Your claims lack links to supporting references. At least I provide them & link to multiple distinct passages that all seem to converge to the same conclusion. As for the translation, we’re not about to learn ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, & Greek to refer to the earliest texts. This is where linking to a more faithful translation would come in if you can do that.

refer to the pagan concept of an afterlife

Not pagan: the Torah refers to Sheol as either (1) a metaphor for grave or (2) a bleak netherworld where all the dead reside (comparable to Hades). The Tanakh (Daniel 12:2) mentions a general resurrection & afterlife. This made its way into the Old Testament.

The Pharisaic school, which became Rabbinic Judaism, claimed to keep an explanatory Oral Torah for the written Torah, which they eventually codified as the Talmud. This started with the 2nd Temple period before & concurrent with early Christianity, thus influencing its scriptures. The Talmud refers to an afterlife in terms of Sheol, Olam Ha-Ba, Gehinnom:

• Olam Ha-Ba: a place of reward for the righteous
• Gehinnom: a cursed valley identified in the Torah that also refers to a place of 12-month punishment/purification for the impure before they may proceed to Olam Ha-Ba. (The utterly wicked may not proceed.)

Cultures evolve & acquire ideas from exposure to other cultures. Their traditions & mythological texts are no exception. Judaism & early Christianity likely adopted ideas of duality of good & evil, free will, resurrection, an afterlife, divine justice from contacting cultures.^[1]

in line with Pharisaic Judaism

The word in question there is “gehenna” which carries a very specific meaning that does not, in any way, infer an afterlife.

They claimed the contrary: see earlier mention of Gehinnom (the Hebrew name for Gehenna).

the unrighteous are destroyed

In all translations, the famous passage in Matthew about sorting the sheep & goats to different sides specifically mentions eternal punishment for those who don’t get eternal life. Moreover, resurrection is a life after death, ie, an afterlife. None of this is consistent with lack of punishment.

As I wrote before, the Bible is inconsistent, so even the Bible you claim is mistranslated indicates you’re right about the absence of an afterlife & the absence of hell. They both do & don’t exist!

We’re both right. We’re both wrong. Welcome to inconsistency: you can read absolutely anything into the Bible.

I checked before writing the last comment, and it’s mentioned a few times. Nonbelievers are punished in the afterlife.

Only “born-again”/baptized enter heaven

and believers should not perish, but get everlasting life.

As for those who do perish, that happens in hell.

Nonbelievers are denied entry.

This all appears in the New Testament.

The older, Jewish scriptures don’t mention hell. However, Deuteronomy 13 is all about Moses instructing the Israelites to murder heretics. Moral bankruptcy.

The Bible is an inconsistent mess that people can read anything into. Referring to it is an exercise in cherry-picking. It has good Jesus parts, but there’s the whole rest of the morally bankrupt nonsense with evil god shit:

• vengeful god who
  • commands genocide, demands worship, & creates evil
  • punishes disobedience with curses, plagues, cuckoldry, cannibalism to eat your own children, slavery, infighting
• endorses genocide, killing innocents, slavery, selling daughters to sex slavery, rape, forced marriage of victim to their rapist, inequality of women
• weird purity codes against pork & shellfish; mixing fibers, crops, animals; particular facial hairstyles; tattoos; body modification; etc.
• an afterlife that punishes nonbelievers who do good

all while claiming to be the final word of god. Arguing for good while referring to the Bible requires willfully overlooking all of that: it isn’t good.

Aka: Custom ROMs, or at the very least, root access (which requires bootloader unlocking)

Nah, only “certified Android devices”, ie, those certified for and that ship with Play Protect, will block apps unsigned by a verified developer, and Play Protect can be disabled. Standard.

which requires you upload your government issued ID (and $25 payment)

Nope on cost: free for personal use.

Moreover, installs over Android Debug Bridge bypass verification entirely.

Will Android Debug Bridge (ADB) install work without registration? As a developer, you are free to install apps without verification with ADB.

If I want to modify or hack some apk and install it on my own device, do I have to verify? Apps installed using ADB won’t require verification.

Enabling developer mode for that isn’t a big deal.

This all seems like a huge nothingburger by people who don’t read.

You forgot

these crybaby bitches don’t know signing certificates are free & you can sign software yourself or disable the validator

I don’t want to be sad

I honestly don’t see why anyone should give a shit. Schadenfreude is right there.

Needs alt text

YOU CAN SAY FUCK ON THE INTERNET!?!?

I’d like to thank OP for not censoring their alt text

Rainbow write saying “I’m made of magic motherfucker”

Rainbow Brite?

Will they remember your name?

Not sure where everyone gets vegan from this. I’m sensing more neurological dysfunction.

Anyone curious what this king of comedy considers funny?

experience empathy

Is there some term for the weaponization of empathy in a shitty argument? That word gets overused. Whenever I see it come up, it’s almost always a shitty argument. Definitely not the trump card they treat it as.

I don’t know, man. I assume they have information they may find in a phonebook; data I voluntarily gave social media & networking such as my school or employment, demographics, relations, peers, & whatever they can glean from peers; my shopping preferences; rough geolocation from my IP address; my ISP, OS, web browser, content I’ve browsed. None of this information is particularly valuable to me. It would take incredible effort for me to code & host a search engine or social media site or the various other free web applications I use. I value those way more than my junk data that is worthless to me, so the trade-off is obvious.

The government has access to much more sensitive information about me: social security; government issued licenses & registrations; birth, education, tax, property, police, medical, telecommunication, financial records. Only the law & procedure prevents it from abusing that access.

Without online data brokers, anyone could gather much of the same, less sensitive information about me though plain observation, public surveillance, or interviews: only time & effort discourages them. Seems like a lack of perspective.

And while I understand that not everything is private, we have laws against gathering public data about people but only if you’re just one person.

That’s not why. The reason is nothing you wrote about fits the legal definition of stalking. A typical legal definition

A person commits the crime of stalking when the person either:

• engages in a course of conduct or repeatedly commits acts toward another person, including following the person without proper authority, under circumstances which demonstrate either an intent to place such other person in reasonable fear of bodily injury or to cause substantial emotional distress to such other person; or
• engages in a course of conduct or repeatedly communicates to another person under circumstances which demonstrate or communicate either an intent to place such other person in reasonable fear of bodily injury or to cause substantial emotional distress to such other person.

An element of the definition (circumstance) is sorely missing in your claims.

Stalking has less to do with information & more to do with (legal definition of) harassment. Simply gathering public data about someone isn’t a crime. Expectations of privacy in public are nonexistent. Your premise is dubious.

Nope: after the one-time costs (eg, shelf space) are paid, does it cost much to sustain?

Sustaining a web service has recurrent costs: at least power, network, maintenance or a data center subscription.

Indirect information is not a choice we have offline, either.

So shadow profiles come from either

• public information (not private by definition)
• information other users shared
• information 3rd parties got from each other or the former?

Seems like the problem here is information voluntarily given to someone & shared, ie, 2nd-hand information. Unless the information is sensitive (government ID, payment information, medical records, etc), can we reasonably expect society not to pick up information about us from our social network?

We can choose not to directly divulge our information, but even offline we never had serious expectations that others won’t disclose nonsensitive information they know about us or seen us do. Unless the information is legally protected offline, we never had a choice to control that offline, so we’re not owed that online, either.

But I should get a choice in who gets my information.

That choice is called not using their service.

After all, you consented to that website’s EULA that said they can sell that data to any other entity.

Exactly.

People who don’t care about data privacy don’t understand how much you can learn about someone just from ‘anonymized metadata’.

Some of us know.

Apart from identity theft safeguards, the fuss over data privacy of metadata that was never private and voluntary information (especially information that could be found in a phonebook or gathered from public observation) always seemed overblown & misguided. I know

• the internet wasn’t designed for privacy
• they have my internet address whenever I connect
• they can track my usage of their free service
• they have the information I provided
• they can coordinate with partners
• I’m consenting by using their free service

so why should I act surprised when they do what should be expected to offer that free service? People who do that strike me as a special kind of stupid: do they think the world just runs on magic?

Free shit in exchange for mostly worthless information & ads I ignore seems like an obvious bargain, but what do I know? Let’s stir everyone into a frenzy to bitch & moan about the ravages of targeted advertising.

You aren’t even right, either. Linux package manager repositories??

Open source gets income through sponsors, profit-earning partners, foundations of profitable interests whose success depends on it. Their continued earnings & livelihoods incentivize funding it.

No one’s success depends on services like lemmy, so there’s no compelling incentive for it.

If you can somehow arrange such a dependence for social media (of mostly garbage memes & idiotic opinions) to economically sustain itself, then you’re a genius & humanity will owe you a debt.

Torrenting clients and the act of torrenting?

Mostly piracy under constant legal threat unreliably distributing possibly unsafe content.

Depending on the charity of others for a service that doesn’t yield some obvious incentive to keep that going seems unsustainable. It wouldn’t surprise me for the system to strain with load & eventually fail. It already strains in my experience.

Freeloading while you can before the fediverse implodes?

Yup.

I understood sustainable implied in there.

Someone’s paying and the rest are freeloading: good luck sustaining that.

Did someone use AI to generate you?