Ok, so grant for the moment that it’s both the largest conspiracy ever and the best kept secret ever.
How is anyone worse off using their OHTTP gateway than not using it? Is the idea that CF is this spectacular conspiracy, but nobody thought of capturing traffic from backbones?
Cloudflare Proxy, which is required for their ddos protection - and which as I recall accounts for like half of internet traffic - handles TLS termination at CF servers.
When you capture traffic at internet backbones, which the NSA does (Room 641A), you don't get to middle-man the encrypted traffic. Cloudflare gets access to unencrypted traffic, because they act as the TLS termination.
Most companies take this trade-off because "we can trust cloudflare", or "the data isn't that important, and besides it's encrypted the rest of the way anyway."
I thought the same. People would realistically be thinking "not my religion" but, even if that were true, that is the kind of thinking that leads to conflicts between religions. That can range from racism between individuals, to stuff like this, and even to entire wars. Despite all of this we specifically protect religion, which I'm fine with, but nobody should be forcing their religious beliefs onto others in any way. That has definitely harmed far more people overall.
So in the absence of religion, there is no racism, no interests and no wars?
You seem to suggest that banning religion would end up wars or human nature.
And yes, noone should force everyone else, but not only om religious stuff. Sometimes there has been non-religious truths to which people are forced and that collides ireemediably with other thinkings.
I am not sure why one philosophical thinking should be better than other just bc it does not contain religion.
In fact, I consider a big part of most religious a compilation of wise advice about human nature. You can believe it or not, take it or not, that is a choice, but when not taken into fanatism I do not think it is harmful.
Again, that is not anreason to force a position to others. But there are a handful of things that are very controversial.
I’ll take “Things You Learn In Introduction to Logic” for 500, Alex.
In places where supposedly most of the people are in engineering or software, I’m surprised how often 1) people have to point this out, 2) people are willing to loudly pronounce their lack of basic logical skills.
Religion acts as a mechanism for perpetuating and giving social acceptability to certain kinds of bigotry. If it didn’t exist, it’d be much more difficult to justify that kind of bigotry.
Institutionalized Othering, literally. This is my in group and we spend every Sunday morning talking about everybody else. Sometimes with extra separate classes for the children.
The way religion always comes up in these discussion makes me think that, there's a chance that the world sees what happened in the Uighur region of China as a right call, repeating it, not over the next 3-5 years but at 30-50 year history book timescale, just in trivially more humane manners.
It's just weird that people could just base decisions on religions and hide behind freedom of thoughts, when there are actions and consequences of what are supposedly thoughts. It only works when the accusing and accused shares the same beliefs, and effectively collude out of a shared interest, which is not just wrong but increasingly becoming not a workable strategy.
I don't think it is a good idea to operate a society totally on the basis of reason. Religion exists as a framework for people rationalize their intuitions.
That being said, I don't think religion as we know it will be a powerful force in the future, so there will be little reason to persecute the religious. The framework of religion is built to deal with perrenial problems of human nature, and we are in a dynamic time. People may not see religion as adequate for answering modern questions
There's basically no country that hasn't done at least one holocaust in recent history. They happen wayyyyyy more than you'd think. We just don't care about most of them. It's the same reason almost all politicians support Israel - nothing that's happening there is different from anything they want to do or have done in their own countries.
I don't mean that I think nations will start harassing "foreign" religions, but that someone is going to redefine the concept of religions and draws some line as to what parts of it a civilized nation could tolerate; there are dictator's autobiographies that are legal to possess, read or study all you want, as speeches, but not to follow or to worship. What I'm thinking is that similar thing might happen to religious materials and organizations.
How do you ask a calculator to do something it can't do? Dividing by zero gives you an error, which is completely different from an LLM giving you bs with no indication of an issue.
I think they’re saying there is more evidence of fraud in stamps because of the direct monetary value, where there is no evidence that our current registration-time voting controls need to be supplemented with additional friction at voting time, because what little evidence there is of voter fraud is mostly just lies: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/09/24/us/politics/nevada-voters...
Risk tolerance perhaps? But also our increased capabilities make it harder to keep things simple. Should it be radar-opaque? Of course! Capable of autonomous flight? Duh! Carrier landings? Well sure, that might be needed. Refuel midair? Obviously. Sigint to the gills? Seems useful…
This, and also they have to chase changes in model tuning and capabilities. I have a nice little meta-harness focused on product development (requiremwnts, acceptance criteria) for Claude code, and when major new models come it it’s weeks before I can find and fix constraints that are no longer necessary + constraints that have become necessary.
reply