The entire subgenre of military scifi or military space opera is full of stories that would translate well into a visual medium, with plenty of action. I've read many but haven't seen any adapted yet.
They are written in a childish manner: the white knight, the highly assertive love interest, the sociopath who wishes he could be a good guy, and the cowboy. Their personalities are unrealistic in ways that I would attribute to a young teenager. That said, the quirks of these trope-like characters is sometimes amusing. I enjoy the series mainly for the protomolecule plot, despite the characters.
Yes, but student IDs don't even prove state residency (you can be a Florida resident but attend University of Texas in Austin), which is a basic requirement for voting.
No one owns any religion, not even the Pope or the Dalai Lama. There is no "territory" to "colonize", and I haven't seen any evidence of racial superiority being a motivation. People develop their own belief systems over time. Did Gautama Buddha erase traditional Hindu voices when he spread his new religion in India? Was Gautama Buddha motivated by a feeling that his Nepal race was superior to the Hindu Indo-Aryans? Did Gautama Buddha seek to "colonize" the Indian subcontinent somehow?
It sounds like you've defined "Buddhist spaces" in a way that's excluded secular voices pretty effectively. Why is it necessary to exclude secular voices from all "Buddhist" spaces, instead of just your Buddhist spaces?
I really am trying to understand here — I'm not Buddhist, but I'm interested in your reasoning. It looks to me like a large portion of American Buddhism is not really that interested in the traditional Asian form of Buddhism, but instead in a form that's heavily influenced by secular Jewish ideas. If people simply prefer that approach, but traditional Asian Buddhism is embraced in your spaces, isn't "erasing secular voices from Buddhist spaces" in general more oppressive, not less? After all, people are free to pursue your preferred strain of Buddhism if they prefer, just like you.
Maybe I'm missing some pressures that you're not expressing.
> It looks to me like a large portion of American Buddhism is not really that interested in the traditional Asian form of Buddhism, but instead in a form that's heavily influenced by secular Jewish ideas
No idea, I don't know anything about Judaism.
> If people simply prefer that approach, but traditional Asian Buddhism is embraced in your spaces, isn't "erasing secular voices from Buddhist spaces" in general more oppressive, not less?
No, because the Asian spaces are also being influenced by the enroaching of Western secular ideas. For example, Zen in the US is highly secularised, even though it is a traditional form of Buddhism. Thich Nhat Hanh teaches secular ideas to westerners but in vietnamese he is totally traditional and spiritual.
Spaces where Asian or traditional Buddhists can practise are shrinking because of this. Many traditional sanghas and temples are shutting down, and many secular institutions are popping up. The secular ideas influence the Asian Americans, causing the decline and defacing of traditional Buddhism.
This is why we have so many threads a day on /r/Buddhism calling out secular Buddhists, and it's honestly probably the biggest "battle" in Buddhism online today.
For me personally: my Zen teacher was quite unhappy with me for holding traditional Buddhist ideas, to the point where it felt like he didn't want me to be his student at all.
The Buddha speaks with immense authority, being the first person to achieve enlightenment and provide instruction in such a codified and disciplined way, that is simultaneously accessible to householders and monks alike. Its deviation from Vedic thought was in how it penetrated through much of the sectarianism of Hinduism, in both caste and cult.
But regardless of how clear-minded the Buddha was, or how concise his teachings, due to the first-person nature of enlightenment it will always be necessary to maintain traditions that produce skilled practitioners that also achieve enlightenment, then pass those same skills generation after generation in a highly replicable way. As there are many experiences which can be confused with enlightenment, this need for strict transmission becomes more necessary.
Your mistake is assuming that "Jewish Buddhism" or whatever is Buddhism. It deviates sufficiently enough from Buddhism in thought and lineage that to conflate the two is simply confused.
That's why many people, including myself, believe that it has been so long since the Buddha's nirvana that it is now much harder to attain liberation in this world. That's why I practise to be reborn in Amitabha's Pure Land.
Your comments are marked as "dead" and must be vouched for by a member of the community with high enough "karma" (such as myself). It is a Hacker News anti-spam feature that you seem to have become the victim of.
9.2 million parameters per neuron. There an estimated 86 billion neurons in the human brain [0] and 19 billion in the neocortex [1]. That means that, for this strategy to emulate a human brain or neocortex would require 791 quadrillion parameters or 175 quadrillion parameters, respectively. The largest ANN built so far, GPT-3, has 175 billion parameters [2]. We are 6 orders of magnitude from being able to pull it off.
Some of those weights presumably go to reproducing highly-conserved features, like the kinetics of particular ion channels. These are "tied" via the genome, in the sense that there's one KCNC1 gene, but millions of neurons express the ion channel it encodes.
On the other hand, this model is also missing all sorts of other interactions: hormones and other neuromodulators, ephaptic coupling, etc.
It's so complicated I would venture that no one even has a reasonable guesstimate of how close we are, beyond "Not very."
