No, but I also don't think their base lines up with something closer to me either. I get that drawing with perspective isn't something mastered in all cultures for all time, but without that it's an impossible distinction.
Do you think cultures have only ever done drawings of things in real life and have never depicted anything fictional?
We're both just guessing intent though, right? Is there any evidence for either position beyond, "that's how I feel"?
I'd be happy to change my mind if someone informed on ancient Babylonian art weighed in, but right now we're both just asserting why we think the picture asserts our interpretation with no basis.
Eh, the "child" looks to have much more adult-like proportions to me. The head is to small.
But, as you say, analyzing ancient Sumerian drawings and interpreting them through a modern lense is guesswork at best. Especially since I assume neither of us have the context surrounding this image.
Your gut feeling is that it looks like a mom and child. My gut feeling is that that looks like a small adult. Without further evidence, we're just in a feelings war.
Which, to be clear, doesn't mean giants were real in either case. But ancient people pretty holistically believed they did, so seeing them depicted in art wouldn't be unusual.
Oh, absolutely. It's directly proportional to their scientific understanding of the origin of mankind, lol. :P
I'm no expert in Babylonian mythology, but if this were in fact a depiction of giants/gods as part of their creation mythos, that makes more sense to me than the OPs insistence that the little one is intended to be a child.
It doesn't mean that there really were giants any more than the existence of a mythical Zeus means people could once throw lightning bolts for fun.
Just saying that the picture probably isn't intending the small ones to be children.
See, I feel like your whole post could be summarized as, "some people's mental illness makes them unable to work and earn money, so they're too poor to afford treatment, and therefore the morally correct thing is to just let those people kill themselves."
And while I don't think that's exactly what you meant, it's how it comes across. Almost all of your points are some variation of who's gonna pay for their treatment and take care of their physical needs.
And I would strongly argue that the answer is instead to have more robust social safety nets to cover those needs. Allowing people to kill themselves as the solution is hella dystopian.
But, I'm not saying that this is 100% always right. This is a hard issue with no clear answers, and I am absolutely not minimizing the pain of mental illness. My point is that mental illness is much less understood than physical illness, and I wouldn't trust any diagnosis that said the condition could never be resolved. In the same way that I would be loathe to euthanize someone with a physical illness that has an acceptable chance of being transient, I'm loath to do the same with most if not all cases of mental illness. Especially if the person is otherwise very young/healthy.
I think the question is one of balance for me personally. Where do you draw the line?
Like, this person seems to have been in a pretty long queue and had a lot of time to evaluate, but is that denying her dignity? Should there be a waiting period, or is that denying someone healthcare?
I think we would all agree that we shouldn't allow an 18yo who just broke up with their first SO to decide to have a doctor help them unalive themselves, right?
Is the three and a half years of waiting and treatments that this woman has undergone too much? Not enough?
I'll admit that it feels bad to me to allow a 29yo to go down this particular path. People who are seeking death are rarely in the kind of headspace where I think they are able to meaningfully consent to that?
And this feels meaningfully different than the case of a 90yo who's body is slowly failing them. This is an otherwise healthy young person.
Idk, there are no easy answers here. Bodily autonomy is important, but so is helping people not engage in extremely self destructive behavior. If we didn't have that imperative, fire departments wouldn't try and stop people from jumping off bridges, right? Where is that line? I don't know, and I wouldn't want to have to make that call.
Fair. Ngl, I just pulled up a map of Israel. Kinda surprised how much bigger the West Bank is than Gaza. My Middle Eastern geography isn't exactly stellar.
Fair point though. It's not exactly near the heart of the issue in Gaza. If the majority of the Israeli retaliation is there, it makes sense the West Bank should have little to no casualties.
I mean, you could project based on the casualties already incurred I suppose.
Looks to be about 65k Americans military members died in the Pacific theater, and we were still a long ways off from reaching mainland Japan, and the fighting was only gonna get worse the farther in we got.
And that's just Americans. It doesn't count the Japanese casualties, which by all accounts dwarfed the American numbers.
200k civilians were killed in the atomic bombings. Now, it's worth noting that those are civilian deaths, which one can argue have a higher moral weight than combatant deaths.
So, all that said, in plain numbers I think it's an extremely safe bet that far more than 200k more people would have died in a blockade/land invasion scenario. But, you could argue that it's apples to oranges since the bombs were on civilian targets.
It's also worth noting to that the 200k dead to resolve the war were all non-American, which doesn't make it any less of a tragic loss of life, but matters in the "political" sense. If you are at war, and you are handed a solution that can end the war without sending any more of your own people to die, do you as the leader have a moral responsibility to do it? Like, if you have the choice in front of you to either bomb a civilian target, killing 200k "enemy" civilians but ending the war, or sending even 100k American's to their deaths, knowing that you are the one responsible for making sure those men and women get home safe, can you in good conscience choose the latter? Is it better to choose the latter?
I wouldn't want to have to make that decision, but I also am loathe to second guess the decision of the person who has to make it.
I feel like the narrative surrounding the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings has changed enormously since I was a kid.
I remember learning that, while tragic, the number of lives lost in the bombing paled in comparison to the numbers of lives being lost and that would be lost in winning the war by conventional means. That it was a way to minimize further bloodshed.
I'm not super well read on the subject, but is that not true? Or, if it is true, does it not matter?
I'm mostly just trying to figure out what caused the shift.
Yeah, I don't think I'm gonna defend the guy who got shot here. According to the article he was a real piece of work, and it seems like he was a credible threat to the life of the officer he put in the headlock.
I don't think the officers did anything wrong in this one. Broken clock twice a day and all that.
Yeah, it can for sure. Definitely worth mentioning.
Gotta watch what interface is set as the default router, or you're bound to have a bad time.
That said, the same is true with his originally proposed solution of pushing a trunk port to the VM, so it's not any worse in that regard.
But yeah, full agreement on the correct solution.
Keep it simple.
I wouldn't let every VM have an interface into your management network, regardless of how you implement this. Your management network should be segregated with the ability to route to all the other VLANs with an appropriate firewall setup that only allows "related/established" connections back into it.
As for your services, having them on separate VLANs is fine, but it seems like you would benefit from having a reverse proxy to forward things to the appropriate VLAN, to reduce your management overhead.
But in general, having multiple interfaces per VM is fine. There shouldn't be any performance hit or anything. But remember that if you have a compromised VM, it'll be on any networks you give it an interface in, so minimizing that is key for security purposes. Ideally it would live in a VLAN that only has Internet access and/or direct access to your reverse proxy.
I'm sure the train of thought is something more akin to, "these people support the Palestinians, but Palestinians are bad people and they'd see that if they had to live with them."
Still stupid as hell, and racist to boot, but at least somewhat coherent?
Oh dang, did the new remaster go back and redo all the Vivian dialogue to match the original Japanese!?
I was already stoked for this game, but that's got me double stoked!!!