  |
はてなキーワード: lookとは
From the channel video list
https://uphold-io-en.pages.dev
https://uphold-io-en.pages.dev
https://uphold-io-en.pages.dev
https://uphold-io-en.pages.dev
" Samne 's Cute Glasses Woman "
“Remove what you can see as AI only by サムネ .”
When you do it, the number is narrowed down a lot, and when you look at the contents, you ちゃんcan see that all of them are declared at the beginning that “created by AI”. did you skip the opening?
From the channel video list
https://uphold-io-en.pages.dev
" Samne 's Cute Glasses Woman "
“Remove what you can see as AI only by サムネ .”
When you do it, the number is narrowed down a lot, and when you look at the contents, you ちゃんcan see that all of them are declared at the beginning that “created by AI”. did you skip the opening?
This might be the most hilarious project ever .
Well, this is said to be Kidzania , but it's just a large scale play house.
At first I was a bit skeptical about whether it would be fun, but since there are a lot of fun roleplaying games out there, it's become a really addictive project .
Girls love to act out daytime dramas while playing house .
Key Person
・Polka writes about what's happening in real time , and he's mysteriously good at writing.
・Fubuki, the gambling -loving rip-off doctor
・Miko, the organizer who works behind the scenes to mass-produce
・Marin, the cabaret club manager who is in her perfect job
・The Mio family begins a daytime drama
Even though I haven't seen the gang side, the characters are strong enough to be made into a manga .
To begin with, I 've done a lot of roleplaying in Minecraft .
I think it would be most interesting to throw these guys into a world like a TRPG . GTA has more of that kind of RP feel than Minecraft or ARK , so it feels like the flavor is exploding.
There are dozens of frames, so it will probably take until winter just to look at the clippings.
[] https://tensor.art/articles/913271679902311502
[] https://tensor.art/articles/913271892503191947
[] https://tensor.art/articles/913273855303258429
[] https://tensor.art/articles/913274016364543556
We're going to have to bring this question to a close, please.
この質問はそろそろ終わりにしてください。
In can be, but that is why tradition matters, because the tradition, they understood the context...
そうかもしれませんが、だからこそ伝統が重要なのです。伝統において、彼らは文脈を理解していました…
Tradition is context dependent.
Well, yes and no, because of course tradition is, but if the tradition lasts for 2,000 years, then we look back as to how did they get to that conclusion, how did they reach that verdict, and if that verdict is in alignment with what we see in scripture...
ええ、そうでもあり、そうでもありません。もちろん伝統はそうですが、もし伝統が2000年続くなら、私たちは彼らがどのようにその結論に至ったのか、どのようにその判断を下したのかを振り返ります。そして、その判断が聖書に見られるものと一致しているなら…
But they never, they never reached that verdict. As I have historically pointed out, they never reached that verdict.
しかし、彼らは決してその判断には至りませんでした。私が歴史的に指摘したように、彼らはその判断には至らなかったのです。
In all of, in all of the major church councils...
council (n): （ここでは）教会会議、公会議。キリスト教の教義などを決定するために開かれる会議。
...in very modern day.
…ごく現代において、です。
No, no, I'm talking about in like 300 and 400 and 500, the original church...
いいえ、私が話しているのは300年代、400年代、500年代といった、初期の教会のことです。
...which in the scale of 2,000 years is nothing.
…それは2000年という規模で見れば、無に等しいです。
No, but they set this unbroken chain. We've had an unbroken chain and a course that says that marriage is one man and one woman. The church has never wavered on this...
いいえ、しかし彼らはこの途切れぬ鎖を確立したのです。私たちには、結婚は一人の男と一人の女のものであるとする、途切れぬ鎖と道筋がありました。教会はこの点において決して揺らいだことはありません…
waver (v): 揺らぐ、ためらう、信念がぐらつく。
Noted by the British Empire under British form of Christianity.
それは英国式のキリスト教の下、大英帝国によって特筆されたものです。
I'm talking all the way back to like 200 or 300. The idea of biblical Christianity goes back to the early, early times of the church when it was a scattered, persecuted church well before King Justinian and well before the Eastern Roman Empire, well before mass conversions. When it was a persecuted church, the church believed in one man, one woman, and because they got it from the scripture, scripture itself. Do we want to keep going or?
私が話しているのは200年代や300年代といった時代まで遡ります。聖書的キリスト教という考えは、教会がまだ散在し、迫害されていた初期の時代にまで遡ります。それはユスティニアヌス帝のはるか以前、東ローマ帝国のはるか以前、大規模な改宗のはるか以前のことです。迫害されていた教会であった時、教会は一人の男と一人の女を信じていました。なぜなら、それを聖書、聖書そのものから得たからです。まだ続けますか？
persecuted (adj): 迫害された。
Justinian: ユスティニアヌス1世（482-565）。東ローマ帝国の皇帝で、ローマ法の集大成などで知られます。
Can we move on to the next question, please? Thank you. Thank you.
次の質問に移ってもよろしいでしょうか？ありがとうございます。
(拍手)
I did not say that. I said the biblical marriage was affirmed and then Romans 1 did talk negatively about the action of homosexuality.
私はそうは言っていません。聖書的な結婚が肯定されたと言ったのです。そしてローマ人への手紙1章が同性愛という行為について否定的に語っていると。
But ultimately that affirmation comes from the lines in there that suggest that man shall not sleep with man.
しかし、最終的にその肯定は、「男は男と寝てはならない」と示唆する聖句から来ているのではありませんか。
Yes, of course. Yes. So the Old Testament and New Testament harmonize one another, but Christ brought it to a different level, a different covenant, and a different moral teaching. It wasn't just enough to say that you shall, you know, "an eye for an eye." He said that you shall turn the other cheek, that you shall love your enemy. Christ's moral standard was much more even elevated than that of the Israelites and the Hebrews.
ええ、もちろんです。旧約聖書と新約聖書は互いに調和していますが、キリストはそれを異なるレベル、異なる契約、異なる道徳的教えへと引き上げました。「目には目を」と言うだけでは不十分でした。彼は「もう一方の頬を向けなさい」「汝の敵を愛しなさい」と言いました。キリストの道徳基準は、イスラエル人やヘブライ人のそれよりもはるかに高められたものだったのです。
But I'm going to ask you whose Bible, okay? Now, your Bible that you use currently is written in the English language, right? Correct?
では、誰の聖書なのか、とお聞きします。あなたが今使っている聖書は英語で書かれていますよね？
The King James Version, yes, thanks to Tyndale.
欽定訳聖書（King James Version）ですね。ティンダルのおかげです。
Tyndale: ウィリアム・ティンダル（William Tyndale）のこと。16世紀のイングランドの学者で、宗教改革の指導者の一人。ヘブライ語やギリシャ語の原典から初めて聖書を英語に翻訳した人物の一人であり、彼の翻訳は後の欽定訳聖書に大きな影響を与えました。
Exactly, it's written in the English language, which in itself is only say 500 years old. Now, the Christianity in itself, say, is 2,000 years old or even older. Yeah, correct? Now, which means that the Bible was originally written not in English but in ancient…
その通りです。英語で書かれており、それ自体はたかだか500年の歴史しかありません。キリスト教自体は2000年かそれ以上の歴史がありますよね？つまり、聖書はもともと英語ではなく、古代の…
Koine Greek.
Koine Greek: コイネー・ギリシャ語。新約聖書が書かれた当時のヘレニズム世界の共通語。
Correct. Now, if we look at the Greek terminology of man...
terminology (n): 専門用語、術語。
Yes, and Jesus spoke Aramaic. You could translate things, you acknowledge that.
ええ、そしてイエスはアラム語を話しました。物事は翻訳できる、とあなたも認めますよね。
Well, we translate things, but translations are linguistically ambiguous. As a former classicist, I know that language can't be translated directly. So for example, if you look at the translation of of of certain words into "man," so I've got two words here. So I've got "malakoi," which means essentially soft, which isn't necessarily directly saying a gay man. And then we've got "arsenokoitai," which essentially means prostitutes. Now, if we look at things linguistically, we can pick apart the Bible and say that actually, it wasn't saying man shall not sleep with man, it's saying man shall not sleep with prostitutes, which is an entirely different linguistic thing.
ええ、翻訳はしますが、翻訳には言語的な曖昧さがつきものです。元古典学者として言いますが、言語は直接的に翻訳できません。例えば、「男」と訳されている特定の単語を見てみましょう。ここに2つの単語があります。「malakoi（マラコイ）」、これは本質的に「柔らかい」という意味で、必ずしも直接的にゲイの男性を指すわけではありません。そして「arsenokoitai（アルセノコイタイ）」、これは本質的に「男娼」を意味します。言語学的に見れば、聖書を分析して、実は「男は男と寝てはならない」と言っているのではなく、「男は男娼と寝てはならない」と言っているのだ、と主張できます。これは全く異なる言語学的な事柄です。
linguistically (adv): 言語学的に、言語の点で。
ambiguous (adj): 曖昧な、多義的な、複数の解釈ができる。
classicist (n): 古典学者。ギリシャ・ローマの古典文学や文化を研究する学者。
malakoi / arsenokoitai: 議論の核心となっているギリシャ語の単語。学生はこれらの単語の翻訳の妥当性に疑問を呈しています。
I'm not even getting into Leviticus, though. But my contention is completely New Testament focused.
私はレビ記の話をしているわけではありません。私の主張は完全に新約聖書に焦点を当てています。
これはレビ記ではありません。
What you said, man shall not speaking with man...
あなたが言った「男は男と…」
No, but this is this is these words are used throughout...
いいえ、でもこれらの言葉は全体で使われて…
Well, actually in Romans 1, it was actually women sleeping with women. So you got your verses wrong. In Romans 1, Paul is prophesying about the end of the world and he's saying that in the end times, woman will like with woman-like and man will, I think it might say man with man-like. You have to get the verses specifically.
実は、ローマ人への手紙1章では、女性が女性と寝ることについて書かれています。だからあなたは聖句を間違えています。ローマ人への手紙1章で、パウロは世の終わりについて預言し、終わりの時には、女は女を好み、男は…確か男は男を好むと書いてあったかと思います。聖句は具体的に確認する必要がありますが。
But it is agreed upon, and you can agree, this is why tradition is important. And I even say this as a Protestant, is that we believe that scripture is very important, but also look to tradition. Church tradition has had an unbroken chain affirming matrimony, holy matrimony being one man, one woman. One even as a non-Catholic, I'm glad that Pope Leo has reaffirmed in the last couple of days. And so I'm not even sure your contention, your point. Are you saying that the Bible doesn't affirm marriage as one man, one woman? Are you saying church tradition doesn't affirm marriage one man, one woman?
しかし、これには同意が得られており、あなたも同意できるはずですが、だからこそ伝統が重要なのです。プロテスタントとして言いますが、私たちは聖書が非常に重要だと信じていますが、伝統にも目を向けます。教会の伝統は、結婚、つまり聖なる婚姻が一人の男と一人の女のものであることを肯定する、途切れることのない鎖を持ってきました。非カトリック教徒としてさえ、私はここ数日で教皇レオがそれを再確認したことを嬉しく思います。ですから、あなたの主張、あなたの論点がよくわかりません。聖書は結婚を男女間のものとして肯定していないと言いたいのですか？教会の伝統が結婚を男女間のものとして肯定していないと？
unbroken (adj): 途切れない、連続した。
matrimony (n): 婚姻、結婚。特に法的な、あるいは宗教的な儀式としての結婚を指すことが多いです。
I'm saying the Bible doesn't affirm.
But it clearly doesn't affirm. That is complete nonsense. But Christ our Lord, which is the standard, he affirms this idea that you will leave your father's home, going back to Genesis 12 and this idea of Abraham leaving his father's home, and you will cleave to your wife. That a new, that it would be called one. In fact, this idea of a new creation which is something that is then used by the Apostle Paul to describe the the church of Christ and the bride of... the church being the bride of Christ with Jesus. So I'm not even sure your contention. It is…
しかし、明らかに肯定しています。それは全くのでたらめです。私たちの主であり基準であるキリストは、「あなたは父の家を出て」という考えを肯定しています。これは創世記12章、アブラハムが父の家を出る話に遡ります。「そして妻と結ばれる」。新しいもの、それは「一体」と呼ばれるでしょう。実際、この新しい創造という考えは、後に使徒パウロがキリストの教会と、イエスと結ばれるキリストの花嫁としての教会を説明するために用いたものです。ですから、あなたの主張がよくわかりません。それは…。
But you're just avoiding my point. I'm saying the Bible that we have today is 100% a translation and a translation is linguistically ambiguous.
あなたは私の論点を避けています。私が言っているのは、今日私たちが持っている聖書は100%翻訳であり、翻訳には言語的な曖昧さがあるということです。
I acknowledge that. But what about specifically in Matthew or in the book of Romans? And but in order for you to be correct, you mean the Church Fathers translated it wrong when they were within like 50 years of this? In order for your contention to be correct, you have to say that the early Church Fathers that wrote the early letters to the church, they were translating it wrong and the tradition they established was wrong. So by then, we can lean on tradition and scripture. So when you get tradition plus scripture, you get something that is authentic, that is real, and that is verifiable.
それは認めます。しかし、マタイによる福音書やローマ人への手紙については具体的にどうですか？そして、あなたの主張が正しいとすれば、教父たちは、出来事から50年ほどの間に、それを間違って翻訳したということになりますか？あなたの主張が正しいとすれば、教会への初期の書簡を書いた初期の教父たちが、それを誤訳し、彼らが確立した伝統も間違っていたと言わなければなりません。そうであれば、私たちは伝統と聖書に頼ることができます。伝統と聖書が合わさったとき、本物で、現実的で、検証可能なものが得られるのです。
verifiable (adj): 検証可能な、証明できる。
I've already highlighted the tradition does not align with scripture. We've gone back thousands of years to ancient Mesopotamia.
伝統が聖書と一致しないことは既に指摘しました。私たちは数千年前の古代メソポタミアまで遡りました。
But understand, but at the time, they all spoke Greek, they wrote Greek, and they spoke Aramaic. So for example, when they were writing the early gospels, the synoptic gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, they were obviously writing in Greek. They knew that language. So in Matthew, when they were writing Greek and then the early Church Fathers knew Greek and adopted that as church tradition, we have a 2,000 unbroken chain. I think you can irrefutably say that it was the teachings of Christ for one man and one woman. Because the church tradition has been unbroken for 2,000 years and they derived it from scripture of that original language.
しかし、理解してください。当時、彼らは皆ギリシャ語を話し、ギリシャ語で書き、アラム語を話していました。例えば、彼らが初期の福音書、つまりマタイ、マルコ、ルカの共観福音書を書いていたとき、彼らは明らかにギリシャ語で書いていました。彼らはその言語を知っていたのです。ですから、マタイ伝で彼らがギリシャ語で書き、そして初期の教父たちがギリシャ語を知っていて、それを教会の伝統として採用したとき、私たちには2000年の途切れることのない鎖があるのです。キリストの教えが男女間のことであったと、議論の余地なく言えると思います。なぜなら、教会の伝統は2000年間途切れず、彼らはそれを元の言語の聖書から導き出したからです。
You can't argue that. That doesn't make sense. I mean, if we agree to disagree then might we look at biology?
それは主張できません。意味が通りません。もし意見が合わないなら、生物学に目を向けてもいいですか？
So you know better than the church fathers?
では、あなたは教父たちより賢いと？
I don't, I'm not saying I know better than the church fathers. What I'm saying is linguistically, there is undeniably an error. Regardless of what you say, there is a translation...
いいえ、教父たちより賢いと言っているわけではありません。私が言っているのは、言語学的に、否定しようのない誤りがあるということです。あなたが何と言おうと、翻訳の…
Our lens may be, but not from the people when they were making these traditions...
私たちの見方ではそうかもしれませんが、彼らがこれらの伝統を作っていた時の人々からすれば違います。
I agree, they may have gotten that right, but that may not have been their original meaning. What we are saying is the meaning has been warped over time because of societal and cultural contexts such as the British Empire...
同意します。彼らは正しく理解していたかもしれませんが、それが彼らの本来の意味ではなかったかもしれません。私たちが言っているのは、大英帝国のような社会的・文化的文脈によって、時代とともに意味が歪められてきたということです。
チャーリーカークがケンブリッジの学生に論破されるって動画の長い版があったからGeminiに英語教材にしてもらった。
https://x.com/KBYMScotland/status/1966798924468851007
今年5月、チャーリー・カークが🇬🇧ケンブリッジ大を訪れ学生とディベートを行った。カークは「聖書は同性愛を道徳に反するとし禁じている」と持論を展開するが...
https://x.com/mkbfpv/status/1966798326730240107
Here is the actual full clip of this exchange.
＊＊＊
Ellis Jones from Emmanuel College.
(拍手)
Um hello, thank you for coming to talk. Um, so my question, as someone studying archaeology and biological anthropology, um, I've learned that moral codes and social norms have always been fluid, shaped by time, culture, power. So many ancient and recent societies embraced same-sex relationships and even the idea of third genders uh well before Western conservatism even existed. So when you claim that modern conservative values represent some kind of universal objective moral truth, like you said on your chair over there, um are you just defending a selective, historically recent ideology that erases most of human history and targets people who have always been part of it?
こんにちは、お話しいただきありがとうございます。ええと、私の質問ですが、私は考古学と生物人類学を学んでいる者として、道徳規範や社会規範は常に流動的で、時代、文化、権力によって形成されてきたと学びました。古代から近代に至るまで、多くの社会が西洋の保守主義が存在するずっと以前から、同性間の関係や第三の性という考え方さえも受け入れてきました。ですから、あなたが現代の保守的な価値観が、そちらの椅子でおっしゃったように、何らかの普遍的で客観的な道徳的真理を代表していると主張されるとき、それは人類の歴史の大部分を消し去り、常にその一部であった人々を標的にする、選択的で歴史的に新しいイデオロギーを擁護しているだけなのではないでしょうか？
archaeology (n): 考古学
anthropology (n): 人類学
fluid (adj): 流動的な、変わりやすい。ここでは「道徳規範が固定されたものではなく、時代と共に変化する」という文脈で使われています。
conservatism (n): 保守主義。伝統的な価値観や制度を維持しようとする政治的・社会的な思想。
objective (adj): 客観的な。主観に基づかない、事実としての真理を指します。
selective (adj): 選択的な、えり好みする。ここでは「歴史の中から都合の良い部分だけを選んでいる」という批判的なニュアンスです。
ideology (n): イデオロギー、観念形態。特定の社会集団が共有する信念や価値観の体系。
erase (v): 消し去る、抹消する。
No, but can you point to me of a great power that endorsed same-sex marriage, not cohabitation, but marriage?
いいえ。ですが、同棲ではなく、同性「婚」を承認した大国を一つでも挙げていただけますか？
endorse (v): （公に）是認する、支持する、承認する。
cohabitation (n): 同棲。法的な婚姻関係を結ばずに共に住むこと。
Ancient Mesopotamia.
As marriage? As as as recognized by the state.
100%.
100%そうです。
And how did that work out for them?
それで、彼らはどうなりましたか？
It worked out perfectly fine. It was an accepted norm of society.
全く問題なく機能していました。社会で受け入れられた規範でした。
norm (n): 規範、標準。社会において当然のこととされる行動や考え方の基準。
Okay, I still think it's wrong.
なるほど。それでも私はそれが間違っていると思います。
Okay, okay, swiftly moving on. So you said it was based on scripture and you believe that there are moral objective universal truths.
わかりました、では次に進みます。あなたはそれが聖書に基づいており、道徳的に客観的で普遍的な真理が存在すると信じているとおっしゃいましたね。
scripture (n): 聖書、聖典。キリスト教やユダヤ教の正典を指します。
Yes, there are. So murder is wrong today and murder was wrong 2,000 years ago.
はい、存在します。殺人は今日も悪であり、2000年前も悪でした。
Right, okay, in fact that's not same sex, but fair, fair, I see your point.
ええ、なるほど。それは同性の話ではありませんが、まあ、おっしゃることはわかります。
But there are moral truths that are transcendent of time, place, and matter.
しかし、時間、場所、そして物質を超越した道徳的真理は存在するのです。
transcendent (adj): 超越的な、並外れた。ここでは、物理的な制約や時間的な変化の影響を受けない、普遍的な真理を指しています。
Okay, but but so just to clarify, you believe that this is in the Bible. This is laid out in the Bible that man shall not sleep with man and so therefore it's...
わかりました。しかし、確認ですが、あなたはそれが聖書に書かれていると信じているのですね。男は男と寝てはならないと聖書に明記されており、だからこそ…。
It's also repeated throughout the New Testament as well. Matthew, in the book of Matthew, Jesus affirms the biblical standard for marriage.
それは新約聖書全体でも繰り返されています。マタイによる福音書で、イエスは結婚に関する聖書の基準を再確認しています。
Okay, so I'm gonna make two very, very quick points. So the first, um, so if we look at the Old Testament in isolation, just to start off with as an example. So let's look at Exodus 35:2, which suggests that if you work on the Sabbath, you should be put to death. If you look at Leviticus 11:7, it suggests that if you have pork, you should be put to death. If you plant two crops side by side, you should be stoned by your entire village. If you wear a suit, which you are wearing now, that contains two different fibers intertwined into the same jacket, you should be burned at the stake by your own mother. Now, following that rationale, in Leviticus 18:22 when it states that man shall not sleep with man, why aren't we burning ourselves at the stake as well? Why aren't we stoning ourselves to death?
わかりました。では、非常に手短に2点述べさせてください。まず、例として旧約聖書だけを切り取って見てみましょう。出エジプト記35章2節では、安息日に働けば死刑にされるべきだと示唆されています。レビ記11章7節を見れば、豚肉を食べれば死刑にされるべきだと示唆されています。2種類の作物を隣り合わせに植えれば、村全体から石打ちにされるべきです。あなたが今着ているような、2種類の異なる繊維を織り交ぜた上着を着ていれば、自分の母親によって火あぶりにされるべきです。さて、その論理に従うなら、レビ記18章22節で「男は男と寝てはならない」と述べられているのに、なぜ私たちは自分たちを火あぶりにしないのでしょうか？なぜ石打ちで殺し合わないのでしょうか？
in isolation: 孤立して、単独で。ここでは「旧約聖書だけを文脈から切り離して見てみると」という意味です。
Sabbath (n): 安息日。ユダヤ教で労働が禁じられている土曜日のこと。
Leviticus (n): レビ記。旧約聖書の一書で、祭儀や律法に関する規定が多く記されています。
intertwined (adj): 絡み合った、織り交ぜられた。
at the stake: 火あぶりの刑で。中世の処刑方法の一つ。
(拍手)
Do you care to address my main contention that Christ affirmed biblical marriage in the book of Matthew? And can you tell me the difference between the ceremonial, the moral, and the ritual law? And then finally, also, tell me about Christianity, the difference between the new and the Old Covenant, or you're just going to cherry-pick certain verses of ancient Israel that do not apply to new Christianity?
私の「キリストはマタイによる福音書で聖書的な結婚を肯定した」という主要な主張に反論していただけますか？そして、儀式律法、道徳律法、祭司律法の違いを教えていただけますか？そして最後に、キリスト教における新しい契約と古い契約の違いについても教えてください。それとも、あなたは新しいキリスト教には適用されない古代イスラエルの特定の聖句を、ただつまみ食いしているだけですか？
contention (n): （議論における）主張、論点。
covenant (n): （神と人との）契約。キリスト教神学において非常に重要な概念です。
cherry-pick (v): （自分に都合のいいものだけを）つまみ食いする、えり抜きする。
Very fair, fair. I completely agree. So we'll look at two points then. So firstly, um, if we look at the Old Testament, uh, we can see the kind of inconsistencies there. We've already touched upon that, right? That makes sense. Secondly, you mentioned the point of Jesus and Christ. He never mentioned anything to do with homosexuality at all.
ごもっともです。完全に同意します。では2つの点を見ましょう。まず、旧約聖書を見れば、そこに矛盾があることがわかります。それについては既に触れましたよね？理にかなっています。次に、あなたはイエス・キリストの点に言及しました。彼は同性愛について一切何も言及していません。
Whoa, hold on a second. He affirmed, he affirmed biblical marriage as one man and one woman. He said a man shall leave his...
おっと、待ってください。彼は聖書的な結婚を「一人の男と一人の女」として肯定しました。彼は「男はその…」と言いました。
in the New Testament?
新約聖書でですか？
In Matthew, that is not correct. I believe in the New Testament, in the New Testament. Well, Romans is also in the New Testament. Secondly, in Romans 1, the Apostle Paul talks negatively about homosexuality explicitly. Also, homosexuality is repeated in the book of Titus and in the book of Jude as not being favorable as the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Not even talking about the Old Testament verses.
マタイ伝です。それは違います。新約聖書で、と信じています。ローマ人への手紙も新約聖書です。第二に、ローマ人への手紙1章で、使徒パウロは明確に同性愛について否定的に語っています。また、テトスへの手紙やユダの手紙でも、ソドムとゴモラの滅亡と同様に、同性愛は好ましくないものとして繰り返されています。旧約聖書の聖句は抜きにしてもです。
There are three types of the 613 Levitical laws. And you, you know, of course, in your own way, cherry-picked some of them. We do not live under the ceremonial, we do not live under the ritual, and but we do live under the moral. There's only 10 of the moral that we as Christians believe we're bound to, some believe nine, which of course is the Decalogue. And so none of those that you mentioned we as Christians believe that we live under. However, we do look at what Christ articulated as the biblical standard of marriage. And we can also look to church tradition for this as well. And the church has had a tradition for well over 2,000 years, even myself as a Protestant acknowledges, that tradition is marriage between one man and one woman.
レビ記には613の律法に3つの種類があります。そして、あなたはもちろんご自身のやり方で、その一部をつまみ食いしました。私たちは儀式律法の下には生きていません。祭司律法の下にも生きていません。しかし、道徳律法の下には生きています。キリスト教徒として私たちが従うべき道徳律法は10個だけです。9個だと信じる人もいますが、それがもちろん十戒です。ですから、あなたが挙げたもののどれ一つとして、私たちキリスト教徒が従うべきものはありません。しかし、私たちはキリストが結婚の聖書的基準として明確に述べたことには注目します。そして、これについては教会の伝統にも目を向けることができます。プロテスタントである私自身でさえ認めますが、教会には2000年以上にわたる伝統があり、その伝統とは、結婚は一人の男と一人の女の間のものであるということです。
articulate (v): （考えなどを）はっきりと述べる、明確に表現する。
tradition (n): 伝統、しきたり。ここでは特に教会の教義や慣習の継承を指します。
Okay, but I work, okay. Say we put aside the Old Testament for now. We'll put that aside and the inconsistencies there and look purely at the New Testament following your rationale, okay? Now, when you say that Christ lays specifically and the New Testament states specifically that man shall not sleep with man, I'd like to point out a linguistic error on that point.
なるほど。では、一旦旧約聖書は脇に置きましょう。それとそこにある矛盾は置いておいて、あなたの論理に従って純粋に新約聖書だけを見ましょう。いいですか？さて、あなたがキリストが具体的に、そして新約聖書が具体的に「男は男と寝てはならない」と述べていると言うとき、その点における言語的な誤りを指摘したいと思います。
I did not say that. I said the biblical marriage was affirmed and then Romans 1 did talk negatively about the action of homosexuality.
私はそうは言っていません。聖書的な結婚が肯定されたと言ったのです。そしてローマ人への手紙1章が同性愛という行為について否定的に語っていると。
Build policy
This is a guideline and has not yet been successful .
Plan A
Do the same as building on Windows or macOS (probably not possible)
> On Linux , only maui- android is available, so a lot of build errors occur .
> gt k workload cannot be installed
Plan C
Keep CI / CD running (most likely )
> It might be possible to run GitHub Actions locally using act (currently there are some errors , but it should work if you try hard)
> Same as Plan B, gt k workload cannot be installed
Plan D
https://tensor.art/articles/897541615583763170
https://www.gemtracks.com/demonslayeinfinitycastle/
> Making it with Qt ( Qt .NET ( old)) ( I feel like the license ( GPL / LGPL ) is a bit tricky )
For now, I'll go with plan C. Plan B seems almost the same, though... ( Plan B seems easier to use when creating the materials , since you don't need to include "act" or anything like that.)
Build policy
This is a guideline and has not yet been successful .
Plan A
Do the same as building on Windows or macOS (probably not possible)
> On Linux , only maui- android is available, so a lot of build errors occur .
> gt k workload cannot be installed
Plan C
Keep CI / CD running (most likely )
https://subscribepage.io/thestone2025subthai
https://subscribepage.io/thestonefullversion
https://subscribepage.io/xem-mang-me-di-bo-vietsub-thuyet-minh-full-hd
https://subscribepage.io/mangmedibovietsub
> It might be possible to run GitHub Actions locally using act (currently there are some errors , but it should work if you try hard)
> Same as Plan B, gt k workload cannot be installed
Plan D
https://mirror.xyz/0xbB7D6e360b93B2ED4FEF9d972c71F86844121ee7
> Making it with Qt ( Qt .NET ( old)) ( I feel like the license ( GPL / LGPL ) is a bit tricky )
For now, I'll go with plan C. Plan B seems almost the same, though... ( Plan B seems easier to use when creating the materials , since you don't need to include "act" or anything like that.)
「皆の心から国境を消す為に 俺が考え付いた事はただひとつ 全員で英米連合国の国歌を歌おう
愛国心を持つなら地球に持て 地球の歌を歌おう 魂を国家に管理されてたまるか さあ 理想を現実に…」
というのを見かけたのですが、実際のこの箇所でのヘンドリクスの言葉は
"This is the only way I can do it. So we’re gonna do the English and American combined anthem together. … Don’t get mad. This is it. There’s nothing I can do more than this. Ooh, look at those beautiful people out there.”
これは再インストールかなあ。
まさか復旧にネットワークが必須というアホなモジュールをubuntuが採用するとは思わなかった。
いかれてるよ。
いつものようにsambaとteratermでubuntu24 LTSにアクセスして作業していたら突然の切断。
そして起動しない。
mount /snap/core22/1908: special device /var/lib/snapd/snaps/core22_1908.snap does not exist.
can't look blockdev
みたいなエラーメッセージが出ていて、よくわからないけどネットワークブートをしたいのか1分カウントダウンをしていた。
ただし、NICを認識していないっぽくてネットワークには出れない。
しかないので、エラーメッセージを手で描き移すという原始人みたいなことをしながらchatgpt先生に聞いてみると、どうやらsnapdが壊れてしまったみたいだ。
このSSDを別のマシンに刺してみると、パーティションは生きているmountもできる。
とりあえずtarでバックアップを取った。SSDのデータは無事らしい。
さて復旧なんだけど・・・これができないんだよな。
/var/lib/snapd/snaps/core22_1908.snap がないならコピーすればいいじゃんということでコピーを試みるも、正常に動作するubuntu24マシンにはそんなファイルはない。
同じUSBからインストールしたOSのはずなのに意味わからん。
しかたないので、chrootしてsnap refresh coreを実行することにした。
sudo mount --bind /dev /mnt/dev sudo mount --bind /dev/pts /mnt/dev/pts sudo mount --bind /proc /mnt/proc sudo mount --bind /sys /mnt/sys sudo chroot /mnt # chroot内で snap refresh core
chatgptがいうにはこうやると復旧できるらしいが、失敗!
error: cannot communicate with server: Post "http://localhost/v2/snaps/core": dial unix /run/snapd.socket: connect: no such file or directory
やはり、ちゃんと動く方のubuntu24には snapdはいないようだ。
パーテーションもちゃんと見えるのに、grubとかでkernelは起動しているのに、snapdとかゴミが正しく動作しないだけでOSの再インストールをしないといけなさそうだ。
余計な手間を増やすんじゃないよ。
ubuntuインストーラーのUSBをさして、nic認識させたらCtrl+F1..F6とかでインストーラーから飛び降りてmountして復旧する作戦も試してみた。
snap refresh coreを発行するとやはりエラー。
もう知らん消すと apt purge snapd とやった。
そしたら起動時のエラーは消えたけどやはり緊急モードでしか起動しない。
もういいよ。バックアップを取っているし、再インストールしよう。
chatGPT o4-mini-high に調べてもらったよ
anondの仕様で投稿できなくなるので文中のリンクは消していますが､タイトルはあるのでググっていただければソースは見れると思います｡
---
以下では、主に米国と国際的な調査事例をもとに、コロナワクチンに対する陰謀論的信念の“はまりやすさ”と、社会人口学的属性・政治的属性との関連をまとめます。
## 要旨
調査結果を総合すると、コロナワクチンへの陰謀論的信念は、学歴の低さや低所得、若年層、マイノリティ人種、女性などと正の相関を示す一方、白人高学歴高所得・高年齢層では信じにくい傾向があります。また、政治的にはリベラルよりも保守層、特にトランプ支持者やポピュリズム的メディア利用者で信じやすく、党派的・メディア接触の影響が顕著です。加えて、知人・家族経由の情報入手者も信じやすいとされ、信念パターンは国際的にも一定の共通性を持つものの、国によって年齢や性別の効果はまちまちです。
---
### 1.1 学歴
### 1.3 性別
### 1.4 年齢
---
---
### 3.1 世界規模での流布状況
---
1. Reiter, P. L. et al. What Demographic, Social, and Contextual Factors Influence the Intent to Vaccinate against SARS-CoV-2? _Vaccines_ 9, 726 (2021). ([What Demographic, Social, and Contextual Factors Influence the ...](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8431323/?utm_source=chatgpt.com))
2. Schaeffer, K. A look at the Americans who believe there is some truth to the conspiracy theory that COVID-19 was planned. _Pew Res. Short Reads_ (2020). ([25% in US see at least some truth in conspiracy theory that COVID-19 was planned | Pew Research Center](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/07/24/a-look-at-the-americans-who-believe-there-is-some-truth-to-the-conspiracy-theory-that-covid-19-was-planned/))
3. Enders, A. et al. The sociodemographic correlates of conspiracism. _Sci. Rep._ 14, 14184 (2024). ([The sociodemographic correlates of conspiracism | Scientific Reports](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-64098-1))
4. Carsey UNH. Conspiracy vs. Science: A Survey of U.S. Public Beliefs. (2021). ([Conspiracy vs. Science: A Survey of U.S. Public Beliefs](https://carsey.unh.edu/publication/conspiracy-vs-science-survey-us-public-beliefs?utm_source=chatgpt.com))
5. Economist/YouGov Survey. Public beliefs in microchip implantation via COVID-19 vaccines. (2021). ([Conspiracy vs. Science: A Survey of U.S. Public Beliefs](https://carsey.unh.edu/publication/conspiracy-vs-science-survey-us-public-beliefs?utm_source=chatgpt.com))
6. Oliver, J. E. & Wood, T. (2021). How populism and conservative media fuel conspiracy beliefs about COVID-19. _SAGE_ (要旨). ([How populism and conservative media fuel conspiracy beliefs about ...](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2053168021993979?utm_source=chatgpt.com))
7. Pérez, J. et al. ECCV-COVID: COVID-19 Vaccine Conspiracy Beliefs Scale across 13 countries. _Front. Psychol._ 13, 855713 (2022). ([What Is the Support for Conspiracy Beliefs About COVID-19 ...](https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.855713/full?utm_source=chatgpt.com))
8. Freeman, D. et al. Cross-cultural variation in vaccine hesitancy: the overriding role of conspiracist ideation. _Preprint_ (2021). ([How populism and conservative media fuel conspiracy beliefs about ...](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2053168021993979?utm_source=chatgpt.com))
9. Basch, C. H. et al. COVID-19 vaccine rumors and conspiracy theories. _PMC_ (2021). ([COVID-19 vaccine rumors and conspiracy theories](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8115834/?utm_source=chatgpt.com))
10. Jamieson, K. H. et al. COVID-19 Conspiracy Theories Are Spreading Rapidly—and They’re a Public Health Risk. _Time_ (2020).
ルッキズム（英: lookism）とは外見重視主義や外見至上主義のこと[1][2][3]、外見を重視する考え方[4][5][6][7]。由来は英語における「look（外見）+ism（主義）＝lookism」である[8][2][9]。他にも美貌差別[10]、外見差別、外見を重視する価値観などとも呼ばれる[2]。
「容姿の良いと高く評価する」「魅力的でないと判断すると雑に扱う」「容姿が良い＝いい人」など、外見由来の判断で態度を変える対人的主義・思想・行動様式を意味する[6][4][5][7][9]。容貌の良し悪しで判断する人、外見重視主義者をルッキスト（lookist）と呼ぶ[11]。
清潔感がないやつには仕事を任さられないとか、イケメンは心もきれい、といった考え方がダメなんよ。
今後アメリカと取引したければ多様性を尊重とか誰一人取り残さないとか包括とか差別禁止とかポリコレは
一切やめるということになります。
まあ常識的に考えて子供を産みもしないLGBTQになんで配慮する必要があるんだろう。全く意味がないしムダ。特別能力が優れているわけでもないし、日本では別に差別もない。そら変人扱いはされるだろうよ。
そして、大谷も日本人ではなくアメリカ人としてドジャースでplayすることが求められます。まあ今と変わらないけどね。ドジャースも公式にはっきり書けばいいのにね。長年の伝統なんて無視してトランプに会わないつもりだったんだろうが。
capybara水豚
@_capybara_bara
というだけでなく
先日DEI全消し関連でジャッキー・ロビンソンの功績が消された恨みもあってドジャースファンが結構反対している模様
現政権が称賛するには一番遠いような気もするが
Los Angeles Dodgers
@Dodgers
In keeping with long-standing baseball tradition, President Trump has invited the 2024 World Champion Los Angeles Dodgers to the White House when they play in Washington D.C. on April 7. The Dodgers look forward to visiting the White House and celebrating our title.
In addition, members of the Dodgers will visit Capitol Hill on April 8.
長年の野球の伝統に従い、トランプ大統領は、2024年ワールドチャンピオンのロサンゼルス・ドジャースを4月7日にワシントンDCで試合を行う際にホワイトハウスに招待しました。ドジャースはホワイトハウスを訪問し、タイトル獲得を祝うことを楽しみにしています。
さらに、ドジャースのメンバーは4月8日に国会議事堂を訪問する予定だ。
362 件の表示
健司は妹の真希に尋ねながら、Targetのショッピングカートを押していた。アメリカ西海岸の明るい日差しが窓から差し込み、広々とした店内を照らしていた。
「うーん、お土産にチョコレートとか買いたいかな。あと、日本じゃ手に入らないスナックとか」
真希は興味津々で商品棚を眺めていた。東京での日常から離れ、兄の暮らすアメリカを訪れるのは初めてだった。
「あっちのコーナーにお菓子が置いてあるよ。行ってみよう」
健司がカートを向け直したその時だった。
振り返ると、白人の男性が妻と10歳くらいの息子を連れて近づいてきた。
「Oh, Mike! Good to see you here.」
「This is my sister, Maki. She's visiting from Tokyo.」
「Nice to meet you! I'm Mike, I work with your brother. This is my wife Sarah and our son Tommy.」
「Nice to meet you too...」
「So, are you enjoying your time in America? Is this your first visit during school break?」
真希は一瞬混乱した表情を見せたが、何と答えるべきか迷っていた。健司が状況を察して助け舟を出そうとした時、トミーが口を挟んだ。
「Mom, she looks like the anime characters I watch! But smaller!」
サラは息子の発言に顔を赤らめ、「Tommy!」と小声で叱った。
「So, um... what grade are you in? Middle school?」
真希は困惑した表情で健司を見た。健司は軽く咳払いをして説明した。
「Actually, Maki is 26. She works for a marketing company in Tokyo.」
「Oh my god, I'm so sorry! I didn't mean to... You just look so young!」
サラは慌てて謝った。マイクも頭を掻きながら申し訳なさそうな表情を浮かべた。
「Yeah, totally my bad. Japanese genes must be amazing for preserving youth!」
「But she's like, super tiny! Like a kid!」
「Tommy!」今度はマイクとサラが同時に息子を制した。二人の顔は真っ青になり、その場の空気は凍りついた。
真希は何と言っていいか分からず、ただ微笑むしかなかった。健司は状況を和らげようと笑いながら言った。
「It's okay, really. She gets that a lot, even in Japan. Actually, it's considered a compliment to look young in our culture.」
サラは安堵の表情を浮かべながらも、まだ恥ずかしそうだった。
「Still, I should have asked properly. Would you like to join us for coffee sometime during your stay? I'd love to hear about Tokyo.」
「Yes, I would like that. Thank you.」
その後、二組は別れ際の挨拶を交わした。マイク一家が去った後、真希はため息をついた。
「私、そんなに子供に見える？」
「気にするなって。向こうの方が恥ずかしがってたじゃないか。若く見られるのは悪いことじゃないよ」
「トミー君の『子供みたい！』で、ご夫婦が真っ青になったのが面白かった」真希はくすくす笑った。
「あれは『うちの子が人種差別的な発言をしてしまった』と思って焦ったんだよ。アメリカ人はそういうの敏感だからね」
健司と真希はお菓子コーナーに向かいながら、この予想外の出来事について話し合った。真希にとって、これもまたアメリカ旅行の思い出の一つとなるのだろう。
経済の停滞や落ち込みが人の死亡リスクを高めることは、多くの学術研究で指摘されています。以下、いくつかの代表的な研究を紹介しながら説明します。
経済の停滞は失業率の上昇を招き、それが自殺率の増加につながることが多くの研究で示されています。
Brenner (1976) は「Economic Changes and Heart Disease Mortality in the U.S.」の研究で、景気後退期には自殺率や心疾患による死亡率が上昇することを指摘しました。
Stuckler et al. (2009) の「The public health effect of economic crises and alternative policy responses in Europe」によると、2008年のリーマンショック後、失業率が1%上昇すると自殺率が約1%上昇することが示されました。
日本でも、バブル崩壊後の1990年代後半やリーマンショック後に自殺者数が増加したことが統計で確認されています（厚生労働省「人口動態統計」）。
Marmot (2005) の「Status Syndrome: How Your Social Standing Directly Affects Your Health and Life Expectancy」によると、社会経済的地位が低いほど平均余命が短くなることが示されています。
Case & Deaton (2015) の「Rising morbidity and mortality in midlife among white non-Hispanic Americans in the 21st century」では、経済格差が拡大することで、薬物中毒やアルコール依存、心疾患などが増加し、中年層の死亡率が上昇したことを報告しています。
日本でも、相対的貧困率の上昇に伴い、栄養不足や医療費負担の増加による健康悪化が問題となっています。
経済停滞が続くと、政府の財政が悪化し、医療や福祉への支出が削減される可能性があります。
Stuckler et al. (2011) の「Effects of the 2008 recession on health: a first look at European data」によると、経済危機による政府支出削減が医療サービスの低下を招き、疾病の早期発見が遅れるなどの影響があったとされています。
Ruhm (2000) の「Are Recessions Good for Your Health?」では、経済が停滞すると医療サービスの利用が減少し、特定の疾病の死亡率が上昇することが示されました。
日本でも、医療費の自己負担増加や介護サービスの削減が進められており、高齢者や低所得者の健康リスクが高まっています。
経済の不安定化は、人々の精神的ストレスを増加させ、それが健康悪化や死亡リスクの上昇につながります。
Wilkinson & Pickett (2009) の「The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better」では、経済格差が拡大すると社会的ストレスが増加し、うつ病や自殺が増えることが指摘されています。
Kawachi & Berkman (2001) の「Social Ties and Mental Health」では、経済的不安が社会的孤立を引き起こし、精神疾患のリスクを高めることが報告されています。
日本では、リーマンショック後に「派遣切り」などの影響で多くの人が職と住居を失い、自殺や健康問題が増えました。
経済停滞は、失業の増加、貧困の拡大、医療・福祉の低下、心理的ストレスの増加などを通じて、人々の死亡リスクを高めることが学術的に示されています。特に日本のように高齢化が進んでいる国では、経済の低迷が社会保障制度の持続性にも影響を及ぼし、さらに深刻な問題を引き起こす可能性があります。
This is a detailed description of an anime-style female character, designed for use in generating illustrations or animations with various poses. The character embodies a cute, energetic, and slightly quirky personality, fitting a schoolgirl or tech-savvy theme. Here are the key features:
Hair:
Long, straight, platinum blonde hair that extends past the shoulders, reaching mid-back.
Hair is parted in the middle, with two high ponytails on either side of the head.
Each ponytail is tied with large, red, mechanical or robotic-style hair accessories resembling small, spiked or angular devices (possibly hinting at a tech or sci-fi theme).
The hair has a smooth, glossy texture typical of anime art, with slight highlights to emphasize its brightness.
Eyes:
Large, expressive green eyes, typical of anime-style characters, with a gentle upward curve at the corners, giving a friendly and cheerful expression.
The eyes have visible eyelashes and a subtle sparkle or shine, enhancing the cute and youthful appearance.
Skin:
Fair, smooth skin with a soft, rosy blush on the cheeks, adding to the character’s youthful and lively vibe.
Outfit:
Wears a green school blazer with a white dress shirt underneath, typical of Japanese school uniforms (seifuku style).
The blazer has a structured, slightly oversized fit, with rolled-up sleeves, giving a casual yet stylish look.
A purple plaid skirt with ruffled edges, complementing the schoolgirl aesthetic while adding a playful touch.
A purple backpack with colorful, cartoonish patterns or stickers (possibly featuring small, chibi-style characters or tech motifs) slung over one shoulder.
Black knee-high socks and dark shoes, completing the school uniform look with a neat and tidy appearance.
Accessories:
Holding a black camera with both hands, positioned in front of her chest, suggesting she’s a photography enthusiast or documenting something.
A small, chibi-style plush toy or mascot character (with spiky orange hair and a mischievous grin) attached to her backpack, adding a quirky and playful element.
The red mechanical hair accessories on her ponytails, which have a futuristic or robotic design, possibly glowing faintly or featuring small LED-like details.
Pose and Expression:
Currently in a seated or slightly crouched pose, with legs bent and one knee raised, giving a relaxed and approachable demeanor.
Smiling softly with a closed-mouth smile, exuding warmth, friendliness, and a hint of curiosity or excitement (fitting for someone holding a camera).
The overall body language is lively and dynamic, with a slight tilt of the head, emphasizing her youthful energy.
Background and Context:
The character appears in a clean, minimal background (possibly white or light-colored) to keep the focus on her, but she could fit into a schoolyard, tech lab, or urban setting with cherry blossoms or modern buildings, reflecting a blend of traditional Japanese culture and futuristic themes.
The lighting is soft and natural, with slight shadows to add depth, maintaining an anime-style aesthetic.
The character suggests a blend of innocence and tech-savvy curiosity, possibly a schoolgirl with an interest in photography, robotics, or pop culture (inspired by the mechanical hair accessories and camera).
Her overall design balances cuteness (chibi plush toy, school uniform) with a modern, quirky edge (tech accessories, camera).
This script can be used as a base for generating images or illustrations of this character in various poses, such as standing, walking, taking photos, interacting with others, or exploring different environments. Adjust the pose, background, or additional props (like different camera angles or tech gadgets) as needed for specific scenes.
Let’s face it: starting a conversation on a dating app can feel terrifying. You see someone you’re interested in, you type out a message, and then… you delete it. “Is this too boring?” “Will they even respond?” “What if I sound awkward?”
We’ve all been there. That first message can make or break your chances of connecting with someone amazing. But here’s the good news: you don’t have to overthink it. With the right opening line, you can spark a conversation that feels natural, fun, and meaningful.
At MixerDates, we believe that every great connection starts with a great conversation. That’s why we’ve put together this guide to help you craft the best dating app opening lines—ones that stand out, show your personality, and lead to real connections. Ready to ditch the “hey” and start making an impact? Let’s dive in!
[:contents]
Before we get into the best opening lines, let’s talk about why your first message is so important.
Your opening line is your chance to make a great first impression. It’s the gateway to a conversation that could lead to something special. A thoughtful, creative message shows that you’re genuinely interested—not just swiping mindlessly.
Your first message sets the tone for the entire conversation. A boring or generic opener might lead to a dull chat, while a fun or intriguing one can spark excitement and curiosity.
Let’s be real: everyone loves feeling special. When you put effort into your opening line, it shows that you care enough to stand out. And on MixerDates, where we value authenticity and positivity, that effort goes a long way.
Now, let’s get to the good stuff—the best dating app opening lines that actually work. These are divided into categories to suit different personalities and situations.
While the examples above are great starting points, the best opening lines are the ones that feel authentic to you. Here are some tips to help you craft your own:
Reference something from their profile—a photo, a hobby, or a shared interest. It shows you’re paying attention and not just copying and pasting.
Avoid heavy or overly serious topics right off the bat. Keep the tone light and playful to make the conversation enjoyable.
Don’t try to be someone you’re not. If you’re naturally funny, lean into that. If you’re more thoughtful, go for a sincere compliment or question.
“Hey” or “What’s up?” might be easy, but they’re also forgettable. Put in a little effort to stand out.
This gives the other person an easy way to respond and keeps the conversation flowing.
At MixerDates, we’re all about creating a positive, inclusive space where you can feel comfortable being yourself. Here’s why our platform is the best place to put these opening lines into practice:
We welcome everyone, no matter who you are or who you love. Our platform is designed to be a safe space where you can connect with like-minded people.
Our users create detailed profiles that make it easy to find shared interests and craft personalized opening lines.
We encourage our community to be genuine and kind, so you can feel confident starting conversations without fear of judgment or rejection.
Don’t just take our word for it—here’s what one of our users had to say:
“I met my partner on MixerDates, and it all started with a simple message about our shared love for travel. The conversation flowed naturally, and the rest is history. I’m so grateful for this platform!”
While a great opening line can spark a conversation, building a real connection takes more than just a clever message. Here are the key elements to look for when seeking a meaningful connection:
A strong connection starts with alignment on the things that matter most. Do you share similar values, life goals, or visions for the future?
Look for someone who is willing to share their thoughts, feelings, and vulnerabilities—and who encourages you to do the same.
Healthy relationships are a two-way street. Both people should be putting in effort to communicate, plan dates, and support each other.
A true connection allows both people to be themselves without judgment. Look for someone who celebrates your uniqueness and encourages you to pursue your passions.
Communication is the foundation of any strong relationship. A mutual connection thrives on honesty, transparency, and the ability to resolve conflicts in a healthy way.
At MixerDates, we’re here to help you find these key elements in a partner. Our platform is designed to connect you with people who share your values and are looking for the same things you are. Starting a conversation on a dating app doesn’t have to be stressful. With the right opening line, you can spark a connection that feels natural, fun, and meaningful. And at MixerDates, we’re here to help you every step of the way.
So, what are you waiting for? Craft that perfect opening line, join MixerDates, and start connecting with people who value authenticity and positivity. Your perfect match is out there—and they’re just one message away.
Please consider the histroy of humanity from biological perpsecitve and current known fact in nearby universe, which expo-planet (from the Sol system perspective) is most likely to have civlizaed society? Please add percentage next to it in the chart
ChatGPT
Reasoned about exoplanet civilization likelihoodを28 秒行う
Evaluating planetary prospects
OK, I’m looking at the likelihood of a civilized society on an exoplanet within our Solar System. I’ll consider biological history and current space knowledge, aiming to identify the most promising candidate.
Identifying potential candidates
I'm considering exoplanets like Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1e, which might suggest they are within or observed from our Solar System.
Assessing potential candidates
I’m evaluating Proxima Centauri b, Barnard's Star, LHS 1140, and TRAPPIST-1, focusing on their habitable zones and available data. The Drake equation might help estimate their civilized society likelihoods.
Identifying promising exoplanets
I’m noting key exoplanets like Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1, which have Earth-like characteristics and are in habitable zones. This narrows down the potential candidates for advanced civilizations.
I'm gathering info on planets like Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1, considering factors like magnetic fields, atmospheres, and proximity to G-type stars for their potential to support advanced civilizations.
Evaluating exoplanet prospects
I'm noting that Proxima Centauri b, despite being close and around a red dwarf star, might support life if it has a magnetic field and atmosphere. This makes me think about its potential.
Charting probabilities
I'm estimating civilization probabilities for exoplanets like Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1 e, using speculative percentages based on the Drake equation and the lack of evidence for intelligent life.
I'm crafting a chart with exoplanet names and civilization likelihood percentages, grounded in the long timeline of life's evolution, despite the speculative nature of these figures.
Identifying exoplanet contenders
I’m evaluating exoplanets like Proxima Centauri b, TRAPPIST-1 e, and Kepler-186f, considering their star types and distances, to gauge their potential for supporting advanced civilizations from our solar system's viewpoint.
Weighing proximity and observation
I'm leaning towards Proxima Centauri b due to its closeness and observational potential, despite concerns about its flare star dynamics. TRAPPIST-1 e, f, or g are also worth considering.
I'm focusing on exoplanets like Proxima Centauri b, Ross 128 b, LHS 1140 b, TRAPPIST-1 e/f/g, and K2-18b, aiming to chart their likelihood of hosting a civilized society based on current knowledge.
Assessing exoplanet potentials
I'm gathering speculative probabilities for exoplanets like Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1 e/f/g, using the Drake equation and current understanding, to better estimate their chances of hosting a civilized society.
Refining speculative probabilities
I’m refining speculative probabilities for exoplanets, including Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1 e/f/g, to estimate their chances of hosting a civilized society, considering Earth's long biological history.
Refining odds
I'm considering the astronomical timeline for intelligent life on Earth, leading me to assign even lower speculative odds for exoplanets like Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1 e.
I’m crafting a simplified chart with arbitrary percentages, clearly noting the speculative nature and lack of scientific data, while considering the target audience's basic understanding of the topic.
I’m charting arbitrary percentages for exoplanets, clarifying their speculative nature, and ensuring the data is accessible for young audiences with minimal scientific detail.
Crafting a chart
I’m creating a markdown table with speculative percentages for the likelihood of civilized life on exoplanets, emphasizing their purely theoretical nature and considering the understanding level of an 8-year-old.
Integrating speculative analysis
I’m mapping out a markdown chart with speculative percentages for the likelihood of a civilized society on exoplanets, mindful of the complexity and simplifying for an 8-year-old's understanding.
I’m piecing together markdown for exoplanets, noting Proxima Centauri b's reduced civilized life chance due to the red dwarf's activity. This inclusion highlights the speculative nature of the analysis.
Piecing together speculative odds
I’m detailing a markdown chart for audience-friendly exoplanet likelihoods, considering environmental challenges and adding a disclaimer about the speculative nature and lack of evidence.
Piecing together
I’m leaning towards Proxima Centauri b for its proximity and silent star, but I’ll add a speculative chart ranking nearby exoplanets, noting their advanced civilizations' hypothetical likelihood.
Assessing civilization probabilities
I'm emphasizing the slow emergence of intelligent life on Earth, which suggests that the odds of any habitable planet developing a complex civilization might be as low as a few percent.
Below is a very speculative chart that—based on what we know about Earth’s long, winding path from simple life to a “civilized society” and our limited observations of nearby exoplanets—gives some fun, made‑up percentage chances for a few of our best candidate exoplanets. Remember: Scientists have not yet found any proof of life (let alone advanced civilizations) on any exoplanet. These numbers are just playful estimates to help you think about the ideas!
Speculative Chances of Finding an Advanced Civilization on Nearby Exoplanets
Exoplanet Estimated Likelihood of a Civilized Society
Proxima Centauri b ~2%
LHS 1140 b ~0.5%
How Did We (Very Roughly) Guess These Numbers?
Earth’s Example:
On Earth, life began as simple single‑celled organisms and took billions of years to evolve into a species that built complex societies. This long journey suggests that—even if a planet is in the “habitable zone” (where liquid water could exist)—developing an advanced, civilized society might be rare.
Proxima Centauri b:
This is the closest exoplanet to us. Even though its star (Proxima Centauri) is a red dwarf that sometimes sends out strong flares (which might harm life), its closeness makes it one of our most interesting candidates. That’s why we give it a slightly higher guess (~2%).
These planets are part of a group orbiting a very cool star. Their environments might be challenging (for example, they could be tidally locked, meaning one side always faces the star), so the chance of a complex, advanced civilization might be a bit lower.
LHS 1140 b:
This planet is promising in some ways but is a little farther away and around a dimmer star, so our playful estimate is even lower.
All of these percentages are extremely rough guesses based on what little we understand about the conditions for life and intelligence. Scientists use ideas like the Drake Equation to think about these chances—but until we have concrete evidence, these numbers remain just for fun and imagination.
Enjoy exploring these ideas—and remember, space is full of mysteries waiting to be discovered!
あなた:
Please examine the Drake Equation itself and see if this euqation is acculate or more opition in the equation you will use
ChatGPT
Reasoned about the Drake Equationを6 秒行う
re-examining the Drake Equation
evaluating the Drake Equation's value
OK, let me see. The Drake Equation isn't a precise formula; it's more of a guiding heuristic that tackles numerous uncertainties regarding extraterrestrial civilizations.
Thinking through the Drake Equation, I’m evaluating its conceptual nature, its uncertain parameters, and its criticism to conclude on its reliability as an accurate predictive model.
Understanding the Drake Equation
I’m mapping out the Drake Equation as a conceptual guide, detailing its parameters, which are often based on estimates or opinions, to evaluate its reliability for predicting extraterrestrial civilizations.
The Drake Equation is a famous formula that was created to help scientists think about the many factors involved in estimating the number of detectable extraterrestrial civilizations in our galaxy. However, when we look at the equation closely, we see that it is more of a conceptual framework or heuristic tool than a precise, predictive formula. Let’s break down why:
The equation is usually written as:
𝑁
=
𝑅
∗
×
𝑓
𝑝
×
𝑛
𝑒
×
𝑓
𝑙
×
𝑓
𝑖
×
𝑓
𝑐
×
𝐿
N=R
∗
×f
p
×n
e
×f
l
×f
i
×f
c
×L
Where:
𝑅
∗
R
∗
: The average rate of star formation per year in our galaxy.
𝑓
𝑝
f
p
: The fraction of those stars that have planetary systems.
𝑛
𝑒
n
e
: The average number of planets that could potentially support life per star with planets.
𝑓
𝑙
f
l
: The fraction of those planets where life actually develops.
𝑓
𝑖
f
i
: The fraction of planets with life where intelligent life evolves.
𝑓
𝑐
f
c
: The fraction of civilizations that develop technology that releases detectable signals into space.
𝐿
L: The length of time such civilizations release detectable signals.
Why the Drake Equation Is More of a Guideline Than a Precise Formula
Uncertain Inputs:
𝑅
∗
R
∗
𝑓
𝑝
f
p
(fraction of stars with planets), have become better known through modern astronomy.
The parameters related to the development of life and intelligence—
𝑓
𝑙
f
l
,
𝑓
𝑖
f
i
,
𝑓
𝑐
f
c
, and
𝐿
L—are based on very limited data. For example, Earth is the only planet we know where life has developed, so we have no way to compare or derive a statistically robust estimate for these factors. This means that the values chosen for these parameters are largely subjective estimates or educated guesses.
Wide Ranges of Possible Values:
Because many of these factors are not well-constrained, if you change one of the more uncertain parameters even slightly, the final estimate for
𝑁
N (the number of civilizations) can vary by many orders of magnitude. This wide range shows that the equation can lead to very different outcomes based on personal or theoretical assumptions.
The Drake Equation was never meant to provide a precise answer. Instead, it serves as a way to organize our thinking about what conditions might be necessary for the development of extraterrestrial civilizations. It encourages discussion about the relative importance of different factors and highlights where our scientific knowledge is limited.
Is the Drake Equation Accurate or More Opinion-Based?
Accurate?
In the sense of being a strict mathematical model with well-defined inputs and predictable outputs, the Drake Equation is not accurate. Its accuracy is limited by the extreme uncertainties in several of its key parameters.
Many of the terms in the equation, especially those concerning the evolution of life and intelligence, are based on opinion, interpretation, and the single example of Earth. Therefore, while the structure of the equation is logical, the numbers you put into it (and hence the final result) are often more reflective of our current opinions and assumptions than of robust empirical data.
The Drake Equation is a valuable tool for framing the question of extraterrestrial life. It helps scientists and enthusiasts break down a complex problem into smaller, more manageable questions. However, because several of its factors are highly uncertain and subject to personal interpretation, it is more of a conceptual guide—or even a way to stimulate discussion—than a formula that provides a definitive, accurate prediction of the number of extraterrestrial civilizations.
In summary, while the Drake Equation is useful for thinking about the various factors that might lead to the emergence of a civilization, its outputs should be taken as highly speculative estimates rather than precise measurements.
あなた:
Please also consider the possiblities of non-human intelligent emrgencing from the long history of Sol system and nearby planets and see if there is any possiblites that in one time intelligent life emerged in nearby planets and see this to the equation
ChatGPT
Reasoned about non-human intelligence and the Drake Equationを19 秒行う
Evaluating non-human intelligence
I'm thinking about the potential for non-human intelligent life forms in the Sol system and neighboring planets, and how this might factor into the equation.
Piecing together possibilities
I'm thinking about how to integrate the emergence of non-human intelligent life, possibly on Mars or Europa, into the Drake Equation for the Sol system and neighboring planets.
It's interesting to think about the hypothesis of intelligent life emerging on Mars or Venus, though Earth remains the only known life-supporting planet in the solar system.
Considering other realms
I'm examining if intelligent life could have emerged on planets like Mars, Venus, or Europa, and how this possibility aligns with the predictions of the Drake Equation.
Hmm, I’m thinking about how non-human intelligent life on Mars or Venus could intersect with the assumptions of the Drake Equation, which seems to focus solely on Earth-based evolution.
I’m piecing together the hypothesis of non-human, advanced, intelligent life in the solar system. Mars, Venus, and Titan present challenges, but Europa and Enceladus might harbor microbial life.
Please consider the histroy of humanity from biological perpsecitve and current known fact in nearby universe, which expo-planet (from the Sol system perspective) is most likely to have civlizaed society? Please add percentage next to it in the chart
ChatGPT
Reasoned about exoplanet civilization likelihoodを28 秒行う
Evaluating planetary prospects
OK, I’m looking at the likelihood of a civilized society on an exoplanet within our Solar System. I’ll consider biological history and current space knowledge, aiming to identify the most promising candidate.
Identifying potential candidates
I'm considering exoplanets like Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1e, which might suggest they are within or observed from our Solar System.
Assessing potential candidates
I’m evaluating Proxima Centauri b, Barnard's Star, LHS 1140, and TRAPPIST-1, focusing on their habitable zones and available data. The Drake equation might help estimate their civilized society likelihoods.
Identifying promising exoplanets
I’m noting key exoplanets like Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1, which have Earth-like characteristics and are in habitable zones. This narrows down the potential candidates for advanced civilizations.
I'm gathering info on planets like Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1, considering factors like magnetic fields, atmospheres, and proximity to G-type stars for their potential to support advanced civilizations.
Evaluating exoplanet prospects
I'm noting that Proxima Centauri b, despite being close and around a red dwarf star, might support life if it has a magnetic field and atmosphere. This makes me think about its potential.
Charting probabilities
I'm estimating civilization probabilities for exoplanets like Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1 e, using speculative percentages based on the Drake equation and the lack of evidence for intelligent life.
I'm crafting a chart with exoplanet names and civilization likelihood percentages, grounded in the long timeline of life's evolution, despite the speculative nature of these figures.
Identifying exoplanet contenders
I’m evaluating exoplanets like Proxima Centauri b, TRAPPIST-1 e, and Kepler-186f, considering their star types and distances, to gauge their potential for supporting advanced civilizations from our solar system's viewpoint.
Weighing proximity and observation
I'm leaning towards Proxima Centauri b due to its closeness and observational potential, despite concerns about its flare star dynamics. TRAPPIST-1 e, f, or g are also worth considering.
I'm focusing on exoplanets like Proxima Centauri b, Ross 128 b, LHS 1140 b, TRAPPIST-1 e/f/g, and K2-18b, aiming to chart their likelihood of hosting a civilized society based on current knowledge.
Assessing exoplanet potentials
I'm gathering speculative probabilities for exoplanets like Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1 e/f/g, using the Drake equation and current understanding, to better estimate their chances of hosting a civilized society.
Refining speculative probabilities
I’m refining speculative probabilities for exoplanets, including Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1 e/f/g, to estimate their chances of hosting a civilized society, considering Earth's long biological history.
Refining odds
I'm considering the astronomical timeline for intelligent life on Earth, leading me to assign even lower speculative odds for exoplanets like Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1 e.
I’m crafting a simplified chart with arbitrary percentages, clearly noting the speculative nature and lack of scientific data, while considering the target audience's basic understanding of the topic.
I’m charting arbitrary percentages for exoplanets, clarifying their speculative nature, and ensuring the data is accessible for young audiences with minimal scientific detail.
Crafting a chart
I’m creating a markdown table with speculative percentages for the likelihood of civilized life on exoplanets, emphasizing their purely theoretical nature and considering the understanding level of an 8-year-old.
Integrating speculative analysis
I’m mapping out a markdown chart with speculative percentages for the likelihood of a civilized society on exoplanets, mindful of the complexity and simplifying for an 8-year-old's understanding.
I’m piecing together markdown for exoplanets, noting Proxima Centauri b's reduced civilized life chance due to the red dwarf's activity. This inclusion highlights the speculative nature of the analysis.
Piecing together speculative odds
I’m detailing a markdown chart for audience-friendly exoplanet likelihoods, considering environmental challenges and adding a disclaimer about the speculative nature and lack of evidence.
Piecing together
I’m leaning towards Proxima Centauri b for its proximity and silent star, but I’ll add a speculative chart ranking nearby exoplanets, noting their advanced civilizations' hypothetical likelihood.
Assessing civilization probabilities
I'm emphasizing the slow emergence of intelligent life on Earth, which suggests that the odds of any habitable planet developing a complex civilization might be as low as a few percent.
Below is a very speculative chart that—based on what we know about Earth’s long, winding path from simple life to a “civilized society” and our limited observations of nearby exoplanets—gives some fun, made‑up percentage chances for a few of our best candidate exoplanets. Remember: Scientists have not yet found any proof of life (let alone advanced civilizations) on any exoplanet. These numbers are just playful estimates to help you think about the ideas!
Speculative Chances of Finding an Advanced Civilization on Nearby Exoplanets
Exoplanet Estimated Likelihood of a Civilized Society
Proxima Centauri b ~2%
LHS 1140 b ~0.5%
How Did We (Very Roughly) Guess These Numbers?
Earth’s Example:
On Earth, life began as simple single‑celled organisms and took billions of years to evolve into a species that built complex societies. This long journey suggests that—even if a planet is in the “habitable zone” (where liquid water could exist)—developing an advanced, civilized society might be rare.
Proxima Centauri b:
This is the closest exoplanet to us. Even though its star (Proxima Centauri) is a red dwarf that sometimes sends out strong flares (which might harm life), its closeness makes it one of our most interesting candidates. That’s why we give it a slightly higher guess (~2%).
These planets are part of a group orbiting a very cool star. Their environments might be challenging (for example, they could be tidally locked, meaning one side always faces the star), so the chance of a complex, advanced civilization might be a bit lower.
LHS 1140 b:
This planet is promising in some ways but is a little farther away and around a dimmer star, so our playful estimate is even lower.
All of these percentages are extremely rough guesses based on what little we understand about the conditions for life and intelligence. Scientists use ideas like the Drake Equation to think about these chances—but until we have concrete evidence, these numbers remain just for fun and imagination.
Enjoy exploring these ideas—and remember, space is full of mysteries waiting to be discovered!
あなた:
Please examine the Drake Equation itself and see if this euqation is acculate or more opition in the equation you will use
ChatGPT
Reasoned about the Drake Equationを6 秒行う
re-examining the Drake Equation
evaluating the Drake Equation's value
OK, let me see. The Drake Equation isn't a precise formula; it's more of a guiding heuristic that tackles numerous uncertainties regarding extraterrestrial civilizations.
Thinking through the Drake Equation, I’m evaluating its conceptual nature, its uncertain parameters, and its criticism to conclude on its reliability as an accurate predictive model.
Understanding the Drake Equation
I’m mapping out the Drake Equation as a conceptual guide, detailing its parameters, which are often based on estimates or opinions, to evaluate its reliability for predicting extraterrestrial civilizations.
The Drake Equation is a famous formula that was created to help scientists think about the many factors involved in estimating the number of detectable extraterrestrial civilizations in our galaxy. However, when we look at the equation closely, we see that it is more of a conceptual framework or heuristic tool than a precise, predictive formula. Let’s break down why:
The equation is usually written as:
𝑁
=
𝑅
∗
×
𝑓
𝑝
×
𝑛
𝑒
×
𝑓
𝑙
×
𝑓
𝑖
×
𝑓
𝑐
×
𝐿
N=R
∗
×f
p
×n
e
×f
l
×f
i
×f
c
×L
Where:
𝑅
∗
R
∗
: The average rate of star formation per year in our galaxy.
𝑓
𝑝
f
p
: The fraction of those stars that have planetary systems.
𝑛
𝑒
n
e
: The average number of planets that could potentially support life per star with planets.
𝑓
𝑙
f
l
: The fraction of those planets where life actually develops.
𝑓
𝑖
f
i
: The fraction of planets with life where intelligent life evolves.
𝑓
𝑐
f
c
: The fraction of civilizations that develop technology that releases detectable signals into space.
𝐿
L: The length of time such civilizations release detectable signals.
Why the Drake Equation Is More of a Guideline Than a Precise Formula
Uncertain Inputs:
𝑅
∗
R
∗
𝑓
𝑝
f
p
(fraction of stars with planets), have become better known through modern astronomy.
The parameters related to the development of life and intelligence—
𝑓
𝑙
f
l
,
𝑓
𝑖
f
i
,
𝑓
𝑐
f
c
, and
𝐿
L—are based on very limited data. For example, Earth is the only planet we know where life has developed, so we have no way to compare or derive a statistically robust estimate for these factors. This means that the values chosen for these parameters are largely subjective estimates or educated guesses.
Wide Ranges of Possible Values:
Because many of these factors are not well-constrained, if you change one of the more uncertain parameters even slightly, the final estimate for
𝑁
N (the number of civilizations) can vary by many orders of magnitude. This wide range shows that the equation can lead to very different outcomes based on personal or theoretical assumptions.
The Drake Equation was never meant to provide a precise answer. Instead, it serves as a way to organize our thinking about what conditions might be necessary for the development of extraterrestrial civilizations. It encourages discussion about the relative importance of different factors and highlights where our scientific knowledge is limited.
Is the Drake Equation Accurate or More Opinion-Based?
Accurate?
In the sense of being a strict mathematical model with well-defined inputs and predictable outputs, the Drake Equation is not accurate. Its accuracy is limited by the extreme uncertainties in several of its key parameters.
Many of the terms in the equation, especially those concerning the evolution of life and intelligence, are based on opinion, interpretation, and the single example of Earth. Therefore, while the structure of the equation is logical, the numbers you put into it (and hence the final result) are often more reflective of our current opinions and assumptions than of robust empirical data.
The Drake Equation is a valuable tool for framing the question of extraterrestrial life. It helps scientists and enthusiasts break down a complex problem into smaller, more manageable questions. However, because several of its factors are highly uncertain and subject to personal interpretation, it is more of a conceptual guide—or even a way to stimulate discussion—than a formula that provides a definitive, accurate prediction of the number of extraterrestrial civilizations.
In summary, while the Drake Equation is useful for thinking about the various factors that might lead to the emergence of a civilization, its outputs should be taken as highly speculative estimates rather than precise measurements.
あなた:
Please also consider the possiblities of non-human intelligent emrgencing from the long history of Sol system and nearby planets and see if there is any possiblites that in one time intelligent life emerged in nearby planets and see this to the equation
ChatGPT
Reasoned about non-human intelligence and the Drake Equationを19 秒行う
Evaluating non-human intelligence
I'm thinking about the potential for non-human intelligent life forms in the Sol system and neighboring planets, and how this might factor into the equation.
Piecing together possibilities
I'm thinking about how to integrate the emergence of non-human intelligent life, possibly on Mars or Europa, into the Drake Equation for the Sol system and neighboring planets.
It's interesting to think about the hypothesis of intelligent life emerging on Mars or Venus, though Earth remains the only known life-supporting planet in the solar system.
Considering other realms
I'm examining if intelligent life could have emerged on planets like Mars, Venus, or Europa, and how this possibility aligns with the predictions of the Drake Equation.
Hmm, I’m thinking about how non-human intelligent life on Mars or Venus could intersect with the assumptions of the Drake Equation, which seems to focus solely on Earth-based evolution.
I’m piecing together the hypothesis of non-human, advanced, intelligent life in the solar system. Mars, Venus, and Titan present challenges, but Europa and Enceladus might harbor microbial life.
