It's a simplification, not an over-interpretation. Jesus himself said those two commandments are the most important (as you say) and that *everything else in the Bible is based on those two principles*. You're forgetting the second part, there.
The verse you quote states exactly that Jesus is the fulfillment of the law, which (if you read the rest of the Gospels and his Expounding of the Laws) shows that he is there to re-orient the law away from a Legalistic viewpoint to one based on love.
It's not really that complicated to understand Christianity, though it's certainly hard to carry out in practice.
>>Again, don't confuse your personal religion with anything other than your personal religion.
I don't.
But I also don't pretend that certain facts don't exist, like you apparently do. You may or may not believe God doesn't exist, but you cannot argue that the *Bible* doesn't exist, and the Bible says certain things.
One of these things is that the two most important commandments are to love God, and to love others as yourself.
Don't be facetious and pretend that that verse comes from "my personal religion" and doesn't exist anywhere outside of my head.
>>No. I did not say that. If there is a God, he (she? them?) has not taken the time to explain any of this to me. Therefore, I cannot say that I know which of thousands of religions in the world is right (and how the thousands that are wrong are wrong).
Except you're stating with apparent certainty that I'm wrong (even though I'm simply quoting something that can empirically be shown to exist - just give me a Bible), which sort of deep-sixes your claim that you cannot say anything with certainty.
>>I'm not normally one to pick a nit, but did you just try to support one work of fiction with another work of fiction? I'd pick further still but by your cherry-picking of quotes I think I'd be wasting my time!
Supporting? No. The GP said that if aliens showed up and had never heard of Jesus, that would be a strike against Christianity. That reminded me of that amusing scene in Calculating God, in which the rather scientifically-advanced aliens surprise everyone by being very religious folk, of a sort of deistic blend.
Popular religion as it is practised in the west is not the study of anything. It's all about being part of the crowd and proclaiming your own righteousness above others.
Given that proclaiming one's own righteousness is explicitly against the direct word of Jesus, there's not many devout Christians that would agree with you on that point, though certain vocal and annoying sects of Christianity can certainly make it seem that way. Remember that evangelical or fundamentalist Christians are not all Christians. They're just the noisiest and the most annoying and stupid.
I disagree in any event... 'popular' (i.e. non-devout) churches serve more as a social hub for a community and/or a place for people to hook up with like-minded individuals.
For Jews, the Old Testament is still pretty important, even though their version has fewer books and a different name. For Christians, Jesus fulfills the prophecy of the Old Testament. Even the sects that only make you believe in Jesus as God to get into Heaven cannot do away with the Old Testament, else they have to throw out Jesus too. For Muslims, too, the books are important, but in a different way.
Who says throw it away? Saying "the rest is details" doesn't mean throwing the rest away. Even the great Jewish scholar Maimonides said pretty much those exact words, and I doubt he'd suggest throwing the Jewish Bible away. And I was really just paraphrasing Matt 22:40 when Jesus essentially said the same thing.
My point is that it's easy to get caught up in the details and lose sight of what is most important in Christianity. It's not a mystery - Jesus himself provided the Cliff Notes for the Bible.
>>I've heard this interpretation before, but an awful lot of Christians still cite Leviticus whenever it suits, often while eating a bacon cheeseburger.
It's called cafeteria Christianity for a reason. =)
But if you want to get technical, the RCC divides Old Testament law into culturally-bound laws and moral laws, with the former not applying (like what clothes to wear) and some (like the Ten Commandments) still applying. But Jesus made it very clear that there's only two commandments for a Christian that really matter: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+22%3A37-40
>>It is the RELIGIOUS people who have a problem with science. Because it contradicts their religion.
As I said in another post, the two groups that feel science and religion are in conflict are fundies (which you'll see all over the place on sites like The Blaze) and logical positivists (found on sites like Slashdot). Most educated people do not.
>>Their statements of fact contradict yours.
It's not my problem if they're wrong. =)
Well, I've made it something of a personal mission to correct the fundies' misapprehensions about science, and positivists misapprehensions about religion, but that's just a hobby.
>>I mean, discarding all of the scientific nonsense is a no-brainer. But we really need to get back to the good book as a source of moral authority.
You're a bit out of date.
The Old Testament which has been superseded by the New. There's basically two laws you have to follow these days: 1) Love God 2) Love Other People As Much As Yourself.
>>It also means we have no free will since we're deterministic automatons so the idea of "Judgement" and sin and grace and all that is bullshit since we're just playing out his deterministic pre-designed script.
Well, Calvin would certainly agree with you. He thinks the universe was all predestined to happen a certain way, so the people that became Christians and were saved he called the "elect" and damn it sucks to be you if you're not.
>>1) God created the universe as a deterministic system in which creatures evolve based on physical laws and rules.
A counterargument would be that physics could be deterministic up until the point that creatures with free will entered the picture.
>>2) We are as God intended.
I don't think any Christian would argue this is the case.
If you're talking about being "made in God's image", that's a far cry from being a perfect, 100% awesome-sauce, creation of God's.
>>If aliens landed tomorrow and never heard of Jesus before we would have to seriously reconsider Christianity.
Have you read Sawyer's "Calculating God"? It's about aliens landing, and wondering why there's so much debate over the existence of God, when it's perfectly obvious to them that some sort of God must exist.
Alien: "The parameters of this universe are finely-tuned to support life. It seems probable than a God must have set these parameters." Human Scientist: "Well, what if there were a bunch of universes and we just happen to be in one where everything works out nicely?" Alien: "Oh, we disproved the existence of other universes centuries ago." Human Scientist: "Oh."
Discarding scientific knowledge because of a book written originally for a nomadic group of shepherds is ridiculous.
Discarding the moral teachings that have been handed down over thousands of years is equally ridiculous.
Moral teachings that have largely been proven to work in building relatively peaceful and successful societies and individuals. So I'd include some religions and not others, perhaps, if you want to draw a fine line.
The only people that believe science and religion are fundamentally in conflict are religious fundamentalists and the militant positivists you find here on Slashdot. For *everyone else* (as the study shows) they coexist in harmony.
Science is the empirical study of how things are. Religion is the normative study of how things should be.
There's no inherent conflict between these two things, because they discuss two very different things.
While the logical positivists on here will say the study how things should be is uninteresting, for most people, well, it's interesting. (Which is why logical positivism is a failure of a philosophy.)
>>pretending an early stage siting issue is "stopping a project"
It is stopping a project. How can you say otherwise? Pretending they were in a stage siting phase when they were ready to begin construction is just lying.
There's a lot of lawsuits, and a lot of projects, and a lot of legislature - you can go to sites like these: http://www.basinandrangewatch.org/ImperialSolar2.html...and start adding up the cost of all the lawsuits yourself.
I don't expect you to, since you haven't apparently read anything on the subject, but hey.
>>You provided a list of installations that exist and pretended that they don't because they were stopped and THEN tell ME to have some integrity?
I'm asking you to have some integrity because you've been factually wrong on a number of points, and refuse to admit it.
For example: You claimed that none of the solar plants we were talking about were in the 500MW category. The Ivanpah plant is in that category. It was successfully sued by environmentalists, shut down, and forced to relaunch in a new location. You would know this if you'd actually read the references instead of just talking out of your ass.
Another example: You claim environmentalists have no power. But they've cost new power plants millions or billions in lost money. This is power. How do you explain that?
Answer: You can't, and you'll continue to talk out of your ass rather than admit you are wrong.
>>Providing a list of existing installations and then pretending that they were successfully blocked by some sort of conspirators and do not exist is a paticularly unusual sort of lie - why did you do that?
I was more pointing out your lie that the megawatt ratings of the solar plants going up right now are indeed in the neighborhood of 500MW. I notice how you've replied two or three times since then and still haven't admitted you're quite obviously, factually wrong on that point.
The Ivanpah project has been blocked and forced to move once before, again, if you'd have ever fucking read the references I gave you you would know this, and they're being sued right now.
Until you pony up and admit where you're wrong, plain and simple, I'm just going to dismiss you like I do any other person who steadfastly tries to change the subject when they find out they're wrong.
Come on, have some fucking integrity for once in your life.
Bullshit. Western RPG's are just as bad in their own ways, most modern western RPG's can hardly even be called RPG's anymore. Mass effect 1 and 2? Really? Cover based shooting with a few skills on the side is far from traditional video game RPG's as you can get. Most modern "RPGs" have been turned into first person shooters because the developers are so incompetent at "RPG's" part so and they see all that Call of duty money out there. The only good RPG's coming out lately are from out of left field like Torchlight and Magicka and a few others I can't name at the moment. Skyrim and oblivion can hardly be called RPG's in considering their dumbed down forms of older more RPG'esque games.
Torchlight is pretty a classic dungeon exploration action game. Like Diablo, I wouldn't really call it an RPG. There's no story, and no decisions to make in the game. Magicka, likewise, is an action game. Fantasy world != RPG.
ME1 had a more developed leveling system and inventory management than ME2, which was very dumbed down... still, I'd call them both RPGs due to the story elements. But you're right, too, about them being cover shooters. They're still better RPGs than anything that has come out of the Final Fantasy series in the last 10 years though.
I just started playing Oblivion again to get ready for Skyrim... I'd definitely call it an RPG. You really can approach the world in any way you want to. Some people just play through the main story lines. Others (myself included) will get bogged down trying to finish all of the side quests in the game and never beat it. I'd played Morrowind off and on for a year (~60 hours in the game) before I finally buckled down to actually beat the main quest. Oblivion's leveling system is utter crap (it penalizes you heavily if you don't do annoying things like standing around casting spells for an hour, or letting a pile of mudcrabs beat on your shield so you can boost your endurance), but with OOO and other mods it can actually be a pretty good game.
As far as being able to make actual decisions which seem to really matter in the world, Fallout New Vegas is definitely the best RPG of all time. The flowcharts for the decisions you can make in most major quests can take up multiple pages in the hint book. There's (I think) 4 or 5 official ways to beat the game, and a loooot of decision making that leads up to all that. If you hate the FPS aspect of it, they helpfully built in a cheat system (VATS) which lets you basically not need to worry about aiming or any of that other FPS-ey stuff. I never use it, since it turns the game into easy mode.
The best bit of Fallout New Vegas, though, is hardcore mode, which hearkens back to the RPGs of the 80s, where you actually had to worry about eating and drinking, and you can't just become immortal from having an huge supply of stimpacks in your backpack. It's definitely worth a shot if you haven't played it yet.
It wasn't just "Stability and Performance Issues" that caused the game to suck so bad.
It was, well, everything.
A map that wouldn't show you where things you wanted to find were A bizarre bazaar and shop system No real story or major quest line (that I could find at least, in the week or so I spent playing it) A UI that was designed for consoles - which is ironic since it never launched on the PS3. Sloow animations on the menus. You have to hit menu (and wait for all the elements to slide in) then click on the submenu, and wait for all the elements to slide in and then click on "map" (instead of just being able to hit 'm' or whatever). Class system didn't make any sense.
I dunno, there were other things I can remember really hating about the game, but it's been a year and I've tried to black out that part of my memory as best I can.
>>nitpicking and hate an amazing product because of some personal vendetta.
They broke the convention on how major and minor releases were supposed to be versioned. Maybe if they hadn't done a traditional versioning method from the beginning (ala Chrome) it wouldn't have mattered so much, but now people get stuck choosing between 3.6 and their addons (which is the point of FF for a lot of people) and version 21312.
Also, they make decisions that are fairly stupid, like breaking the UI all the time. I just noticed the status bar - or what used to be called the status bar - has been moved from the bottom left of the screen (where it has been since Tim Berners-Lee crawled out of the womb) to the bottom-right. Why? Who knows? But I keep looking to see if FF is doing something, and clicking a second time because of this.
>>However, these scrolls could be considered are world treasure
They've been on tour several times. I've seen them (well, a selection of them) in person at the local Museum of Man.
My favorite one was made of hammered metal, that was basically a treasure map. (Turn left at the fork in the river, head 200 paces, at the base of the palm tree dig...)
Oh, and also the one that corrected the height of Goliath - it turns out I'm the same size. =)
So those projects were blocked were they? Why are you playing such a silly little game that requires stupidity and inattention on the part of the people you are lying to? Why do you think this is important enough to lie about anyway?
So your answer is: "I'm wrong, but I won't retract my statement"?
The Ivanpah and First Solar Stateline lawsuits were in those references I sent to you.
Look, if you're too fucking egotistical to admit you're wrong, that's cool and all, but stop pretending you're right, for fuck's sake.
Took the words out of my mouth. In TFA Linus talks about how proud he is to not break things for users by misguided code improvements, and my first thought was, "Wait, what about glibc?" Fiasco.
Slashdot Mirror
>>That's clearly an over-interpretation. What's being said in that passage is those are the most important commandments. You are conveniently ignoring other parts of the New Testament which directly contradict you: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:17-19&version=NIV
It's a simplification, not an over-interpretation. Jesus himself said those two commandments are the most important (as you say) and that *everything else in the Bible is based on those two principles*. You're forgetting the second part, there.
The verse you quote states exactly that Jesus is the fulfillment of the law, which (if you read the rest of the Gospels and his Expounding of the Laws) shows that he is there to re-orient the law away from a Legalistic viewpoint to one based on love.
It's not really that complicated to understand Christianity, though it's certainly hard to carry out in practice.
>>Again, don't confuse your personal religion with anything other than your personal religion.
I don't.
But I also don't pretend that certain facts don't exist, like you apparently do. You may or may not believe God doesn't exist, but you cannot argue that the *Bible* doesn't exist, and the Bible says certain things.
One of these things is that the two most important commandments are to love God, and to love others as yourself.
Don't be facetious and pretend that that verse comes from "my personal religion" and doesn't exist anywhere outside of my head.
>>No. I did not say that. If there is a God, he (she? them?) has not taken the time to explain any of this to me. Therefore, I cannot say that I know which of thousands of religions in the world is right (and how the thousands that are wrong are wrong).
Except you're stating with apparent certainty that I'm wrong (even though I'm simply quoting something that can empirically be shown to exist - just give me a Bible), which sort of deep-sixes your claim that you cannot say anything with certainty.
>>I'm not normally one to pick a nit, but did you just try to support one work of fiction with another work of fiction? I'd pick further still but by your cherry-picking of quotes I think I'd be wasting my time!
Supporting? No. The GP said that if aliens showed up and had never heard of Jesus, that would be a strike against Christianity. That reminded me of that amusing scene in Calculating God, in which the rather scientifically-advanced aliens surprise everyone by being very religious folk, of a sort of deistic blend.
>>Exactly. They're "wrong" because YOU already "know" what is "right".
And you're saying that you "know" that I'm "not right".
See how much fun it is to flip that around?
>>It's anyone who believes that his personal religion is "right" and that others are "wrong".
Black Pot, meet the moral relativist Kettle...
Given that proclaiming one's own righteousness is explicitly against the direct word of Jesus, there's not many devout Christians that would agree with you on that point, though certain vocal and annoying sects of Christianity can certainly make it seem that way. Remember that evangelical or fundamentalist Christians are not all Christians. They're just the noisiest and the most annoying and stupid.
I disagree in any event... 'popular' (i.e. non-devout) churches serve more as a social hub for a community and/or a place for people to hook up with like-minded individuals.
Who says throw it away? Saying "the rest is details" doesn't mean throwing the rest away. Even the great Jewish scholar Maimonides said pretty much those exact words, and I doubt he'd suggest throwing the Jewish Bible away. And I was really just paraphrasing Matt 22:40 when Jesus essentially said the same thing.
My point is that it's easy to get caught up in the details and lose sight of what is most important in Christianity. It's not a mystery - Jesus himself provided the Cliff Notes for the Bible.
>>I've heard this interpretation before, but an awful lot of Christians still cite Leviticus whenever it suits, often while eating a bacon cheeseburger.
It's called cafeteria Christianity for a reason. =)
But if you want to get technical, the RCC divides Old Testament law into culturally-bound laws and moral laws, with the former not applying (like what clothes to wear) and some (like the Ten Commandments) still applying. But Jesus made it very clear that there's only two commandments for a Christian that really matter:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+22%3A37-40
>>It is the RELIGIOUS people who have a problem with science. Because it contradicts their religion.
As I said in another post, the two groups that feel science and religion are in conflict are fundies (which you'll see all over the place on sites like The Blaze) and logical positivists (found on sites like Slashdot). Most educated people do not.
>>Their statements of fact contradict yours.
It's not my problem if they're wrong. =)
Well, I've made it something of a personal mission to correct the fundies' misapprehensions about science, and positivists misapprehensions about religion, but that's just a hobby.
>>I mean, discarding all of the scientific nonsense is a no-brainer. But we really need to get back to the good book as a source of moral authority.
You're a bit out of date.
The Old Testament which has been superseded by the New. There's basically two laws you have to follow these days:
1) Love God
2) Love Other People As Much As Yourself.
Everything else is details.
>>It also means we have no free will since we're deterministic automatons so the idea of "Judgement" and sin and grace and all that is bullshit since we're just playing out his deterministic pre-designed script.
Well, Calvin would certainly agree with you. He thinks the universe was all predestined to happen a certain way, so the people that became Christians and were saved he called the "elect" and damn it sucks to be you if you're not.
>>1) God created the universe as a deterministic system in which creatures evolve based on physical laws and rules.
A counterargument would be that physics could be deterministic up until the point that creatures with free will entered the picture.
>>2) We are as God intended.
I don't think any Christian would argue this is the case.
If you're talking about being "made in God's image", that's a far cry from being a perfect, 100% awesome-sauce, creation of God's.
>>If aliens landed tomorrow and never heard of Jesus before we would have to seriously reconsider Christianity.
Have you read Sawyer's "Calculating God"? It's about aliens landing, and wondering why there's so much debate over the existence of God, when it's perfectly obvious to them that some sort of God must exist.
Alien: "The parameters of this universe are finely-tuned to support life. It seems probable than a God must have set these parameters."
Human Scientist: "Well, what if there were a bunch of universes and we just happen to be in one where everything works out nicely?"
Alien: "Oh, we disproved the existence of other universes centuries ago."
Human Scientist: "Oh."
Moral teachings that have largely been proven to work in building relatively peaceful and successful societies and individuals. So I'd include some religions and not others, perhaps, if you want to draw a fine line.
The only people that believe science and religion are fundamentally in conflict are religious fundamentalists and the militant positivists you find here on Slashdot. For *everyone else* (as the study shows) they coexist in harmony.
Science is the empirical study of how things are.
Religion is the normative study of how things should be.
There's no inherent conflict between these two things, because they discuss two very different things.
While the logical positivists on here will say the study how things should be is uninteresting, for most people, well, it's interesting. (Which is why logical positivism is a failure of a philosophy.)
>>pretending an early stage siting issue is "stopping a project"
It is stopping a project. How can you say otherwise? Pretending they were in a stage siting phase when they were ready to begin construction is just lying.
There's a lot of lawsuits, and a lot of projects, and a lot of legislature - you can go to sites like these: ...and start adding up the cost of all the lawsuits yourself.
http://www.basinandrangewatch.org/ImperialSolar2.html
I don't expect you to, since you haven't apparently read anything on the subject, but hey.
Since you love tinfoil hat theories of why these lawsuits are happening, I think you might enjoy this story:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/19/business/energy-environment/19unions.html
Hi Dr Mengele!
Operated on any twins recently, in the name of science?
Unless you're being sarcastic, you're the perfect example of an atheist needing more religion.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Atomics_MQ-9_Reaper
The new Dealers are $30M each, with the entire program running a $11B budget.
For that price, just by comparison, you can buy two F16s, which will run ya about $15M each. (It's a cheap fighter but still.)
Chocobos were basically ripped off from Miyazaki's awesome Nausicaa manga.
>>You provided a list of installations that exist and pretended that they don't because they were stopped and THEN tell ME to have some integrity?
I'm asking you to have some integrity because you've been factually wrong on a number of points, and refuse to admit it.
For example: You claimed that none of the solar plants we were talking about were in the 500MW category. The Ivanpah plant is in that category. It was successfully sued by environmentalists, shut down, and forced to relaunch in a new location. You would know this if you'd actually read the references instead of just talking out of your ass.
Another example: You claim environmentalists have no power. But they've cost new power plants millions or billions in lost money. This is power. How do you explain that?
Answer: You can't, and you'll continue to talk out of your ass rather than admit you are wrong.
>>Providing a list of existing installations and then pretending that they were successfully blocked by some sort of conspirators and do not exist is a paticularly unusual sort of lie - why did you do that?
I was more pointing out your lie that the megawatt ratings of the solar plants going up right now are indeed in the neighborhood of 500MW. I notice how you've replied two or three times since then and still haven't admitted you're quite obviously, factually wrong on that point.
The Ivanpah project has been blocked and forced to move once before, again, if you'd have ever fucking read the references I gave you you would know this, and they're being sued right now.
Until you pony up and admit where you're wrong, plain and simple, I'm just going to dismiss you like I do any other person who steadfastly tries to change the subject when they find out they're wrong.
Come on, have some fucking integrity for once in your life.
Torchlight is pretty a classic dungeon exploration action game. Like Diablo, I wouldn't really call it an RPG. There's no story, and no decisions to make in the game. Magicka, likewise, is an action game. Fantasy world != RPG.
ME1 had a more developed leveling system and inventory management than ME2, which was very dumbed down... still, I'd call them both RPGs due to the story elements. But you're right, too, about them being cover shooters. They're still better RPGs than anything that has come out of the Final Fantasy series in the last 10 years though.
I just started playing Oblivion again to get ready for Skyrim... I'd definitely call it an RPG. You really can approach the world in any way you want to. Some people just play through the main story lines. Others (myself included) will get bogged down trying to finish all of the side quests in the game and never beat it. I'd played Morrowind off and on for a year (~60 hours in the game) before I finally buckled down to actually beat the main quest. Oblivion's leveling system is utter crap (it penalizes you heavily if you don't do annoying things like standing around casting spells for an hour, or letting a pile of mudcrabs beat on your shield so you can boost your endurance), but with OOO and other mods it can actually be a pretty good game.
As far as being able to make actual decisions which seem to really matter in the world, Fallout New Vegas is definitely the best RPG of all time. The flowcharts for the decisions you can make in most major quests can take up multiple pages in the hint book. There's (I think) 4 or 5 official ways to beat the game, and a loooot of decision making that leads up to all that. If you hate the FPS aspect of it, they helpfully built in a cheat system (VATS) which lets you basically not need to worry about aiming or any of that other FPS-ey stuff. I never use it, since it turns the game into easy mode.
The best bit of Fallout New Vegas, though, is hardcore mode, which hearkens back to the RPGs of the 80s, where you actually had to worry about eating and drinking, and you can't just become immortal from having an huge supply of stimpacks in your backpack. It's definitely worth a shot if you haven't played it yet.
It wasn't just "Stability and Performance Issues" that caused the game to suck so bad.
It was, well, everything.
A map that wouldn't show you where things you wanted to find were
A bizarre bazaar and shop system
No real story or major quest line (that I could find at least, in the week or so I spent playing it)
A UI that was designed for consoles - which is ironic since it never launched on the PS3.
Sloow animations on the menus. You have to hit menu (and wait for all the elements to slide in) then click on the submenu, and wait for all the elements to slide in and then click on "map" (instead of just being able to hit 'm' or whatever).
Class system didn't make any sense.
I dunno, there were other things I can remember really hating about the game, but it's been a year and I've tried to black out that part of my memory as best I can.
>>nitpicking and hate an amazing product because of some personal vendetta.
They broke the convention on how major and minor releases were supposed to be versioned. Maybe if they hadn't done a traditional versioning method from the beginning (ala Chrome) it wouldn't have mattered so much, but now people get stuck choosing between 3.6 and their addons (which is the point of FF for a lot of people) and version 21312.
Also, they make decisions that are fairly stupid, like breaking the UI all the time. I just noticed the status bar - or what used to be called the status bar - has been moved from the bottom left of the screen (where it has been since Tim Berners-Lee crawled out of the womb) to the bottom-right. Why? Who knows? But I keep looking to see if FF is doing something, and clicking a second time because of this.
>>However, these scrolls could be considered are world treasure
They've been on tour several times. I've seen them (well, a selection of them) in person at the local Museum of Man.
My favorite one was made of hammered metal, that was basically a treasure map. (Turn left at the fork in the river, head 200 paces, at the base of the palm tree dig...)
Oh, and also the one that corrected the height of Goliath - it turns out I'm the same size. =)
>>I don't know what font they used to print those scrolls, but it's so distorted it doesn't even look like English.
It's because the Dead Sea Scrolls are all in Impact Bold. :(
So your answer is: "I'm wrong, but I won't retract my statement"?
The Ivanpah and First Solar Stateline lawsuits were in those references I sent to you.
Look, if you're too fucking egotistical to admit you're wrong, that's cool and all, but stop pretending you're right, for fuck's sake.
Took the words out of my mouth. In TFA Linus talks about how proud he is to not break things for users by misguided code improvements, and my first thought was, "Wait, what about glibc?" Fiasco.
I guess coders aren't users, then?