Realistically, West Bank will be gone (totally settled, all Palestinians removed) in 15 years. Gaza will further be ghettoized and, pessimistically, will be basically gone in 50 years or so.
That's indeed the current trajectory, but then what exactly will happen with the Palestinian population in that scenario? All 5+ million crammed into Gaza? Driven into Lebanon, Egypt and Jordan by force? (which are already refusing to take them today, by threat of military action) What else?
That's not realistic at all. Israel has no apparent plans to settle the major Palestinian population centers in the West Bank like Nablus, Ramallah etc. and evict Palestinians from there.
Indeed, life will probably continue getting worse for West Bank Palestinians under the Israeli apartheid regime, but there's no reason to believe they'll be literally exterminated.
The point is that they are NOT starting with Israel proper first, where Arabs are and have been citizens for a long time. Palestinians have been elected to the Israeli parliament, and there is an Arab Justice on the Israeli Supreme Court.
Just in case you are unaware, there are two million Arab Muslims citizens in Israel. Some of them consider themselves Palestinians (which is really a nationalist movement), some do not - but they are the same people / ethnic group that was there during the 48 war. These are full citizens, full members of Israeli society, not the Palestinian non-citizens in East Jerusalem, the West Bank, and Gaza.
Huh interesting. My understanding (from conversation with some Israelis) was that Arabs were not drafted as the rest of the population are. Obviously they were mistaken though.
Ah ok, thanks for the education. I guess that's really where I was coming from. I get the complexities, but it's hard to see another democratic state having such policies.
You'd think so, I have been told that being Palestinian is arrestable offence in Israel. Some people are very delusional about the actual situation on hand, as evident by some of the comments here.
One of the many things that helps in thinking clearly about this conflict, and the perspectives one has already encountered, is to distinguish Arab Muslim Israeli citizens from Palestinians who reside in Gaza or West Bank.
That is not likely to happen. Arabs with Israeli citizenship (who may or may not identify as “Palestinian”) are only like 20% of the population. Palestinians without Israeli citizenship are not allowed to live in Israel except in some edge cases like people in East Jerusalem which was annexed.
Israel is never going to annex the West Bank and Gaza Strip and give the people there full citizenship rights, instead they will continue carving up the WB with Jewish-only settlements that are in practice part of Israel but not officially annexed and which Palestinians are not allowed to live in.
Oh please. Israelis could have voted in a different party/leader that would have taken another path. West Bank settlement expansions could have been halted and reversed (to a sensible degree of course). These are bread and butter suggestions that everyone who thinks honestly about this conflict sees clearly.
There are of course many more suggestions I didn't state. To pretend that there was just no way to avoid this is shameful.
If only more people A) asked this question and B) looked into what was (not) happening.
Basically Ottawa police were insubordinate, sided with the truckers/occupiers/protesters, etc. The populist conservative provincial government completely failed to act, likely due to the protestors being on "their side".
> Ottawa was not being policed. Ticketing didn’t start for days. Tow-truck companies hesitated to move illegally parked trucks for fear of losing business from truckers after the protests ended. Protesters were refilling their trucks with jerry cans of diesel. When the police were ordered to put a stop to that, protesters began to carry empty jerry cans en masse to overwhelm law enforcement, but they needn’t have bothered: front-line officers were not following orders to stop them from gassing up. There were reports that sympathetic officers were sharing police intelligence with protesters. Anything the police did could backfire. Families with children were living in some of the trucks, and there were reports of firearms in others.
For literally multiple years I tried to convince a colleague of mine to try Rider. They're a diehard CLI and VS Code user. I made a video showing my workflow and how quickly I can navigate around and do refactors. Next day they were saying they couldn't believe it took them this long to use something better.
Sall Grover is the creator of a woman-only social app in Australia that was taken to court over that sex exclusivity. Posted a few controversial statements to test the atmosphere and this is the result.
This is a very common form of dishonesty on this topic.
First, even if we give you the benefit of the doubt and say it is factual, you do not need to lie in order to spread hatred, or at the very least provoke/troll people. "But it's true" is a childish defense in that context. If you were being honest, you would defend the practice of provoking/trolling people regarding gender identity (rather than merely defending the generic concept of saying something factually true, which is akin to the classic "I'm not touching you" game of provocation). And to be clear: I am not arguing against that theoretical argument in this comment - I am just saying that you should make that argument, since clearly you believe it but are being oblique about it.
Secondarily (and I do mean secondarily - it's entirely subservient to the first point and basically just an exercise in argument): The statement isn't factual, since it's just disagreeing with a context in which a word is used. It's literally a semantic argument, which is always more or less subjective.
Let's say she was testing the moderation system on a different topic. For example she'd posted the statement "Jesus was nothing more than a man", which resulted in her post being instantly censored and her profile slapped with a content warning.
Would you still be making the claim that she is "spreading hatred"?
I would still say she was making a factual statement that she was censored for. As we have evidence that this person was a historical figure and not just some figment of fiction. Only those with a particular ideological belief, i.e. most Christians, think there's more to it.
Fortunately that's not what happened, and such ideologues are not in charge of imposing those beliefs on others via Bluesky's moderation system. But it's clear that those who assert that some men are women are imposing their beliefs. Which is exactly what Sall demonstrated.
This is just the common case where it's a thing one could express a morally honest opinion about, even if it's emotional or negative, but is instead expressed curtly for the purpose of encouraging hatred broadly. I.e. it's the exact definition of trolling (and specifically, group-hatred by intrinsic qualities like sexual feelings, race, etc, which is understandably the most commonly moderated type of trolling). I'm not going to go so far as to say that all platforms must moderate that type of content, but it is of course a decision that falls within the realm of reason for any given platform. So, it seems dishonest to spit on it as "censorship" (ever more, "brutal censorship"), assuming you are agreeing with the GP.
I don't think it's an exaggeration, and I don't think it's daft - I think the point of the common quips of the general format "trans 'women' are men", without more context, are almost always (and obviously in this case) simple provocations, intended to disparage and humiliate, in addition to serving as slogans that implicitly support an unstated argument. However, we have no way of knowing which arguments they are supporting, aside from a broad and unnecessarily bitter rejection of the concept of people who feel mentally like a different gender from their biological gender.
So, purely as a random example: One of those unstated arguments is often the "don't let trans women into women's bathrooms" debate. I sympathize greatly with women who don't feel comfortable sharing a bathroom with trans women, and don't think anybody should be put through that (and I also sympathize with the trans woman's side of that problem, and have no good solution to offer to either side, but that's beside the point I'm making), but despite sharing that sympathy, I don't pretend to be unable to recognize hateful versions of that "sympathy" - that would be petty ideology.
But this is strong disagreement you are talking about, not hatred.
And if you look at the history of what Sall Grover has had to endure regarding this issue - being harassed, threatened, dragged through the legal system - it's very obvious why she strongly disagrees with the idea that some men are women, and why she is so very outspoken in drawing a line in the sand on this.
If someone decided you weren't allowed to participate in this community for using "schizoid" in a derogatory fashion I'd call it censorship all the same.
I’m kinda flattered my post history was even looked at.
Your position conflate the limited power mode have with tan ideological harm.
The surest tonic for this is to volunteer as a mod. Please try. I got into it because I felt I had to put my money where my mouth. Most mod teams need volunteers, and normal people to share their experiences.
By your criteria police are simply violent. Judges are simply judgemental. Heck everyone with a gun is a violent person.
I think that's in line with pick-your-own — Bluesky has the concept of ‘labelling service’ (with Bluesky as a/the default labeller) and client actions based on those labels (hide/warn/show).
If that's all that's happening, the really bad part is contributing to the perception that Bluesky is just a left-Gab (and if that's what you want, there are perfectly good Mastodon cliques already).
There used to be a US-politics labeller, of value to non-Americans, but it seems to have fallen over.
It's a pretty understandable semantic argument, where tons of people are going to be irrationally biased in whichever of the two directions suits them on a given example.
Sorry, which two directions? Surely you can have more than two distinct opinions on how to best handle moderation. Which is a fatal flaw to the twitter "community notes" feature, too.
It seems like it doesn't take much to terminate thought for you.
If you want to suggest that moderation and censorship are the same—two concepts with obviously differing senses in English—take a stab at making the argument instead of just asserting it in, ironically, a cliche.
You can also just turn it off globally by turning off the "Intolerance" setting on the Bluesky Moderation account - visit @moderation.bsky.app and set it up how you want.
There is a cultural divide on where you stand wrt transphobia. The default appview is indeed not down with it, where Twitter is ofc very down with it.
The protocol is ambivalent towards it, so if you seek hate, you could host your own. I'm very fine (happy even) with the bsky team not being invested in that side of history.
Anyone who looks at Levine and thinks something along the lines of wearing a dress, must be a woman rather than that is obviously a man in a dress has deeply sexist ideas about how women should present themselves.
You can label this as "transphobia" if you like but that's just a tacit acknowledgement that the "trans" belief system is built upon sexist principles.
Whatever you mean, you can probably write about it without encouraging hatred for groups of people based on qualities that, by themselves, are harmless, like whether they feel male or female, are biologically male or female, are gay or straight, white or black, etc etc.
Seems that if I write that "X that feels Y is X and not Y", then I'm apparently encouraging hate. But the real point is that I feel descriptions should belong to the person describing, not the person described.. How is this hate?
Some people believe that whether you're a man or a woman is based on thoughts in your head, rather than the material biological reality of your sex. They also believe that these thoughts mean you can be neither woman or man, which they call 'non-binary'.
Of course to everyone else this is a rather absurd thing to believe. Like the healing power of crystals or some nonsense like that.
I disagree. Words have meaning, you can't just use your own personal definitions. The modern definition of "gender" is based on the concept of gender identity and includes more than two genders [0][1]. If you want to make your point understood by most people, you should say "there are two biological sexes", although that is also not correct[2].
The dictionary pages you linked to illustrate that there are multiple senses for the word 'gender' in modern use, and that its use as a shorthand for 'gender identity' is not the only one.
Also, as the Wikipedia article you linked discusses, 'intersex' is not a type of sex additional to female and male. It's a word used to group various disorders of sexual development.
The article they posted was a satire on USA Today naming Levine, a man, as one of their Women Of The Year.
This quote from their article highlights the absurdity:
"Levine is the U.S. assistant secretary for health for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, where he serves proudly as the first man in that position to dress like a western cultural stereotype of a woman."
Really the only "intolerance" here is from those who can't stand their ideological beliefs being made fun of, and decide to retaliate via the platform's moderation system.
GVM dispatch is notoriously slow(-ish), yeah. But it does not require JIT. Otherwise it wouldn't work with NativeAOT :) (the latter can also auto-seal methods and unconditionally devirtualize few-implementation members which does a good job, guarded devirtualization with JIT does this even better however)
I remember when this feature was specifically not available with NativeAOT.
It's good that it is now, but how can it be implemented in a way that has truly separate instantiations of generics at runtime, when calls cross assembly boundaries? There's no single good place to generate a specialization when virtual method body is in one assembly while the type parameter passed to it is a type in another assembly.
> how can it be implemented in a way that has truly separate instantiations of generics at runtime, when calls cross assembly boundaries
There are no assembly boundaries under NativeAOT :)
Even with JIT compilation - the main concern, and what requires special handling, are collectible assemblies. In either case it just JITs the implementation. The cost comes from the lookup - you have to look up a virtual member implementation and then specific generic instantiation of it, which is what makes it more expensive. NativeAOT has the definitive knowledge of all generic instantiations that exist, since it must compile all code and the final binary does not have JIT.
The newer mac version was actually showing huge promise. It was a couple of versions away from being a great choice as primary IDE. That said, I do understand why they axed it. The market would have been tiny for all that investment.
I don't think it did officially, there were definitely server plugins that did it back in the day but AFAICT it wasn't official until this 2015 update:
If you're remembering playing with the r_drawothermodels console command to get a faux-wallhack effect, that was still subject to the engines clientside occlusion culling so it didn't show everything the client (and real cheats) were actually aware of.
The thing I remember was that my friend's graphics card had a global transparency setting built in (AKA a wall-hack mode lol). You could see other players come into view as soon as the came into an area that was rendered. Then a CS patch came out and the players weren't visible until very shortly before they would become visible had we not had the uhh... transparency mode on haha.
Yeah that's the same deal as r_drawothermodels, crudely forcing the GPU to render objects that are behind other objects would give you a partial wallhack, but that wouldn't disable the engines occlusion culling so once it determined that an object was definitely no longer visible it would skip drawing it altogether, and you would stop seeing it through walls. "True" wallhacks were able to override the clients occlusion culling and reveal everything, so to defend against that the occlusion culling needs to happen on the server, which came much later.
reply