None of these assumptions are required to avoid hypocrisy.

In a competitive game, it is perfectly moral to want to win even if it means denying a win to your opponent.

The act of attacking does not make defending a sin.

Wealthy guy says that thing his wealth depends on is working out great!

Comments like this are what I hope to see whenever I visit. Spurring thought. Challenging the obvious.

I’m sorry you had trouble with this, but I don’t understand the problem. I really don’t.

I am a tester. I’ve been a tester for 39 years. I’ll be a tester until I die, whether or not anyone pays me for it. At some point, you believe I am going to… collapse or something?

I have been burned out. Before I was a tester, I was a video game developer. I didn’t get the vitamins from that for the nourishment of my soul, and I DID collapse. In my experience, burnout has nothing to do with ego investment. It has to do with forcing one’s self to do something that isn’t a fit.

Once I learned about staying within my limits, I ceased having trouble with burnout. It had nothing to do with investing my identity into my chosen work.

BTW, I am a tester. I am also a father, a husband, an American, a philosopher, and a teacher. All these things are in me. As I turn 60, I am also beginning to embrace a new identity: old man.

“Mouse!” —- Rafael Alonzo’s I.T.F. Technical Computer Institute Ad (by way of SNL)

This thing doesn’t have bacteria? Virii?

I don’t need a reason not to believe in God. It’s an incoherent idea. Even you don’t know what it means.

You probably imagine some Santa Claus character on a throne. But I don’t know which God I should be imagining? Athena? Indra? The All Spirit? Spaghetti Monster?

State the thesis clearly, then present your evidence.

You don't need to imagine something for it to exist.

You've never seen a black hole, nor--even with visualizations we have today--could you likely comprehend one if you saw it.

"Black hole" is a coherent, testable idea. It has real world physical implications, and is the simplest explanation for what we do see. There isn't a Korean version of a black hole vs. a version accepted by the Kurds. There are no stories of black holes befriending humans. In fact, there is nothing about a black hole that seems to care about humanity.

"God" is a vague fantasy, invented by the first people and slightly updated as technology changed. It has been made concrete, yes, but in many different and irreconcilable ways since the dawn of human imagination. So you can't just "believe in God." You believe in some particular version of "God." And that version is probably dictated by whatever your parents believed, rather than by the actual state of reality.

Anyone who brags about how many lines of code he creates has already lost the plot.

Is any of it trustworthy?

I call this self-repudiation. I performed a systematic experiment on this exact matter, a couple of years ago. I found that ChatGPT 3.5 frequently self-repudiated, whereas 4.0, under identical circumstances, rarely did.

These experiments are a bit expensive to run because you are forced to read all the responses to judge repudiation. Sometimes it is subtle.

Also, behavior changes with the exact wording of the question.