Don’t trust the hype it’s not that good.

I still think mandalorian s1 is the only genuinely great star wars thing coming out of Disney.

It’s a somewhat controversial context. Sardinia is a LOT more vocal about their unique identity and isolationistic vocations than Sicily, and the Italian unification has been the subject to an abundant amount of revisionism mostly as a bitter consequence of the real or percieved gaps in economical development between the north and the south.

Unification was very much desired by Italian intellectuals across the country, the general population didn’t have that much relevant say into it, but truth be told the unification campaign to annex the south started from Sicily climbing up toward Rome.

Of course it’s all a lot more complex, but it can be argued that Italy was more united back than that in later, more recent, stages, for various not entirely devoid of opaque political interests, reasons.

See: this image being funny but also, well, perpetuating an unhealthy stereotype.

ants

Let’s say, I don’t know, a government builds a great firewall and forbit people from trying to circumvent it.

I don’t know, lemmy is where he got that impression. It may or may not be an accurate one.

This citizen has an account with this VPN provider is not “nothing”.

I answered him one hour ahead of your reply :(

I think it’s cool and our dads are lucky.

On Lemmy.

Personally, a healthy habit not to rely on lazy patterns, and it possibly helps people that may be browsing from a place where wikipedia is censored.

But a much less stupid explanation can be found here: https://github.com/whereismybugfix/wikiless#why-i-should-use-wikiless-instead-of-wikipedia

I can’t lose or win this is not a fight.

Here you go, a different instance. It’s just wikipedia BTW: https://wiki.froth.zone/wiki/Isaac_Newton’s_occult_studies?lang=en

Also here: https://webspace.science.uu.nl/~gent0113/astrology/newton_main.htm It’s clarified that the idea that Newton was into astrology has been discredited, but you can find reference to the matter at hand, his interest in theology, and the one of many of his/our predecessors.

“From times immemorial, astrology has been a determining factor in the decisions and actions of men of all ranks and stations. At the begin of the 17th century, great scientists as Tycho Brahe, Galileo Galilei, Johannes Kepler and Pierre Gassendi – now best remembered for their roles in the development of modern physics and astronomy – all held astrology in high esteem.”

And later:

“inspecting the inventory of the books from his library […] Among the 1752 books with identifiable titles on this list, no less than 477 (27.2%) were on the subject of theology, 169 (9.6%) on alchemy, 126 (7.2%) on mathematics, 52 (3.0%) on physics and only 33 (1.9%) on astronomy.”

I hope you learnt something new. Have a nice day.

You can run but you cannot hide: https://wiki.froth.zone/wiki/Isaac_Newton's_occult_studies?lang=en

And no, the people I mentioned moved theology in different directions, they actually did study and engaged with it.

#sorrynotsorry

Edit: changed wikiless instance.

I’m ateist just to be clear, but it’s undeniable that the path that lead to science stems from academia and univirsities rules and funded by clergy.

Leibniz was a fervent (or rather, average for the time) believer and bended backward to include God in each and any of his hypothesis about the world (so much so that in front of the logical necessities of motion he posited that God planned it all in advance, incuding some funny stuff about each of us being already alive in the ballsacks of our ancestors, to go around the fact that I wouldn’t be “godlike” to just spawn new souls every couple of seconds). He invented calculus and mechanical calculators and the likes.

Newton was basically an astrologer.

Bruno hypotized the existence of multiple worlds in space and, to him, that was cool because it meant the domain of God was even wider than previously thought. The Church of the Earth did not like that idea.

On the other hand, Saint Thomas and Saint Agustine both brought back the (relatively) modern approaches of Aristotles and Plato respectively, with a focus on reason as a driving force.

I could agree to disagree but I assume we’d both hate that.

Edit: I guess you stressed the point of “clergy” rather than “fervent believer”. I guess? I don’t find it that relevant since the members of the clergy, monks mostly, were doing their own thing and there was no centralyzed clergy research plan. You think something too weird and too popular, and the pope comes for you.

I’m on LibRedirect so I didn’t give it much of a thought.

Apparently ( https://github.com/Metastem/wikiless ) the domain is supposed to be https://wikiless.chaosmos.io

https://wikiless.chaosmos.io/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_films?lang=en <- this seems good, I’ll edit the previous link.

https://wikiless.chaosmos.io/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_films?lang=en

Clearly /s

My money is still on it being a masterpiece and people being morons.

Edit: updated wikiless instance

According to wikipedia the average resistance is 14 seconds.

I’ll clearify my concept. If you could possibly take a midle age theologist and teleport him to the current age, they’d be total nerds and not priests.

Clergy back then was studying, and studying and studying and exploring reality in a framework that gave for granted that God exixts. You can call it whatever you want but I think it’s a bit silly to reduct it to “those dumb fucks belong to the mines”, while in reality it through their efforts that, unwillingly (?), we pursued knowledge to the point of refining modern science methodology.

Nothing “makes” you anything. Questioning and exploring existence can look very different in different ages.

I think revenues also shifted from selling music to using cheap music to sell concerts.

Because branding exists.