Anything related to the law.
23. Jūnijs 2026
All reflect their times. But some actually change the course of history.
22. Jūnijs 2026
Zināšanu lobijs
Man ir darba diena, bet nav darba spara. Darba spara gandrīz nekad nav, bet šodien vēl vairāk nav.
Ko es pirms 20 gadiem šajā dienā?
21:50
es vismaz patīku savam sunim un kaķim
Mūzika: System - Day of reckoning
21:50
es vismaz patīku savam sunim un kaķim
Mūzika: System - Day of reckoning
Genome Soldierr.
Scaffolding.
No reklāmas plakāta: “Meklē jaunas idejas uzkodām?”
no ieraksta Cibā pirms 20 gadiem:
"būt nesabiedriskam arī ir labi - vismaz neviens nepiesienas iedzert alu"
"būt nesabiedriskam arī ir labi - vismaz neviens nepiesienas iedzert alu"
Analizējot parlamentāro demokrātiju no spēļu teorijas skatu punkta, var nonākt pie balansēta secinājuma - abas puses (tauta, kas deleģējusi savas tiesības pārtāvjiem, kuri tālāk sēdēs parlamentā un darīs to, ko parlamentā dara un parlaments). Taču pasaule ir daudzšķautnaina, niansēta, uz entropiju dabiski virzīta vienība, kas nepakļaujas šādai viendimensionālai, materiālistiskai analīzei. Pareizāk sakot, to var analizēt no spēļu teorijas skatu punkta, bet tad tiks izdarīt aplami secinājumi.
Viscaur vēsturei un arī mūsdienās "parastais cilvēks" ir atradies asimetriskās attiecībās pret augstmani, sīkburžuju un pat viņa izvēlēto delegātu parlamentā. Šis asimetriskums arī nozīmē to, ka spēļu teorija nav pielietojama konkrēta kāzusa (kur 1 puse = common people, 2. = vara) problēmrisināšanā, jo teorija paredz to, ka abas puses ir vienlīdz informētas, spējīgas, utt.
Attiecības starp indivīdu un valsti darbojas HIPERSPĒĻU teorija. Piemēram, deputāti komunicēs ar vēlētāju par viņu partijas programmu, radot vēlētājam iespaidu, ka viņi abi spēlē spēli A, taču patiesībā deputāts fonā spēlē vēl citu spēli- personīgās ietekmes un finanšu krāpšanās spēli.
Viena puse patiešām tic, ka process (vēlēšanas, debates, likuma burts) ir pati spēle un mērķis, kamēr otrai pusei šis process ir vien kā dūmu aizsegs, lai realizētu pavisam citas intereses.
Šeit būs plašāk par hiperspēli no viena pētījuma par to:
A metagame, known as a hypergame, occurs when one player does not know or fully understand all the strategies of a game. Hypergame theory extends the advantages of game theory by allowing a player to outmaneuver an opponent and obtaining a more preferred outcome with a higher utility. The ability to outmaneuver an opponent occurs in the hypergame because the different views (perception or deception) of opponents are captured in the model, through the incorporation of information unknown to other players (misperception or intentional deception). The hypergame model more accurately provides solutions for complex theoretic modeling of conflicts than those modeled by game theory and excels where perception or information differences exist between players. This paper explores the current research in hypergame theory and presents a broad overview of the historical literature on hypergame theory.
21. Jūnijs 2026
Interesanti. Droši vien klasificējas kā herētiķis, bet, nu, ne par to stāsts.
Modern Christianity is largely Pauline Christianity.
That statement is not an attack on Paul. It is simply a recognition of history. The central creeds of Christianity contain remarkably little of the ethical teaching of Jesus. They are overwhelmingly concerned with metaphysical claims about his nature, death, resurrection, and cosmic significance.
The Sermon on the Mount, the parables, the radical inversion of power, the critique of religious authority, and Jesus' vision of the Kingdom of God occupy surprisingly little space within the doctrinal architecture that eventually emerged. You cannot pin Christianity on Jesus. Christianity as we know it is the product of a long historical development, and no individual shaped that development more than Paul.
Paul's letters were written before the gospels and became the earliest documents of the New Testament. It is entirely possible that the theological categories Paul employed influenced the writers of the synoptic gospels themselves. By the time orthodoxy emerged, Paul's interpretations had become woven into the very fabric of Christian thought. Western Christianity, whether Catholic or Protestant, is fundamentally Pauline in its assumptions and structure.
I suspect Jesus and Paul would have had profound disagreements. Jesus was a brown-skinned Jewish teacher announcing the Kingdom of God and overturning conventional notions of purity, power, and religious status. Paul, shaped by his own Pharisaic training and his encounter with the risen Christ, developed an elaborate theological framework that interpreted Jesus' death through sacrificial and redemptive categories. Jesus himself might have been astonished by much of the mythology and theology eventually attached to his name.
Perhaps Paul's most consequential move was interpreting the Roman execution of Jesus through the lens of sacrificial atonement. The Jewish image of the Passover lamb became the model through which Jesus was understood as the Lamb of God whose blood removed the sins of humanity.
Over time Christianity became organized around the cross itself. In this sense, Paul helped transform Christianity into what might almost be called Cross-tianity. Significantly, the earliest followers of Jesus did not go around wearing crucifixes or carving crosses. The cross as a dominant devotional symbol emerged centuries later. The first known crucifix imagery appears only many generations after Jesus and Paul were gone.
Yet none of this requires hostility toward Paul. He was not attempting to create an infallible religion for future civilizations. He was writing occasional letters to struggling communities attempting to sort out practical and theological questions. He found himself in the strange and unenviable position of becoming the resident expert on Christianity. One could reasonably ask, "Who died and made Paul pope?" Nobody did. History simply placed him there.
( ... tālāk ... )
Modern Christianity is largely Pauline Christianity.
That statement is not an attack on Paul. It is simply a recognition of history. The central creeds of Christianity contain remarkably little of the ethical teaching of Jesus. They are overwhelmingly concerned with metaphysical claims about his nature, death, resurrection, and cosmic significance.
The Sermon on the Mount, the parables, the radical inversion of power, the critique of religious authority, and Jesus' vision of the Kingdom of God occupy surprisingly little space within the doctrinal architecture that eventually emerged. You cannot pin Christianity on Jesus. Christianity as we know it is the product of a long historical development, and no individual shaped that development more than Paul.
Paul's letters were written before the gospels and became the earliest documents of the New Testament. It is entirely possible that the theological categories Paul employed influenced the writers of the synoptic gospels themselves. By the time orthodoxy emerged, Paul's interpretations had become woven into the very fabric of Christian thought. Western Christianity, whether Catholic or Protestant, is fundamentally Pauline in its assumptions and structure.
I suspect Jesus and Paul would have had profound disagreements. Jesus was a brown-skinned Jewish teacher announcing the Kingdom of God and overturning conventional notions of purity, power, and religious status. Paul, shaped by his own Pharisaic training and his encounter with the risen Christ, developed an elaborate theological framework that interpreted Jesus' death through sacrificial and redemptive categories. Jesus himself might have been astonished by much of the mythology and theology eventually attached to his name.
Perhaps Paul's most consequential move was interpreting the Roman execution of Jesus through the lens of sacrificial atonement. The Jewish image of the Passover lamb became the model through which Jesus was understood as the Lamb of God whose blood removed the sins of humanity.
Over time Christianity became organized around the cross itself. In this sense, Paul helped transform Christianity into what might almost be called Cross-tianity. Significantly, the earliest followers of Jesus did not go around wearing crucifixes or carving crosses. The cross as a dominant devotional symbol emerged centuries later. The first known crucifix imagery appears only many generations after Jesus and Paul were gone.
Yet none of this requires hostility toward Paul. He was not attempting to create an infallible religion for future civilizations. He was writing occasional letters to struggling communities attempting to sort out practical and theological questions. He found himself in the strange and unenviable position of becoming the resident expert on Christianity. One could reasonably ask, "Who died and made Paul pope?" Nobody did. History simply placed him there.
( ... tālāk ... )
Noah (2014) (revisited)
uzskrēju virsū drag queen latviskojumam: pautumeita...
šķiet šis pat varētu ieieties.
šķiet šis pat varētu ieieties.
20. Jūnijs 2026
Sirāt (2025)
19. Jūnijs 2026
Laiks tikai sev? Priekš kam? Kopā jautrāk!
Vīram sākas atvaļinājums.
ļoti patika, kā krievu žurnāliste marija pevčiha nedaudz negaidītā kolaborācijā sev atklāj videospēļu sfēru (ar geoguessr)
acis aizdegās, rokas pieslēdzās
un, kad viņai piedāvāja pageimot pax historia
marija pajautāja, A KĀPĒC MUMS VAJAG NODARBOTIES AR ŠO HUJŅU, ja mēs varam ceļot pa visu pasauli, un pie tam mēģināt uzminēt pilsētas vai valstis
es arī šo jautājumu pastāvīgi sev uzdodu
18. Jūnijs 2026
DELFI. Varas pozīcijā esoši pieaugušie nedrīkstēs veidot intīmas attiecības ar nepilngadīgiem jauniešiem
DELFI. Goda ģimenes bez maksas varēs nodot azbesta šīferi
DELFI. Goda ģimenes bez maksas varēs nodot azbesta šīferi
Sabiedrības saliedētība tuvojas ikgadējam maksimumam
17. Jūnijs 2026
mitro lolojumdzīvnieku barības ražotne