ProdigalFrog

Have you seen Andor?

It's nice on buttered toast, but personally I prefer Marmite, which is similar, but less bitter.

Vegemite is useful as a vegan beef bullion replacement, but I prefer marmite in that context as well.

You get paid a small amount per day until the trial finishes if you're chosen.

Most of the things you mentioned like insects and spiders don't have a mind. Their brains are too small for anything resembling a mind.

Jumping spiders have an interesting amount of cognition, more than I would've thought, and especially for their size.

I’m actually tired of eating beef.

Would beef-liver supplements (like in pill form) be enough iron to replace the beef?

I played s.p.l.i.t fairly recently, and I was seriously impressed. It's a very unique narrative-driven game where you're in communication with a small group of hackers in a uniquely dystopian world, and you need to collaborate with them to hack a specific device.

It's only about an hour or two long, but it's priced to match at $3, and wow did it leave an impression on me, it's unlike anything else I've ever played.

Highly recommend it if that sounds at all intriguing.

Knowing some basic MS-DOS/Linux terminal commands beforehand, like how to change directories/navigate would be helpful (this quick guide would be all you really need).

3 Days of The Condor.

It's a 70's paranoid thriller with Robert Redford and Faye Dunaway, just an awesome film.

Chemical sunscreens can be. Mineral types that use zinc oxide or titanium oxide should be pretty okay to use.

EDIT: Ah, I found that he was indeed at least open to the idea to centralize the militias.

He then met with Cipriano Mera, who proposed that all the confederal militias in Madrid be unified under Durruti's single command; this would prevent an army from being formed, while also relinquishing the democratic control the rank-and-file had over the command structure. Mera and Durruti then agreed to meet the following morning
At the meeting, Mera said “for people to carry out their mission and not budge from their assigned position—in a word, so that they obey—there is no choice but to use the tool that we’re afraid to even mention: discipline.”
Mera recorded Durruti’s response: “OK, Mera, we’re mostly in agreement about this. I agree with the core of what you’re saying, and also with your idea of joining our forces. Mine have to be relieved because they’ve suffered heavy blows in the last few days. We’ll see comrade Val at 4:00 and can discuss all this together.”

It looks like he still wanted to hash some things out, but as far as I can tell, that meeting with Val never occurred due to his death the next day.

End of edit.

Could you share your source which details that Durruti created specifically a top-down centralized militia? From the sources I've read, he created a bottom-up militia with the ability to recall poorly performing elected leaders. As an example, from Chapter 7 of Paz Abel's 'Durruti in The Spanish Revolution':

The volunteers decided among themselves how to organize themselves, and all opposed anything that suggested a resuscitation of the militarist spirit or hierarchies of command. The structure and organization of the militias, which lasted until the general militarization in March 1937, emerged from the discussions among the future combatants. It was simple: ten men constituted a group, which nominated a representative; ten groups formed a centuria, which elected a representative of its own; and five centuries would form an agrupación. The leader of the agrupación and the centuria delegates made up the agrupación committee. [540]
Pérez Farràs, the Durruti Column’s first military advisor, objected to this organizational structure and cast doubts about its feasibility in combat. Durruti quickly realized that Pérez Farràs would not make a good advisor and replaced him with artillery Sergeant Manzana, who had a better grasp of the anarchists’ anti-authoritarian psychology. Durruti entrusted Manzana and Carreño (a school teacher) with equipping the Column with artillery, munitions, as well as doctors, nurses, and an emergency operating room. Manzana didn’t need many explanations. He immediately understood what Durruti wanted from him and did a wonderful job carrying out his mission. He knew several soldiers who had joined the column, as well as some officers, and planned to have the military men instruct the others. All these people integrated themselves into the Column, fraternally and without conflict.
One day Pérez Farràs stated his criticisms to Durruti directly: “You can’t fight like that,” he declared. In reply, Durruti said:
I’ve said it once and I’ll say it again: I’ve been an anarchist my whole life and the fact that I’m responsible for this human collectivity won’t change my convictions. It was as an anarchist that I agreed to carry out the task that the Central Committee of Anti-Fascist Militias entrusted to me.
I don’t believe—and everything happening around us confirms this— that you can run a workers’ militia according to classical military rules. I believe that discipline, coordination, and planning are indispensable, but we shouldn’t define them in the terms of the world that we’re destroying. We have to build on new foundations. My comrades and I are convinced that solidarity is the best incentive for arousing individual responsibility and a willingness to accept discipline as an act of self-discipline.
War has been imposed upon us and this battle will be different than those we’ve fought in Barcelona, but our goal is revolutionary victory. This means defeating the enemy, but also a radical change in men. For that change to occur, man must learn to live and conduct himself as a free man, an apprenticeship that develops his personality and sense of responsibility, his capacity to be master of his own acts. The worker on the job not only transforms the material on which he works, but also transforms himself through that work. The combatant is nothing more than a worker whose tool is a rifle—and he should strive toward the same objective as the worker. One can’t behave like an obedient soldier, but as a conscious man who understands the importance of what he’s doing. I know that it’s not easy to achieve this, but I also know that what can’t be accomplished with reason will not be obtained by force. If we have to sustain our military apparatus with fear, then we won’t have changed anything except the color of the fear. It’s only by freeing itself from fear that society can build itself in freedom.[541]
Durruti had expressed himself with extreme clarity. His goal was to unite theory and practice. As an anarchist, he intended to remain faithful to libertarian ideals while leading a workers’ column that would soon fight important in Aragón, on the frontlines as well as among the peasants in the rearguard. [542]

I don’t see the need for daylight savings either way

In practical terms, people like to be able to do their own personal, non-work outdoor activities while the sun is out. Daylight savings is intended to make it so that people on a normal day-shift have access to more sunlight during their personal activities after they get off work (or out of School), since work hours do not change or account for the reduced amount of time the sun is out for certain seasons. You can read more of the rationale on why it was created here.

Except for the places that dont really lose much morning or evening, should that have to do this too?

I would say yes. It would be unfair to punish people living in areas with more sunlight with more work hours, and would remove a potential cause for logistical issues.

Besides, working less and having more free time is healthier for a population anyway.

They get the same work length either way.

Daylight savings only shifts when a work day begins and ends, it does not alter the total number of hours worked.

To put it another way, a job that is 9:00am to 5:00pm means you will work 8 hours total. If everyone shifts their clock 1 hour back for daylight savings, you will still work a total of 8 hours, you just start and end those 8 hours shifted 1 hour earlier in comparison to non-daylight savings time.

My proposal is to change the total number of work hours seasonally, meaning in areas where it gets darker sooner, they would work 1 hour less than they normally would for same amount of pay.

So in the winter, businesses could be mandated by law to change work hours from 9:00am to 4:00pm. Or if you want to be really radical, remove 2 whole hours by making them 10:00am to 4:00pm.

This removes the need for daylight savings entirely, as then people can simply sleep in a bit more until the sun comes out, and head home earlier while the sun is still out.

The businesses won't like that idea, as they don't want workers to work less total hours at their businesses, even if it likely would result in higher profits from happier, more rested workers being more productive. Businesses would push for daylight savings instead of reducing work hours, because they are assholes.

I consider it pro-corporate because companies generally prefer if workers worked more hours, even if it doesn't result in financial gains. This is evidenced by the fact that 4-day work weeks increase productivity and thus profits, but corporations a generally very against the idea regardless.

Corporations are usually bottom-line/profit focused, but they have some weird exceptions when it comes to improving worker conditions. Work from Home decreases operating costs and increases worker health, yet many corporations fight it tooth and nail.

Another examples is when Eastern Airlines was on the verge of bankruptcy. As a last ditch effort, the CEO (Frank Borman, previously the Commander on Apollo 8) decided to make a deal with the workers that gave them a fairly radical amount of horizontal control.

Doing so drastically increased productivity and profits, but Frank Borman was given tons of shit by other business owners for essentially not keeping the workers under his foot, telling him he should just let the company fold rather than give the workers that much power, just on a matter of principle.

I think reducing working hours slightly to account for less daylight makes sense from a humanistic perspective, but I believe that concept would be heavily opposed by corporations, since they would prefer to waste money and have a more tired work force than to normalize reducing work hours.

I think you may be conflating my two paragraphs together. The first paragraph explains why they collectively change their clocks forward or backward an hour. It's because most US businesses do not have alternate hours for different seasons.

My second paragraph is an alternate proposal, by me, that would avoid the need to change the clocks at all, while as a side effect giving people an extra hour of their life for themselves.

Rock 'n' roll racing on the Genesis still holds up as the finest co-op combat racer ever made, IMHO.

Starflight is neat if you like space exploration.

Slime World is a fun co-op side scrolling shooter.

Windjammers is a fun disc-soccer game, kinda like extreme pong.

Changing the clock itself alters the amount of light left when people get off work.

We could've just left the clocks alone, and instead made it mandatory that businesses reduce working hours by an hour or two in the winter, while maintaining the same pay. But since the government is corporate captured, that would never pass.

In our current system of daylight savings, corporations get the same amount of work hours, while all the workers are forced to adjust. It's a pro-corporate compromise.

It's similar to how studies show that 4-day work weeks boost mental health and productivity, but corporations don't like the idea, so a law mandating 4-day work weeks without a reduction in pay would never pass, despite it benefitting society.

And really horrific events like the holocaust must've had countless people praying to be spared, but since most of them died anyway, that must mean the Holocaust was God's will, since that's what religious people always say when praying go unanswered.

Your family member survived cancer? "God saved them!" Your family member died of cancer despite praying? "Must've been God's will, He works in mysterious ways!"

Original Sin is true, that is fact. Take a look around the world. It will let you know.

Personally I would put forward that starting with that assumption is more gut-feeling/vibe based than science based, since our negative behaviors are able to be explained without the need for a supernatural answer.

I guess I'll conclude with an observation; I started with equating ML's to religious indoctrination since they have a sunk cost and interest only believing sources that reinforce their worldview despite solid evidence that is contrary to their views. I personally believe all dogmatic religions encourage that same phenomena, with the abrahamic religions and their offshoots being particularly stifling (though others such as Confucianism can be similarly bad), due to their direct encouragement of seeing any outside information as the devil's work.

As someone who believed those dogmas for a long time, I know that such teachings essentially give a perception of paranoia that any person who isn't in the same club is a potential source of evil or temptation into the mind, which results in automatically assuming all counter-information being dismissed or not properly investigated out of the discomfort it can create. I personally look back on those days as a very bleak and sad time due to that worldview, I hope you avoid it.

As all of the information presented was exclusively from biased pro-catholic sources, I'm sorry to say I remain unconvinced, just as I remain unconvinced by ML's for similar reasons. However, I want to say thank you for taking the time to explain how you came to these conclusions and views, I did find it enlightening.

I wish you the best.

There are some pretty solid criticisms on how it was tested.

Scientific debates surrounding Ricardo Castañón Gómez's investigations into alleged Eucharistic miracles have centered on methodological concerns raised by forensic scientists, particularly regarding the Buenos Aires case of 1996. Critics argue that the testing protocols exhibited bias, with the selection of primarily pathologists and cardiologists predisposing results toward interpretations of human cardiac tissue without input from microbiologists or mycologists to explore alternative explanations. This approach, according to a 2024 analysis in the Journal of Forensic Science Research, reflects a lack of true blind testing, as the involvement of a camera crew may have signaled the sample's significance to experts, potentially influencing their conclusions.
Questions about sample handling have been prominent, especially in the Buenos Aires investigation, where the host was stored in water for several years before analysis and handled by multiple individuals without personal protective equipment, heightening contamination risks. A forensic review highlights that no chain-of-custody documentation or spike controls were used to detect inhibitory substances, which could compromise DNA results showing only low concentrations of human genetic material. Furthermore, the absence of peer-reviewed publications for these findings has drawn scrutiny, as the studies have not undergone standard scientific validation processes, relying instead on reports from select experts without broader interdisciplinary review. Potential contamination from environmental factors, such as bacteria like Serratia marcescens or fungi producing reddish pigments, was not adequately ruled out, with control experiments demonstrating that unconsecrated wafers under similar conditions can yield comparable appearances due to microbial growth.

Speaking for myself, I would not personally take that test as adequate evidence of the supernatural.

From what I understand, and as someone who once had an interest in ancient bibles, even ordering a re-print of scans of an original tyndale bible in Olde English, I don't believe it's quite so cut and dried. Biblical texts and the Dead Sea Scrolls were originally in Hebrew, and from modern archeology it appears that even then, there were multiple versions, with some differing greatly.

https://www.bibleodyssey.org/articles/what-are-the-earliest-versions-and-translations-of-the-bible/

The Catholic Church was the first sect of Christianity to add in those 7 books later, in their own Latin translation of the Bible..

Personally I must observe it is rather convenient that the books they added just so happened to contain material which bolstered their political power, wealth, and importance in society by requiring the Church as a necessary intermediary (besides it being in a language only they could read).

Buddhism preaches works instead of faith, but we still have original sin.

I'm not quite sure how that applies. The concept of original sin only exists in the abrahamic religions. When you were assessing the other religions, were you doing so under the assumption that Christianity's original sin was already a truism and determined the merit of the other religions based on how they applied to that concept? If so, how did you determine that Original Sin is by default, a scientific universal truth?