Even assuming the passage is totally genuine, two fires had destroyed much in the way of official documents Tacitus had to work with and it is unlikely that he would sift through what he did have to find the record of an obscure crucifixion

Why? If it was a popular myth, why assume he wouldn’t try to confirm/deny it

According to Bart Ehrman, Josephus’ passage about Jesus was altered by a Christian scribe, including the reference to Jesus as the Messiah

So? I’m not presenting evidence for him being a Messiah. I am saying there is some independent evidence of him existing.

B. The second line in Tacitus that mentions Christ and his death was never noticed until after the mid-fourth century. So this second line is fake.

I agree that is bizarre, but not proof of it being fake. Though should be taken with a grain of salt.

This is why Bart Ehrman specifically dismisses Tacitus and Josephus. As do most other biblical scholars.

Who is Bart Ehrman and why relay his beliefs rather than speak for yourself?

And in the case of jesus, we have literally zero independent verification.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sources_for_the_historicity_of_Jesus

That’s rather dismissive.

I don’t mean it that way.

Are you saying that the notion that wealth disparity is bad is just some guy’s opinion,

This is true yes, but back to the original topic

or that you’re not supposed to be able to get rich being a movie star (or a private equity investor, or a hedge fund manager, or a California gold miner)?

This yes. I am saying nobody has any authority to assert what is or isn’t supposed to be highly paid, but it is fair to believe nobody should be highly paid.

Usually when people are vague and terse, I assume they’re losing interest in the conversation. It’s okay to walk away.

I really do genuinely appreciate the consideration, I’m fine right now, but thank you regardless!

But, tbh, that’s just some guys opinion

Movie star isn’t supposed to be a dream job that makes you fabulously rich, but a decent living.

I mean, supposed to according to who?

From Wikipedia on Vincent Van Gogh: Van Gogh’s work began to attract critical artistic attention in the last year of his life. After his death, Van Gogh’s art and life story captured public imagination as an emblem of misunderstood genius

I don’t really understand how this follows from what I said.

For every $1 spent on the moonshots, we got $14. Feel free to look for other investments, but big science really has proven itself.

Do you have a source for that? (And what that claim actually means), afterall, plenty of “essential” inventions in the modern day(including the base of modern rocketry) came from weapons development- does that make war a good investment? (Of course its not 1-to-1 because war is destructive, but my point is putting a lot of effort and smart people into almost anything will lead to a lot of innovation)

The service they provide (from a perspective external to obligatory capitalism) is less about making them, but providing a framework by which people engaged in artistic expression and development get paid and permitted to survive.

If it is art that other people value then that framework already existed(and there are many others who created similar tools for it) so I don’t see it as particularly valuable.

Contrast the space program, which is why memory foam (the material) is in the public domain, as is a fuckton of electronics and computer technologies.

There is a compelling argument that tens of billions of dollars being used productively to research anything would have at least some useful results. Memory foam, cordless drills, etc could have been developed much more cheaply than the Apollo program, GPS is extremely valuable, but Apollo wasn’t a necessary precursor to geostationary orbit.

Yeah, imo it was also a bit more difficult then. But yeah as others said, the licensing was hard too

eh some of it is good, I personally wouldn’t want to just watched licensed shows from 50 years ago

Yeah uh no. that’s not the whole story, Mega is a new company, the difference is it’s encrypted so the theory was they’d have no way to scan for pirated content. Mega was also seized people think, it’s unclear who or what currently opperates it. And Kim Dotcom’s extradition case is ongoing.

Yeah uh no. that’s not the whole story, Mega is a new company, the difference is it’s encrypted so the theory was they’d have no way to scan for pirated content. Mega was also seized people think, it’s unclear who or what currently opperates it. And Kim Dotcom’s extradition case is ongoing.

Yeah but megaupload was legit but was still shutdown despite being massive

To be fair, the service they provide isn’t hosting the videos, it’s making them, which I assume costs a bit more

To be fair, the service they provide isn’t hosting the videos, it’s making them, which I assume costs a bit more

It can, it also sometimes can’t unless you ask it “could it be x answer”

Headline is just a lie, its not banned

IMO you should change it when its deceptive clickbait

The article says arbitration-opt-out@discord.com

But their job is to be the fall guy.

simply parrot what they’re told/what they’ve read.

That’s exactly what an LLM is