Because religious vocabulary, etiquette, and clothing are learned from decades of involvement usually as a small child.
It’s kind of like saying you’re going to pretend to be a different class, but more particular.
> I have pretended to be multiple kinds of Christian with success
I don’t know what context you mean. But I guarantee others can tell you aren’t a member of the group even if Christianity aims to be open in inviting new people.
Another common situation is they recognize you have some connection but can tell you aren’t an active participant.
Harder to pretend when speaking with colleagues that are the real deal. Also very likely to "step out of line" accidentally over time as lot of time is spent with colleagues.
It's not hard to pretend to be anything for 5 minutes to someone who doesn't know anything about what you're doing.
Naively, I was assuming TSMC would still operate like TSMC, not the Taliban, and that they'd focus on doing their work, not religious performance, but I guess anything is possible!
Suggesting TSMC start operating like the Taliban to protect their trade secrets seems like an obviously bad idea, though.
But we don't live in a vacuum, so I guess it's all just opinion pieces.
Okay, substitute Taliban for the Church of Scientology or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
It's a marginally less absurd proposal.
My point stands.
Proposing extreme religious nepotism as a good counter-measure to deal with espionage 1) would be minimally effective (see the IDF infiltrating Hamas and Iran regularly), and 2) is ridiculous.
That would be the definition of ad hom then, anyone can publish science - the important part is if you take off the name is it reproducible and falsifiable.
You hope it also is somewhat useful or tells us something we don't already know.
My faith in Christ is way stronger than the influence of a small group of crooked and virtueless human beings.
Even if 9 out of 10 of cardinals, priests and worshippers were crooked, my faith in Christ wouldn't move one inch (2.54cm); it might actually become even greater.
I think there is a profound difference on how two different kinds of people approach religion.
On one side, I've never given much care to what the "social opinion" of something is in order to engage with it or not. My choice to follow Christ is rooted on myself, not on what I'm told to be right or wrong.
On the other, I can understand people who choose to associate/dissociate from specific groups/trends based on what they hear on the news/radio/etc... and I think that's completely valid as well. There was a even time in our past where having this trait was a desirable thing!
There is no hypocrisy here. I am in good faith asking what proof you have to justify this unshakeable faith you're proudly declaring.
> You're not a teenager anymore.
Nor are you, I'm assuming, so please answer my question.
> I hope one day you are able to understand this and live in peace with others who do not wish you any bad.
You should not become so defensive when pressed for proof of claims you make about invisible patriarchs living in the sky and turning cities into salt because people had too much anal sex.
Late Acceptance Hill Climbing (and diversified) are algorithms in this field that came out after this paper was originally written and I wonder how it compares (maybe the author is around and can comment?)
> Listing asbestos as an ingredient is not likely to garner a lot of sales.
Apollo private equity buys a respected but financially struggling baby food company and starts putting asbestos in it to cut costs. After kids start getting sick, nobody really feels better that asbestos was listed on the label and that the free market is going to correct it.
What do you think would happen if they actually put asbestos on the label?
Not everyone reads the label, but enough people do that it would be discovered on the first day, if not before the first day as some retailers check for label changes before putting a modified product on their shelves. Any retailer who didn't notice this to begin with would then notice the front page story condemning the company for doing it and all of the products would be removed from the shelves and returned to the manufacturer to save the retailer from the reputation hit of carrying it in their store. The manufacturer's reputation would be destroyed and no one would be willing to carry their products, depriving them of the incentive to do this because it would immediately tank the company, and this would be an obvious outcome to private equity firms who want to make rather than lose money.
Notice that you can currently buy things like arsenic for use as rat poison and this is not a problem because the label tells you that it's arsenic so you know not to use it as a food additive.
