Roy Tinker

@Kris The identity of Jesus as both God and Man is a big doctrine and a lot of scripture (chapters!) is there to support it. If Jesus were also an archangel, I'd expect a similarly sizable portion of scripture to be present to support and explain that. But building a doctrine on a single article that appears sometimes when translating to English and isn't there in the original is not being true to Scripture. That's adding to God's word.

The most literal translations use "an", not "the". Many translations that do use "the" have it in italics to show it was added to help the sentence make grammatical sense in English, but that it isn't there in the Greek. It's not good hermeneutics to build a doctrine on the word "the" appearing in some translations.

@Kris The words are literally φωνῇ ἀρχαγγέλου (phoneh archangelo) -- "the voice of an archangel". There is no definite article "the" for "archangel". The emphasis here is on sheer volume. Nothing on earth could be louder than the voice of an archangel and a trumpet of God. A momentous occasion accompanied by powerful sounds declaring what's happening. But there is no textual evidence from this passage to connect Christ and the archangel's identites; that line of thinking is not even close to the main point here. The only statements supporting that hypothesis are from E.G. White.

The same passage (1 Thess 4) says that Jesus will come with the sound of a trumpet. Does that mean he's a trumpet?

@Trunk your answer and follow-up discussion comes across as very uncharitable.

re-purchasing their own stock To me, that's the primary problem. Stock re-purchasing is currently unregulated. It artificially manipulates stock price (thus rewarding the largest shareholders, who normally are company officers and board members) and simultaneously enables escaping a corporate tax burden. Plus, that money is funneled away from workers and towards shareholders.

This is all assuming that use of old tech & legacy code is the only issue. But I suspect there are management issues as well, particularly a failure to clearly articulate the vision and reasoning behind the technology choices that have been made (if there is any; if not then that's the primary problem), and perhaps a lack of openness to feedback and discussion from those in the trenches.

@sudowoodo Discussions around homophobia have reached such an emotional, fevered pitch that I think dispassionate, common-sense thinking is needed. Outside examples and comparisons help to frame discussions in a way that allows and encourages that kind of thinking.

@Kevin If your hypothetical nun gets offended at such a suggestion, when the person making it does not know that she's a nun, then she's being unreasonable in my book. I won't argue with that. But my point is that even if she's being unreasonable, she's not necessarily being heterophobic. That's quite a charge to level against someone based on a single reaction to a comment. And the charge would be even more tenuous if the person knew she was a nun to begin with.

Well, what's wrong if it had been gay? It’s so subtly homophobic, but significant nonetheless. Having a personal or religious conviction that a particular type of relationship is out of bounds doesn't necessarily constitute a phobia. A nun may bristle at comments about a relationship with a man constituting "more than friendship", but that doesn't make her heterophobic.

From the school IT admin's perspective, this is a heck of a social vuln to have exploited. Depending on his/her character and background, this could be a big temptation to misconduct. That alone would give me pause if I were in your shoes.

@CharlieParker, I wasn't invoking the principle of explosion. I meant that it seems you didn't understand the process my informal proof used (which was very different from anything in your remarks).

@CharlieParker I think you're misunderstanding the proof's method. If I recall correctly, it works by adding 'person' units and assigning them to real people. A somewhat informal summary: 1=2; 1=1+1; 1person = 1person + 1person; 1person = (me) + (the KoF); I and the KoF are 1 person; I am the KoF

@CharlieParker: (regarding @mpasko256's comments) The common example given in philosophy classes is "Given that 1=2, I'll prove that I'm the king of France" -- to illustrate that given a false logical statement, any statement can be proven (it's not 1+1=2, that must have been a typo).

If I were you, I wouldn't mention it. If an employer views them positively from prospective employees, he/she likely views them positively from current employees as well. Your employer's values will affect your life significantly.

I have trouble with the "C is powerful" vs "C is dangerous" arguments. To me, arguments for or against C on either ground are misguided. C's intent is to expose hardware features directly to programmers with some syntactic sugar, full stop. If you need anything other than direct access to hardware, I would suggest looking elsewhere first. Several other languages are "powerful" and "fast" (and tradeoffs include requiring runtime libraries and abstracting hardware away).

@Solomonoff'sSecret I'm not advocating using a raw Von Neumann machine to do modern network programming. Not sure where you got that idea. I'm only pointing out how C is mainly a Von Neumann-oriented language.

@MasonWheeler a leaky abstraction is still an abstraction... I called it "semantic" because C provides semantics that translate directly to machine code (as opposed to language features implemented in software), not because the semantics fit the abstraction well. I'll grant the "leakyness" of some abstractions is a language-level danger, sure. But until "arrays" become a hardware feature, a strictly Von-Neumann oriented language has to accept that problem if it is to provide "arrays" and the like to programmers. The C language must be capable of working without a runtime library.

@MasonWheeler the Von Neumann architecture has no built-in notion of an "array", so C arrays (and many other language features) are semantic abstractions. As such, at the language level, they can provide no checks that the hardware itself doesn't support. (Note I'm not talking about libraries and such, where such features implemented in software can be used by C programs).

The C language is the most direct high-level representation of the Von Neumann architecture. It's "dangerous" and powerful because it exposes the hardware's capabilities directly to you.