my_hat_stinks
- 0 Posts
- 8 Comments
1·2 months agoA sect is a sub-group of people unified by beliefs or practice, a denomination is essentially just a large named sect. Christianity is not monolithic and organises into groups, it by definition has sects.
Even if you were right it’s such a ridiculously pointless and pedantic argument, it does nothing to further the conversation. You’re just trying to use cheap gotchas as a thought-terminating cliche. The only thing you’ve done is to force us to literally argue semantics, that is not a good look for you.
For completeness, here’s a Christian source using the word sect to describe Christian groups, one of the top search engine hits when I searched.
The important factor isn’t whether someone can be addicted (otherwise you’re banning nearly everything), it’s the harm that addiction causes. As a general rule of thumb physical dependencies like alcohol are more harmful than habitual addictions, but that obviously isn’t the whole story.
Caffeine addiction is the same category as alcohol and tobacco but causes so little harm that I don’t think anyone is seriously opposed it. On the other end of that scale is something like meth or other hard drugs, generally understood as destructive and has few serious supporters encouraging use. Breaking these addictions is almost always hard and physically taxing, in some cases can even be lethal.
Marijuana addiction is in the same category as most things that make you feel good or form habits so it’s harder to nail down a proper scale, but the lower end is probably something like video games; a debilitating addiction is possible but uncommon and most people would oppose a blanket ban on the basis of “can be addictive”. Gambling is on the other end can definitely ruin lives. I’d say that’s a little worse than coffee. Breaking these addictions is more like breaking a bad habit, it can feel hard for the addict but generally isn’t going to kill them.
From your description it sounds like they haven’t complied with a legally binding ombudsman decision. The ombudsman is the last stop before legal action, you should get in touch with a real solicitor rather than ask for anonymous advice online.
An N322A form might be what you need to enforce the decision, but if I were you I’d check with Citizens Advice or a lawyer first.
Uploading your consciousness to a machine wouldn’t really extend your lifespan. Think of it like moving a file from one device to another; the file isn’t actually moved, you just get a copy on the second device. You and your digital clone will also begin to diverge immediately as the lived experience of being a new digital entity would be different from continuing life as a meat person.
The closest you can get is to Ship of Theseus it; get a machine implant which gradually takes over brain functions as cells die or parts of the brain fail. Single stream of consciousness in a single body, now fully digitised. Incidentally this is also closer to biological processes to replace cells, though the brain cells renew much less frequently then other cell types. I think some areas don’t naturally get replaced over a lifetime too but I’m not certain on that, either way you’d want to go faster than natural cell replacement.
Alternatively you could make the transfer process dissolve your meat brain. Personally I’d say you are dead and your clone lives on but its the same argument as Star Trek style transporters; the clone still feels like it’s you so if they got to where you want to go does it really matter?
And it’s differentiated from IC meaning Independent Contractor by…?
No, corporate jargon is stupid and saying it’s acceptable because a big corp uses corporate jargon is even stupider.
IC is a common term for integrated circuits and a hundred other things.
Maybe it’s used for workers in your specific region/field but that’s not definitely universal and it’s not even a useful or descriptive term. Managers are also individuals who ostensibly contribute something to the company. The distinction between managers and workers is that the workers are the people doing the actual work, not that they’re individuals.
Sounds like corporate jargon. Why not just say worker, a term everyone understands?
There’s plenty of examples of software doing this right and displaying each language in the selector in that language, it’s hard to say why they’ve localised it here. Most likely they just didn’t consider how the user interacts with that element and localised it the same way they translate everything else, but that could be down to anyone from the developer habitually running everything through localisation to company policy where they couldn’t get an exception for that element.
You’d have to ask support for whatever software you’re using for more detail, chances are you won’t get anything useful back but if you’re lucky they might fix it.