There is indeed great scholarship here with major contributions from Jason BeDuhn, Matthias Klinghardt, and Dieter Roth in addition to Vinzent, Bilby, and Bull who you mentioned. I'm really excited by this research and did a deep dive reading Tertullian's Against Marcion and the idea that anyone could possibly take the arguments set forth there over the more modern critical approaches is mind boggling. I can't imagine anyone arguing for Lukan-Priority based on these patristic sources has ever read them as the argumentation is specious at best.
This is not at all the consensus of scholars working at public secular institutions not affiliated with religious institutions of higher learning. A late dating of the formation of the canon is just as viable if not more so among this academic community.
The absence of recent work on reconstructing and contextualizing Marcion’s Evangelion and Apostolikon is disappointing, particularly given the implications for understanding early Christian texts and the development of the synoptic gospels. The pre-Lukan theory, which suggests Marcion’s gospel may represent a version of Luke predating the canonical text, challenges traditional views on the formation of the gospel narrative. This theory raises important questions about the so-called “Q” source, a hypothetical collection of Jesus’ sayings used by Matthew and Luke.
People are working on Marcion, actually Marcion and things surrounding Marcion is a hot topic right now. Look at the work by Markus Vinzent. He is currently working on the Paul version of Marcions letters.
The solution to this, at least in the case of Tor, is for existing sites (e.g., Wordpress, medium, etc…) to provide one-click onion-site publishing support.
I don’t think it’s a technical problem. Hosting or accessing a site on distributed networks is no more complicated than running or hosting a VPN (e.g. https://novayagazeta.eu/vpnovaya), and organizations host them just fine, and layman people were proven to be capable of setting up client software when they were forced to (e.g. Instagram or YouTube bans in Russia).
I see it as a more of a chicken-and-egg issue. Publishers don’t come because there’s no audience, audience doesn’t come because there are no publishers. Plus, there is no recognition of distributed networks as a solution to censorship - the current non-enthusiast view of them ranges from “haven’t heard about it” through “tried it, found it useless” all the way to “it’s only for pedos and nazis”, which is extremely harmful for any meaningful and socially beneficial adoption, of course.
I’m not sure if those are the actual reasons. Certainly not a technical issue, though.
The taliban came to power by stopping socialist massacres, most famously in a "torture prison" the socialists built. That is what made people choose their side. They killed less people in open warfare than socialist revolutionaries did in peacetime, and much less than the Soviets did when "helping the socialist revolution spread".
Despite what happened since, sadly, I think you'll agree things never got as bad in Afghanistan as they did during the socialist revolution they had there. Not even now.
What does it have to do with the CIA coup installing the shah? Easy:
1) what happened in Iran? Socialist revolution, allied with a religious party ... followed by the religious side attacking their leftist "allies" when the state was toppled.
2) I find it hard to believe that Khomeini ordering his troops, after a referendum, to start executing leftists, and blinding yet more leftists (gouging one or two eyes out, which they have Hezbollah do again in last year's "woman, life, freedom" protests). It's a lot tougher to disagree with this strategy knowing that in the next country over leftists killed, tortured and maimed the clergy.
Like in most socialist revolutions (like in the red vs white terror in the Soviet Union), you were better off as one of the soldiers killing revolutionaries than you were as a "victorious" revolutionary. The reason leftists, at least the leaders, did a revolution turned out, surprise!, not to be social justice but power for themselves, and so they're far more scared of their allies than the police and army forces they need to keep control of what they've won.
Leftists brought the ayatollahs to power. Yes, this was partly in reaction to a British/US ("CIA") coup 20 years earlier, but ...
And I get it. Leftists have no allies willing to destroy western (or even non-Western) states for them anymore. So now they ally with islamists, who also want to destroy western states. What happened in Iran is a very in-your-face example of what would happen if a socialist-islamist alliance actually achieves anything: immediate terror attacks on leftists, followed by constant repression. And, to make matters worse, the Iranian population is screaming about this, regularly drawing attention to the problem. Which is a huge problem to grow leftist parties, because leftists don't have any other allies.
And yes, I'm not very leftist, but I must say, it is absolutely baffling to me that leftists would ally with conservative muslims, even if the Iran example did not exist.
I wonder if it would make sense to house these reactors in underground facilities to the extent possible to harden them against at least accidental threats?
That was a weird thought I had when the Japanese had problems actively cooling the destroyed Fukushima reactors: :Could one build reactors underground, so that in the case of need you can cool them by gravity alone without futzing around with diesel generators and high volume pumps?
(I'm sure there are 500 reasons why that’s a bad idea)
I think free will is a bit like a sphere. There is no true sphere in nature, only a more or less accurate approximation. Likewise for free will, there is no such thing as true free will (tm) but there are better and worse approximations.
I'd like to think of it like pseudorandom vs random numbers generators. Does it really matter if it's a truly random algo if you can't actually see any difference within the constraints of its usage?
Likewise, our pseudo-free will is probably more than enough for having near-independent agency from the environment. Anything outside of that is probably already within the realms of metaphysics, which is unprovable by definition anyway.
Although I love your metaphor for talking with people who know about RNGs and pseudo RNGs not everybody does while everyone knows about more or less accurate spheres.
And just like free will, there are no true RNGs, just RNGs that we don't have the accuracy or computer power to predict. Quantum mechanics may disprove this.
