Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The wire that transforms much of Manhattan into one big, symbolic home (2017)

atlasobscura.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 313 posts

Re: The wire that transforms much of Manhattan into one big, symbolic home (2017)

#301

Post by bawolff »

adrianN wrote: post #178
buran77 wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you don't believe the divine will is knowable, then why would you follow any religion? This doesn't follow. If you believe you can just decide how to reinterpret the word of God then you put yourself at the same level as Him and are qualified to follow your own word, rather than a religion. You follow a religion because you want to be given the word of God to follow. Not the word of a man who pretends he is at t…

I’m not sure whether it’s possible to read a text without any interpretation. I don’t think you can derive any meaning without interpretation.

Especially since its a text written thousands of years ago, where the meanings of some of the words are pretty unclear, and you are probably not reading the original but a translation.

There are words in the bible where people just aren't sure what they are referring to. E.g. what is gopher wood? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gopher_wood

Re: The wire that transforms much of Manhattan into one big, symbolic home (2017)

#302

Post by pdabbadabba »

buran77 wrote: post #161
pdabbadabba wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not a believer myself, but the response here seems obvious: by putting his law in writing, god invites (even demands) interpretation. What you are calling a “loophole” would just be a perhaps nonobvious but correct interpretation as applied to a particular set of facts.

> but the response here seems obvious: by putting his law in writing, god invites (even demands) interpretation. You, just a man, purport to know what God invites and even demands us to do.

How else do you propose we understand? To understand any text requires interpretation. Interpretation just is the process by which one determines a text's meanings. You seem to have in mind particular kinds of interpretation which are and are not appropriate (I notice you keep using the word "reinterpretation" below, which is not the word I used.) You may or may not be able to defend a particular approach, but you can't just skip the interpretive step altogether.

Of course I don't claim to 'know' what god wants. All I can do is do my best with the information I have.

Re: The wire that transforms much of Manhattan into one big, symbolic home (2017)

#303

Post by xg15 »

bwestergard wrote: post #286
UltraSane wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Going from a solid wall providing actual privacy and access control to a completely pointless wire is NOT "common sense adaptation". It is negating the law while pretending you are still adhering to it.

Can you site any rabbinical responsa for the assertion that "privacy and access control" are relevant factors?

Non-jew here, but what would be the rationale for the shabbat exceptions otherwise? I assume they didn't just make up random rules for fun.

Re: The wire that transforms much of Manhattan into one big, symbolic home (2017)

#304

Post by xg15 »

UltraSane wrote: post #288
bwestergard wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you site any rabbinical responsa for the assertion that "privacy and access control" are relevant factors?

Eruv originally meant wall and those are the main functions of a wall. It is reasonable to assume that that is why the law used a wall as a condition for exceptions on Sabbath restrictions. They sure as hell didn't originally use a freaking WIRE. It seems similar to Islam allowing women to wear completely sheer niqab.

Agreed. I think in situations of religious laws, where the text really can never be changed because it is literally holy, it's at least understandable and mostly harmless. But in general I find the practice of reinterpreting law texts to the point of absurdity really problematic. It undermines faith in the legal system, because suddenly law texts become "legalese" that cannot be interpreted by laymen. In the worst case, you get "creative reinterpretation" of legal terms like the Trump admin is doing it currently.

I remember reading about an US state where the governor was allowed to unilaterally modify state laws before they came into effect, by removing parts of it. The constitution didn't specify what was meant by "parts", so some governors took it as the right to delete individual words and letters from the text and thereby completely change the meaning of the laws...

Re: The wire that transforms much of Manhattan into one big, symbolic home (2017)

#305

Post by xg15 »

myself248 wrote: post #225
haiku2077 wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would that make it invite a lot from scrutiny from the city and power company? An inert wire, they can look the other way. A live wire is a potential fire hazard and source of EM interference for utilities.

With a fraction of a volt and a fraction of a milliamp on it, how many fires you gonna start? No EM if it's DC. C'mon.

The wire is many miles long. You'd probably need some decent voltage to even be able to produce any kind of current in it.

Even then, if the eruv was broken, the sensor would only inform you that it is broken, but not where on the entire island the fault is.

(unless of course you monitor each segment of the wire separately, e.g. using capacitance sensing, with internet-connected controllers that send an alert when the capacitance of their segment changes. That would be the practical but boring solution)

Re: The wire that transforms much of Manhattan into one big, symbolic home (2017)

#306

Post by chimineycricket »

throwneawayx255 wrote: post #23
pclmulqdq wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the Jewish tradition, nobody is tricking God. There's a long history of legalism in the religion - God sets out his commandments in language and you take that language at face value. Exact interpretation of that text is then debated by religious scholars, but the meaning of the words is entirely contained in the text. For Christians and those raised in the Christian tradition, this is entirely foreign. The rules a…

I am not sure one could argue that playing semantics is the most honest conduct in understanding. Only the most extremist of Muslims, the Salafi, take the Jewish legalistic idea, majority of other traditions in Islam lean towards Tafsir that squarely leans on “spirit of the law” than strictly the word.

I'm not understanding most of this.

>the Salafi, take the Jewish legalistic idea

What is "the Jewish legalistic idea"? It's not a monolith. What makes a salafi a salafi has nothing to do with legalistic ideas.

>majority of other traditions in Islam lean towards Tafsir

This also doesn't make sense to me, as tafsir is exegesis of Quran. Salafis and all muslims care about tafsir.

The core differences between different groups of muslims, loosely in order of priority, is which sources to take from after the demise of Prophet Mohammed, and then how to interpret any sources (incl. Quran) (literally (salafis), logically (shia), etc.).

There are different tafsirs of Quran as well, and can have very stark differences. However loopholes are completely disallowed by all muslims.

Re: The wire that transforms much of Manhattan into one big, symbolic home (2017)

#307

Post by asenchi »

RankingMember wrote: post #299
asenchi wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think it is so much “unquestioning loyalty and trust” but a loving relationship with the creator of the universe. It is hardly a distinction without difference. The story continues that God came to earth as a man who, while innocent, was brutally murdered, for spreading this message. That doesn’t sound like controlling (nor trauma-induced) behavior to me. Instead it sounds like the ultimate sacrifice for a lo…

> I don’t think it is so much “unquestioning loyalty and trust” but a loving relationship with the creator of the universe. A loving relationship with the creator of the universe that's mandatory if you don't want to be cast away to hellfire, correct?

One way to think about it is that we were created to be in a loving relationship with God. The same way we were created to breathe oxygen. It is designed to be that way. But we're intelligent beings, if someone chooses not to be in your presence, you provide them the dignity to make that choice. But that doesn't mean they remain in the same status as the ones you love. I think we could be honest with ourselves that our loved ones have a different relationship with us than those who choose not to be our friends? Very similar to our relationship with God. And he has done a tremendous amount of work through the ages, through his Son to show you how much he loves you and wants to be in a relationship with you.

Ultimately if someone chooses they do not like God's design and do not want to be in his presence, he honors that, but that means they are setting aside their humanity, and his design for them.

Re: The wire that transforms much of Manhattan into one big, symbolic home (2017)

#308

Post by myself248 »

xg15 wrote: post #305
myself248 wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With a fraction of a volt and a fraction of a milliamp on it, how many fires you gonna start? No EM if it's DC. C'mon.

The wire is many miles long. You'd probably need some decent voltage to even be able to produce any kind of current in it. Even then, if the eruv was broken, the sensor would only inform you that it is broken, but not where on the entire island the fault is. (unless of course you monitor each segment of the wire separately, e.g. using capacitance sensing, with internet-connected controllers that send an alert when th…

Time-domain reflectometry is a thing. Copper TDRs are cheap, too.

Re: The wire that transforms much of Manhattan into one big, symbolic home (2017)

#309

Post by buran77 »

pdabbadabba wrote: post #300
buran77 wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you don't believe the divine will is knowable, then why would you follow any religion? This doesn't follow. If you believe you can just decide how to reinterpret the word of God then you put yourself at the same level as Him and are qualified to follow your own word, rather than a religion. You follow a religion because you want to be given the word of God to follow. Not the word of a man who pretends he is at t…

> You follow a religion because you want to be given the word of God to follow. Not the word of a man who pretends he is at the same level as God so his reinterpretation weights the same. . . . > You take God's word at face value, no interpretation, no exceptions. But your judgment that god's word must be understood in this way just reflects your own belief about how god has chosen to communicate with us. And it's ac…

> But your judgment that god's word must be understood in this way just reflects your own belief about how god has chosen to communicate with us.

I'm trying to understand it in the most likely way it would have been understood by the first man who heard it, and put in that context (as much context as I can have from back then).

> when you read scripture, does does it seem more like an instruction manual or a piece of literature?

If you read them you know they very much sound like both. So the way I read it (and I read the "major" ones as a religious agnostic) is that if I take the freedom to interpret everything from that book always in a way that's aimed at making my life or religion more convenient, then I'm in it more for show. Something that's probably true for most religious people I've met.

Re: The wire that transforms much of Manhattan into one big, symbolic home (2017)

#310

Post by ASalazarMX »

Loudergood wrote: post #276
FrustratedMonky wrote: post #212

couldn't they hook up some kind of low voltage or resistance check to confirm continuity. instead of a visual inspection. and This is pretty crazy loop hole.

Makes me curious to what the upper limit is. Could they just do the entire island? What keeps them from going around the entire planet? Following that you could go beyond that and the loop would get shorter and cover more of the planet. Theoretically you could then securely store it inside a safe and cover 99.9999* of the Earth.

> What keeps them from going around the entire planet?

I guess nothing, as fantastical canon can always be extended and rebooted. God will not protest if they twist the spirit of the word.

Post reply on HN