Analysts say the far-right party has benefited from public anger at Macron, whose pro-business reforms have spurred the economy but…

French growth was only 0.9% in 2023, inflation is finally starting to slow down but was violent until recently and therefore purchasing power has collapsed, and unemployment has fallen mainly thanks to write-offs.

What a “spurred” economy!

If I understand the original idiom, the nearest French expression would be “you can’t make a race horse from a donkey” (“tu ne peux pas faire un cheval de course d’un âne”).

Thanks.

I always thought that mini computer.were more power hungry than SBC. Am I wrong?

She looks more Effrosian to me. We’ll see :-)

I finally caught up so I can read these messages, I’m happy :-).

I watched all 7 episodes in a few days. So far, I liked this season very much, it’s kind of sad to know it’s the last season when they finally found their voice. Burnham is quite sufferable finally (even if they had to make her linked to the antagonists… at least it’s indirectly) and the rest of the crew receive some light. Moll and L’ak are interesting and rich. I love to see more Breen. And reflections on spirituality touch me personally, it’s refreshing to see Star Trek treating this subject more deeply than “religion is bad duh” (or with “akoocheemoya”s).

Now I have work to catch up 😅.

I doubt it’d work with LibO Calc, but I’ll try.

History is a science, it’s my formation (I actually worked on some people I cited), and you don’t answer to scientific arguments with YouTube rhetorics. It’s perfectly normal for a man for Antiquity not to be recorded in texts from his lifetime.

I lost enough time with you.

What it says must be interpreted in the light of what historians said about the context of the writing. Jesus didn’t wrote the Gospels. Do you think you know better than historians?

Same with Jesus? All serious historians, both religious and atheists, agree on the existence of Jesus. 19 texts from high Antiquity speak about Jesus, 9 between then weren’t written by Christians (Flavius ​​Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, Lucian of Samosata, Galen, Mara bar Serapion, Celsus, and the Babylonian Talmud). If you think it’s not enough, please prove me the existence of Julius Caesar.

If you reject the conclusions of the scientific community, you’re no better than a conspiracy theorist.

You mix up “justification” and “interpretation”. The Bible wasn’t written by a 21st century American you know… for example that Matthew 10 is about the persecutions is well known by every serious historian, but you don’t care about history. You just care about your hatred for Christianity. It’s your right, but it’s not very interesting yo discuss in these conditions.

Wars are caused by power, and people searching it. Religious, political, economical, symbolic, … when there’s power, there could be war.

Religion is a way to give sense to a world which seems very chaotic. Governments need legitimacy. Mix the two, and the sense given to the world by a religion can be justifying the legitimacy of a government. If it’s the case, this legitimacy can be very strongly rooted in people’s mind, making any decision of this government a part of the sense of the world (even if for an individual, this decision may look nonsensical). The more nonsensical a political movement is, the more religion will be useful to it, but ut’s a very strong temptation for any government, and that’s why the religions and the State should be separated.

Now, religion is a very complicated thing. I was reading yesterday an article in the last issue of the socialist American magazine Jacobin which says : “there is not, and has never been, a single identifiable thing that we can call ‘Christianity’ except with excruciating generality.” And I think it’s true for Christianity, but also for any religion. For our subject, we could discern to kinds of movement within every religion:

• An open one, which sees in the Divine a reality exterior to the world, thus too complex to be locked up in any religious tradition. This kind of religion don’t give a turnkey sense to the world but ask their members to think by themselves. They’re more a method than a dogma.
• A closed one, which sees the Divine as perfectly given in their own tradition. This kind of religion ask for obedience and conservation of the dogma. The sense of the world is given, no need to think by oneself.

Of the two kinds, which one will be more useful for a government? Of course, the second one. That’s why we see, all around the world, alliances between oligarchic political movements (which have less legitimacy than more popular political movements) and with reactionary forms of religion. Trump with evangelicals, Putin with super-Z orthodoxs, and so on.

Matthew 10 is not about what Jesus desired, but about the persecutions.

Matthew 8 is a parabola, not meant to be taken literally.

Matthew 5:18 is followed by Matthew 5:19-48 when Jesus change the law. The teaching is clear, especially when compared to the actions of Jesus: what should be followed is the spirit of the law, not its letter. And that’s valid for the letter of Jesus’ commandments themselves.

Matthew 15:24 is followed Matthew 15:28, where he does save the Canaanite’s daughter. Jesus changes his mind in this text. You’re fond of cherry picking, aren’t you?

There was no historical Jesus

So you’re a science denier. I don’t know if Jesus is just a man without relationship with a God or more than that, or even if a God exists. But denying the historicity of Jesus is like saying we don’t walked on the Moon.

Christianity has always been a fascist faith.

Say that to MLK, William Wilberforce, Dorothy Day, or the Lübeck martyrs.

Dentists aren’t causing teeth decay.

This is a very bad analogy.

I have troubles expriming qualified opinions in English, which is not my mother tongue, sorry.

Of course secularism is not the problem, that was not what I intended to say, sorry again. But still, secularism has this secondary effect to weaken rational and open forms of religion while strengthening reactionary forms of religion.

Perhaps the most troubling possibility is that Kirill’s Church, with its canny blend of politics and faith, turns out to be better adapted to survival in our century than mainstream Churches are.

This, as a “mainstream Christian”, if that still means something today, is a question that almost keep me awake at night. Jesus preached peace and forgiveness, freedom from rules and universality of human dignity, and yet Christian nationalism is on the rise in America, Kirill is winning the Orthodox war of secession, in Europe the Catholic and Protestant reactionaries are winning traction, not to speak about Africa and Asia, … Secularism is not freedom from religion, it’s reinforcing the worse part of religion.

For example : I write in French. It wasn’t easy for me to have a way to type É or Ç. Tmux wasn’t easy to configure. It took time to understand how to use USB drives. And now I didn’t use it for some time, and I’d have everything to learn again if I had to turn it on.

I’m no computer scientist. All these things may be trivial for someone who works with computers, but it’s not my case 😅.

I’ve done that on my potato, I installed Debian without a DE. It’s great, but I needed an insane amout of time to make it actually usable.

Things open instantly when I click, it can’t get snappier. And I use GNOME, which isn’t the lighter solution.

If you don’t play game,I see no reason to need more than 8GB of RAM. My computer is running very quickly with 8GB, even if I am photo editing on one screen while watching videos on the second, with a few softwares and even a VM opened in the background.

But I don’t use Windows.

“Based on my experience in 37-plus years in the U.S. military, if one side can shoot and the other side can’t shoot back, the side that can’t shoot back loses,” he continued.

This guy generals.

The universe is very very big. Unimaginably so. But we have absolutely no idea of how probable the appearance of life is, so we have no idea how probable is it for life to exist elsewhere. So my answer for the first question is: I don’t know.

And for the second question, my answer is: haha.