes, because you explicitly gave him permission. If you say no, then it seems that the relationship of the threshold is what’s important. Someone on one side has to be inviting the vampire to cross, and the invitation can’t be given if both parties are on the same side. I say yes, because I feel that the criteria are as follows - A person must have control over a space in some sense (but not necessarily legal authority over it) and they must explicitly give permission to the vampire to enter. The explicit permission requirement is because a vampire theoretically wouldn’t be able to break into your house by smashing a window.

Now as all of this pertains to a warrant - I think that yes, a vampire with a warrant would be able to enter a home with a warrant because the issuing authority has the ability to control access to your home via warrants and you have implicitly delegated that authority to them via the social contract, and the warrant is explicit permission to enter your home.