No one expect it. But that doesn't mean the opposite; that there is nothing about Jesus doesn't become somehow a proof of his existence.
The first step must be to acknowledge that there is nothing about Jesus up until around the years 80~120. That simple FACT is uncontested by everybody, and it is also the only fact uncontested by everybody. That is nothing controversial, yet somehow here everyone that brings it up gets downvoted.
Most of the "evidence" is from the second century onwards and written only by christians. You would need to go a couple of centuries forward to find real third-party references about him. Most historians consider this as proof of existence of a person 100 years earlier, that is also true. But I don't know why christians clench so tightly around historians on this issue, when it is also the opinion of most historians that the accounts about Jesus are not historical, and that most of the events told about him historically never happened.
So, if we are gonna go with historians on this, then:
1) Jesus was a real person.
2) Nothing in the new testament about Jesus can be said to have happened except that he was born, that he was poor, and that he was crucified.
> But that doesn't mean the opposite; that there is nothing about Jesus doesn't become somehow a proof of his existence.
And nobody has argued otherwise, merely that we have the exact level of proof that we would expect of someone of Jesus’ position in Jesus’ geographic location and time period. In fact, we have non‐Christian sources from around the turn of the century, which is why the consensus of historians is that Jesus lived and was executed in that time period.
> Nothing in the new testament about Jesus can be said to have happened except that he was born, that he was poor, and that he was crucified.
Obviously, at least according to any scientific historic standard. But there are people who would deny even that, and can’t seem to accept the scholarly consensus that the man lived and died at all.
Basic democracy is so ambiguous really anything qualifies, and by all accounts, China has basic democracy. In fact, they have infinitely more democracy pre-revolution France did.
And the fact that even in the world of today, more than 2000 years after the Greeks, democracy is not universal prove your second point is not such a sure thing as you wanted it to be.
> A system wherein there is 'no way out' i.e. they will punish anyone who leave (i.e. Brexit).
Cry me a river. The EU has been nothing but patient with the clusterf*ck that has been UK's leadership trying to both leave the EU and take all it can from the EU, and actually due to pure incompetence, doing neither.
Do you want to know what punishment for leaving a union really is? You should maybe ask the south and the confederates how their secession went down.
> ... a completely unelected Executive making laws for one. A completely unresponsive government - they do make some neat laws, but they are fully elitist, they have a total disdain for anything populist.
You mean like a QUEEN?
Sometimes is almost too sad the level of pro-brexit "arguments" thrown around.
There is no system in the world where all the decisions are made by "elected executives". There is nothing more elitist than a monarchy.
You've crossed into incivility and flamewar as well. Tedious, lengthy spats like this are definitely not interesting by the standards of this site, so please don't.
Continuing to break the site guidelines like this is going to get you banned here. Would you mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and using the site as intended from now on?
You might also find these other links helpful for getting a clearer idea of the spirit of the site:
This companies are no different than any other company in the history of business.
The only thing I can think of is the fact that in this case you can easily track the supplier and find out the "original price" of the item in a way that is very hard to do for let's say a pair of Nike shoes, but that's about it. Walmart is also full of these watches and you can believe they don't sell them for $5.
Or do you really think it costs Dell exactly $679,95 to build a laptop on one of their entirely owned factories where they manufacture and store every single component that goes into it? And, if you call them now they even give you a $200 discount because wouldn't you know it they just happened to have a "promotion" just for you?
There is no such thing as a free anything, yet when Apple offers FREE BEATS WITH EVERY MAC PURCHASE no magazine would dare to call them out on the obvious fact that both of these items are so "overpriced" that they can even afford to give one away "for free" and still come out ahead. They instead run "articles" praising what a great value the offer is and also you should act now before the sale is over.
This "article" could be written about any company, literally any company.
I think there's a difference between a company selling their goods at a profit and this not-quite-scam where a popup company not-quite-lies to their customers and dropships cheap products from somewhere else.
What do you think Apple does every time someone buys from their online store? They even give you a tracking number where you can follow the item in real time all the way from the FoxConn factory in CHINA directly to your door. It never even flys over Cupertino. I think you are gonna be very surprised when you find out how the commodities trade actually work.
Walmart sells the exact same watches. So does Amazon. Do you think they are a not-quite-scam too?
Keep in mind people are actually getting real watches. I don't know in what world that wouldn't make it a legitimate enterprise. And if you say it's because of their marketing, then you should really take a look at the copy on some car ads one day. Preferably Tesla.
You seem to have severely missed the point. Everbody knows that Apple manufactures their products in China. Everybody knows their supply chain ships them from warehouses around the world without ever visiting the US. That is nothing to do with any of this!
What the article is describing is as if Apple didn't design their own products, but instead shipped a barely working unbranded $16 android phone straight from an Alibaba seller when you tried to order an iPhone.
It's true that Amazon and Wallmart etc. have done sort-of this kind of thing for a long time (but slightly higher quality goods), but there's a huge difference between this and actual genuine proprietary goods. And even with Wallmart and Amazon, they don't usually make up a brand story to try and make buyers thinking they're getting a unique product from a high quality boutique designer and then selling them broken mass-produced trash.
Every company does this, even Apple. Every company outsources designs to third parties or buys the rights to an already made product to sell as their own. Apple does it with cables and maybe most famously the Apple branded iMac vesa mount. I'm sure they do it with other non core stuff too.
Entire car companies are nothing but rebadged models from another sister/partner brand. And oh boy you should read the heritage stories of those ghost brands. Audi takes a Porsche SUV, makes a few tweaks and boom, new Q7. Do they say that on their marketing or do they talk about how they spent years studying the needs of a family to be able to balance it with the desire for power and performance? Or how they finally achieved the perfect balance of sportiness and practicality?
Hasselblad and Leica, renowned for their photographic history and iconic designs sell nothing but rebadged cameras at the low end, at double the price of their counterparts of course. Do they redirect to Sony or Panasonic on their marketing pages?
Almost the entire fashion and makeup industries are like this.
These guys have bad quality control, ok, I'll give you that, but that just means they are bad at business. And It is not like their watches were such a fire hazard that all had to be banned from even entering an airplane.
Which is why I thought this point in the article was a great summation:
> Maybe this explains what’s so galling to people about the Folsom & Co. not-really-scam: It simply lays bare the categorical deception at the heart of all branding and retail. The different watch values are, in the strictest sense, speech acts: the watch is $29.99 because someone said it’s $29.99. It’s $29.99 because a certain person is wearing it on Instagram; it’s $29.99 because it’s photographed next to flannel and a Chemex. While “Bradley” of “Bradley’s men’s shop” may not be the most fleshed-out character, he – and the entire existence of Folsom & Co., Soficoastal, etc. – are examples of the now-household term, “brand storytelling.” And the internet makes it possible for anyone to tell any story, about anything, from anywhere.
It makes you realize that there really are tons of huge cases of products whose value is solely a result of marketing. My favorite current example is how YouTube influencers have completely upended the makeup industry, with each brand trying to convince you that this pallette of brown and red eyeshadow is imminently Superior to some other brown and red eyeshadow, when the input costs of all of them is literally under $1.
I think the key difference is in how truthful the marketing stories are. Apple/microsoft sell you a hypothetical future, while these watch "brands" sell a made-up past. Neither are 100% facts but one is clearly less savory than the other.
> Apple/microsoft sell you a hypothetical future, while these watch "brands" sell a made-up past.
You must be in marketing as that made absolutely no sense.
Do you think Apple's usb-c charging cable, which is currently listed on their site[1] for $19.99 costs them anywhere close to that to source? and at the same time tries to sell you a hypothetical future? wow, they do have good marketing.
If anything these watch brands, and I don't know why you put it in quotes as if to take legitimacy away from them but whatever, have more things in common with Apple than with someone selling the same watches such as "Walmart", as they are both trying to decouple the object from the sale and make it about the experience.
They all make stuff up, and when they don't they hide the information so you don't find out. That is why Apple will never say the price they pay for the leather Macbook sleeve they are currently charging $199 for[2]. I suspect very few people will buy it if they advertise right next to the price the 12 dollars it is actually costing them.
To be clear, I am not against any of this, anyone can charge whatever they want. Apple is certainly doing very well charging the prices they do. I am just impressed that people, most of all here, where people that actually build and sell products, actually price and order components and actually manage a supply chain, hang act so surprised to the fact that markup exists and that marketing is used to justify it.
And I am not defending this crappy watches or this shady company; I wouldn't buy a needle from them. All I am saying is that they are not any more shady than 95% of the "brands" out there that are actually owned by a mega conglomerate and never disclose it anywhere when trying to sell purified water to hipster college students on their way to protests against capitalism or whatever.
Are you really complaining about a breach of 'trust' when data in possession of one entity ended up in the hands of another without the subject's permission?
I "laughed out loud" at the idea Facebook thinks having things revealed during discovery that are embarrassing is new or some uniquely targeted kind of bullying directed specifically at them.
I think FB is so use to pumping money into DC lobbying that encountering a functional government investigation shocked and awed them.
