Media companies destroyed journalism by making news into entertainment instead of information. For example by finding the one extremest in a group of people and running stories about his minority - but exciting - viewpoint, instead of the boring viewpoint of most of the group.
That's a wild comment? I find the reverse to be wild. It would never even occur to me to care what comment the attendant would give me about the ticket. You would actually pay attention to what he said?
I would care about just one thing: Will he reduce my ticket or not. The rest of his words are empty and meaningless.
And for the record ads don't work on me, mostly because I almost never hear an ad for something I might actually buy, the few times they are relevant the product is too expensive so instead I buy the same thing but without a brand name. (So I guess thanks for giving me the idea of a new product I might like?)
And no one is complaining about people who restrict themselves to that.
The issue is those people who want to completely dismantle the state of Israel and evict (or kill) all the Jewish inhabitants. They call themselves "anti-Zionists", but they are simply racists because they are fine with the Arab citizens of Israel.
> The issue is those people who want to completely dismantle the state of Israel and evict (or kill) all the Jewish inhabitants.
This is equally as wrong as those Israelis who want to wipe Gaza off the map and occupy the entire West Bank. Sadly for the Palestinians, a bunch of people who believe this are part of the Israeli government.
A state which commits genocide forfeits its right to exist. A secular pluralistic state can exist in the place where the ethnonationalist Israel currently exists. But its formation and continued security must not be contingent on the genocide of a people.
Great, so we're in agreement: Gaza has forfeited its right to statehood after committing the October 7th massacre, literally aimed at destroying Israel. Quoting the Hamas spokesman Ghazi Hamad: "Hamas is prepared to repeat the October 7 Al-Aqsa Flood Operation time and again until Israel is annihilated."
I won't support the idea that Hamas has a right to govern Gaza, no. But I think that ideally a single secular pluralistic state would encompass current Israel and the Palestinian territories, and I hope the people who live there would one day assent to such a peaceful coexistence.
Well, partial good news, then: we have a secular, pluralistic state that covers at least most of that territory, namely the State of Israel, and the Jews, Christians Muslims and Druze living there assent to peaceful coexistence.
And entirely different matter is the fate of the people who are not citizens of the state of Israel. Where do you hope for them to live (and why)? Surely not in the pluralistic state we just talked about, since peaceful coexistence is far from a mainstream viewpoint among that population, to put it mildly.
A relevant Ask Project video from recent memory: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Grq1Ro9vlyU - note that none of the Palestinians consent to living peacefully with the Jews in one state.
> many of the most anti-Zionist people are... Orthodox Jew
There's like 6 of them, and they are called Neturei Karta. The other several million Orthodox Jews do not share their views.
On top of that they are only against having a specifically Jewish government (they refuse to vote), but they do NOT agree with not allowing Jews to live in Israel.
You know the Israeli government has also used the phrase "From the river to the sea", right?
"Intifada" just means "uprising"; the original Palestinian intifadas referred to nonviolent work stoppages, protests, etc. The attempt to imply it means something grosser is your ignorance and/or racism.
> Being anti-Zionist - but only to the Jews in Israel, and not the Arabs
This thought is incoherent. It's like saying Blacks protesting America are also protesting Black Americans.
"From the river to the sea" was an ISRAELI SLOGAN, by the Likud party since 1977, the party currently in power, that was then re-appropriated by Palestinians. Like many slurs have been throughout history.
It's a palestinian response that in essence says "no, you're not going to wipe us all out, we will be free."
Also it's very hypocritical, gaslighting, and manipulative to pearl-clutch about "from the river to sea" as Netanyahu (of Likud) and Trump openly plot to displace all Palestinians "from the river to the sea". It's one thing to say it, it's another to do it, as the Israelis are. It shouldn't be surprising though. Likud has openly been saying for the last 50 years this was their plan. Likud still does speeches with images of "Greater Israel" on the lectern. The pearl-clutching and gaslighting is just to paralyze and distract while they execute their land grab and invade the neighboring countries.
That's a bad idea - the speed bump can be semi-invisible in bad weather, and you'll have cars hitting it at high speed, going airborne and crashing.
There's a reason they have large warning signs before a speed bump.
There is also the implication that speed is the issue - but the linked video shows a car crash with slow cars, so they problem may lie elsewhere (visibility probably).
The real question to ask is what comes next: What will Trump do with the tariff money?
That is what's going to determine if the policy is good or bad - if he uses it to boost manufacturing in the US, add jobs, even give people a rebate, it could do good things for the US.
Your copyrighted work just has to be an original expression, not derived from someone else's work. It doesn't have to contain original ideas.
Patents are for ideas. Patents do in fact expire far faster than copyrights in the USA. The main problem with patents is patent trolling in the area of software patents.
I used to be against copyright, but with the rise of scum like Altman, I'm going all in. Copyright should last forever, as long as the ownership is handed down through inheritance or other transactions and not assigned to the public domain.
Why should heirs receive copyright? They did nothing to create it. Worthless parasites, as the heirs of Marvin Gaye demonstrate with their stylistic similarity lawsuits.
Because then the creative individual, in order to sustain themselves, will basically need an ultra rich patron who pays a lot of money for just the one copy or one performance. You know, basically how things worked before printing presses and recorded music.
Most copyrighted works don't make any money. Those that do go through a period where they sell a bunch of copies and after that it's just a trickle, if anything.
Why should you be able to charge every separate individual who comes to your concert? Same per seat price whether the place is filled to the back row or to the second row!
If you rent something, you're getting charged multiple times for exactly the same thing. You just paid for one month of staying in an apartment, now they want you to pay for a month again! The mere passage of time is churning out month after month. They are all the same, but you get charged! Same with power tools, cars and everything else rentable. Fifty people before you rented this hammer drill from Home Depot, but you still have to pay the same as they did.
Anyway, suppose that one should not be able to charge multiple times for the same thing. Then, fine, let the purveyor of an AI service also not be allowed to charge for their algorithmic rehashing of someone else's works.
I'm for getting rid of all forms of rent. But it has to be all: no cherry picking. Don't take away renting from one, while allowing another one to sell unlimited copies of a work. Or vice versa.
These days everything is blamed on climate change. And when people point out natural variation, they get bashed.
A recent example is the CA fires, there is zero evidence linking them to climate change - they did a study and found no effect - which of course was reported as "climate change to blame".
Yes, that's the study that shows zero effect. The authors completely messed up in their write up of the study. That study is the definition of bad science.
No, I did not misinterpret it. That study does not show what you think it does. i.e. the actual data does not lead to the conclusion presented. The actual data shows zero effect, the written conclusion is a work of fiction.
What are you talking about? The burden is on you to explain how manipulating the chemical makeup of the atmosphere DOESN'T have a direct impact, even at the tiniest levels (1ppm).
At the levels we're at now, CO2e imbalances definitely impact every single weather event on the planet to some degree, and you'd have to be delusional not to accept that.
When the level of random variation is greater than the change attributed to an event it's not possible to claim an event caused something. The random changes overwhelm and possible change.
If you want to claim a change anyway, the burden is on you to do the modeling and math to prove it.
reply