That’s the thing, looking at the company they don’t work “normal labor” jobs. Infosys is into info tech, consulting, and outsourcing services and looking at their acquisition history I get the impression they buy up smaller companies and consolidate their work into their product. Basically they make websites and tools that your company buys for $100k to analyze and optimize workflow, but the site doesn’t work well and they never fix it. After 2 years enough time has passed that the higher ups don’t feel embarrassed retiring the software and buying something else. Also, rather than just coding themselves they code with AI or buy other companies that already wrote the code and put it into their own product.

At the end of the day they aren’t “working,” they are being available. They are the shitty guy who is answering a work call on a Saturday while they are supposed to be watching their kid’s ball game. They are the person who has to step out of the movie theater because they are getting an urgent work call at 10 pm on Friday. They are the person who flies back from their vacation two days early because the boss wants to ask about sales numbers. This is how Executive suite types say they work 16 hour days 7 days a week, they count every hour of the day as work because they are available, not because they were being productive that entire time.

I don’t know, I feel like that’s a bit of a stretch. If god exists, creation is because of them, and early humans and faith are shaped by them, then the concept of a god who purports themselves as objectively good despite subjective proof otherwise doesn’t seem unlikely. The idea that god might not be good in the way we think good should be is relatively modern and prior to the last 100-200 years god was good because everything prior said so. For fucks sake most people couldn’t read and just trusted the guy in robes to tell them what to think.

So yeah, just like me trimming a plant and putting it in rooting hormone 1000 times, I think an all powerful and knowable god could theoretically always inevitably result in Christianity if they wanted, the bar isn’t that high when the majority of the species lifetime is dismally stupid.

Also, your argument is inherently flawed if you think the contrast of a good god must be an evil one. Concepts of good and evil have fluctuated wildly over the centuries, both in location and sentiment. If god made everything and said they are good then at best good to us doesn’t mean the same thing as good means to them and trying to frame the argument in that is meaningless.

At the end of the day you get to decide if you believe in god or not, if you do believe in god you can still decide whether you like “god” and want to follow it; however, making the logical leap that god doesn’t exist because they aren’t good by your definition is fundamentally flawed.

If you’ve never seen it I recommend you watch the movie, “The Man from Earth.” It’s a short “indy-esque” movie and, without too many spoilers, focuses on a man who claims he is a prehistoric man who just never died. In his long life span he says he traveled to India and studied with the Buddah and while returning west began to spread the Buddah’s teachings, in time people began to call him Jesus.

Really interesting movie, lots of great thought experiment stuff, but it does make an interesting point that the literal teachings of Jesus are so different from the old testament teachings that one almost wonders how they could come from the same source.

Also I don’t think it’s even worth examining a flawed deity in the context of Christianity, because it’s clearly something they made up. “Whats that, lord? Go kill the people we don’t like and steal their land and take their virgins as war brides? Well if God says so 🤷”

Well that’s part of the problem, the people in the situation are flawed as well. A biblical reference that comes to mind is First Samuel 15:3 in which god instructs the Israelites to kill all of the Amalekites including men, women, infants, nursing children, ox, sheep, camel, and donkey. In the story Saul actually sins and disobeys god by not killing everything he is instructed to kill as fucked up as that is.

When discussing god with atheists it often comes down to a point similar to this, “God can’t be real because if god existed they wouldn’t allow XYZ.” In reality we have no reason to assume as much.

If there is a god that entity could be flawed and faulty while still being omniscient and omnipotent. We assume that a being with human sentiments and unlimited knowledge would have to be a good being, but that’s not necessarily so. It’s entirely possible that if god exists it views us similarly to how we view ants and simply just doesn’t share the concerns or beliefs we feel are naturally just and fair.

At the end of the day god could be a giant toddler on the playground and while they are unfair and unjust you have the choice of either believing and following (assuming the Christian god) to go to heaven or not believing and following and burning in eternal torment.

This is all just a thought experiment, but the argument that god can’t exist because god isn’t good is inherently a flawed argument (not that you are explicitly making that argument, I’m just extrapolating off of what you posted, ie god might not be a good guy).

Honestly didn’t know that Gelsinger was a bible thumper, after his time at Intel I figured he’d just retire and disappear.

a scholar at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte

Hahahahaha…wait, was that not a joke?

Is this just camping with extra steps?

I was wondering about that as well so I looked into the dates. Apparently Obama got the award in October 9, 2009, and some of the first controversial drone strikes under his administration were in March and April of 2009. Dude came out the gate drone striking and the Nobel Committee just ignored it.

Let me start by saying I’m 100% against fascism, but… we do have a terminology problem. The left overall has a messaging problem, “Oh Black lives matter, so that means White lives don’t?!?” Words do matter, but it’s because they matter that we have a problem. The left seems to ebb and flow on vibes (“Just because we say Black lives matter doesn’t mean other people’s lives don’t”) while the right seems so much more literal, but the subtext is maybe even more implied. For example, they might say “They [people not like us] are taking our jobs,” but what they really mean is that they are taking the jobs we want (office jobs, trade jobs, etc), but we don’t mind them working the jobs we don’t want (basic construction, farm hands, etc), all the while their vibe is wrong and that’s not really happening.

When you call someone or something fascist they probably won’t believe you because fascism equals Nazis which equals antisemitism in most of the common people’s view. I’ll assume that anyone who has found their way to Lemmy probably understands the difference, but at the same time many of this platform don’t seem able to understand that the common person doesn’t know the difference.

There is a big difference between systemic racism vs open bigotry. A bigot is much harder to turn from racism than a person who grew up in systemic racism. It still might take decades to turn someone who is systemically racist, but a bigot will likely take longer. The same applies to a fascist; like a systemic racist they might not understand that they are racist or what racism even is. Education or experience are the two avenues people escape those avenues, but it’s especially hard if you’re doing it alone and if you feel attacked by the terminology.

Fascist = Nazi = Jew hater

“Well, I don’t hate jews, I’m not a Nazi, so I’m not a fascist” -common Fascist

I’ve had plenty of discussions with Conservatives where I took the discussion to a rich vs poor direction or a a personal rights vs governed rights direction and they suddenly become liberals without acknowledging it.

Honestly it’s the same hurdle that the left has had for decades, just because you’re a leftist doesn’t mean you love Stalin and Mao. Messaging is important, one of the most recent persons to break that mold was Bernie Sanders who made it at least semi acceptable to be a Democratic Socialist.

How anyone can sympathise for him I don’t know

At the end of the day he is a human being, that’s why. I’m not trying to defend the guy, but fundamentally that’s what is supposed to divide the progressives/liberals vs the conservatives. The conservatives don’t care except when it’s their own while the progressives and liberals are supposed to care about all people supposedly.

That’s not the take away you should be getting by any means. Yes, school shootings are more common in the US than the rest of the world, but they are statistically very very rare in the US. The reason why schools in the US react so dramatically for such a rare event is because they are trying to protect themselves from liability and lawsuit, not because they are trying to protect students or help troubled kids.

You don’t seem to have read my post…

A lot of this is overblown really. A few things:

1. The vast majority of school kids in the US will never deal with an active shooter situation.
2. 43% of school shooters in the US are themselves active students
3. Only 20% of school shooting perpetrators had no affiliation to the school, meaning that ~37% of shooters were former students, teachers, or parents.
4. From 1999 - 2023 there were a total of 131 school shootings, but in 2024 alone there were a reported 332 school shootings.
5. These are some terrible numbers, but statistically it’s a rare thing. There are approximately 130,000 K-12 schools in the US and ~75 million students per year. If we assume all schools have the same chance of having a school shooting (they don’t) they would have a 0.2% chance that your school will have a shooting that year or 4% chance that in your k-12 years that you would be at a school shooting.

When people talk about school security in the US they often don’t consider how litigious and risk adverse the US is. You don’t lock doors, build fences, and hire security guards to protect from such a small risk chance, if they actually cared there would be a greater emphasis on mental health. No, they do these things to minimize risk, lower insurance rates, and ward off lawsuits.

The defense writes itself,

“Hey, you can’t sue us for your child’s trauma, we did everything we reasonably could to ensure that a shooter couldn’t get into the school. We built a fence, we locked the doors, we made the kids wear clear plastic book bags, we used a metal detector, we hired a guard, we expelled kids who made threats, and we called the police on people who aren’t allowed to be here. If a kid then sneaks a 3D printed plastic gun on site and traumatizes the students it’s not the school systems fault.”

The US is crazy litigious, especially if a government entity is involved and someone might get a pay day. In my area a high school girl and some similarly aged boys ran away from school while at recess to a forest a mile or two off site. The girl then said she was sexually assaulted by the two boys, called her mom and was picked up and taken to the hospital directly (never came back to the school). The school had reported the girl missing, but only found out about the sexual assault after the mother filed a police report and the police reached out. The school cooperated with the police and reached out to the girl and her mother asking if she was ok or there was anything they could do, but the mother refused to answer their (the schools) phone calls or cooperate with the police. A year later the mother sued the school, the school system, the municipal government, and the police each for several million dollars for allowing her daughter to run away from school and for not protecting her from sexual assault in an offsite location. This lawsuit went on for over a year before the judge dismissed the case.

Example, god would never allow the mass starvation of children no matter which god.

What makes you think that? Your concept of a god is that if they exist they would conform to human ideals of good or that their own rules would apply to them. You could instead argue that if god isn’t good then they therefore do not deserve to be worshiped which is a fair argument as well. However, if god does exist, does not conform to human ideals of good, and there are consequences for not believing in it or obeying it’s orders then you’re just up shits creek.

Just to throw out some examples from the bible but God allowed Satan to torment Job because Job was a loyal and good person, God allowed Lot to offer his daughters for rape rather than some angels, God turned Lots wife into salt for looking in a direction, God flooded the world and killed everyone but one small family, the plagues of Egypt, when the Israelites came to the promised land they encountered other civilizations which God told them to kill every man, woman, child, and beast. We don’t need to look at modern examples, we don’t get past the old testament without it being clear that if the Christian (or Jewish for that matter) God exists he doesn’t follow his own rules.

I don’t know other religions as well as Christianity, but considering Islam, Judaism, and Christianity share some commonalities I’m going to lump them together. In Greek mythology the gods are straight up sadistic at times and the people were supposed to be ok with it, Hera tormented Hercules for being born and the Trojan War was started because one god didn’t get invited to another god’s wedding. I don’t know a lot about the Aztec gods, but as far as I can tell it was believed they required human sacrifice at least on some frequency. I’m sure there are more examples in other religions, but the fundamental argument is the same.

I’m not really trying to change your mind, I myself would probably be closer to agnositic, but a lot of atheists try to logic their way around the existence of god as if god is another person when in reality the relationship may be similar to you conversing with an ant. You might be right and god doesn’t exist, but to say they don’t exist because they allow suffering in the world is fundamentally counter to what most religions say about their god(s).

A lot of people are calling this a bailout for Elon, but in reality it would be a seizure. Elon doesn’t want to let go of Starlink and the US likely wouldn’t pay him what it’s worth to take it over.

What people seem to be missing is the precedent this would set. It’s all well and good when we empower the office of the president to seize a private company we don’t like, but after we give them that power what’s to stop them from seizing other businesses?

XYZ company refuses to get rid of their DEI policy because the shareholders voted to keep it? Well now the orange man can seize it.

Let’s not forget that previously it took 2/3rd majority to confirm presidential appointments, but the Senate under Obama decided to change that rule to 50% to get past Republican objections. The result of this is all these shit appointments Trump has passed with 51% of the Senate, none of them would have gotten by if the Democrats hadn’t made a precedent for changing the rules.