Most people are killed by someone they know. Due to redlining many minorities live in communities that are, to this day, essentially segregated. Add the disproportionate correlation of violence and poverty, adn you get a volatile cocktail.
You will find it that cities with less redlining have less srong correlation between races of victims and perpetrators than cities that are more strongly, or more recently, redlined.
> Hard to say if that happens without him owning Twitter.
Its fairly easy.
In almost every western country the incumbent administration has been punished by voters due to inflation, this has been the case in the uk, germany, romania, france, mexico... list goes on. So Trump could have won without Elon buying twitter.
Similarly he could have donated to Trump without buying Twitter, and been on stage and been all day on twitter saying nonsense without purchasing. So being close to Trump is possible without buying Twitter.
The market would have reacted the same way, because the market is reacting to the fact that Trump is a corrupt leader and being close to him means the market will be skewed to benefit his cronies (in this case Elon). If im not wrong Trump has already mentioned creating "self driving car initiatives" that probably means boosting Tesla dangerous self driving mode, and also they have alluded to investigating rival companies to tesla and spacex or at least "reviewing their goverment contracts". Other industries without social media owners, like private prisions, also skyrocketed after trump won and those paid trump as much as Elon but were not on social media. The market would have reacted to Trump being corrupt regardless of Elon buying Twitter.
So its easy to say that his stock would be up 70% without buying twitter, as long as he kept the 250 million investment in the Trump campaign, and then market assesed Trump admin as affecting market fairness, both of which would happen without his purchase.
The ironic part is, Elon's own attorney, Alex Spiro, represented $100 million in BHR (China) shares for Hunter Biden. Alex also tried to save Jim Baker's job (FBI official) at Twitter, which is why Alex was removed. Those BHR shares are now controlled by Hunter's Malibu attorney.
Alex's law firm was able to get this story removed in 1-day from The Sun. But it's true, Alex's passport is online due to this deal-
Twitter famously deplatformed Trump, as a sitting president. They were a captured institution and it was shown that corrupt intelligence agencies were directly influencing Twitter's censorship. There was no other distribution channel available. Messaging is important. Counter narratives are important.
> In a June 2023 court filing, Twitter attorneys strongly denied that the Files showed the government had coerced the company to censor content, as Musk and many Republicans claimed.[8] Former Twitter employees asserted that Republican officials also made takedown requests so often that Twitter had to keep a database tracking them.[9]
> shown that corrupt intelligence agencies were directly influencing Twitter's censorship
That is a hyperbolic way of saying the fbi used the report feature everyone has access to when worried about domestic terrorism along the lines of the Oklahoma City bombing. Not exactly government censorship - not a potato potahto thing.
It doesn't sound exactly ridiculous when Zuckerberg also admitted those same intelligence agencies pressured them into censoring the Hunter Biden laptop story.
That's so absurdly far from what Zuck said it's an outright lie.
"Zuckerberg told Rogan: "The background here is that the FBI came to us - some folks on our team - and was like 'hey, just so you know, you should be on high alert. We thought there was a lot of Russian propaganda in the 2016 election, we have it on notice that basically there's about to be some kind of dump that's similar to that'." He said the FBI did not warn Facebook about the Biden story in particular - only that Facebook thought it "fit that pattern".
So to you "intelligence agencies convinced Facebook that future big stories around leaks might be Russian propaganda" is the same as "FBI pressured Facebook to take down the Biden laptop story"?
That was only after it was apparent that a majority of employees would back Altman's return I believe. A majority of which who had spent less time with him than Ilya had in all likelihood.
Finland solution was to ban all private education. Once rich kids were forced to go to public schools, then suddenly education became a larger part of the gov budget, those parents spent more time asking for reforms, volunteering etc.
They have one of the best performant school systems in the planet. And all it takes is not allowing a percentage of the population think of education as optional
> How does the existence of private schools enables this thinking?
Here is a simple example. There is a family with a combined 6k income, their expenses are 2k on rent and 1.5k on child private school, grocieries etc account for 500, savings another 500 and the remaining 1.5k goes on taxes.
Now the goverment proposes a 10% tax raise to improve public schools. Do you think this family would vote for or agaiinst that bill?
Now lets propose a counter example. Same salary, same expenses minus the private school, which gives the family 2k of savings per month. Now due to shortages in public schools they have volunteered at their kids school, helped with field trips, met other parents and families in their neighbourhood. Now the goverment does a 20% tax raise for public schooling. Would this family be more or less willing than the other family to vote yes?
By simply being involved you and your vote become resposinble for it. If you can pay your way away, specially if you stretch your finances to afford it, then investing in the system goes against your own interests regardless of the social externalities of your position.
We could have a society were parents of privately educated kids voted for a public school improvement, but psicologically and economically we know they by and large dont. Therefore the existance of private schooling comes at the expense of a fair, well resourced, and functional public education
Those who care about education, can leave to a private school instead, and not spend time trying to improve the public schools, just leave them to their fate: noisy school-is-boring kids sabotaging the classes for everyone.
Or that's how I interpret what GP said. Happening a bit where I live: richer families don't want their kids go to school in problematic suburbs.
> and not spend time trying to improve the public schools
> noisy school-is-boring kids sabotaging the classes for everyone.
It seems that those parents realize that if the system does not care about ensuring that kids in school actually learn things, then they better leave than trying to fix the kids of others (i.e., parents who does not care).
I would argue that it is a net positive for those public schools: those parents still pay local taxes while making sure that there are fewer students -> better student/teacher ratio.
Maybe depends on how hard or easy it is to improve the schools, on how much influence the parents can have? In Finland, apparently it was doable, but that's, in a way, a very different place than here.
No, I'm proposing the opposite: that states try to act more like Norway/Finland by themselves, instead of hoping the federal government will do so (which isn't going to happen).
And yes, schools are funded by local taxes, but it doesn't have to be that way: if states really wanted to, they could take that power away from municipalities. The constitution gives the states broad powers to run themselves as they like.
> How does the election tell you anything about the economy?
He didnt say it said anything about the economy, just the perception of it.
Now to answer that question, there is the simple old adage of "its the economy, stupid" that won Clinton his campaign. But the reality is that economy perception is always asked in polls, all year round. So trends can be established wtih decades of data. Secondly, voting attitudes can be understood through economic perception, when people perceive the economy is thriving incumbents do better seeing Biden's poll numbers anyone could tell that the economy perception was not good.
It never was, but it is still important as it always has been.
> There's certainly an element of it but it's gotten very meta and abstract these days.
Art is about many things. I agree that a lot of art can be esoteric nowadays, mostly because its in conversation with specific things, so it can feel like an inside joke, or a private conversation you are not privy to. If I make an art piece critiquing an article from The Economist and you never read business news then my piece will be unparseable for you, regardless of quality.
Many art pieces are in response to other art movements, or to niche communities, or to conversations happening in the art world etc. If you jump into a modern art gallery and someone is replying to the art that was in Art Basel Miami, which was a repsonse to internet art, which in itself was a response to figurative early .... and then you go to this art gallery and you cant get a painting because its talking to someone that is not you.
> where the need to be accessible vs original are pit against each other.
I dont think thats true. There are certainly artists that manage to break new ground while being accesible, while other prime originality over mainstream appeal. That is an artistic choice to be made, in the same way retreading comfortable ground or releasing a Christman Carol album is.
> Da Vinci, Monet, Turner, Picasso - the art is fairly accessible.
Trying to understand the last supper without knowledge of Christianity would make Da Vinci fairly hard. Monet was a counter culture leader against The Salon in France which prized craft, and execution over more ground breaking attempts like impressionism, so hardly accesible when his entire life was a fight against the culture of the time. Picasso can be called many things, but accesible is not one that comes to mind. Gernika can be considered striking, but cubism, his portraits of women (and their significance), his pottery... there is plenty of his work that needs analysis and is plain ugly on first watch.
> But who will be remembered as being accessible and "serious" from our generation in music?
There will be plenty. Kendrick Lamar won a Pulitzer for his lyrics, to give a simple example his song Swimming Pools about the many faces of alcoholism and its raveging effects on the black community is both a popular song as well as really well written narratively. From the 90s you could easily pull Nirvana for offering grunge as an alternative to the hyper corporate, pro capitalism, runaway train that american political and social life was engaged in, while having incredibly catchy songs. If you wanna go further back Bob Dylan and The Beatles are absolute masters of catchy tunes and powerful lyrics.
You said what felt to be in the present with List? Well you had Lisztomania, an absolute uproar of women turning up to see him. This was mocked/replicated by the beatles with Beatlemania. You could argue the Boy band, Justin Bieber phenomenom was that same effect although the musicality, and the corporate interference shows a darker more manufactured side to the art.
And in terms of art you have incredible art of every type right now, never has art been more accesible or easy to produce. What we are missing is search tools, surfacing interesting works and specially people curating what stuff is good from the muck. But if a tree falls in a forest, it still makes sound and rn there are countless artists dropping trees you just need to perk your ears up
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I think you've addressed to some degree what I was trying to think around. That art may be difficult to evaluate in its time. Monet may have been a counter culture artist in his time but today he has a somewhat universal appeal. Is that cultural? Are we now primed to like Monet because people have told us to like Monet?
No doubt in his time there were factions, those who pandered to the institution and those who fawned over innovation and originality. I'm sure these cycles occur in every present.
So then what will be remembered from our time? As you say a lot of today's art is esoteric and holding a conversation not all of us are privy to.
I also agree that to some extent we do now have the most art we ever could have. The internet and the creator economy has unlocked creativity in many ways. I recall some discussion the other day about the "hollowing out of the middle" in musical instrument proficiency, and more widely a lot of other skills. Technology and convenience has eradicated a need for many skills at a "mediocre" level but we also have more access to information and learning than ever before.
> Monet may have been a counter culture artist in his time but today he has a somewhat universal appeal. Is that cultural? Are we now primed to like Monet because people have told us to like Monet?
The counter culture of his time was only because France had tried to make art be controlled from the top down. Part of the enlightenment was related to the idea that you could find "truth" in all forms through discovery like in science. So Aesthetics and language also became Prescriptive, where a central authority says what is right (just like science academy says what is right in science).
English for example is a non prescriptive language and there is no central authority, so english dictionaries describe how english is used not how english should be. France still has an academy of writers who says how French SHOULD be.
In the arts however the Salon failed, because art is not prescriptive and there is no right way to do art. Some people might work tirelessly to make a 200ft tall painting of virgin mary, and some might make a tiny postcard of a boat in their hometown and you cannot tell which one will move you from that description alone.
> So then what will be remembered from our time?
One of the main drivers of quality is influence. Its hard to tell what is good art when seeing it, but in 10 years when everything either looks like that or rejects that or responds to it in some way then that was good art. Bad art is forgotten.
So what will be remembered from our time is easy to know because things like the internet have accelarated cycles. People now get tired and move on to the next thing much faster.
So when people come back to hyper-pop, early, internet aesthetics almost 14 years later you know that it was good art (see 100 gecs, charli xcx, sophie). When more bands start being mysterious, adding lore through internet channels, adding metal and noise influences into hiphop you can tell Death Grips was good art.
In more traditional art you have an entire wave of artists now who are hyper sensible, honest and earnest. This is a rejection of artist like Koons or Hockney with their hyper capitalist "it sells" attitude that dominated post Warhol. That means those were good artist if everyone know wants to not be like them.
What wont be rememebred would be the awful graffitis facebook paid to have in their offices, or the Beeple NFT art that sold for millions at auction. Because it moved no one, it means nothing and it largely for headlines to move stock prices and nothing else. No one even hates that art, its just completely ignored as irrelevant.
This is such a tired reply. The peace prize is not part of the same group as the other awards, and a significant difference in the peace award is that intent is awarded not results.
The dude who invented the MAD doctrine did not get the award despite nuke deterrance doctrice being related to the least amount of wars in any century since WW2.
But his platform of deescalation and his plans for american foregin diplomacy were rewarded. He ultimately failed to reach those goals (specially with the escalation on Afghanistan and the emergence of groups like ISIS), but tbh the Iran agreement and the Pacific trade agreement, killed and buried by the next administration, would have created a massive buffer and solution for the 2 hotspots we currently experience around the middle east (where terrorism is largely sponsored by Iran) and the Taiwan takeover by the CCP (would also be partially neutralised by the Pacific trade talks).
He was naive, in the way the world was naive to the ability to sacrifice prosperity that some leaders are capable of. He underestimated how dumb and suicidal putin could be, he underestimated how much China would be willing to sacrifice in terms of potential, he underestimated how much violence was latent and capable in the middle east. but his nobel peace prize was due to his campaign running on nuclear proliferation treaties and closer relationships with the muslim world which had been entirely antagonistic since Bush
Well its the only one selected by Norway instead of Sweden, its also the only one selected on intent and not achievements. So its not the same in important ways
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. The award shouldn't have been given for intentions, before he even did anything. We should not reward promises, but action. Even a long term member of the committee expressed regret in them giving it to Obama.
> Even a long term member of the committee expressed regret in them giving it to Obama.
That is nothing compared to past controversies.
People left the assembly and resigned when it was awarded to Kissinger and Arafat in the past. regret is way milder than calling the receipient a terrorist in the floor of the award ceremony
He received it before any of that. And Libya does actually cancel every point you mention by the way. Because it's actually not hard to have presidents not start wars at all- both presidents since Obama did just that.
And if the real Nobel prize doesn't want the confusion around its name to happen... it should do something about it?
which is why he got it based on his plans and not his actions
> and Libya does actually cancel every point you mention by the way.
it really doesnt. Lets begin with the main reasons, he was awarded the award for nuclear profileration agreements and a new american policy in the middle east. Lybia is not a nuclear power and its in north africa not the middle east.
secondly the military intervention of Lybia came at the behest of a UN security council resolution that put NATO in charge of securing the no fly zone to prevent Gadafi to bomb his own citizens after he had shot protestors during the arab spring. The NATO mission was led by France. The USA involvement ended the day the UN security council ended the mission despite the new Lybian goverment wanting them to remain. It is not Obama's fault that half the arab world exploded in protests in 2011, or that the UN voted to intervene, or that the French led mission was a bit of a clusterfuck. So no, Lybia does not affect any point I mentioned, or any of the reasons for the comittee to vote for him years earlier.
> it's actually not hard to have presidents not start wars at all- both presidents since Obama did just that.
Trump started a war, Iran just didnt follow through. Killing Soleimani is casus belli and Iran had every right to retaliate against america. The fact they didn't does not somehow exonarate Trump from his actions. That was way more belligerent than any action taken under Obama's 8 years.
Biden did not start any wars but 100% would have intervened if ISIS had begun under his presidency, the same way Obama did. Obama did not start any war against any country, he just had missions in countries america was already in, like Afghanistan, or contributed in international efforts like the Syrian civil war, or lybia intervention after Gadaffi's Un resolution.
His reputation as war mongering is artificial and designed by the same people who told Trump that if you dont test for Covid you get less cases. America started reporting less the drone strikes they carried, but carried them more often under Trump for example. Its the same sleight of hand that people use to say Sweden is worse off because they have more rape cases. They simply report them more often. Obama was more open than further admins on their interventions, that does not make it happen more or less often.
> it should do something about it?
They did not award it to Gandhi and gave it to Kissinger. The fact people still care about that award is bonkers
The amount of people who act like Obama is a war monger without understanding the situation he found himself in is shockingly high, especially on a website like this with its supposedly "educated" people.
Losing the TPP (Minus the IP parts)/Asia Pivot and the focus away from Nuclear Non Proliferation are terrifying. Obama is directly the reason why Myanmar had its democracy for as long as it did, and most people in South East Asia have not found anyone nearly as inspirational as him from America since 2016 and likely won't for awhile longer.
Obama was awesome, and his legacy has been unfairly malingered. He was not the "warmonger" president that revisionists like to portray him as.
> The amount of people who act like Obama is a war monger
Its deliberate. Conservative PACs designed that legacy and pushed it hard. Trump quickly stopped reporting drone strikes, so that way he could pretend Obama was a big bad shooting at everyone. Not reporting != not happening.
> Losing the TPP (Minus the IP parts)
I actually see the point to the IP parts. Its a complicated mess, but China has abused it in the past so being able to sue goverments has its uses. For example when Lenovo was accused of IP theft to HP computers, the CCP bought stock in lenovo and made it impossible to take them to trial. Those kind of abuses are an issue when you try and promote fair competition due to high RD costs.
Obviously the can of worms it opens is huge and an issue in itself, but I see the point in why it was added to the TPP agreement and can't imagine how hard it was to put that in, before Trump came and broke the whole thing.
> Obama was awesome
Dealing with the worst recession in a century, passing the largest US healthcare change in history, preventing the arab spring from exploding everywhere, stopping ISIS, swift to the pacific etc. The amount of achievements its hard to point out when after that came a circus clown who would salute north korean generals.
> The dude who invented the MAD doctrine did not get the award
No, he didn't win the award, because MAD doctrine (aside from it being immoral) doesn't actually work in the real world.
It's an idealized model based on game theory, which doesn't deal with pesky complexities such as irrationality, salami tactics, short-range CBMs, anti-missile defenses, tactical nukes and so on. (That's why many of these things used to be banned by treaties, to continue to pretend that MAD is actually required for peace. In reality many nations do not have nukes and live in peace.)
> In reality many nations do not have nukes and live in peace.
not many of them are superpowers, or strategic interests of superpowers. See Taiwan, a country that until recently felt safe and at peace and is no longer unthreatened.
Most studies show that MAD allows for strategic peace for large superpowers and more regional wars for smaller countries. Ultimately it still decreases overall violence under all empirical studies on the subject.
The point I was making though was that the achivements of MAD are not measured when giving the award. However Israel and Palestine sitting down to talk in the 90s was, despite the talks ultimately going nowhere and being worse off now than before the Nobel Peace award
It does work, you just need credible trigger thresholds for the salami tactics, treat tactical nukes as strategic, and have enough nukes to punch through ABM.
> I'm still not really sure why Isreal causes such polarised emotions.
Not to state the obvious but the largeest distinction between israel and every other country its that its a mostly jewish country.
> THe war intensified, but it was only when all the players started talking did something good happen
The bigger issue here is that while talks have been attempted many times, there is a sense on both sides of bad faith negotiations. In Ireland, bad as it was, there was a feeling the other side "would get too much" but not that they were outright lying about their aims.
> The problem here is that the number of parties that need to talk are quite high
There is also the problem of little value to human life. Religious fanatism, afterlife promises and even goverment sponsored programs such as martyr funds have devalued human life to a point where here is little basis on what to use as foundational goal for peace.
American funding to Saudi Arabia permitted tons of funding for terrorists groups in the region. Saudi has also bombed 400k people in Yemen with American missiles and planes. 9/11 had Saudi pilots. Pakistan an ally for the US helped hide Osama Bin Laden. Mujahadeen had CIA funding and just recently Trump invited the Taliban to Camp David where allies of the US are honoured.
If you somehow think that Israel funding is unique, specially in that region, you are not paying attention.
Which again begs the question, why is Israel singularly called out.
The Saudis aren't getting my tax money. If they get weapons, it's because they are paying big money for them. I don't believe we should be selling them weapons from a moral perspective, but I do understand (though I don't agree with) the economic argument that they would buy from Russia instead which would boost Russian weapon production.
In contrast, Israel got 14.1B plus the usual 3.8B. This is the equivalent of an almost $200 stimulus check for every person in Israel. Personally, I'd rather spend that money on infrastructure or at least give it to the poorest Americans.
Answering most of your questions quickly: Aid to Pakistan was cut under Trump (though Biden is asking for aid again). Mujahideen funding to fight the USSR during the Cold War is materially different AND it blew up in our faces when we invaded Afghanistan. We invited the Russian Premier who presided the second half of the Korean War (killing way more Americans than the Taliban ever has) to Camp David too (refusing to deal with foreign leaders because they are unsavory or evil is pretty much always a recipe for even bigger problems).
You don't hear US politicians calling the Saudis or Pakistanis good people, but you DO hear this claim about Israel while the hypocrisy is blatant to anyone who researches with even the slightest bit of objectivity. This alone is a massive difference.
Also the most egregious thing: Israel knew about 911 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdiQuU7upfw) and did not share that intel with the USA. There is more evidence of this but it gets harder to find as time passes and it gets taken down, perhaps no entity benefited more from 911 than Israel.
They are the largest military buyer of the US, with a 60 billion order signed in 2010 and a 110 billion signed in 2017. Both of which include the US army training and providing support for the Saudi Military.
Are the army dudes training them not paid with taxes? Do you think the Saudi Royal family being the richest in the world after becoming allies with the US is a coincidence?
If you wanna ignore the reality of the situation because there is an explicit bill in congress that says "2 billions to Israel" and there is no bill in congress that says "vote in tandem with Saudi in the UN, help them in Kuwait, help them in destroying Yemen and keep local gas prices low at the expense of horrible human abuses far away while they buy our military equipment and we train them up to have a local partner if we ever wanna invade iraq again" then yeah your tax dollars aren't going to Saudi.
> I'd rather spend that money on infrastructure or at least give it to the poorest Americans.
That money IS going to americans. You do not understand how the aid is sent to Israel. America pays an american company, like Lockheed Martin to produce X amount of stuff and the surplus is then gifted to Israel essentially.
This works in two ways. One is that it keeps war production pipelines running, countries that dismantle their weapon shops and then try to run them again have lots of trouble (see russia), however america does not need yearly the amount it produces and the jobs in certain industries are expensive. Engineers and union factory workers make good money in those companies so your tax dollars pay for those jobs, and Israel essentially takes the extra missiles (of the 3B yearly 2 are for the Iron Dome which has no offensive capability). No israeli is getting 200$, but some dude in an american factory makes 125k and has weekends off thanks to that 14B bill
> Answering most of your questions quickly
thats not an answer, thats a rationalisation and a poor one at that. You said america does not fund terrorism, and then you said "oh but it blew up in our faces" that is not lack of funding that is just what you get when you fund terrorism.
> This alone is a massive difference.
You have Trump meeting Bin Salman calling him a good friend in April of this year. So clearly you in the rhetoric department there is no massive difference. we have people in goverment like Bernie Sanders that criticise Israel and people who criticise Saudi, and both get your tax dollars.
The Saudi fund also has more money in lobbying, more money in US universities, has more overt corrupt deals like a 2 billion investment in the son in law of Trump or renting the entire top floor of Trump tower without anyone staying there. And at the same time they have killed 400k people in Yemen, funded the genocide of the Tigray in Sudan. And there has been 0 backlash.
I do not think it is outrageous to claim that the disproportionate attention on Israel might have reasons beyond the moral or the economic for its magnitude.
The Saudis are handing over their own money rather than using US taxpayer money. That's a very different situation. Likewise, most of the maintenance and training is done by ex-military working as contractors.
You don't understand the broken window fallacy.
Further, that stuff isn't actually surplus. Russia had way more "surplus" than we do, but the Ukraine war showed just how quickly that equipment gets used.
> The Saudis are handing over their own money rather than using US taxpayer money
Sure if you pretend billateral multi decade trade agreements that have made the country insanely rich are in no way benefited from american taxpayer dollars specially in military then yeah, they get none of your tax dollars.
> most of the maintenance and training is done by ex-military working as contractors.
That is easily verifibly untrue. Part of the 110 billion dollar buy in 2018 was using american corps for training. That is part of what they bought.
> You don't understand the broken window fallacy.
I do, but this is not a case of broken windows. Its the case of the american industrial military complex needing to be active even during non war times. Countries cannot stop and start the military industry, similar to a big furnace. Its expensive to get going, its not cheap to mantain but it is impossible to stop and start it at a whim. Therefore a on going level of fire is needed, for america that is military spending, and military aid for partners. In the case of Saudi that is military orders in exchange for many many benefits. In the case of Israel is repleneshing the Iron Dome which america has access to the technology for. Seeing them as distinct things is rhetoric, when the material effect is the same. American jobs are paid, military companies produce goods and america holds bilateral benefitial relationships with right wing countries in the middle east.
Pretending they are extremely different based on payment method is looking for an excuse to morally only condemn one relationship.
> Fact is that this pager attack is something like the second or third largest terrorist attack in modern history by number of casualties.
How is it terrorism? Terrorism is using fear for political goals. Disrupting enemy comms is a military goal, not a political one. And its effect, making the enemy unable to talk, plus potentially hurting people who use those comms is not intended to cause fear but actual damage.
I grew up around terrorism think Ireland in the 80s. The effects of terrosim are fear, are people unable to say certain things, are people being killed for pushing political ideas.
Bombing a military radio tower in Russia is not terrorism, neither is destroying walkie talkies from Hezbollah members. The fact it was a crazy operation does not make it more terrorism than Russia launching a 400kg payload against a Ukrainian data center
> other country its that its a mostly jewish country.
I mean yeah that was a thing, but I would suggest that its less of a unique part as it once was.
> Religious fanatism, afterlife promises
I mean that's a strong motivator, but sectarianism isn't new or unique to this conflict. Moreover its only part of the story. People are fighting because someone they knew has been injured, killed or suffered from this war. Yes there are people who are also into making a new eden or some shit, but they are often only a small but tediously vocal minority.
> I would suggest that its less of a unique part as it once was.
I would argue its more relevant than ever. Anti semitism is on the rise globally. Multiple groups like Russia and Iran have made it the corner stone of some of its geopolitical strategy. The whole Soros is behind every disaster in the West is a russian psy op. Covid vaccines are jewish experiments on people is blood libel and also russian funded. Trans people and immigration waves are jewish plots to destabilise the west, another russian op. Half the right wing influencer peddle in antisemitism or related conspiracies left right and centre. Jordan peterson neo marxism, stephen miller (Trumps advisor) great replacement theory etc
With that amount of misinformation spreading without control in social media, a uniquely jewish country is a perfect target for the misdirected anger.
See a genocide in Sudan getting 0 attention while the first week after Oct 7th, before any large Israel counter offensive there were already groups organising anti war protests and marches.
> sectarianism isn't new or unique to this conflict
Sectarianism is less of a problem. Its the religious aspect. If I think there is no afterlife I would protect my children, if I believe death at war is the most holy thing there is you end up with figures like Mother of martyrs,Umm Nidal, who was the first woman elected in Gaza in the election Hamas won. She was a viral figure because of a video telling her 17 year old boy to go and kill jews and not come home, he went to a university and shot 5 people and injured 23 before being shot down during the second intifada.
No other conflict has mothers begging their underage kids to go kill civilians. You will not see videos in Ukraine of mother asking babies to fight. Because that is an insane thing to do and really makes political compromise really difficult when human life's value is rendered worthless.
There is also the issue of Israel not caring about Palestinian lives, that has less to do with religion but the constant state of threat the entire country is under has given the military a shoot first ask later approach that again really devalues life.
> People are fighting because someone they knew has been injured, killed or suffered from this war.
Revenge does not explain a conflict that has been going on for a century or more. There was unrest from the late 1800s in the region with the first waves of Jewish immigration. No one knew somoene injured back then.
From a current stand point, after losing in 1946,1947, 1956, 1967, 1983,2002 and 2014 you would at some point just concede, set peace terms and then use diplomacy for compromise post war talks. Kinda what Ireland did, they lost, gave up the terrorism and fought in the courts and internationally for rights and governance over the region. Northern ireland being part of Ireland was closer during brexit than at any point during the IRA.
Palestine really has no more fight and still rejects every 2 state solution due to disagreeing on terms. Which I get that losing parts of east jerusalmen and the settlement locations are insulting to them, but they had those in 1947 and still turned it down which makes it hard to know what they would actually agree to.
So I think we are closer in opinion than you might think.
> No one knew somoene injured back then.
No, but thats the point its an active war. Ireland's conflict has been going on in ebbs and flows since 1919, but it's roots were set way back. Someone you know has been injured by the "other side" in every generation. Its a generational conflict, sadly.
> Ireland's conflict has been going on in ebbs and flows since 1919
But the big difference in this conflict is that Ireland was colonised prior to 1919. They were always the underdog, and still are.
In 1880 when the first waves of refugees arrived, Palestine was part of the Ottoman empire, mostly Muslim and there was economic and ethnic mayority of arabs. And the first pogroms already happened then.
The original partiton the british proposed was, in part, because they considered the arab violence against the jewish population to be a big issue. There were other terrible reasons like the british who designed the plan was an antisemite and thought Israel would be enticing for european jews to leave. But the reality of the origins of the fight was that a bunch of refugees arrived, built their own insular communities and they got attacked to the point the UN decided them having their own country would be safer.
If Ireland became 1 country, even if they mistreated the british people in northern Ireland later you could hardly say they have always been the aggresor because we know thats not true. Somehow Israel story has been flipped where instead of the underdog, now becoming dominant, they are seen as always the one on top. Other historical inaccuracies like America's allyship with Israel is considered eternal when in reality it started in 1960s when Egypt tried to take over the Suez Canal. America only cares about free trade and boat routes. In 1947 they sided with the Arab league, due to access to oil, who said they would exterminate the jews in the UN floor and no one stopped them despite military analysis in Uk, france and USA agreeing they would win against Israel.
If the app you downloaded has an update, does the app not need to be revised again? Why would the revision fee not happen with every update?
Would that not mean developers that update more and get better value for their customers are penalised?
Subscription cuts strikes a happy medium, where apple gets paid when the company gets paid, so if they deliver more features they are not penalised but they are also not allowed to update for free forever (potentially adding malicious code without anyone checking due to only being checked the first time they paid).
> Why would the revision fee not happen with every update?
It would. So charge $25 again. So long as they charge what their actual cost is (with a reasonable margin) that's fine. But that's a universe apart from charging 10% of the profits of some streaming service because you "provide the platform".
That would actually be pretty nice; devs would maybe not update every day but once a month or something, and have actual changelogs, AND the review queue would be way shorter.
Its second only in GDP per capita because a number of big corporations moved to Madrid. There has been a slow but fairly unstopable centralisation in Spain, specially since the Catalan independence debalce a few years ago, more and more companies have moved their headquarters to Madrid. Which has raised the GDP of madrid a ton and moved many jobs there.
You will find it that cities with less redlining have less srong correlation between races of victims and perpetrators than cities that are more strongly, or more recently, redlined.