Austin Wright

Just this guy, you know?

[Austin Wright @awwright]

@JoeWilsonEQ1 I think that's pedantic; API stands for "Application programming interface"—Key word "interface." And OpenGL and DirectX made different, but otherwise arbitrary, choices for the interface that lets you specify a normal map.

[Austin Wright @awwright]

@mises_media On the other hand, every once in a while, war wipes out an entire government.

[Austin Wright @awwright]

@Polymarket @crumbl That's it, there's no reason I need a prediction market to tell me my breaking news in milligrams, get blocked

[Austin Wright @awwright]

OK MerriamWebster
If that's even your real name

[Merriam-Webster @MerriamWebster]

‘Wi-Fi’ is not an acronym. It doesn’t stand for anything.

Also! Since it’s a trademarked term, it should be written as ‘Wi-Fi’ (not ‘wifi’ or ‘WiFi’).

[Austin Wright @awwright]

Backrooms: What a trip, it so neatly captures the feeling of "lost in an abandoned mall" dreams. It's the JJ Abrams Mystery Box but in the best possible light. Or at least the flattest possible light.

[Austin Wright @awwright]

@Tioaoa2 Wow did Blender finally fix their version numbering system?

[Austin Wright @awwright]

@BTweeter87 The average American has *0.51 passport

[Austin Wright @awwright]

@wokal_distance By your argument all taxes are consumption taxes, rendering the point of the term meaningless

[Austin Wright @awwright]

Agatha Christie should rewrite that mystery book, but featuring engineers who made deadly design decisions, like the THERAC-25, Chernobyl, Kansas City Hyatt Regency, and so on.

[Austin Wright @awwright]

@Ghost_Groyper @ssearle63 @NMarbletoe @ragnarisapirate Alternatively, what did Jesus do when he saw people promoting actions clearly not in line with the law?
Not much more than telling them off, for the most part.
Unless it was a situation involving actual hierarchy; like a synagogue, in which case he expelled them with a whip.

[Austin Wright @awwright]

I assume you're American? The US Constitution has the "Cases or Controversies Clause" which specifies a court cannot rule on an ambiguous law before it causes a problem; they can only rule on a dispute brought before them by two parties. Like many features of our government, this comes from the Bible, literally the passage I'm talking about.
Our discussion is not a "dispute". We are debating in the abstract.
If there were actually a dispute... say my ox gored one of your ox or whatever and we disagree on the nature of repayment. There is in fact a process for resolving that. That process is sufficient.

[Austin Wright @awwright]

@Ghost_Groyper @ssearle63 @NMarbletoe @ragnarisapirate You mean "do not bear false witness"? There is an authority, we can all read it, we can determine if someone is misrepresenting it, and if there comes to be a dispute where two people dispute if a law was broken, it turns out we can resolve that dispute, and that is sufficient.

[Austin Wright @awwright]

No there doesn't have to be an authoritative defining of doctrine... Again Deut lays all of this out; "Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the Lord your God that I give you."
So either the Bible has something to say on a matter, in which case it's authoritative on that matter.
Or it doesn't have something to say on a matter, in which case you shouldn't attribute to it something it doesn't say.
If there is a legitimate dispute, you resolve it in a uniform manner, but it must be a concrete dispute and not abstract.
The plurality what Jesus said was just smacking down mental projections/gymnastics with a grounded reading of the law; he even said as much. If "doctrine" were a word in greek surely it would have been used to describe the Pharisees.

[Austin Wright @awwright]

@Ghost_Groyper @ssearle63 @NMarbletoe @ragnarisapirate I'm not sure how that plays into the discussion; but you said "most essential" as if there's a ranking. As it turns out, you can rank them from more "foundational" to less so; but they're all part of the law, and none is so trivial it can be left out entirely.

[Austin Wright @awwright]

@Ghost_Groyper @ssearle63 @NMarbletoe @ragnarisapirate You asked for the most essential doctrines. The dude was asked almost that exact question.

[Austin Wright @awwright]

@Ghost_Groyper @ssearle63 @ragnarisapirate Yes it does, at least the parts of it that say "this shall be the law for all time and all the generations" and if you have any doubt about this, see the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus.

[Austin Wright @awwright]

@Ghost_Groyper @ssearle63 @NMarbletoe @ragnarisapirate Uhh... yes. It does. This was literally a tick question posed to Jesus; see Mat 22:35, Mark 12:28; which itself is a summary of the torah, e.g. Deut 6:5

[Austin Wright @awwright]

@Ghost_Groyper @ssearle63 @ragnarisapirate Where did I say anarchy was permissible? If two people disagree on a concrete matter, Deuteronomy 17 lays out the system for resolving the dispute in a uniform manner.
Regularly reading & teaching the law is to prevent the system from drifting away from it.

[Austin Wright @awwright]

@Ghost_Groyper @ssearle63 @ragnarisapirate How does that follow.

[Austin Wright @awwright]

@Ghost_Groyper @ssearle63 @ragnarisapirate Not sure what you mean by sola scriptura but you just described Deuteronomy 6 & Deuteronomy 31; it is up to everyone to read the law, understand it, & teach it to the next generation.