I’m not an expert in the Bible, but I don’t think it really ascribes omnipotency to God. I think it’s better to understand it as God being able to do all that can be done. So He may have limitations, but they are such that no other being can do something that He is unable to do.

From that sense, He is not able to save humanity freely, but he can set forth a process through which He can achieve this goal with some cost. I.e., He can create a divine being (that is either Himself in whole, Himself in part, or a direct descendant of Himself depending on your interpretation) that is able to spread His message and display an act of extreme self-sacrifice.

I don’t really understand exactly what the sacrifice did or what needed to be fixed, but I do think the stories make a lot more sense if you accept that God has some limitations. For instance, I assume that Noah’s flood was his first attempt to fix the problem (by killing everybody except for the most righteous of His creation), but it failed because He can’t do everything and doesn’t know everything. And the story of Jesus was His next attempt to sort things out.

But that’s just me thinking about them as fictional stories that really need to be edited rather than a divine and infallible truth.

I think it started around when he married Jenny McCarthy, who has long been a very vocal anti-vaxxer.

I think a better example for you to follow would be how “a napron” turned into “an apron.”

However, I’m not a fan of “noone” as it doesn’t look like it would be pronounced as “no one.” It could perhaps be “no-one” or “noöne”, but they seem off as well. And very few people use umlauts in English to signify that the two consecutive vowels are separate sounds (The New Yorker is the only publicaton that I know about that does this, but I’m not sure if they stopped).

Aren’t you contradicting yourself here? Your first line proclaims the existence of US censorship, but then your next line says that the US is bad because of unregulated free speech. How can there be both censorship and unregulated free speech?

I think the fact that you move the character around during the battle precludes it from that genre. Auto battles usually have two phases, a shopping or building phase and a battle phase. You prepare for the battle in the former but have no influence on the outcome in the battle phase itself.

I was just reading this article about a mathematical understanding of closed time-like curves.

In essence, the argument is that time travel to the past is possible with a degree of free will, but you would not be allowed to alter the past in such a way as to remove the motivation for traveling back in time. E.g., it would be like Futurama where Fry kills his grandfather, but he impregnates his grandmother, thus allowing himself to be born. The idea is that the timeline would correct itself and ensure that your future self will always return to the past.

Ah, ok, so “control” and “backspace” don’t actually function as control or backspace keys. Then that makes more sense.

Wouldn’t a split spacebar be two different keys that both individually can be used to type a space? This keyboard requires that both keys be pressed together to insert a space because each individual key has a different function. Given the common occurrence of spaces, that seems needlessly difficult.

The UN is not meant to be a world government. It’s meant to be a forum that allows all countries to maintain a bare minimum of diplomatic relations. The overarching goal is to prevent nuclear war and prevent WWIII.

It’s predecessor, the League of Nations, was meant to prevent WWII and had some teeth to help enforce their decisions. The result was that it collapsed quickly and did very little to prevent another global conflict.