you calling yourself a philosopher is akin to a chihuahua calling itself a wolf. You’re a demagogue at best.

yes, being able to differentiate beings you’re interacting with is a sign of intelligence (which is present amongst most animals, so the bar is very low), as it shows the depth at which you perceive the world around you. Sorry that it insults you. If you can’t be bothered to do so little, i doubt you’d manage to produce anything thought-provoking.

that “someone” was me. If your reading comprehension is so lacking, that you can’t even read a username, your words have as much credibility as a baby babble.

Words are polysemous.

Cool, and? It’s the first time i’m hearing someone use the term “omnipotent” not in its most literal sense. I bet i’m not the only one.

it’s normal to use “significant” with a different sense than when you’re speaking about something else.

Because “significant” is an abstract term, not a concrete one. “Omnipotent” is a concrete term though, and a pretty straightforward one at that. The only time you’d unironically use it not in its most literal sense would be to mislead people.

Yes, lots of words have multiple meanings. “Omnipotent” is hardly one of them, and even then, as you’ve already noted yourself, the bible doesn’t use it directly. People derive this characteristic of Christian God from his actions, and when they talk about god’s omnipotence, they use the word in its literal sense. People here also were using the literal meaning of the word.

Idk about you, but where I’m from, there’s a saying: “terms aren’t argued over, they’re agreed upon”. People here colloquially used the term “omnipotent” as a substitute for “all powerful”, until you chimed in with your “uhm acshually ☝️🤓” remark, offering an arbitrary and dubious definition, basically solving a non-existent problem.

what’s that philological argument? “Trust me bro”? The cambridge dictionary’s definition of the word omnipotent is literally

having unlimited power and able to do anything

It both is the most common definition of the word, and the most logical one, based off its components literal meaning, whereas yours is dubious, misleading and requires you to define the “maximum power”. In other words its inferior according to the Occam’s Razor.

You see, I’m not refusing the definition you’re giving. I say that using it, rather than the definition of the term people usually assume hearing it is misleading at best. In other words, what you’re doing can be considered a demagogy.

Whether the term appears in the bible is immaterial to this discussion, because what the bible does, is it attempts at describing an omnipotent being, as said being creates the world, and then does some stuff that breaks the laws of physics and logic.

if “omnipotent” doesn’t mean “can do literally anything”, then “real” doesn’t necessarily mean “exists in our reality” either.

You can squirm and manipulate the terms however you’d like, just know that nobody in the right mind would take your words seriously if you do that. If a manual needs to be interpreted, it’s a bad manual. Any religion is just a fiction, pretending to be non-fiction. Same kinda thing as horrors with “based on real events” tagline, just turned up a few notches.

If a fiction needs interpretation and head-canons to be coherent, it’s a bad fiction. The Bible is just bad from a literary standpoint, fiction or non-fiction. Its authors failed miserably at portraying a being that is so potent, it created literally everything.

With all due respect, philosophy isn’t a fucking science unlike linguistics.

I have only bad memories of jack headphones. There always were cable issues.

didn’t Arabs also introduce zero?

I mean, yes, but note how the word algebra has arabic roots

Creedence Clearwater Revival — Fortunate Son

My friend greeted me with “good morning, Vietnam!” today, so i absolutely had to play this song.

Hikaru premoves be like:

Hey! Leave some for the rest of us too!

it’s a cloud service. It gives you access to an api. It couldn’t care less about your GPU. Can be used on anything that is capable of internet connection. Specifically NIM has a max requests per minute restriction tho. Due to this, running ai agents on it would be a pain in the ass, but technically possible (still not as painful as local inference tho). And it still works fine for plain chats.

You got the first one wrong. It should be 5318008. You’re supposed to flip the calculator upside-down.

at this point, the only question is “What could possibly go right?”

IMO, the only good thing that came out of it (don’t laugh), is the annual thematic content on the light-green website