does resurrection ground works

.editorconfig

@@ -0,0 +1,4 @@
+root = true
+
+[*.{md,markdown,mdx}]
+max_line_length = 80

.prettierrc

@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+proseWrap: always

website/src/components/BaseHead.astro

@@ -10,6 +10,11 @@ const canonicalURL = new URL(Astro.url.pathname, Astro.site);
 const { title, description, image = '/images/headshot.jpg' } = Astro.props;
 ---
 
+<!-- IndieWeb -->
+<link rel="authorization_endpoint" href="https://indieauth.com/auth">
+<link rel="token_endpoint" href="https://tokens.indieauth.com/token">
+<link rel="micropub" href="https://tasty-windows-lick.loca.lt">
+
 <!-- Stylesheets -->
 <link rel="stylesheet" href="/css/reset.css" />
 <link rel="stylesheet" href="/css/base.css" />

website/src/components/Navbar.astro

@@ -12,8 +12,5 @@
 		<li>
 			<a href="/links">Links</a>
 		</li>
-		<li>
-			<a href="/cv">CV</a>
-		</li>
 	</ul>
 </nav>

website/src/content/blog/2025/05/02/surprised_by_hope.md

@@ -0,0 +1,194 @@
+---
+title: Surprised By Hope
+description:
+  I've been working on my resurrection doctrine. Here's where I've got to.
+pubDate: 2025-05-02
+---
+
+A couple of months ago, I was chatting to my friend Neil on the way home from
+church, and in that conversation, I confessed to him that I had no idea what
+happens to people after they die.
+
+This might come as a surprise to some people who know me. Lots of people have
+solid ideas about what happens to people after they die. For different people,
+those ideas are very different. Here in Scotland, many people believe that death
+is a final end. Many more believe that death marks a physical, and perhaps also
+a spiritual, reunion with the rest of the universe, as the matter of your body
+begins to be slowly digested and recycled: hence why ever more people are opting
+to be cremated rather than buried in one piece. Other minorities believe in an
+immortal soul that goes to some other place - be it heaven, hell, purgatory,
+nirvana or reincarnation. I belong to the Christian community, which is supposed
+to have clear answers on these questions passed down from ancient times, and
+people who know me know that I think hard about doctrines. So it may be a
+surprise that amongst all the convictions which people have all around me, and
+amongst all my own convictions on other topics, I hadn't the faintest clue what
+happens to people after they die.
+
+If you are surprised, let me surprise you some more: I am of no fixed opinion on
+a whole range of really important philosophical and theological topics, from the
+existence of the soul to the purpose of sex, from the nature of the sacraments
+to the metaphysics of the mind. But late last year, I set myself some New Year's
+resolutions to address some of these questions. Not, by any means, to decide
+once and for all the end of the matter: just to form a well-informed opinion.
+Sometimes staying quiet isn't good enough: I'm aiming to rectify my silence on
+these topics, because I think these topics are too important to ignore.
+
+And one of the issues I picked out was this very issue: what happens to people
+after they die? To that end, Neil recommended me a book by the conservative
+Anglican theologian, Tom Wright, called _Surprised By Hope_, published in 2007,
+at which point I was just learning to spell.
+
+As a result of this book, I feel I understand what the Christian orthodoxy is,
+and feel able to treat that view as my working assumption.
+
+Wright defends traditional Christian orthodoxy. He claims that his view is
+orthodox, and I'm roundly convinced that it is. When I wrote down in bullet
+points what his view amounted to, I found that I had more or less re-written
+half the Nicene Creed.
+
+- Jesus Christ was crucified under Pontius Pilate.
+- On the third day, he rose from the dead.
+- He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
+- He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead.
+- His kingdom will have no end.
+- We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come.
+
+Amen. That's pretty much it. All that I need to stress, to avoid under-stating
+Wright's view, is that he specifically thinks that physical creation, including
+our bodies, will be transformed into a new kind of physicality, including new
+kinds of physical bodies for you and me, and that the 'world to come' means that
+heaven and earth - which he regards as God's physical space and our physical
+space - will be united.
+
+He contrasts this orthodox view with several views common today amongst
+Christians, some of which have even been muddled up with the traditional
+orthodoxy:
+
+- 'Jesus was raised to new life, spiritually, like a ghost.'
+- 'Jesus literally ascended into the sky, as if he had an invisible jetpack: and
+  that's where he is now.'
+- 'The Christian hope is that we will go to be united with God in heaven after
+  we die.'
+- 'The Christian hope is that we will be snatched up to heaven at the rapture
+  and taken to a resurrection life there.'
+- 'The Christian hope is that we will experience God's eternal life temporarily
+  before we die.'
+- 'Jesus won't really judge anyone, because he loves everyone, and because he's
+  meek and lowly, not judgy.'
+- 'The world will be redeemed through the work of the Church.'
+- 'Only God can ever make a difference to the sinful state of the world, so the
+  only works we should care about now are "saving souls".'
+
+I am happy to admit that I have often been guilty of most of these heresies. The
+only ones I've never been tempted by are the 'rapture' view, and the thing about
+the invisible jetpack.
+
+Wright has not definitively put any of these ideas to rest for me. _Surprised By
+Hope_ is just not that kind of book. It's not a treatise. It's actually quite
+light on substantial argument in favour of Wright's position. Wright's main
+achievement for me, isn't to convince me that he's right, but that his position
+is a good starting point, a good place from which I should need to be convinced.
+
+He does this chiefly by showing that his view is the consensus view of the New
+Testament. (He claims to be showing it is the consensus view of 'the early
+Church', but he never presents much evidence outside the New Testament, so I'm
+being charitable by restricting his claim to the New Testament authors.) Say
+what you like about Scriptural authority; if Mark, Matthew, Luke, John and Paul
+all were convinced something was apostolic teaching, you'd better well take it
+seriously.
+
+If you want convincing, take a look for yourself. Some of the key New Testament
+texts are John 5; Acts 17:30-32, 24:14-16; 1 Cor 15, 16:22; 2 Cor 4-5; Rom 6, 8;
+Col 3:1-4; Eph 1:10; 1 Thess 4:14-18 and of course Rev 21-22.
+
+You can also try convincing yourself that this is coherent with the Old
+Testament hope, by looking at Isa 11, Dan 7, Ps 2, and having another look at
+the assumptions behind Paul's behaviour in Acts 24:14-16.
+
+The only significant problem texts I've found for Wright's view are 2 Cor 4-5
+and Rev 21-22. In 2 Cor 4-5, Paul seems to plainly assert that we will have to
+leave the body in order to face the judgement seat of Christ, and which makes no
+apology for the assertion that, even though Christ has reconciled us to God, we
+will still have to face judgement for our deeds - which seems to justify the
+infamously un-Biblical doctrine of purgatory. If you assume that Paul's writings
+express a completely consistent view, however, you will have routes out; in
+particular, you could look at the language of Rom 6 and 8. Large chunks of
+Paul's letter to the Romans also suggest, if taken out of context, that we will
+have to leave our bodies behind, and that even those reconciled through Christ
+will face judgement for their deeds - except that key verses contradict both of
+those views. Clearly, that's not what Paul meant in Romans; so, you might argue,
+it's not what he meant in 2 Cor either: provided you assume that Paul's writings
+present a consistent view. (If Paul changed his mind, no explanation is
+necessary why Rom and 2 Cor seem to be inconsistent: they could actually be
+inconsistent in that case.)
+
+Meanwhile, in Rev 21-22, John has a vision of a 'new heaven and a new earth, for
+the first heaven and the first earth had passed away'. This directly contradicts
+Wright's emphatic insistence that God's new creation will be continuous with the
+first. For Wright, this isn't an academic detail, it's needed in order to give
+us a motive to care for the world we've currently got. Without continuity, he
+fears we'd be right to join those who are content with trashing the natural
+environment because the whole thing's going to end up in fire and brimstone
+anyway. Yet this piece of Revelation seems to permit exactly that.
+
+If you were to defend Wright against Revelation, you might point out that
+Revelation is a literal description of a vision John had, and is therefore not
+in every detail an accurate picture of the future, but a metaphor, an image of
+the future. (Fine, but if the wholesale replacement of heaven and earth is a
+metaphor, what is it a metaphor for? If the literal future is continuity, why
+not describe a vision of continuity?) And you may also assume that the entire
+Bible is consistent on the matter of God's ultimate future, and on that
+assumption, bring your analysis of the rest of the New Testament to bear.
+
+Whatever you do with the problem texts, it seems clear to me that the
+overwhelming weight of Biblical evidence favours the traditional orthodox
+position over any of the alternatives. Given that, I'm happy to take it as a
+starting point as I continue to think about what happens to people after they
+die.
+
+So, I may go back to Neil now, and say - maybe not quite yet 'I have an
+opinion' - but at least 'I know what my working assumptions are.' I know what is
+the orthodox Christian view: that is, the consensus view of the relevant
+experts. The consensus view of relevant experts is generally a good place to
+start.
+
+I still have plenty of concerns, though. Here are my top three quandaries on
+this topic now.
+
+Firstly, it would be rather unsettling if the orthodox Christian vision for
+God's ultimate future popped entirely into existence after the Ascension. The
+apostles say that their teaching was given to them by the Holy Spirit - but are
+we going to trust our entire doctrine on the future to what a small number of
+men claim was told to them by an invisible being behind closed doors? If the
+view of the New Testament authors is trustworthy, then it at the very least
+needs to cohere very well with the Old Testament. The New Testament hope should
+be woven deep into the Old Testament promises. I find Genesis, Daniel, Isaiah
+and the Psalms promising, but I've only gotten skin-deep into comparing these
+texts to the New Testament: I'd like to go both deeper into these texts, and
+broader across the Old Testament.
+
+Secondly, I want to hear the opposition in their own words. Wright very openly
+admits that his view is currently a minority opinion even within Christianity,
+despite being Christian orthodoxy. Given that is the case, it's reasonable to
+expect the opposition to have some good arguments on their side. Wright has not
+presented any strong arguments from opposing views, which makes me suspect not
+that there are no good arguments, but that he has omitted to cover them in his
+short and accessible book. And if there really are no strong arguments against
+the traditional view, then we should expect powerful explanations as to why so
+few people accept what apparently they should.
+
+Thirdly, I have residual concerns from the metaphysics of mind. I recall from my
+undergraduate days that continuity is a major concern amongst the relevant
+experts. I think a minority of them even claim that the person who goes to sleep
+and the person who wakes up again are completely distinct people who just so
+happen to time-share the same body. If continuity is a major problem, then it is
+a major problem for resurrection doctrine, too, which even in the New Testament
+is compared to a kind of sleep, admitting that there is some kind of
+discontinuity between the old body and the resurrection body. Add to this the
+easily observable fact that many Christian bodies have rotted and are no longer
+suitable for re-animation: their new bodies will have to be physically
+discontinuous as well as mentally discontinuous with their old bodies. If I will
+be given a new body, is it metaphysically plausible that the person who inhabits
+that body will be the same 'me' that inhabits this body, now?
+
+Much love all. As always, answers on a postcard please.

website/src/content/blog/2025/05/04/does_resurrection_ground_works.md

@@ -0,0 +1,201 @@
+---
+title: Does resurrection doctrine give us unique reasons to work for justice?
+description: >-
+  Tom Wright claims that the only Christian grounds for striving for justice now
+  is in resurrection doctrine. I'm not convinced.
+pubDate: 2025-05-04
+---
+
+I've been reading Tom Wright's _Surprised By Hope_, defending his orthodox view
+on resurrection. One of his key claims is that only by accepting the orthodox
+position on resurrection can Christians justify striving for justice on earth.
+
+To argue this, he needs to first show that resurrection doctrine does justify
+striving for justice on earth, and secondly that the available alternatives fail
+to do so. Firstly, the positive argument.
+
+## Does resurrection give us reasons to work for justice?
+
+Wright's argument depends on his view on what God's ultimate future will look
+like: the present creation will not be abandoned, destroyed, or replaced, but
+physically transformed into the new creation.
+
+He argues that our work now has value, because, at the time when God transforms
+the old world into the new, he will incorporate the outcomes of our good works
+into the new creation, like an architect incorporating the works of many
+stonemasons into a great cathedral.
+
+He argues this on the basis of 1 Cor 15. I found it a struggle to find a good
+justification for Wright's view in chapter 15 alone, but I did find some crucial
+context in chapter 3, just before he begins the first of his many exhortations
+to the Corinthians. It would be best to read the whole chapter, but here is
+verses 11-15:
+
+> For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is
+> Jesus Christ. If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly
+> stones, wood, hay or straw, their work will be shown for what it is, because
+> the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire
+> will test the quality of each person’s work. If what has been built survives,
+> the builder will receive a reward. If it is burned up, the builder will suffer
+> loss but yet will be saved—even though only as one escaping through the
+> flames.
+
+This at least implies that the outcome of all our work will persist at least
+until the time of judgement, when it will undergo testing, and those that pass
+the test will enjoy a reward. You could read this as being like a quality check,
+with God dishing out benefits to those that pass his assessment. But you could
+read it in another way, more favourable to Wright. The works will be proven, and
+the ones that withstand the process will themselves generate a benefit. You
+could think of it like baking: when you put a cake in the oven, you prove
+whether or not you got the recipe right; if not, it goes in the bin, and if you
+did get it right, you get to enjoy the cake. So I agree that 1 Cor provides a
+reason to think that the outcome of our works will somehow persist until the
+time of judgement.
+
+However, Wright doesn't just think that our works will persist until the time of
+judgement, he also believes that they will at that time be transformed and then
+incorporated into the new creation. 1 Cor doesn't directly justify this view. It
+is, at least, coherent. Baking a cake in the oven transforms the dough.
+
+So it seems reasonable to me to use 1 Cor to justify Wright's view that our
+works will be transformed into the new Creation. However, that's before
+considering any counter-arguments, and I have two which concern me.
+
+One is that, as Ecclesiastes points out, the profits of our work will be laid to
+waste by time. We don't know when God is going to bring about the new creation.
+It could be tomorrow, and we should be behaving today in light of that
+possibility - but of all the available possibilities, most of them are in the
+distant future, so we should expect on average that there will be a long
+interval between my deeds today and the judgement of them. Since time lays waste
+to all our endeavours, we should expect that the profits of our work will have
+vanished long before the judgement. Therefore, it would be unreasonable to work
+for justice in the hope that our work will persist until the time of judgement
+in order to be incorporated into the new creation, as Wright argues we should
+do.
+
+This first problem is probably the most important, but it's vulnerable to some
+counter-arguments, which rather miss the point. So I'm going to move on to my
+second problem, which is more niche, but which I think holds stronger against
+counter-arguments.
+
+In 1845, the HMS Erebus and HMS Terror left Britain on an expedition to explore
+the Northwest Passage. In July 1845, they were spotted by whalers in Baffin Bay.
+None of the sailors were ever seen alive again by Europeans. Both ships became
+locked into ice in September 1846, and probably never sailed again. In April
+1848, the remaining crew began a desperate 250-mile march to the nearest
+European outpost. It is almost certain that all of them died.
+
+Now, suppose that one of those sailors, between 1846 and 1848, did something
+good. Maybe a major act of heroism, or maybe a small, kind word. I think it's
+reasonable to suppose that someone, at some time, did something good.
+
+All the profits of that good act have now completely perished. They are not
+recorded in the small records the sailors left behind. None of the sailors who
+benefited lived to pass on the benefits. None survived to pass on the light of
+justice to the next generation.
+
+At the time of judgement, then, there will be no remnant of this good act for
+God to test, transform and incorporate into his new creation.
+
+Does this mean that the good act was wasted? Was it only worth a shot just in
+case, despite all the odds, the sailors made it home again?
+
+I think this is a cruel conclusion: but it seems to be where Wright must go.
+
+If it is implausible that the profits of all our good works will make it through
+to the time of judgement, then we have to accept that 1 Cor 3 is true only in
+some metaphorical sense, not that our works will literally persist in order to
+be tested. And if that is true, then the premise of Wright's argument is false:
+our work will not necessarily be incorporated into the new creation, so that
+cannot generate reasons for working for justice now.
+
+I am not convinced by Wright's positive argument. I would like to consider
+alternative interpretations of 1 Cor. This is what Wright goes on to do.
+
+## Do alternative views give us reason to work for justice?
+
+The first view which Wright considers is the gnostic view that resurrection is
+just an afterlife in heaven. He argues that this does not generate reasons for
+working for justice now, but his argument is really the converse of the argument
+in favour of his own view, which I've already considered above, so I'll move on.
+
+The other alternative Wright considers is what he calls 'evolutionary optimism'.
+You might also call this 'progressivism'. By this he means the view that the new
+creation will be made the Church gradually building upon its own works,
+generation after generation, approaching and eventually achieving God's perfect
+standard by its works. This is the Victorian optimism which is still a powerful
+force in our politics: that history is building upon itself, and progressing
+from barbarism to civilisation, from brutishness to beauty, from tragedy to
+justice.
+
+He argues that this view, too, does not give us reasons to work for justice now.
+His argument is intriguing: if our work for justice is condemned to only ever be
+partially successful, then we have no reason to do it. In fact, contra the
+evolutionary optimist, no amount of hard work on our part will ever achieve
+perfect justice, and therefore if bringing in the new creation is all about our
+works, we have no reason to strive for justice.
+
+I'm intrigued by the premise that if we know that our work will at best be
+partially successful, then we have no reason to do it.
+
+This isn't how we ordinarily think: typically, if I think attempting to go to
+the gym twice a week is going to be partially successful, I would say that this
+generates a reason for me to go to the gym.
+
+But I sense there may be an interesting meta-ethical thesis here: perhaps what
+we ordinarily call 'partial success' is in fact a mistake, papering over what is
+in fact simply a failure.
+
+There's an obvious error theory: we had to create the concept of the 'partial
+success' in order to generate reasons in the world as it appears, the world as
+described in Ecclesiastes as 'vanity', where the best-laid plans of mice and men
+gang aft agley, and all our works crumble into the dust eventually. In order to
+think we had reasons at all, we needed to invent the concept of the 'partial
+success'.
+
+But is there a good argument for the view that there is no such thing as a
+partial success?
+
+In 1915, the HMS Endurance, under the command of Captain Ernest Shackleton,
+became stuck fast in Antarctic pack ice in the Weddell Sea. In the face of
+extraordinary challenges, Shackleton vowed to bring all his sailors back to the
+UK alive: and in one of the most famous exploits of Antarctic exploration, he
+succeeded.
+
+It would have been wrong, had Shackleton vowed only to bring back _most_ of his
+sailors. We know that he would have been able to bring _all_ of them back,
+because he in fact did so. To strive for less would have been negligent.
+
+This is to illustrate a general principle: we ought to strive for the best that
+we are able.
+
+Grant that necessarily, no particular justice is inevitable. It follows that
+necessarily, it is possible to prevent all injustice. Therefore, perfect justice
+is achievable.
+
+And yet we _know_ that we will not achieve perfect justice. It's way too hard.
+
+It does seem that I've proven a contradiction: both that perfect justice is
+possible and that it is impossible. I expect these are two different kinds of
+modality. I'm not too bothered to carefully distinguish them, as long we agree
+that these two things can both be true in some sense. By analogy, consider that,
+if you can run a mile in so many seconds, you can run it in a second less; that,
+by sorites, it follows that you can run a mile in a minute; and that you
+obviously cannot run a mile in a minute: it is too hard. Perfect justice is
+perhaps a little like this: it is achievable in the sense that it is physically
+possible for us to achieve it, but unachievable in the sense that it's way too
+hard.
+
+So, since perfect justice is in some sense achievable, it follows that we ought
+to strive for it. But since we know we will not achieve perfect justice, it
+follows that we cannot have a reason to strive for it: we cannot genuinely
+strive for what we know we cannot do. Therefore, if you reject that God will
+work to transform our world of vanity into something fundamentally different
+where perfect justice is not only genuinely achievable but actually realised,
+then you will be stuck in this hopeless tension, where you both must bring about
+perfect justice, and have no reason to do it, because you have no hope of
+success.
+
+Where from here? I would really like to find alternative interpretations of 1 Cor,
+and weigh them up against Wright's interpretation. It may be that, whatever the
+counter-arguments, Wright's view is the strongest available. It may not.

website/src/content/blog/28/paradox.md

@@ -0,0 +1,77 @@
+---
+title: A paradox about 'should'
+description: >-
+  I seem to have accidentally proven that drinking wine both is and is not a
+  thing you should do. Let's hope that wine doesn't disappear in a puff of
+  logical smoke.
+pubDate: 2025-01-28
+---
+
+We're pretty familiar with the idea that there can be reasons for doing
+something, and reasons against. Drinking wine is bad for your liver, but good
+for your social life.
+
+But look what happens if we express this in this way:
+
+1. Drinking wine is bad for your liver.
+2. You shouldn't do things which are bad for your liver.
+3. All things you shouldn't do aren't things you should do.
+4. Therefore, drinking wine isn't a thing you should do.
+
+In contrast to this:
+
+5. Drinking wine is a good social activity.
+6. You should do things which are good social activities.
+7. Therefore, drinking wine is a thing you should do.
+
+Now both 1-4 and 5-7 seem like logically valid arguments with true premises,
+but 4 and 7 are contradictory!
+
+I don't think there's any use in complaining about premise 3. All that gives us
+is the possibility that wine is both a thing you should do, and a thing you
+shouldn't do. But that's an absurdity. Something can't be both obligatory and
+forbidden at the same time. It's scarcely any better than a contradiction: it
+is inconsistent with any useful concept of obligation.
+
+Remember that we would quite like to know, at the end of all our argument,
+whether we should drink wine or whether we shouldn't. 'Both' is not an adequate
+answer, because it's not a useful guide for action: we can't both drink wine and
+not drink wine. So if 'should' is to function as we need it to, 3 must be true.
+
+I think a more profitable way forward is this. Let's re-write premise 2:
+
+2. All things which are bad for your liver are things such that the fact that
+   that thing is bad for your liver is a reason not to do it.
+
+We can similarly re-write premise 6:
+
+6. All things which are good social activites are things such that the fact that
+   they are good social activities is a reason to do them.
+
+Then premise 3, if it's to play the same logical role in the argument, would
+have to read:
+
+3. All things such that the fact that that thing is bad for your liver is a
+   reason not to do it is not a thing such that the fact that that thing is a
+   good social activity is a reason to do it.
+
+Our re-written 2 and 6 seem to adequately capture the sense of the original,
+but 3 is now obviously false. With our re-written sentences, we can avoid
+generating a contradiction without doing any fatal damage to our concept of
+'should'.
+
+OK. Grant for the sake of argument that that was a good move. What have we
+achieved? Have we actually solved the problem?
+
+We started out with a pair of arguments which generate a contradiction. Our
+move generated a new pair of arguments which don't generate a contradiction. So
+what? Isn't the first contradiction still there?
+
+Perhaps you could say that our re-written version of 2 (and so on) are more
+accurate elaborations of the originals. Fine. But what about those originals,
+then? You've still either got to say that they're true, false, or gibberish.
+Producing your second argument hasn't convinced me to move my opinion about the
+originals. The original premises seem just as true, and the original arguments
+just as valid, as when we began.
+
+What gives? Answers on a postcard as usual please.

website/src/data/links.ts

@@ -140,6 +140,12 @@ const LINKS: Link[] = [
     description: 'There was no long-term price inflation from 1200 (when these data begin) until 1550. WHAT?!',
     isoDateAdded: '2025-01-23',
   },
+  {
+    href: 'https://freeourfeeds.com',
+    title: 'Free social media from billionaire control',
+    description: 'I just donated $40. These guys are promising to do whatever it takes to make sure the AT Protocol is genuinely owned by everyone.',
+    isoDateAdded: '2025-01-28',
+  },
 ];
 
 export default LINKS;

website/src/pages/cv.astro

@@ -1,162 +0,0 @@
----
-import { SITE_DESCRIPTION } from '../consts';
-import Page from '../layouts/Page.astro';
----
-
-<Page title={'Joe Carstairs’ CV'} description={SITE_DESCRIPTION}>
-  <link rel="stylesheet" href="/css/cv.css">
-
-  <div>
-    <img src="/images/headshot.webp" height="96" width="96" />
-  </div>
-
-  <header>
-    <h1>Joe Carstairs’ CV</h1>
-    <p><a href="mailto:me@joeac.net">me@joeac.net</a></p>
-    <p><a href="https://joeac.net">joeac.net</a></p>
-  </header>
-
-  <section>
-    <p>
-      Early-career software developer with broad interests, technical precision
-      and deep thinking. Not actively looking for a job right now, but happy to
-      hear from you about future opportunities.
-    </p>
-  </section>
-
-  <section>
-    <h2>Soft skills</h2>
-
-    <ul>
-      <li>Thinks critically with precision</li>
-      <li>Communicates clearly, especially in prepared presentations</li>
-      <li>Better at engineering things carefully and reflectively than hacking something quick and dirty (though can do that too!)</li>
-    </ul>
-  </section>
-
-  <section class="technical-skills">
-    <h2>Technical skills</h2>
-
-    <section>
-      <h3>Front end</h3>
-      <ul>
-        <li>HTML</li>
-        <li>CSS</li>
-        <li>JavaScript/TS</li>
-        <li>Astro</li>
-        <li>React</li>
-      </ul>
-    </section>
-
-    <section>
-      <h3>Back end</h3>
-      <ul>
-        <li>NodeJS</li>
-        <li>Java/Spring</li>
-        <li>Python</li>
-        <li>C</li>
-      </ul>
-    </section>
-
-    <section>
-      <h3>Infrastructure</h3>
-      <ul>
-        <li>Terraform</li>
-        <li>Docker</li>
-        <li>AWS</li>
-        <li>DigitalOcean</li>
-      </ul>
-    </section>
-
-    <section>
-      <h3>Miscellaneous</h3>
-      <ul>
-        <li>Git</li>
-        <li>Bash</li>
-        <li>Langchain</li>
-      </ul>
-    </section>
-  </section>
-
-  <section class="my-engineering-priorities">
-    <h2>My engineering priorities</h2>
-    <ul>
-      <li>I put the process before the product</li>
-      <li>I put user needs before technical solutions</li>
-      <li>I put resilience before features</li>
-    </ul>
-  </section>
-
-  <section class="what-makes-me-tick">
-    <h2>What makes me tick</h2>
-    <ul>
-      <li>I like straightening out chaos</li>
-      <li>I like communities which share wisdom</li>
-      <li>I value finding things out over making the perfect product</li>
-    </ul>
-  </section>
-
-  <section class="experience">
-    <h2>Experience</h2>
-    <ol>
-      <li>
-        Aug 2024 - present, Scott Logic. Building a fullstack application for
-        a large financial institution. Java Spring Boot microservices on the
-        backend, Angular on the frontend, with Kafka, MongoDB and Elasticsearch
-        as supporting technologies.
-      </li>
-      <li>
-        2024, Scott Logic. Researched the potential of applying LLMs to
-        automated accessibility testing of websites, using Langchain Python
-        library, elementary prompt engineering techniques, and various scripting
-        languages to knit all our data together.
-      </li>
-      <li>
-        2023, Scott Logic. Investigated the accessibility of the
-        <a href="https://blog.scottlogic.com">Scott Logic blog</a> both manually
-        and using automated tools, including pa11y and Lighthouse. Made several
-        recommendations for improvements.
-      </li>
-      <li>
-        2023, Scott Logic. Built a social app with a React/Redux frontend and a
-        Spring Boot backend, deployed via Azure Pipelines onto an AWS EC2
-        instance, as part of the Scott Logic Graduate Programme.
-      </li>
-      <li>
-        2021, FreeAgent. Analysed how front-end developers were consuming the
-        FreeAgent design system for the Design System Team as a summer
-        internship.
-      </li>
-    </ol>
-  </section>
-
-  <section class="education">
-    <h2>Education</h2>
-    <p>Philosophy and Mathematics, MA Hons, Edin, 2022.</p>
-    <p>Full transcript available upon request.</p>
-  </section>
-
-  <section class="passions">
-    <h2>Passions</h2>
-    <ul>
-      <li>
-        I would love to see ordinary people empowered to engage with Web
-        technology as sovereign citizens, owning their own data, with the
-        ability to choose freely between competing digital services. I haven't
-        yet been shaken out of my naïve hope for the IndieWeb, though I
-        recognise it has a long way to go before it is ready for mass adoption.
-      </li>
-      <li>
-        I love Jesus Christ as the Redeemer of the world. Lots of people believe
-        that there is some higher power behind the things we can see, and Jesus
-        has revealed who God is by being made flesh, dying on the cross and by
-        being raised to a new Resurrection life, in which we are all invited to
-        participate. And I think that's pretty gnarly.
-      </li>
-      <li>
-        I love hillwalking. A day in the hills is the best kind of rest I know.
-      </li>
-    </ul>
-  </section>
-</Page>
-