https://biblehub.com/q/was_jesus_omniscient.htm
Omniscience refers to the ability to know all things-past, present, and future-completely and without limitation.
Conclusion
Scripture consistently presents Jesus as fully God and fully man, possessing all divine attributes, including omniscience.
I suppose that establishes it. Jesus is presumably also fluent in Cockney rhyming slang.
Jesus very probably did exist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus
I don't know if the historicity of any of the other figures listed has been established. I mean, Jesus had a mother, for example, but I don't know if there's any reason to believe that she was anything like Mary as the Bible describes her.
I'd guess that most of the Biblical figures with established historical existence are gonna be major figures like Pontius Pilate.
kagis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_biblical_figures_identified_in_extra-biblical_sources
Chat With Jesus, Mary, The Apostles — And Even Satan
Most of those people were likely illiterate, and wouldn't have been able to write the chat messages. You're gonna get about as much out of Jesus on the other end of a chat program as you would a cat walking across the keyboard.
They have a no-log, no-profile policy, which is why I use them.
Can anyone here convince me it's worth the price?
Depends on what you want from them and your financial situation.
For me, yeah, it is. I want to pay a service fee and not deal with ads or someone logging, profiling, and trying to figure out how to monetize my searches. For me, the $10/mo for unlimited searches tier is what I want. I'm principally concerned about privacy.
I don't really take much advantage of most of the extra stuff they do other than the Threadiverse (they call it "Fediverse Forums") search lens and sometimes their Usenet search engine. Maybe this effort to suppress AI-generated spam websites will be nice, but have to see what happens, as I expect that the SEO crowd creating spam websites will also aim to adapt if it becomes sufficiently impactful to their bottom line.
If one of their extra features particularly fits your use case (say, the ability to fiddle with website priorities or blacklist or pin them in your search results) that might be valuable to you, but I can't speak as to that. I've seen people on here say that they really like that, but I don't use that functionality. Or the ability to easily download images in results from their image search if you're on mobile and are hitting something like pinterest, which is obnoxious on Google Images. Search bangs. Depends on what features you use and what each is worth to you.
I haven't used them for all the intervening time, but archive.org has the website clearly running in November 2020 as a "privacy-respecting search engine" with accounts, albeit no dog logo yet. Maybe for some time prior to that, but the archive.org crawler got a "desktop not supported yet" error for some time prior to that (which...hmm...makes me think that it might be useful for archive.org to also archive the mobile versions of websites, though in most cases the content is probably largely the same). WP has them founded in 2018.
They're obviously a lot younger than, say, Google, but they've also been running for longer than a year.
It shows up for me in the UI. I imagine that it works, and if it doesn't, it'll be debugged.
I think that the bigger question is whether the rate of spam website creation will outpace the rate of human flagging of them.
Kagi's process involves humans. I bet that the spam website stuff runs autonomously.
I didn't follow that story, but if it was over some suit over bone chips, I'd donlt think that it'd be analogous. Normally, "boneless wings" are less-desirable than regular wings. Boneless wings are just reconstituted chicken, so you can use scraps and stuff for them. It's kind of like the relationship between steak and hamburger.
But with hamburger, you can occasionally have a bone chip make it in.
That's in contrast to a window seat, where a window seat is often considered to be preferable, and someone not getting one would feel like they're being mislead as to the actual value of what they're getting.
Like, I wouldn't expect truth-in-advertising issues to come up with boneless chicken; you wouldn't likely wouldn't get boneless chicken wings because of an aversion to bone or something, where that's your main goal.
kagis
Yeah:
It doesn't sound like it's a false advertising case with the chicken, but a product safety one.
IRC, though you'll want to use it over TLS.
XMPP, which someone else listed, is also good if you want a more instant-message-like interface.
The only teacher who taught financial education was a substitute we might have seen for one lesson twice a year or something. I still remember him too, Mr. Roland. He called it his Roland-omics course.
I mean, we definitely didn't even have that. And like you, home economics for me was basic sewing, cooking, some crafts.
Oh, there was one point in driver's ed
an elective course
where we covered getting quotes from multiple car insurance providers rather than just taking the first one. I guess I should count that.
People need to work on their susceptibility to this.
I'm not saying you're wrong, and that's gotta be part of it, but humans are humans. They don't get better at that across generations unless doing it wrong is killing them, and even then, evolution isn't a fast process. So basically, every new young human is starting from scratch.
The art of fine-tuning how you convince people to buy your thing is a developing field, and knowledge gets passed down among experts in written form, trained into them. We have marketing, advertising, communication science, psychology, economics. The rate of improvement blows past any kind of change that humans can biologically do.
Maybe we could teach humans how to deal with some of that, but my point is that we aren't doing so, not in an institutionalized form. As a new human, I'm not just given some body of knowledge to counter all that work in trying to influence me. Each generation that goes by, you'd kind of expect humans to get worse at dealing with it, on the net, because the crowd influencing us is getting better more-quickly.
Sometimes we have regulations to deal with certain types of problematic things: pyramid schemes, misleading advertising, etc. But I'd say that that's relatively limited.
EDIT: For the US, if you look at most of what the increase of spending over the past century is on, it's on housing. Like, as society has gotten wealthier, our relative share of spending on, say, food has declined. But housing is up as a percentage of spending. And the housing we have is substantially larger in terms of per-capita square footage than it has been for past generations.
EDIT2:
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/decline-u-s-housing-affordability-1967-2023/
This one doesn't go back a full century, but it does do the last 60.
In that time, median household real income has risen by a bit over 50%.
And median household real house price has risen by about 107%.
EDIT3: And over the past century, average household size has declined, also worth pointing out, so there are also fewer people in those larger, more-expensive houses.
EDIT4: One more fun chart:
EDIT5: This has some data that goes back the full century that I wanted:
https://thehustle.co/originals/why-america-has-so-many-big-houses
the COL also varies wildly. I could move 1.5 hours away from where I live now and pay like 1/3 of what I do now for rent/mortgage.
Part of that high city housing cost is zoning and other planning constraints on building upwards. Have to increase supply if you want to bring the cost down.
I post this occasionally:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/03/how-skyscrapers-can-save-the-city/308387/
If it were possible to reduce the cost-of-living bar to letting more people move to cities, it'd be possible to increase productivity for a lot of people.
I remember the "The Rent is Too Damn High" guy running for mayor of New York City a few years back. The guy had a point.
Like, policymakers have not done a great job on that.
Maybe nobody's done Muhammad and Buddha yet.