> Unless the author wanted to demonstrate that by playing with words one can prove anything.
I think that roughly is what Scott is going for here. It's not one of his more interesting pieces, I ended up skipping the latter half, but my understanding is he's angling to show that given some fuzzy descriptor, with enough imagination and wordplay you can take an idea pretty far. He's written before about esoteric numerology and gematria, I think it's just something he finds fascinating, from a secular POV.
This is Scott's sense of humor, it's not meant to be taken seriously.
> Unless the author wanted to demonstrate that by playing with words one can prove anything.
not to be facetious but what hes doing is what most of the popular religions do - come up with your own "interpretation" or "reading" of the text. how popular would any major religion be if it was stuck with its original BCE values, ethics and beliefs? They would be dead. They must change with the times.
Why is any "reading" of the bible more valid than the next? This guy is a pastor
> Why is any "reading" of the bible more valid than the next? This guy is a pastor
If you're asking earnestly, I'd imagine the "validity" of a reading of the bible to be judged the same way we judge interpretations of other books or documents with levels of ambiguity.
There have been innumerable pastors over millennia who've preached their own perspective on the book; your intuition's correct that the more popular readings survive and the less popular ones do not. If Scott wanted to say his unique interpretation makes him a pastor, that seems reasonable to me. He wouldn't be the first, nor the last.
They must change with the times but also claim a long theologic/hidtorical tradition. Everything from the prehistoric bible to Xenu 75 million years ago are examples.
Already today you can remove the Microsoft keys from most mein board's UEFI and enroll your own. You can perfectly make your own UEFI implementation without Microsoft.
Except that many component manufacturers release their efi capsules signed with Microsoft PKI. So no, you can't fully remove them if you want to verify updates.
While "So no, you can't fully remove them if you want to verify updates" is a valid point, it's also an answer to a different question than the one asked.
It's not that Microsoft controls the issuance, it's that their keys are pretty much guaranteed to be installed and thus getting your keys signed with their CA means you can use the pre-existing trust roots.
They are also the one party that is forcing freedom-enabling but formal standard breaking ability of resetting Platform Key, because Microsoft actually documents (or used to) a process to deploy systems signed with your own key as part of the highest security deployment documentation for enterprise customers
If you want to implement UEFI secure boot and verify existing signed objects then you need to incorporate Microsoft-issued certificates into your firmware, but that's very different from needing Microsoft to be in the loop - the certificates are public, you can download them and stick them in anything.
I'm no expert and as European I have no horse in this race, but couldn't the lack of a paycheck be actually contributing to the stress and resulting inability to work?
ATCs are responsible for the lives of many in the air and a mistake could result in a disaster and possibly criminal charges.
Now, you see... The issue here is that you're bringing logic across the pond.
The States is currently running sans logic and mostly on anger and emotion. So, no. ATCs are simply being lazy, or gaming the system, or are all secretly Democrats probably. /s
I read somewhere that designing a new plane would be a financially challenging proposition, with a comparatively small return far down the road.
Plus, it would be a new type and airlines would end up with hybrid fleets, increasing logistics costs (spare parts stocks, retraining of mechanics, pilots who couldn't readily switch between new and old planes and probably more).
In short, not a compelling proposition for anyone involved.
As an American, it’s always a bit startling to realize that “German,” “French,” “Italian,” etc. are in many ways hugely diverse language families with dialects that are often not intelligible by all speakers (as opposed to English where, with a few extreme exceptions, there’s not really a problem with mutual intelligibility and the written language elides most of those distinctions).
I don’t have enough broad knowledge of Spanish (Castellano) to comment on its intelligibility across dialects (although Argentine/Uruguayan Spanish is more of a challenge to my Mexican-Spanish trained brain than European Spanish).
If the rest of his etymological analyses are on par, they can't be taken seriously.
Unless the author wanted to demostrate that by playing with words one can prove anything.