Wikipedia isn't a "global source of truth" anyway, so i'm not sure what they're worried about. They've got serious biases and underrepresentation, and they're kind of under the control of a cabal of elite Wikipedian feudal lords who shove out the majority of outsider attempts to introduce content that doesn't fit their worldview.
Hospitals do this with the flu vaccine as well, every year they require employees to get vaccinated, the employees don't, so they have to fire them because the regulatory penalties aren't worth it, even at the cost of the the brightest researcher or doctor.
They usually hire them back after they get vaccinated.
Source: my So worked in a hospital which did this and was there to see 177 people get laid off for missing their shots
Genes themselves aren't sentient or self aware, they themselves don't want anything, they can't be described as feeling purpose or direction.
DNA is an inert chemical chain encoded with linear and non linear data which is acted upon and maintained by nano machines manufactured with the instructions it contains, which do you think came first?
Yes I was using anthropomorphic phrasing to describe what are surely statistical arguments only.
That distinction is at the heart of my question in fact. Gene's don't care about the host survivability per se; they are only concerned with the gene's own survival. Thus the question: can courtship displays be considered as important for species selection? Or are they just parasitic gene expression for the statistical advantage of that gene?
> Please provide two examples from the Bible of clear and explicit claims about it's "author"
Not the op but here are some claims made by the Bible about its origin.
2 Tim 3:16
"All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness"
2 peter 1:20-21
"20 For you know this first, that no prophecy of Scripture springs from any private interpretation. 21 For prophecy was at no time brought by man’s will, but men spoke from God as they were moved by holy spirit."
Exodus 34:27
"27 Jehovah went on to say to Moses: “You are to write down these words, because in accordance with these words, I am making a covenant with you and with Israel.”
The Bible does mention that it's been written under divine inspiration at God's request. By the hand of men, but motivated and helped by holy spirit, as the scriptures say.
If interested, have a look at some of the frequently asked questions about the Bible that the Bible answers itself. This website uses only the Bible itself to answer questions about the Bible, which is a refreshing take.
> The Bible does mention that it's been written under divine inspiration at God's request. By the hand of men, but motivated and helped by holy spirit, as the scriptures say.
I appreciate the effort, but none of your citations are examples of "clear and explicit claims about the author," but instead are either existential claims or explanations of the unnamed authors' inspiration. What were looking for is something of the form "I, Sparticus, wrote this..." or some such.
> If interested, have a look at
Here is some quid pro quo, granted it is only a wikipedia article, but it brings together the work in summary of a vast number of biblical scholars in an easy to read table form and is quite refreshing for it's stark honesty and well-supported veracity.
I suppose if an explicit declaration of authorship is the only thing acceptable to you then you could always see the opening statements of many of the Bible's books. They're quite clear about who composed their contents.
Nehemiah 1:1 "The words of Nehemiah..."
Isaiah 1:1 "The visions of Isaiah..."
Joel 1:1 "The word of Jehovah came to Joel..."
But most Bible writers acknowledged that they wrote in the name of Jehovah, the God of the Bible, and that they were guided by him.
Some of the many examples:
Amos 1:1 "The words of Amos..." then Amos 1:3 "This is what Jehovah says..."
Micah 1:1 "The word of Jehovah that came to Micah" then Micah 2:3 "Therefore this is what Jehovah says:..."
Nahum 1:1 "A pronouncement against ninevah: The book of the visions of Nahum..." then Naham 1:12 "This is what Jehovah says:..."
If its true that as they say, they're all receiving instructions from the same source (God), then the author of the Bible's message is God, not the 40 men who were used to write it over 1600 years in their own styles.
Of course you'd have to believe that were true, and I'd contend that there are good reasons to. On the site I linked before, there are some good resources for anybody interested in learning about what the Bible actually teaches and how to apply its wisdom to make your life better. Speaking from personal experience, it works, it's quite incredible.
The reason the situation is the way it is now is precisely because the code being made easy for non-coders increased the popularity and reach of the products. Probably because non-coders also found it easy to pick up and start working with it.
Everything a capitalist market teaches us is against this, if they don't obsolete themselves before somebody else can then they will fall into obscurity and ultimately lose what they've built, just like other companies before it who didn't.
FAANGS companies aren't at fault for when they're winning a game which is rigged from the start.
> if they don't obsolete themselves before somebody else can then they will fall into obscurity and ultimately lose what they've built, just like other companies before it who didn't
And if they do fall into obscurity and ultimately lose what they've built?
- The companies who take their place service the customers/clients they used to have
- The workforce either coast along or move to the (presumably growing) new big boys
- The investors should spot the decline and trade away
The only downside is the company - the brand - slowly dies off. For most of us that is fine; the only parties to all this who will actually lose out are the ultimate beneficiaries/owners, and I can live with that. And presumably they've extracted masses from the company by then anyway.
Its both cultural and economics, but the economics only affect the masters and not the minions (who find alternatives) and the cultural aspect is misguided - individual companies/brands are ephemeral and irrelevant so we the minions should not be invested in protecting them at the destructive (to society) costs of scale.
What a ridiculous thing that is. Thats so clunky and unappealing. Somebody should just write some software to simulate direct gaze into the camera or something more elegant than attaching a periscope to the top of your poor laptop.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_bias_on_Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Systemic_bias#List_o...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_studies_about_Wikiped...