That’s what the article calls “key sources”. There are many more below (Mara bar Serapion, Suetonius, The Talmud, and more under “minor sources”).

There are so many sources that there is more evidence for his existence than for any other person living at the time.

This article mentions at least 14 independent sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sources_for_the_historicity_of_Jesus

You are of course free to dismiss all of the sources and have your own opinion, that’s perfectly fine, but do acknowledge that you would be going against established scientific consensus.

Definitely enough for a whole separate Wikipedia article to list them all: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sources_for_the_historicity_of_Jesus

That’s incorrect. Virtually all scholars agree that Jesus was a real historical figure, based on many non-religious sources.

Of course most of the stories about him are made up, but the scientific consensus is that he existed.

All of your suggestions are good but situational. They don’t apply as a solution that works for an entire big open world game with thousands of places to highlight.

But the only times you hear of them is when people are trying to get more folk implied

Yes, and that’s plain old recrutiment/advertising of their cause. Proselytization refers to trying to convert someone to a religion, which they don’t do.

It’s much closer to putting up advertisement against advertisement.

Correct.

That’s not true. It’s a bunch of for-profit organizations coupled with a recognized nonprofit

Yes, so an NGO. Where did I say they are a non-profit?

We don’t like religious symbols in public space, so let’s put more of these, yay!

Yeah, they try to put non-religious things instead like cool Dante’s inferno statues. End result is that the religious symbols are banned, or if they aren’t, that there are other non-religious symbols around them. As much as they are a religion legally, they are atheists and their symbols are not religious, just fancy branding.

Proselytism is bad, so we need to recruit more people to fight it.

Yeah, what’s weird about that? Fire is bad so we need to recruit more firefighters to fight it. TST does not proselytize, as they don’t try to convert you into any religion. The are just an NGO.

But agnostics don’t believe in the existence of a deity. Are you maybe confusing it with deism?

Well, I agree with you, the only way to not do anything unethical is to do nothing. So my point is that it’s not really useful to deal in absolutes, it’s impossible to take a stance on everything. You don’t like AI and avoid it, that’s a respectable position. Someone else is vegan and calls you an asshole for causing the suffering of animals instead (if for the sake of the argument I assume you aren’t vegan). That doesn’t help anyone. Set your own moral compass and follow your own principles, but I don’t think it’s useful to hound other people, because there will always be reasons to do so.

And why is that a problem?

Google searches also usually generate mostly useless results, which is impossible to combat. Thankfully the person doing the search knows what they are looking for, can try different solutions, and learn from multiple results to get to a working solution.

Why do you consider AI different? Nobody is expecting it always give correct solutions, just like nobody is expecting Googling something to always give the correct solution.

I’m not saying AI is useful, but I’m saying that a tool being fallible doesn’t make it useless. So I’m wondering why do you consider AI different? If Googling is fine even though you need to checks multiple results before finding something useful, why is searching with AI held to a higher standard? Genuine question. Because I agree with your critique of AI, I just don’t agree the critique means no one should ever use it. There are much less reliable tools than AI, that are still useful at times.

I get your argument, you consider AI bad and require the use of it to be disclosed so that you can avoid it - reasonable take.

My question is, do you avoid projects that use GitHub for hosting? Because that’s supporting Microsoft, which is helping ICE kill people. So the ethical thing to do is to boycott GitHub and projects that use it.

Do you require open source projects to disclose that they use any US-made hardware or software in their development? Because taxes from the sale of them fund missiles that kill children in Iran.

What is the list of things in your mind, that a maintainer has to disclose in order for you to not consider him an asshole for not disclosing it? Surely not just AI use?

You should tell that to Linus Torvalds, he’s developing the Linux kernel without using GitHub at all. I’m sure he will appreciate being told git is insuffient to develop a good product and write good code, the best practice is to use a Microsoft service in a particular way and nothing else can work.

Tell me, when I work on a project alone, who am I exactly requesting to pull my code and why do I need to use a feature of some git hosting website instead of reviewing, checking, debugging, merging, and reverting if necessary my change locally and using my CI/CD?

How dare you. If it’s your last thought then you are clearly not answering the question and thinking about how you can do better afterwards!

Unfortunately the money went to other people who had too much of it.

Not on Proton’s side, but whoever sent you that email obviously has both your info and your Proton address so they know it’s connected to you, even if Proton doesn’t.

I mean, he does answer why. You can disagree about the reason but he answers your question.

It doesn’t, but someone could write something that did. Like referring to an incorrect answer that the candidate then wants to prove in court was actually correct, and so they were unfairly rejected.

So either you screen every piece feedback by the legal team, which would be very expensive, or you just don’t give feedback as a rule.

I’m not saying this makes sense - it doesn’t - just saying that’s the rationale that leads to it.

Why? What difference does it make if he packages these commits in 1 or 10 PRs?

Keep in mind this is a single maintainer project, there are no PR reviews. He could be just pushing straight to the branch anyway with no PR at all.

The “single pull request” is a merge release from 79 separate commits. It’s the sum of all work, it doesn’t mean all of it was changed in one go.

And Facebook Messenger and Gmail Chat (or whatever it was called)! There was a glorious period of time where you could talk to pretty much anyone on any service from one chat app.