hendrik
@hendrik@palaver.p3x.de
- Comment on Which guides to trust for novice / normie getting started? 4 days ago:
I like YunoHost. That's an all-in-one solution to do the selfhosting for you. So you won't learn a lot about the intricate details of the tech, but you can install things with a few clicks. That's nice if you just want to use stuff. And that project has some track-record. I'm using it for years to self-host Peertube, Immich a Nextcloud and a few other things.
- Comment on Shitsharing 4 days ago:
Correct. We currently have some sentiment against liberal spaces and DEI programs and so on. And some people think it's the war against straight white men. But having a men's groups or women's groups or safe-spaces to talk freely about whatever topics isn't authoritarian. The opposite of it is equally true. You can't discuss certain topics without the correct space for it, and not allowing them to discuss how they like is authoritatian as well!
- Comment on Apparently Debian has alienated the developers 5 days ago:
Oh man, I'm a bit late to the party here.
He really believes the far-right Trump propaganda, and doesn't understand what diversity programs do. It's not a war between white men an all the other groups of people... It's just that is has proven to be difficult to for example write a menstrual tracker with a 99.9% male developer base. It's just super difficult to them to judge how that's going to be used in real-world scenarios and what some specific challenges and nice features are. That's why you listen to minority opinions, to deliver a product that caters to all people. And these minority opinions are notoriously difficult to attract. That's why we do programs for that. They are task-forces to address things aside from what's mainstream and popular. It'll also benefit straight white men. Liteally everyone because it makes Linux into a product that does more than just whatever is mainstream today. Same thing applies to putting effort into screen readers and disabled people and whatever other minorities need.
- Comment on WhisperX — Automated Transcripts w/ Timestamps and Speaker Tagging 6 days ago:
Hmm... Would be interesting to find out what kind of effect that has on the average marriage or relationship 😅
- Comment on WhisperX — Automated Transcripts w/ Timestamps and Speaker Tagging 6 days ago:
Likely everyday stuff... Meeting minutes, phone or video conferences and such...
- Comment on KAOSnow, a totally new take on Democracy 1 week ago:
Sure. I mean we seem to be a bit different and have different visions. So I'm not sure if I'm the correct person to take your idea to pieces and add my spin on it... That could take away from a clear vision and turn it into a mess. Maybe it's better if I do my thing and you do yours... But I'm not sure about that. My DMs are open, so feel free to DM me. I'm just not sure whether I'm able to contribute.
- Comment on Study Finds LLMs Biased Against Men in Hiring 1 week ago:
I meant both sex and gender. They regularly fail to tell me a lot for my own real life. I like some people and dislike others and it's easier for me to talk to / work with / collaborate or empathize depending on various circumstances. Personality traits, shared goals... Maybe sharing something or it's the opposite of that. I believe gender or sex or identity is a bit overrated and so is stereotyped thinking for a lot of applications. Or the need to conform to a stereotype. Dress and identify however you like, make sure to give your children an electronics kit and a princess dress... And unless that's really important for some niche application, don't feel the urge to look into their pants and check what's there.
- Comment on Study Finds LLMs Biased Against Men in Hiring 1 week ago:
You're welcome. I mean it's kind of a factual question. Is gender an indicator on its own? If yes, then the rest is just how statistics and probability work... And that's not really a controversy. Maths in itself works 🥹
I'd also welcome if we were to cut down on unrelated stuff, stereotypes and biases. Just pick what you like to optimize for and then do that. At least if you believe in the free market in that way. Of course it also has an impact on society, people etc and all of that is just complex. And then women and men aren't really different, but at the same time they are. And statistics is more or less a tool. Highly depends on what you do with it and how you apply it. It's like that with most tools.
- Comment on Study Finds LLMs Biased Against Men in Hiring 1 week ago:
Right. If it's true that women statistically outperform men (with same application documents), it'd be logical to prefer them just on gender alone. Because they likely turn out to be better.
- Comment on Study Finds LLMs Biased Against Men in Hiring 1 week ago:
Issue is they probably want to pattern-recognize something like merit / ability / competence here. And ignore other factors. Which is just hard to do.
- Comment on Study Finds LLMs Biased Against Men in Hiring 1 week ago:
LLMs reproducing stereotypes is a well researched topic. They do that due to what they are. Stereotypes and bias in (in the training data), bias and stereotypes out. That's what they're meant to do. And all AI companies have entire departments to tune that, measure the biases and then fine-tune it to whatever they deem fit.
I mean the issue aren't women or anything, it's using AI for hiring in the first place. You do that if you want whatever stereotypes Anthropic and OpenAI gave to you.
- Comment on What do I do -- Incorrect? 1 week ago:
I think after initial installation, you open a browser with the post-installation step and configure a username and password there. I'm not entirely sure, it's been some time since I did it.
General password advice: Check caps lock, and if you use like a German keyboard if 'z' and 'y' are swapped.
- Comment on KAOSnow, a totally new take on Democracy 1 week ago:
I think you misunderstand the problem. You can do that, yes. But have you ever moderated a diverse group of people? They're all very different. Some are bold and loud. Some aren't. Some are introverted or quiet. Or you somehow need to make them feel comfortable and safe before they speak up at all. Some say the first thing that comes to mind and they talk a lot, and some aren't even part of the conversation and you need to make them speak up at the right moment, effectively silencing the other people, because then you'll get their nuanced opinion and they used the time to really think it through.
I've managed some people in smaller groups over the time and I can tell you your approach just silences the interesting people. You won't end up with all opinions that way. And the result of the entire conversation just won't be great.
- Comment on KAOSnow, a totally new take on Democracy 1 week ago:
Thanks for the explanation. Yes, looks like the combination you have in mind might not have been tried before. We had free speech forums. Which mainly failed to achieve their goal of becoming a marketplace of ideas. And we have several platforms for public participation. To collectively collect ideas and vote on them in a democratic process. (citizenos.com adhocracy.plus consuldemocracy.org and likely several others) I think those address NGOs, municipalities, government...
They're not exactly the same scope you seem to have, though.
- Comment on community for lgbtq+ christians or those learning about christianity 1 week ago:
I think the main issue is that the Bible isn't concise enough for a supposed divine book. It rarely tells me useful things and what to do in my modern life in the big city. Instead it has a lot of passages about camels, living in the bronze age and so on. And I think that's because of what it is. Written by humans, a long time ago, shaped by their perspective. If God had wanted it to contain absolute truth, he shouldn't just have appointed them to write it, but handed out some absolute truth.
And I can see how can interpret all kinds of things into it. We definitely have the "Christians" who focus on hate. Who run around with these "God hates fags" signs and they find all kinda of things to make other people's life miserable. We have several variants of Christianity and they disagree on many details. We had things from the Spanish Inquisition to today's more liberal times. All based on pretty much the same text. And why is that? Are 99% of people throughout history, and the other variants of current Christians all just wrong and on the wrong path and I'm the only one understanding it correctly? Or who is?
I think it's because Christians do in fact base their morals not just on straightforward literal bible verses. That's why they're able to adopt to societal progress. We don't just make women's life miserable any more. They got the right to vote and they're supposed to have equal opportunities now. We even allow them to become teachers. And that's pretty much in direct violation of the bible. Yet I have some friends who are teachers, some even for religion. And the protestant church here even has a male and a female priest and she doesn't view her role as to stay quiet and bear childs. The catholic church which I've grown up in thinks that's not how it's done and the don't appoint females. (Plus she has some formal education on scripture and the inner workings of the Church, so I trust she knows more about it than me.)
Point being: Women's rights are not an achievement of the church. They didn't sit down, have a covenant and then changed the world to be more open towards women... It's the other way around. Society made progress, and it was a long hard fight. And people adopted.
I think it's basically the same thing with the stands towards LGBTQ+ people.
And we have a few other issues in the catholic church, like Maria 2.0 and their ideas towards contraceptives which are highly problematic because it contributes to spreading HIV.
I have little issues with you and your personal belief system. The issue is that we're all part of the same world and it has quite some impact. And the church still has a big influence. They employ some of my friends, they run entire hospitals and more. They shape society and more. And I'm everything but indifferent towards that.
Luckily the community around me mostly shares what I recognize in your comments as well. How "The gospel" means "good news" and that's the central point of how you're supposed to practice it.
- Comment on community for lgbtq+ christians or those learning about christianity 1 week ago:
No, I'm not a Christian. I'm sorry, now I think I should have lead with that, or recognized you were under the assumption I was. I have such an upbringing, I've been part of the church. But I myself don't have the belief in me, that what's in the Bible are factual truths. Still, that doesn't stop me from being interested in Jesus, his life and teachings. And to some degree the scripture itself.
And thanks for the good conversation and your perspective. I learned some things. And I looked some up. My intention was basically that, not proclaim you were wrong. That'd be very hypocritical if I were to try to prove you wrong on the basis of scripture, which I don't even have as the basis for my own morals. I still think these things matter, though. And I follow how the catholic (and protestant) church around me has started blessing same sex couples, they have campaigns now for plurality and welcome such people amongst themselves. And the attached youth organizations sometimes take part in rainbow events like pride month. At least where I live. And from what I get from our conversation, we're likely on the same page here, when I say I welcome that and I think it's a "good" advancement the church made. (It wasn't always like this.)I think with "the act" itself, we can't settle our differences. I think the entire limitation of sex to procreation isn't right, and I don't base that on scripture. You gave me quite some insight about your perspective, and I still struggle with the translation and interpretation, but I think I have at least some understanding now.
- Comment on community for lgbtq+ christians or those learning about christianity 1 week ago:
God cannot be evil.
Yes, I'm wrong here. I think it's a bit of a technicality. He created evil (Isiah 45:7) and no matter if he commits the same thing as evil, per definition that never makes him be evil.
What about the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, or the many miracles He performed?
I think it's a metaphor. And not even the most important one (to me). I think the important part is that he died for us. And then they added some more fluff to the story. It really brings it home and sets him apart as the messiah if there's an added resurrection. And well, I think performing miracles was quite common for prophets back then and paranormal things happened often. Muhammad also performed many miracles including similar ones like providing supernatural food. Various other people did it, too. And people split the sea and did all kinds of things in the Old Testament.
I'm still very unconvinced about the entire homosexuality thing. I mean the Romans text is kind of the God of the Old Testament, needy for valudation and full of wrath. And then he was pissed and gave humans sexual desires contrary to nature. And that and the "shameless acts" are a bit unclear. Whatever that is supposed to mean if I'm not allowed to interpret it. I'd say men loving each other in a genuine way surely can't be that, there's no shame or harm in that.
The Corinthian thing is more it. Still needs context though, since it requires knowledge about sex practices back then and what has been considered immoral by society back then, because it mostly refers to that. And then we have the translation in the way.My big issue, if that's not concerned with pederasty... What part of the New Testament is? Or is age just not the problematic part of it, ...that'd be completely fine to do for Christians, just that they have the same gender?
- Comment on community for lgbtq+ christians or those learning about christianity 1 week ago:
You aren't in any position to condemn the inspired word of God.
If it promotes adult men sleeping with underage boys, or is indecisive about it, I'll just refuse that kind of "inspiration". I think it's immoral. God can strike me down for that if he likes, and if he's in a position to do that, still doesn't change my mind about the subject.
The "although" I placed there was because [...]
Yes, you were talking about something else. People just tend to lose me when talking about God's unconditional love and then following the sentence up with a "but" or "although". I think we agree here. I have reason to believe the New Testament is about unconditional love. And that's reflected at many places in it. Most people add a "but", or "although", an we're immediately in dangerous territory. And the people calling themselves Christians and waving signs with "God hates fags" didn't understand the core of that the New Testament stands for. They're simply wrong. But that's not what you said.
In the old times God was kind of evil. He send plagues, told people to kill each other including all women and children, just the young girls are okay to keep. Nonchalantly drowned pretty much all animals which were pretty much innocent in mankinds wrongdoings. Or he casually dropped them on their heads. It's not like that any more for Christians. That's replaced by Gods unconditional love for his children. And the way of Jesus isn't to blame them and lecture them on how they're wrong all the time. But specifically omit that and show them just(!) the love, and that gets them where they need to be. So that's why I think we should never follow up such sentences with a "but".
Are you talking about the plagues of Moses? If that's the case, then what do you propose happened?
I propose it's part of the supposed origin story of a tribe. And the hardships they had to endure. I have no reason to believe superstitious things happen and physics can be contradicted. Plague of locusts exist and all kind of other things. But not random frog droppings.
Btw that's also the source for the (6000 years) young earth theory, because as part of the origin story, it includes a family tree and you can add the numbers up.
You are drawing a huge and dangerous brush over here. [...] It is obvious then that stuff like that is up for interpretation. But then when you get to Paul's epistles [...]
I think my main issue is that I completely fail to understand how I'm supposed to know which is open up to interpretation and what's meant to be taken literally. Am I supposed to use reason and my deductive skills here? But that's kind of interpretation again. So I can't do that. And to my knowledge the Bible doesn't really come with an instruction manual what's true and what's over exaggerated or just a nice (but false) story. Or do I just take what some other human said as word for it?
why do you grant homosexuality an exception?
I tried to explain that before. Because it's not there. The text doesn't use the word homosexuality, but "Arsenokoitai". And the passages regularly add constraining adjectives. Which just isn't the case for adultery. The translation is way more forward for that one. And we have more occurrences in the Bible which make it very clear that that one isn't just meant within a certain context, or comes with exceptions. Also Jesus talks about other important issues himself, but for homosexuality that's all in parts added by other people. So that's why I treat that differently.
I mean we have a bit more of an issue here. I started with "depends on whether you ask the church or Jesus". So I'm not really bothered by what Paul thought or wrote down, or covenant theology tells me. If homosexuality were to be important to Jesus, I'd expect it to show up in the Sermon of the Mount or something, and him clearly addressing that big issue. Or I'd like to read some nice parable on how he went to the gay club. But curiously enough, these passages don't exist.
- Comment on community for lgbtq+ christians or those learning about christianity 1 week ago:
[...] Arsenokoitai
Yeah, I read some 3 page essay on how that word was used. I know "every reputable translation of the Bible translates it along those lines" but that doesn't make it correct to translate it to a different word in and view it from a different perspective / a different context 2000 years later. I think it's ambiguous at best. And skipping the 3 pages and making it about todays homosexuals is an oversimplicifaction and simply wrong.
[...] Eisegesis, not Exegesis
I'm not that educated on church doctrine, but do we even have access to exegesis? I mean sure technically the scripture is the meaning by definition. But isn't what Paul writes already something like eisegesis? I mean he's a human and he interpreted and spread the teachings for us.
no evidence in the text anywhere that it could be indicating pederasty
Well, I think pederasty is very wrong. If that part of the Bible fails to recognize or even mention that, I condemn the scripture for that.
Romans 1:26-27
Again, that's Paul's summary of Hellenistic legalism. That's the entire context of that part of Romans.
Trying to claim that Jesus fits in any secular political viewpoint (leftism, conservatism) is a very shallow view and completely incorrect.
I know. The entire left/right spectrum is completely incorrect. But I gave some examples of what kind of person Jesus was and if he advocated for the people and the weak, or for the strong ones and the establishment. He happens to have quite some overlap there with core leftist ideology.
you'd have dinner with the adulterers [...]
And I think here, you're absolutely right. Although [...]
There is no "although". He clearly left out picking on their "sinful state" the way the other people did. He went there and all he had was love. It's not super straightforward but I'm pretty sure we can skip lecturing them on those kinds of "sins".
By reinterpreting the Bible in your own way [...] Essentially, if I disagree with the Bible, then I'm the one who's wrong. Not the Bible.
Yeah I mean good luck with that. It's full of contradictions, stuff that was written after Jesus. You need to believe the earth is 6000 years old and rectancular with angels in the four corners playing the trumpet on doomsday. And you can't even tell whether it's okay to eat Shrimp unless you do Eisegesis. And I'm pretty sure all the raining frogs and so on is made up and not meant to be taken literally.
- Comment on Advice needed for 10" Rack ESP32 cooling 2 weeks ago:
I think pretty much any mosfet / h-bridge / motor control board with pwm should do.
If you have those 4-wire fans with a pwm input that accepts 3V3 logic, you might even be able to attach them directly to the ESP.But that's not all fans, I had some mixed results with that. I think buying a dedicated fan board like the one you mentioned might be the most straightforward solution.
- Comment on community for lgbtq+ christians or those learning about christianity 2 weeks ago:
Uh, that's mainly your opinion. I'm pretty sure both passages you gave remain contested. It's likely about male pederasty or prostitution while sex between men in general might be completely fine. And we know for example what Paul's role was, and that was to do politics, not quote Jesus verbatim. So you have to look at the context. That part in Romans is mainly a summary of Hellenistic Jewish legalism, not anything new, not even really about Jesus.
Corinthans again doesn't condemn homosexuality, but you need to read several paragraphs on ancient greek and history to even understand what the word even means. It's not as easy as "homosexuality" to which it has been wronfully translated.
I don't see a strong argument why male homosexuality should be wrong. Most other passages also talk about it in the context of violence or abuse. And we can all agree that's wrong. But a loving homosexual relationship is a different thing. And then someone still needs to quote some bible verses to me regarding lesbians, trans-people, ... They're obviously loved by the Christian community, are they?
- Comment on community for lgbtq+ christians or those learning about christianity 2 weeks ago:
Likely depends on whether you ask the church or Jesus. We don't really have any reliable information, but if he really was a hippie preacher, telling how god loves all of his creatures, and how you can't hate on people... He must have been pro Lgbtq+
- Comment on KAOSnow, a totally new take on Democracy 2 weeks ago:
I came here thinking they want to launch the next right-wing "free speech" platform. But now I'm not so sure any more. Maybe they genuinely think the marketplace of ideas works. And it'll be the right idea coming out victorious... Which might actually happen if we indeed were to do rational and logical arguments.
I'd say be aware they might just not know, how people get targeted for identity. Or face more than moderate disagreements on technology and politics... This is all my speculation but to me it sounds like the genuine perspective of someone who doesn't have a clue of the reality of the community you advocate for.
- Comment on KAOSnow, a totally new take on Democracy 2 weeks ago:
Generally, you're going to get targeted on a personal level. There are enough people oit there who turn factual conversations into a personal level. Either they're offended by your perspective or fundamentally opposed or just a*holes. Ant they'll call you names, yell at you, gather their friends to do the same and follow you and try to make your life miserable... And then you're going to stop sharing your opinion openly. That's what they mean with it's censorship (as well). Because you're going to be systematically silenced.
- Comment on KAOSnow, a totally new take on Democracy 2 weeks ago:
I'm pretty sure something like that has been tried before. I can't remember the details, but we had some peer to peer platforms and other forums trying to establish full free speech with no censorship. And turns out they're quickly crowded by trolls, nazis and generally angry and hateful people who feel they're censored and they're looking for people who side with then online. And then we have things like 4chan or 8chan. Or platforms who claim to be free speech, but they're just far-right. Like Gab, Parler and so on.
I'm not entirely sure what you're looking for. If you want something that's not an echo chamber and meaningful conversations, you're looking at heavy content moderation, and enforcing those rules. If you don't want hate, you need to crack down on it.
So I don't see how that's substantially different from what we do here. But I didn't really understand what you have in mind and what kind of tech you're planning to use. I wish you good luck though. Meaningful conversations would be great.
- Comment on Does vibe coding sort of work at all? 2 weeks ago:
Concerning the IQ: App development and regular programming aren't that hard. It needs some time and dedication, and willingness to learn how all these things work and tie together, but I think everyone with an average IQ could do it. It's other domains where you need a high IQ, like writing advanced signal processing algorithms. Or detailed security audits. But App development is just moderately complex, you can get away with basic math... So I'd say it's doable. Still needs quite some time and effort though. At least several weeks to months. And the Kotlin book I have has like 800 pages filled with information, and that just takes some time to work through. None of it is magic, though. You do one chapter at a time.
- Comment on [deleted] 2 weeks ago:
Oh wow. 🥹 My idea: Follow the instructions in the green box.
- Comment on KAOSnow, a totally new take on Democracy 2 weeks ago:
So. Are you going to post something or is it just a place holder?
- Comment on lemm.ee partially dead 2 weeks ago:
Ah. My instance reports the last activity from lemm.ee from 45mins ago... So that'd be June 30th, 00:14 Estonian time. And the main page forwards to join-lemmy.org now. Looks like the shutdown to me.
- Comment on lemm.ee partially dead 2 weeks ago:
Well... it's 10 before midnight here. I'm pretty sure a bit east from me it's the 30th already. Not so much in the west. But I don't know where lemm.ee was located.