  |
はてなキーワード: the originとは
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.03.05.583605v2.full.pdf
Genome sketching is a fast and memory-efficient solution to estimate ANI similarity by distilling representative k-
mers from the original sequences.
ほーん
Tool k Sketch Size MAE ↓ RMSE ↓ MPAE ↓ Pearson ↑ FastANI 16 - 0.312 0.368 0.334 0.999 Skani - 198MB(850×) 0.354 0.422 0.377 0.996 Mash 21 830KB(3.6×) 0.399 0.591 0.430 0.981 Bindash 21 351KB(1.5×) 0.360 0.530 0.385 0.986 Dashing2 21 1.2MB(5.2×) 0.500 0.650 0.537 0.981 ...
MAE > 0.3 なんて個人特定にゃ使いもんにならねーじゃん・・・
単なる予想でエビデンスなんて無いけどヒトの全ゲノム入れたら繰り返し領域やイントロン部分で誤差さらにデカくなるんじゃねえの・・・
個人特定できるレベルまで精度を上げようとしたら次はシーケンサエラーや体細胞変異の所為で合わなくなる
だからk-merだろうが何だろうが全ゲノムを使ってハッシュ化しちゃダメでしょ
十分な深度でシーケンシング言うて今ショートリード100xで20万くらい。これがゲノム全体を読めないのはご存じの通り。
それでも男性全員いうたら6000万として200,000*60,000,000=12,000,000,000,000
12兆。
■ Hourglass ( TBS Daytime Drama / Love Theater )
There are 60 episodes, each 30 minutes long. It follows the original story through to the end, with the elementary school, junior high and high school, and working adult versions. It has been well -received by viewers . I was crazy about it at the time, and I remember the elementary school and junior high and high school versions being particularly good . There were original characters that were only in the drama . I also read the entire original work , but I didn't think, "They've changed the original ."
■ Hourglass ( movie )
The movie was released the year after the TV drama "Hourglass . " The same TBS that produced the drama was involved in the production , so I don't think it was made because the original author was dissatisfied with the drama 's performance. Probably.
■ Piece ( NTV late night slot)
It's an idol drama with 13 episodes, each 30 minutes long. Starring Johnny 's Nakayama Yuma and Honda Tsubasa , it also features many other idols . Because of the cast, the posts from fans online are full of positive reviews , but people who aren't interested in Johnny's or idols don't even watch it in the first place , so I don't watch it either.
[] https://tensor.art/articles/913276163848152861
[] https://tensor.art/articles/913277802378228988
[] https://tensor.art/articles/913277999946725846
[] https://tensor.art/articles/913279537544961903
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。
SF原語で読む勢だけど「ん？」と思ったので横すると
Bad Placeは古代ギリシャ語の直訳であってそもそも英語圏の18世紀の人間の造語だから元々その意味なわけではない
"Dustopia", the original spelling of "dystopia", first appeared in Lewis Henry Younge's Utopia: or Apollo's Golden Days in 1747.[9] Additionally, dystopia was used as an antonym for utopia by John Stuart Mill in one of his 1868 Parliamentary speeches (Hansard Commons) by adding the prefix "dys" (Ancient Greek: δυσ- "bad") to "topia" (Ancient Greek: τόπος, lit. 'place'), reinterpreting the initial "u" as the prefix "eu" (Ancient Greek: ευ- "good") instead of "ou" (Ancient Greek: οὐ "not").[10][11] It was used to denounce the government's Irish land policy: "It is, perhaps, too complimentary to call them Utopians, they ought rather to be called dys-topians, or caco-topians. What is commonly called Utopian is something too good to be practicable; but what they appear to favour is too bad to be practicable."[12][13][14][15]
そもそもだけど、この企画自体、結構前から準備されてたんだが、その背景には宇宙世紀ものの整理というのがあって、THE ORIGINが終わった後あたりからこの手の話が聞かれるようになった。
この正史とパラレルを分けるプロジェクトは「UC NexT 0100」として正式に発表されて今後も続くと思うんだが、正史の代表としては「ハサウェイ」があってユニコーンの続編みたいな話もあったはず。
このジークアクスもパラレル（アナザー）のプロジェクトの一貫で他にはTHE ORIGINやサンダーボルトがある。
で、ここからが大事なんだが、そもそも何で正史だのパラレルだのハッキリさせようって言い出したのかっていうのが、安彦さんの存在にあると思う。
安彦ガンダムことTHE ORIGINは元々テレビシリーズとして企画されてたんだが、そうなると過去のサンライズの不文律でいうところの「映像が正史」というルールに則るとファーストが上書きされる可能性が出てしまってこのテレビ化は一旦見送られることになる。
それで過去編だけ映像化されたんだが、これも映像化されたということは正史なのかという問題が出てきてファーストと繋がらない矛盾が出てしまった。想像だがこの辺りから度々正史かパラレルかって話し合いはあったんじゃないかと。
それでTHE ORIGINのOVAシリーズが終わった後に本編をやるやらないと一悶着あって結局やらなかったんだが、これを機に正史とパラレルを明確に分けようという動きが出てきた。
ところがパラレルにしてもTHE ORIGINの安彦ガンダムの存在は大きすぎる。そこでビッグネームの庵野ガンダムを企画することで安彦さんに売り上げで勝てるもんならやってみろって感じでドアンやらせたんじゃないかと（想像）。ジークアクスの内容も安彦さんに当てる形で富野メモをベースにしてるのはそういうことかと。
ORIGINみたいに半端なことやらずに派手にやっちゃってくださいよとオーダー。シャリアブル出しちゃう？みたいな。
長くなったが、つまりは行きがかり上で始まってるから、別に本当にアニメとして面白くしようとか深く考えてなく、あくまで二次創作の延長として面白ければいいってノリなんじゃないかと。
これがもしこういうノリで生まれた企画物じゃなくて、いわゆる水星の魔女みたいなテレビシリーズだったらもう少し深掘りしてたと思うけどね。
追記：だからジークアクスは劇場公開で成功してる時点でコンテンツの役目としては終わってるんだよ。テレビ本篇（？）も何となくこんな感じでふわっと終わると思うよ。
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.
大体のものは日本語でアルゴリズムやデーター構造の解説があります。
でも、時々、こういうのがあります。
https://www.cs.tufts.edu/comp/150FP/archive/hans-boehm/ropes.pdf
Rebalancing
Rebalancing produces a balanced version of the argument rope. The original
is unaffected.
(中略)
Many variations of this approach are possible. Our balance condition was expressed
in terms of length, and our algorithm tends to move long ¯at ropes close to the
root. One could also rebalance purely in terms of node count.
Ropeがくそ遅いのでリーフノードをリンクドリストでつなごうとしたら、訳が分からなくなりました。
適当にやってはいけないと思い、ググったら、Ropeのリバランスのやり方を解説した奴は英語の奴しかありませんでした。
あと、リンク先を読めばわかるけど、数学でおなじみの記号がいたるところに出てきます。
数３Ｃまで取ったほうがいいです。
大学に行けば体系的にアルゴリズムやデーター構造、最先端の技術を教えてくれますが、情報系の大学は数３Ｃが必須です。
そして、ネットに転がってるデーター構造の解説書は数３Ｃを勉強していることを前提に書かれていることが多いです。
微分積分が出た時代の数１Ａと数２しかとってないので、この手の本はマジで訳が分かりません。
だから、おじさんは高校生向けの優しい、アルゴリズムやデーター構造の本で勉強しました。
なぜかというとライブラリーしか触れず、リンクドリストやＡＶＬ木、クイックソートや基数ソートをかじったぐらいのプログラマーは腐るほどいるからです。
だから、君たちはおじさんのようにはなるな。
https://mainichi.jp/articles/20250128/k00/00m/040/152000c
https://hochi.news/articles/20250128-OHT1T51069.html?page=1
※ヤクルトは大株主の1社（https://www.fujimediahd.co.jp/ir/s_information.html）
https://newsdig.tbs.co.jp/articles/-/1694816?display=1
Nicholas Benes, chief executive officer of the Board Director Training Institute of Japan, said the press conference had made the situation worse.
“It was a shambolic 10 hours because they did not have clear answers regarding the basis and justification for how the board acted,” he said in an email.
（The Board Director Training Institute of Japan の最高経営責任者であるニコラス・ベネス氏は、記者会見は事態をさらに悪化させた と述べた。
「取締役会がどのように行動したかの根拠と正当性に関して明確な答えを持っていなかったため、10時間にも及ぶ会見は混乱を極めていた」と彼はメールで述べた。)
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/28/world/asia/japan-tv-executives-sex-abuse.html
The president and chairman of Fuji Television resigned on Monday night after acknowledging they mishandled an incident in which a star TV host admitted paying hush money to an unnamed woman for an incident that took place in June 2023. The case has plunged the broadcaster into financial crisis as major corporations pulled ads to protest Fuji TV’s failure to take action, despite learning of the incident right after it happened.
The ad boycott has turned into a watershed moment, directing public anger against not only the TV star, Masahiro Nakai, a former member of a celebrated boy idol band who later became a popular show host, but also his employer. Fuji TV has faced allegations that staff helped arrange the original encounter with the woman and that management looked the other way as Mr. Nakai tried to cover it up.
フジテレビの社長と会長は月曜日の夜、2023年6月に起きた事件について、スターテレビ司会者が匿名の女性に口止め料を支払ったことを認めた事件への対応を誤ったことを認め、辞任した。この事件は、主要企業がフジテレビの対応を抗議して広告を撤回したため、同放送局を財政危機に陥らせた。フジテレビは事件発生直後にそれを知っていたにもかかわらず、行動を起こさなかった。
広告ボイコットは転換点となり、世間の怒りは、人気番組司会者となった有名なアイドルグループの元メンバーであるテレビ司会者のMasahiro Nakaiだけでなく、彼の雇用主であるフジテレビにも向けられた。フジテレビは、スタッフが女性との最初の出会いを手配するのを手伝い、中居氏がそれを隠蔽しようとした際、経営陣が見て見ぬふりをしたという疑惑に直面している。
検索ワード：Japanese TV host's sex scandal
検索ワード：Japanese TV Sex Abuse Case
https://anond.hatelabo.jp/20250129101357
（https://anond.hatelabo.jp/20250128194248# ← URLが多くなってきて貼れなくなったので分割しました）
港前社長：確かに女性側のヒアリングが欠けているというところはあるかもしれませんが、当該社員と中居氏のヒアリングと履歴を精査した結果、これは関与していないというふうに信じるに足ると思っております
https://www.youtube.com/live/WfGbrstX2Kc?t=18074 ← ここから文字起こした発言が確認できる
港前社長：あります。そして機能しています。特殊な案件だから上げなかった
港前社長：女性のために上げなかった。特殊という表現は女性の希望に応えながら対応していくのが特殊という意味
港前社長：コンプライアンス室に上げると多くの人が知ることになると考え上げなかった。対応が正しかったと思っていない。（社内システムを) しっかり機能をさせるべきだったと反省している
https://www.youtube.com/live/WfGbrstX2Kc?t=5480 ← ここから文字起こした発言が確認できる
https://www.youtube.com/live/WfGbrstX2Kc?t=12572 ← ここから文字起こした発言が確認できる
https://mainichi.jp/articles/20250128/k00/00m/040/152000c
https://hochi.news/articles/20250128-OHT1T51069.html?page=1
※ヤクルトは大株主の1社（https://www.fujimediahd.co.jp/ir/s_information.html）
https://newsdig.tbs.co.jp/articles/-/1694816?display=1
Nicholas Benes, chief executive officer of the Board Director Training Institute of Japan, said the press conference had made the situation worse.
“It was a shambolic 10 hours because they did not have clear answers regarding the basis and justification for how the board acted,” he said in an email.
（The Board Director Training Institute of Japan の最高経営責任者であるニコラス・ベネス氏は、記者会見は事態をさらに悪化させた と述べた。
「取締役会がどのように行動したかの根拠と正当性に関して明確な答えを持っていなかったため、10時間にも及ぶ会見は混乱を極めていた」と彼はメールで述べた。)
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/28/world/asia/japan-tv-executives-sex-abuse.html
The president and chairman of Fuji Television resigned on Monday night after acknowledging they mishandled an incident in which a star TV host admitted paying hush money to an unnamed woman for an incident that took place in June 2023. The case has plunged the broadcaster into financial crisis as major corporations pulled ads to protest Fuji TV’s failure to take action, despite learning of the incident right after it happened.
The ad boycott has turned into a watershed moment, directing public anger against not only the TV star, Masahiro Nakai, a former member of a celebrated boy idol band who later became a popular show host, but also his employer. Fuji TV has faced allegations that staff helped arrange the original encounter with the woman and that management looked the other way as Mr. Nakai tried to cover it up.
フジテレビの社長と会長は月曜日の夜、2023年6月に起きた事件について、スターテレビ司会者が匿名の女性に口止め料を支払ったことを認めた事件への対応を誤ったことを認め、辞任した。この事件は、主要企業がフジテレビの対応を抗議して広告を撤回したため、同放送局を財政危機に陥らせた。フジテレビは事件発生直後にそれを知っていたにもかかわらず、行動を起こさなかった。
広告ボイコットは転換点となり、世間の怒りは、人気番組司会者となった有名なアイドルグループの元メンバーであるテレビ司会者のMasahiro Nakaiだけでなく、彼の雇用主であるフジテレビにも向けられた。フジテレビは、スタッフが女性との最初の出会いを手配するのを手伝い、中居氏がそれを隠蔽しようとした際、経営陣が見て見ぬふりをしたという疑惑に直面している。
検索ワード：Japanese TV host's sex scandal
https://mainichi.jp/articles/20250128/k00/00m/040/152000c
https://hochi.news/articles/20250128-OHT1T51069.html?page=1
※ヤクルトは大株主の1社（https://www.fujimediahd.co.jp/ir/s_information.html）
https://newsdig.tbs.co.jp/articles/-/1694816?display=1
Nicholas Benes, chief executive officer of the Board Director Training Institute of Japan, said the press conference had made the situation worse.
“It was a shambolic 10 hours because they did not have clear answers regarding the basis and justification for how the board acted,” he said in an email.
（The Board Director Training Institute of Japan の最高経営責任者であるニコラス・ベネス氏は、記者会見は事態をさらに悪化させた と述べた。
「取締役会がどのように行動したかの根拠と正当性に関して明確な答えを持っていなかったため、10時間にも及ぶ会見は混乱を極めていた」と彼はメールで述べた。)
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/28/world/asia/japan-tv-executives-sex-abuse.html
The president and chairman of Fuji Television resigned on Monday night after acknowledging they mishandled an incident in which a star TV host admitted paying hush money to an unnamed woman for an incident that took place in June 2023. The case has plunged the broadcaster into financial crisis as major corporations pulled ads to protest Fuji TV’s failure to take action, despite learning of the incident right after it happened.
The ad boycott has turned into a watershed moment, directing public anger against not only the TV star, Masahiro Nakai, a former member of a celebrated boy idol band who later became a popular show host, but also his employer. Fuji TV has faced allegations that staff helped arrange the original encounter with the woman and that management looked the other way as Mr. Nakai tried to cover it up.
フジテレビの社長と会長は月曜日の夜、2023年6月に起きた事件について、スターテレビ司会者が匿名の女性に口止め料を支払ったことを認めた事件への対応を誤ったことを認め、辞任した。この事件は、主要企業がフジテレビの対応を抗議して広告を撤回したため、同放送局を財政危機に陥らせた。フジテレビは事件発生直後にそれを知っていたにもかかわらず、行動を起こさなかった。
広告ボイコットは転換点となり、世間の怒りは、人気番組司会者となった有名なアイドルグループの元メンバーであるテレビ司会者のMasahiro Nakaiだけでなく、彼の雇用主であるフジテレビにも向けられた。フジテレビは、スタッフが女性との最初の出会いを手配するのを手伝い、中居氏がそれを隠蔽しようとした際、経営陣が見て見ぬふりをしたという疑惑に直面している。
検索ワード：Japanese TV host's sex scandal
昨年12月26日発売号では、事件当日の会食について「X子さんはフジ編成幹部A氏に誘われた」としていました。しかし、その後の取材により「X子さんは中居氏に誘われた」「A氏がセッティングしている会の”延長”と認識していた」ということが判明したため、 1月8日発売号以降は、その後の取材成果を踏まえた内容を報じています。
12月26日発売号に掲載された記事は現在でも「週刊文春 電子版」で読むことができますが、お詫びした上で、修正を追記しています。
これまで報じたように、事件直前A氏はX子さんを中居氏宅でのバーベキューに連れて行くなどしています。またX子さんも小誌の取材に対して、「（事件は）Aさんがセッティングしている会の“延長”だったことは間違いありません」と証言しています。以上の経緯からA氏が件のトラブルに関与した事実は変わらないと考えています。
このたび一部週刊誌等の記事において、弊社社員に関する報道がありました。
内容については事実でないことが含まれており、記事中にある食事会に関しても、当該社員は会の設定を含め一切関与しておりません。
会の存在自体も認識しておらず、当日、突然欠席した事実もございません。
発行元に対してもその旨伝えておりました。
(略)
なお、今回の件に関して、ＳＮＳ等で弊社社員および関係者に関する憶測による記事・投稿が見られます。
↓
40分後、回ってきた紙を見て、大きな溜息をつく遠藤氏
↓
↓
※関係ないけど、遠藤氏の父 遠藤周作の『沈黙』見る時、氏の姿がチラつきそう・・・。親子情報知らないままでいたかった😞
（女性は医師を通してしか面会が出来ない状態だったこともあるとのこと)
記者：通信履歴を調べたという結果のみで、なぜ（関与を）すぐに断定する発言ができたのか？
↓
港前社長：確かに女性側のヒアリングが欠けているというところはあるかもしれませんが、当該社員と中居氏のヒアリングと履歴を精査した結果、これは関与していないというふうに信じるに足ると思っております
↓
記者：女性のヒアリングが欠けていたのに、どうしてA氏の関与がなかったと言い切れるのでしょう。履歴は後で消すこともできますが、それを信用できるところはどこにあるのでしょうか
↓
↓
記者：社内で噂が広まれば、やばいと思えば履歴を消しますよね。それができなかったということを確証を持って言えるのですか
↓
【完全版】午前2時半まで10時間超…フジテレビ異例の超ロング「やり直し」会見 怒号飛び交い紛糾 中居正広さんのトラブル説明 日枝相談役は姿見せず 港社長・嘉納会長は辞任 (2025年1月27日) https://www.youtube.com/live/WfGbrstX2Kc?t=18074 ← ここから文字起こした発言が確認できる
記者：コンプライアンス室に共有していなかったという話があったがそれは事実か？
↓
↓
記者：トラブルがあった際、通常、型に沿ってコンプライアンス室に相談するシステムだと思うが、フジテレビにはそれがなかったのか？
↓
港前社長：あります。そして機能しています。特殊な案件だから上げなかった
↓
記者：特殊案件だからコンプライアンス室へ上げないと港社長が決めたという話があったが、何故、社内システムを使わなかったのか？
↓
港前社長：女性のために上げなかった。特殊という表現は女性の希望に応えながら対応していくのが特殊という意味
↓
記者：コンプライアンス室に上げてしまうとそういった対応が出来ないということか？だとすると、また次回も会社として同じ対応になるのではないか？
↓
港前社長：コンプライアンス室に上げると多くの人が知ることになると考え上げなかった。対応が正しかったと思っていない。（社内システムを) しっかり機能をさせるべきだったと反省している
【完全版】午前2時半まで10時間超…フジテレビ異例の超ロング「やり直し」会見 怒号飛び交い紛糾 中居正広さんのトラブル説明 日枝相談役は姿見せず 港社長・嘉納会長は辞任 (2025年1月27日) https://www.youtube.com/live/WfGbrstX2Kc?t=5480 ← ここから文字起こした発言が確認できる https://www.youtube.com/live/WfGbrstX2Kc?t=12572 ← ここから文字起こした発言が確認できる
ttps://mainichi.jp/articles/20250128/k00/00m/040/152000c
ttps://hochi.news/articles/20250128-OHT1T51069.html?page=1
※ヤクルトは大株主の1社（https://www.fujimediahd.co.jp/ir/s_information.html）
https://newsdig.tbs.co.jp/articles/-/1694816?display=1
ttps://www.scmp.com/news/asia/east-asia/article/3296538/japans-sex-scandal-hit-fuji-tv-holds-marathon-face-saving-news-event
Nicholas Benes, chief executive officer of the Board Director Training Institute of Japan, said the press conference had made the situation worse.
“It was a shambolic 10 hours because they did not have clear answers regarding the basis and justification for how the board acted,” he said in an email.
（The Board Director Training Institute of Japan の最高経営責任者であるニコラス・ベネス氏は、記者会見は事態をさらに悪化させた と述べた。
「取締役会がどのように行動したかの根拠と正当性に関して明確な答えを持っていなかったため、10時間にも及ぶ会見は混乱を極めていた」と彼はメールで述べた。)
ttps://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/28/world/asia/japan-tv-executives-sex-abuse.html
The president and chairman of Fuji Television resigned on Monday night after acknowledging they mishandled an incident in which a star TV host admitted paying hush money to an unnamed woman for an incident that took place in June 2023. The case has plunged the broadcaster into financial crisis as major corporations pulled ads to protest Fuji TV’s failure to take action, despite learning of the incident right after it happened.
The ad boycott has turned into a watershed moment, directing public anger against not only the TV star, Masahiro Nakai, a former member of a celebrated boy idol band who later became a popular show host, but also his employer. Fuji TV has faced allegations that staff helped arrange the original encounter with the woman and that management looked the other way as Mr. Nakai tried to cover it up.
フジテレビの社長と会長は月曜日の夜、2023年6月に起きた事件について、スターテレビ司会者が匿名の女性に口止め料を支払ったことを認めた事件への対応を誤ったことを認め、辞任した。この事件は、主要企業がフジテレビの対応を抗議して広告を撤回したため、同放送局を財政危機に陥らせた。フジテレビは事件発生直後にそれを知っていたにもかかわらず、行動を起こさなかった。
広告ボイコットは転換点となり、世間の怒りは、人気番組司会者となった有名なアイドルグループの元メンバーであるテレビ司会者のMasahiro Nakaiだけでなく、彼の雇用主であるフジテレビにも向けられた。フジテレビは、スタッフが女性との最初の出会いを手配するのを手伝い、中居氏がそれを隠蔽しようとした際、経営陣が見て見ぬふりをしたという疑惑に直面している。
検索ワード：Japanese TV host's sex scandal
検索ワード：Japanese TV Sex Abuse Case
⭐️ここだけ知っておけばよさそうな1月27日のフジテレビ会見
https://anond.hatelabo.jp/20250129101357#
https://anond.hatelabo.jp/20250129102148#
どうぞ
"Legacy of the Great Tokyo Air Raid". The Japan Times. March 15, 2015. Retrieved March 25, 2018.
Werrell 1996, pp. 151–152.
Werrell 1996, p. 152.
Biddle 2015, pp. 495–496, 502, 509.
Frank 1999, p. 46.
Karacas 2010, p. 528.
Wolk 2004, p. 72.
Craven & Cate 1953, p. 555.
Fedman & Karacas 2014, p. 964.
Fedman & Karacas 2012, pp. 318–319.
Searle 2002, p. 120.
Craven & Cate 1953, pp. 553–554.
Wolk 2004, p. 71.
Downes 2008, p. 125.
Searle 2002, p. 115.
Craven & Cate 1953, pp. 610–611.
Frank 1999, p. 55.
Craven & Cate 1953, p. 621.
Downes 2008, p. 126.
Craven & Cate 1953, p. 564.
Craven & Cate 1953, pp. 143–144.
Craven & Cate 1953, p. 565.
Craven & Cate 1953, pp. 569–570.
Craven & Cate 1953, pp. 572, 611.
Craven & Cate 1953, p. 611.
Craven & Cate 1953, pp. 572–573.
Searle 2002, p. 113.
Craven & Cate 1953, p. 573.
Searle 2002, p. 114.
Frank 1999, p. 62.
Ralph 2006, p. 516.
Kerr 1991, p. 155.
Craven & Cate 1953, p. 612.
Craven & Cate 1953, pp. 612–613.
Craven & Cate 1953, p. 613.
Kerr 1991, p. 149.
Frank 1999, p. 64.
Dorr 2002, p. 36.
Werrell 1996, p. 153.
Dorr 2012, p. 22.
Crane 1993, p. 131.
Foreign Histories Division, Headquarters, United States Army Japan 1958, pp. 34, 43.
Foreign Histories Division, Headquarters, United States Army Japan 1958, p. 72.
Craven & Cate 1953, p. 615.
Foreign Histories Division, Headquarters, United States Army Japan 1958, pp. 33, 61.
Frank 1999, p. 318.
Zaloga 2010, p. 15.
Frank 1999, p. 65.
Foreign Histories Division, Headquarters, United States Army Japan 1958, p. 48.
Coox 1994, p. 410.
Foreign Histories Division, Headquarters, United States Army Japan 1958, p. 43.
Frank 1999, p. 8.
Dorr 2012, p. 161.
Frank 1999, p. 6.
Hewitt 1983, p. 275.
Craven & Cate 1953, p. 614.
Kerr 1991, pp. 151–152.
Fedman & Karacas 2012, p. 313.
Kerr 1991, p. 153.
Fedman & Karacas 2012, pp. 312–313.
Searle 2002, pp. 114–115, 121–122.
Dorr 2002, p. 37.
Werrell 1996, p. 162.
Werrell 1996, p. 159.
Frank 1999, p. 3.
Werrell 1996, p. 160.
Frank 1999, p. 4.
Frank 1999, p. 13.
Frank 1999, p. 66.
Edoin 1987, pp. 45–46.
Edoin 1987, p. 58.
Foreign Histories Division, Headquarters, United States Army Japan 1958, p. 73.
Craven & Cate 1953, p. 616.
Dorr 2012, p. 150.
Coox 1994, p. 414.
Frank 1999, p. 67.
Craven & Cate 1953, p. 617.
Hoyt 1987, p. 384.
Selden 2009, p. 84.
Pike 2016, p. 1052.
Edoin 1987, p. 77.
Hellfire on Earth: Operation MEETINGHOUSE
Edoin 1987, p. 63.
Edoin 1987, p. 78.
Crane 2016, p. 175.
Hewitt 1983, p. 273.
Crane 1993, p. 132.
Hewitt 1983, p. 276.
Kerr 1991, p. 191.
Pike 2016, p. 1054.
Hoyt 1987, p. 385.
Edoin 1987, p. 126.
Selden 2009, p. 85.
Karacas 2010, p. 522.
Kerr 1991, p. 203.
Edoin 1987, p. 106.
Frank 1999, p. 16.
Kerr 1991, p. 208.
Edoin 1987, p. 110.
Kerr 1991, p. 205.
Bradley 1999, pp. 35–36.
Dower 1986, p. 41.
Crane 2016, p. 215.
Ralph 2006, p. 521.
Lardas 2019, p. 52.
Kerr 1991, p. 210.
Frank 1999, p. 18.
Kerr 1991, p. 211.
Zaloga 2010, p. 54.
Craven & Cate 1953, p. 656.
Haulman 1999, p. 25.
Craven & Cate 1953, p. 639.
Rich, Motoka (March 9, 2020). "The Man Who Won't Let the World Forget the Firebombing of Tokyo". The New York Times. Retrieved April 5, 2020.
Karacas 2010, p. 532.
"Center of the Tokyo Raids and War Damage". Center of the Tokyo Raids and War Damage. Retrieved April 19, 2019.
Rich, Motoko; Ueno, Hisako (May 15, 2022). "Katsumoto Saotome, Who Preserved Stories of Tokyo Firebombing, Dies at 90". The New York Times. Retrieved May 22, 2022.
"Deadly WWII U.S. firebombing raids on Japanese cities largely ignored". The Japan Times. AP. March 10, 2015. Archived from the original on July 26, 2019. Retrieved August 12, 2018.
Munroe, Ian (March 11, 2015). "Victims seek redress for 'unparalleled massacre' of Tokyo air raid". The Japan Times. Retrieved February 10, 2019.
Karacas 2011.
Craven & Cate 1953, p. 623.
Biddle 2015, p. 521.
Lardas 2019, p. 88.
Crane 1993, p. 133.
Werrell 1996, p. 150.
Biddle 2015, p. 523.
Hastings 2007, p. 319.
Crane 1993, p. 159.
Crane 2016, p. 212.
Selden 2009, p. 92.
Grayling 2006, p. 272.
Werrell 1996, p. 158.
Bradley 1999, p. 36.
ま～た日本語すら検索すら検索しない人による謎の主張が出ているので、コピペしとくね
https://www.quora.com/Why-do-Afro-centrists-claim-that-the-first-samurai-warrior-was-a-black-African
一例：
7mo
The original answer and your comment are both wrong. It is very easy to prove Yasuke was a samurai, you just have to check a Japanese dictionary. I searched for 侍・士 (samurai) on the Japanese online encyclopedia コトバンク (Kotobank), which produced a result from 精選版 日本国語大辞典 (Carefully Selected Edition of the Nihon Kokugo Daijiten, aka Shogakukan’s Japanese Dictionary). I’ll post the link at the bottom, but here is the relevant section in Japanese and my translation in English.
(3)鎌倉幕府では、侍は僕従を有し、騎上の資格ある武士で、郎従等の凡下と厳重に区別する身分規定が行なわれた。しかし、鎌倉中期以降、その範囲が次第に拡大、戦国時代以降は、諸国の大名の家臣をも広く侍と称するようになり、武士一般の称として用いられるようになる。
(3) In the Kamakura Shogunate (1185 - 1333 AD), samurai were professional warriors who had servants and were qualified to ride on horseback, and their status was strictly differentiated from ordinary subordinates such as roju. However, from the middle of the Kamakura Shogunate onwards, its scope gradually expanded, and from the Sengoku Period (1467 - 1615 AD) onwards, vassals of feudal lords in various provinces came to be widely referred to as samurai, and it came to be used as a general term for professional warriors.
Now we have to ask three questions to see whether Yasuke met this definition:
Q: When did Yasuke work for the feudal lord Oda Nobunaga?
A: From April 1581 to June 1582. We know this from multiple eyewitness accounts, which I also mention below.
Q: Was Yasuke a vassal of Oda Nobunaga?
A: Yes, as evidenced by the fact that he was given a stipend, a house, and a job as spear-bearer (a type of bodyguard for the leader of a samurai family). He was also given a short sword called a koshigatana, which was worn as a status symbol and weapon for self-defense at all times by high status samurai. This we know from the Chronicle of Lord Nobunaga, written by Oda Nobunaga’s vassal Ota Gyuichi.
Q: Was Yasuke a warrior fighting for Oda Nobunaga?
A: Yes, as evidenced by the fact that he fought in three important conflicts. One, Yasuke fought in the Second Tensho Iga War in September 1581. This we can infer because the Jesuits said Oda Nobunaga took Yasuke everywhere with him and he led his own troops into this war. Two, Yasuke fought in the Koshu Conquest from February to March 1582. This we know from the Diary of Ietada, written by Matsudaira Ietada, a vassal of Tokugawa Ieyasu, who was himself a vassal of Oda Nobunaga. Three, Yasuke fought in the Honno-ji Incident of June 1582, in which he tried but failed to save the lives of both Oda Nobunaga and his son Oda Nobutada until Yasuke was the last Oda man standing and surrendered to the traitor Akechi Mitsuhide, who spared his life and returned him to the Jesuits. This we know from letters written by the Jesuits, who were glad to have Yasuke back. According to the Oda family today, Nobunaga’s final order was for Yasuke to help him commit seppuku (ritual suicide by stomach cutting) by decapitating him and bring his head to a courier that returned it to the Oda family, so it could not be used as evidence of victory by Akechi Mitsuhide.
So there you have it. Yasuke was a vassal and a warrior for the most powerful feudal lord in all of Japan, during the Sengoku Period. He even assisted his lord’s suicide, a role strictly reserved for samurai. Therefore, he was a samurai. Below is a link to the definition of samurai on Kotobank.
"For a Samurai to be brave, he must have a bit of black blood "
日本人ならそんなことわざないこと誰でも知ってると思うんですけど、当然アサクリ関係ないサイトで見ることになる
https://www.levelman.com/where-black-people-fx-shogun/
リンク貼れないけど下記とか
ちな、悪気なさそうな教師向けサイト・子ども向けサイトでも、YASUKEサイキョーは見ますよ
というか、そもそもUBIがインタビュー動画の中で日系人っぽいアジアンの監修スタッフに『YASUKEは日本で広く受け入れらている』とか言わせてますし
SUPER MARIO THEME, in the Styles of 6 Classical Composers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0FsrzxElrE
➡ Thank you for supporting me on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/nahresol
➡ Elements of Music BOOK: https://www.nahresol.com/elementsofmusic
➡ Sheet music for music from my videos: https://www.nahresol.com/shop
Timestamps:
00:00 Original Theme by Nintendo (Koji Kondo)
00:31 In the style of J.S. Bach
01:00 In the style of Mozart
01:31 In the style of Beethoven
01:55 In the style of Liszt
02:23 In the style of Rachmaninoff
03:05 In the style of Gershwin
Note: I played slightly different chromatic notes and rhythms than in the original version when I play the main theme.
Instagram @nahresol
Twitter @nahresol
CloudFront attempted to establish a connection with the origin, but either the attempt failed or the origin closed the connection. We can't connect to the server for this app or website at this time. There might be too much traffic or a configuration error. Try again later, or contact the app or website owner.
If you provide content to customers through CloudFront, you can find steps to troubleshoot and help prevent this error by reviewing the CloudFront documentation.
1stガンダムはティーンエイジャーのアニメファンを中心に受けたが、その後のガンプラブームではより低年齢層にリーチした。
これらはガンダムではないが、ガンダムの商業的成功の影響下で作られ、その後の続編ガンダムにも様々な影響を与えた。
アムロとシャアの物語が一段落。これらに馴染めない尖った人は雑誌連載の『ガンダムセンチネル』（1987年～1990年）に流れたが、そちらもその後のガンダム（ガンプラ）に大きな影響を残す。
BB戦士が本格的始動、SDオリジナルの『SD戦国伝』が始まったのが1988年。既存のシリーズファンが高齢化する一方、こちらは若年層を獲得。一時はリアルガンダムを抜いて商業展開における大黒柱だった。
かなり長期間（『08小隊』の完結は1999年）になるので時代で括るには難しいが、括られがちなので括る。宇宙世紀の解像度が高まっていく。『08小隊』はリアルガンダムリバイバル期にも重なる。
元々は『F91』の続編として翌年1992年にTVシリーズ『F92』が予定されていたが、紆余曲折あり『Vガンダム』に。リアルガンダム冬の時代扱いされがち。
『Vガンダム』の後番組枠ながら宇宙世紀から他の世界線に舞台を移した3作。ファン層を広げる。
1stを中心としたリアルガンダムへの需要が再び高まる。ガンプラでは1995年に『MG』、1999年に『HGUC』展開開始。ゲームでは『ギレンの野望』など。宇宙世紀人気は『UC』などを経て現在まで続く。
雑誌『ガンダムエース』が2001年に創刊。『ガンダム THE ORIGIN』も『ガンダムUC』もここから。よくわからない宇宙世紀の設定が生えていたら大体ここ発。
女性層、若年層などに強く訴求。以降MBS系での放映続く。宇宙世紀のリバイバル人気と両輪でここらからガンダムというIPのギアが一段階上がる。
TVシリーズのガンダムが新しい層に向けて作られる一方、ジオン残党みたいにしぶとく宇宙世紀ファンに向けて作られる作品群。
ファンの若返りを図り、それまでの『SEED』、『00』とあまり層が重ならないためこういう印象になる。
