Where did I bitch about music? I bitched about a thread that invites nothing but negativity. I then offered an answer based on the most generous possible interpretation of OP’s question wherein I gave an example of an album which I fully recognize is objectively good, but which I personally find to be overrated in contrast to the rest of my collection.

Yeah it’s of course a good album, I just rarely actually want to listen to it more than some of the other albums in my collection

What do you mean by “your” most overrated album? Obviously for most people “overrated” is just going to be “thing I don’t like but others do”.

Is this thread just an invitation to bitch about disliked music? If so it’s a shit idea for a thread.

On the other hand, if you’re asking what is the most overrated album that we actually own, I would have to say Dark Side of the Moon. I bought it because I kinda like it and felt like I was sort of obligated to buy it when I started collecting vinyl. But I hardly ever listen to it because there are so many albums in my collection that I would prefer to put on most of the time. People hail it as the best album ever made but it just doesn’t have the sort of energy I’m trying to get from listening to music most of the time.

That is unfortunately still very common at many schools. Luckily, the profs are usually pretty forgiving, and will give you lots of space to write. They are mostly aware it’s a dumb task and may require an entire sheet of paper for like 10-15 lines of code. I wouldn’t sweat it too much. If you can hand print a message on a post-it note for someone, you probably have legible enough writing for those questions. They aren’t normally big essay questions.

you have to have a local account set up to sign into those network accounts.

I’m pretty sure that’s false. You can create an account right from OS install that is backed by something like LDAP (assuming you don’t count the root user as an “Account”)

Linux supports network accounts of all kinds.

Yeah I’ve heard that one too. It seems plausible. But we’ll never know.

That was a sea cucumber

I feel like there’s some room for Occam’s Razor here. Is it more likely that dozens of people got together and agreed to start a cult centred around a fictional person that they were all going to agree existed? Or that the guy actually did exist? Like why would all the people who say they followed him around lie about that but also be on the same page about so many details of him?

Like, we know the posse existed, so why is it a stretch that the guy they all went on to turn into a religion was really there in the middle of it all?

To be clear (and I can’t believe I have to say this, but there are some idiots in this thread) I’m not claiming magical miracles are real, just that there was a real dude in the middle of that posse that those followers went on to turn into a religion.

Yeah I’m not arguing with that. You’re just nitpicking semantics because you have lost this argument. Literally the very next sentence after the one you quoted I qualified that by saying it’s debatable.

A bunch of the books in the new testament are letters written by Jesus’s followers. We can’t prove whether they really are that, but they all agree that a dude named Jesus existed. If a bunch of people all wrote about a guy they knew, and most of the details match, that guy probably was real.

The difference is that nobody claims that Socrates was a fantastical god being who defied death,

To use a more modern example, pretty much everyone agrees that Grigori Rasputin was a real person who played a crucial role in the court of the last Czar of Russia.

But there are some positively wild and unexplainable stories that have a decent amount of corroborating evidence that they happened. The story about him healing the prince via a phone call sounds like actual magic. However we all know magic isn’t real, there is definitely some kind of logical explanation. But that explanation is lost to time.

So where do historians land on Rasputin? Well, there was definitely a guy called Rasputin. Some of the stories about him are true. Some are probably false or exaggerated. There isn’t even a consensus on what colour the dude’s eyes were. But that doesn’t mean we dispute his existence.

Yeah there are plenty of historians who have done good work studying this and the academia is mostly settled. Not to say there’s no controversy, but there’s definitely an orthodox opinion.

There’s a Jesus that got crucified, but no mention about him being able to perform miracles

Obviously miracles aren’t real. I wasn’t claiming otherwise. We’re talking about whether or not the person Jesus existed, not if magic is real.

It sounds like we agree

I don’t think any of it was written till decades after he supposedly died tho…

Okay but it was written by people who claim they were there and met him personally.

To borrow your asinine LOTR analogy, it is more like you are claiming Thorinn Oakenshield never existed simply because Bilbo only wrote “There and Back Again” after he got home from memory.

Evidence isn’t the standard for things existing?

What exactly is the standard in your mind for whether a historical figure existed?

Hard evidence has never been the standard for proof that a historical figure existed. Corroborating records are. It’s great if you can find some hard evidence, but if that was the standard then most people in history wouldn’t have any historical proof of their existence. And even when there is a corpse, we still rely on burial records to be certain that the corpse is who we think it is. Or if there are letters, we can’t confirm they were written by the same person we think they were.

Like a third of the bible as well as several contemporary documents all point to the existence of a guy named something like Joshua (which we now translate as Jesus) who traveled around Palestine preaching and was crucified in around 33AD. There are plenty of historical figures who we mostly agree existed despite having approximately the same amount of proof as for Jesus.

The Egyptians also mummified their dead, preserving the corpses into the modern era. “Older” ≠ “more evidence”

We have loads more records from the Romans than from the Norse for example, even though the Norse came later, because the Norse didn’t keep as many records as the Romans.

That’s because there weren’t multiple people around to write down what they saw. You’re confusing paleontology and history. They have very different standards for proof.

There are tons of historical figures for whom we have no physical evidence. But we have tons of written evidence from people who all experienced those people.

Jon Peters, is that you?

Gotta make anything into a giant mechanical spider!

The scientists were so preoccupied with whether they could, that they never stopped to ask if they should finish watching the movie

Especially in a language where none of the words seem to resamle anything from my previous languages.

It’s challenging, but if you can get a handle on the etymology of the language you’re studying, that may help. I’m learning Chinese and the characters got a lot less intimidating once I learned about the radicals. Basically there are smaller characters embedded within all but the most simple characters, and often the character is telling some kind of story that uses all of the radicals to illustrate the meaning of the character.

For example 看 means “look”, which seems pretty nonsensical. But then if you know that 手 means “hand” and 目 means “eye”, then you can see that the “look” character is made up of the hand character over top of the eye character, like someone shielding their eyes from the sun as they look at something. And the hand and eye characters both look a bit more like the things they represent.

Similarly, if one was learning English, it may behoove them to learn a little bit about Latin and Greek roots, since a lot of our vocabulary comes from those. Maybe even read about some of the most common PIE roots. Once you learn about PIE roots you can start noticing them in all kinds of places in our language.