most of the available services (anthropic, google, openai, xai, deepseek) have a free tier. you can't use it extensively, and have to wait... but its there.
programming has always gates... today is no different. arguably, there are quite a lot more free options than there were when i was coming up.
And prior to the desktop computer, you had to actually go work at a laboratory in order to do any programming whatsoever, which required significant amounts of educational and social access
What’s the point?
Writing deploying and delivering software has never been as accessible as it has ever been
Much like the author I learned on my own too and with a lot less help because I didn’t have a parent even guiding me through it
But that is not under threat and I’m not sure why people think it is
None of the arguments demonstrate even accidentally that there is LESS knowledge or fewer options.
This is the least locked in period and the better AI gets it will be an option to be even less locked in because you can just build and run everything yourself on your own hardware
Literally anyone can run the equivalent of an entire datacenter from 2000 on a handful of retired servers and old laptops at this point.
FY 2022 spending was around $6.75 trillion, civilian pay was $271 billion, or around 4% of the spending for that year. You'll find the numbers have been hovering around 4-5% for quite a while.
That actually looks par for the course in "western" governments. The only items going over 20% are typically related to pensions, social security, and health services. Everything else (in isolation) is basically a pittance.
I had the exact same pleasant experience. I had a Gen 2 ring with battery issues, and support was fast and painless with a new ring on its way in a couple of days.
I wouldn't want to assume the details or the difficulty someone else has or is going through related to this.
What I have found helpful, when I went through something like this, is to distinguish between the "feeling" of certainty and the "choice" to put my faith in something. A lot of the time, we talk about "faith" and we conflate those two. I can choose to trust something and not feel confidence in it until after the fact. How much confidence I feel in a choice varies for a lot of reasons, but I may still choose to accept the risk and act on the little information I do have because I don't have better alternatives.
In that sense, you can choose what you believe. Or at least, you can choose what you put your faith in.
I don't know enough to comment on the specifics of your thread with the other poster, but I thought I would offer a suggestion for "Core Tenents".
Though there are many instructions in scripture that many christians ignore or fail to live up to, there are a set of core beliefs that comprise the essential nature of the Christian faith. The Apostles Creed summarizes most of them for Christianity.
As an example, if you deny the deity of Jesus, then you can not reasonably claim to be a christian. This is the case with Mormon's, who are sometimes called Christians, but whose theology differs in significant ways from Christianity.
---
There is also another way to approach the idea of "that person isn't really a christian". Though it is in fact, impossible for a human to judge definitively, Jesus does say that "you shall know them by their love one for another" (John 13:35). And the bible does teach that under certain circumstances, the Church is to treat someone claiming to be christian as though they are not, because they refuse to acknowledge and/or address behaviors that are instructed in scripture.
The Church isn't generally good at that, which may be the point of the OP. But, it does allow the Church to say that someone who unrepentantly practices sinful behavior doesn't represent Christianity.
> But, it does allow the Church to say that someone who unrepentantly practices sinful behavior doesn't represent Christianity.
And this right here allows you to take any Christian, point to something sinful that they appear to be doing, and claim that they're not really Christian.
Hm... but in my example, in order for the Church to do that, they would have to formally excommunicate that individual. That isn't something done often, and doesn't really support what you seem to be saying it does (unless I misunderstand you).
The Church doesn't get to just point at a person who commits a sin and say that person isn't a Christian. There is a formal process for evaluating if that individual meets certain criteria (laid out in scripture). Its not done without serious consideration.
And there is a significant difference between saying that a person "isn't a Christian" and saying that some practice by a christian "doesn't represent Christianity".
For a practice to be considered "Christian" it should resemble the established and agreed upon tenets of the Christian faith, as laid out in the Bible and generally agreed upon by the Church at large.
Its like, I can claim to be a lawyer, but to actually be one, I need to pass the Bar. And a lawyer can be disbarred, if their actions show them to unable to execute the duties of a lawyer in accordance with the standards set by the state they practice in.
Similarly, a licensed Lawyer can claim something is lawful, but that be false when compared to the actual written code of that state. Someone can then come along and say that the advice and practice of that Lawyer does represent the actual law of that state.
----
Look, I get it. Its frustrating to see christians do bad things, and for the church to not take responsibility when it should. And I'm not defending that. It is also frustrating for the Church when people do not represent it fairly. This is a common issue with any organized group of people, because People aren't always reliable. A fact the Bible has much to say about.
reply