Yes, there are a variety: logic problems, word puzzles, alphametics, various kinds of ciphers -- transposition, substitution, steganographic --, some coding challenges, and a whole slew of other puzzles that I don't quite know how to categorize.
This military response was the opposite of indiscriminate. It was proportionate and targeted. It focussed as best as anyone ever could on the precise set of people who (hiding among their own civilians) have been launching hundreds of inaccurate rockets to kill Israeli civilians - for months.
It isn't the "best ever" as there was no guarantee the pagers were worn only by combatants. As of now, of the 9 dead, 1/3rd are definitely not: 2 children & 1 woman.
> set of people who (hiding among their own civilians)
These people should always wear military uniform and live in a separate neighborhood even when they're not on duty? What do you propose?
> have been launching hundreds of inaccurate rockets
>These people should always wear military uniform and live in a separate neighborhood
That is on the table, yes. Otherwise, while they mingle with civilians, it's clear that the civilians are in danger. If I'm one of them, and I'm intent on persuing this action, moving to military quarters is going to come to mind.
Imagine one of those pagers, hip height, at a shop queue or bus stop. Or you're on a bike in traffic next to one of them.
Everything about this sucks. It absolutely is indiscriminate. It's different than droning a guy at his house and accepting his wife as collateral damange. This is 3,000+ maiming explosive devices scattered all about with no way of mitigating the collateral damange.
I definitely agree that it's a problem that fighters are dispersed among the civilian population. However, requiring them to wear uniforms and live on a base seems like it would make it impossible for a smaller force or an insurgency to stand up to a more powerful enemy that is able to wipe out any obvious military target at will.
What's the alternative that doesn't give powerful nations more or less absolute power to push around weaker nations or people?
I don't think anyone, especially civilians, love the idea of militants hiding among the population. I don't know why they must in order to stand up to a more powerful adversary. Regardless, this isn't some kind of rule. It's more of a consideration for that individual, like "should I be hanging out at home with my family while I'm engaged in a dirty war with an adversary that is willing to strike my family to get me?"
1. It's really rather common for active duty military to segregate themselves in combat zones. One of the reasons is that there is mutual benefit in reducing the exposure of civilians.
2. There is no alternative to a powerful entity getting its way. We have the word power simply to describe that capability. It's not an annointed status.
Guerrilla warfare has been a reliable way for a less powerful entity to resist a more powerful one. However, it often requires the less powerful entity to hide within the general population; which results in the problem that we are seeing here.
That could very well be. However, you aren't really engaging with the point I'm making. If weaker powers aren't supposed to do guerrilla warfare, then what are they supposed to do? Just letting other groups roll over them isn't a viable option.
Likewise, if you target enemy personnel knowing that civilians are going to be the primary victims, you might be committing war crimes, even when it works.
"By the same token, it's totally fine for Hezbollah to raze Tel Aviv, because the IDF is based there, thus using civilians as human shields. And almost all Israelis become soldiers at age 18."
I agree, both sides act with extreme disregard for the other side. Blaming Israel ignores that Hamas and Hezbollah and Iran are constantly provoking them, blaming Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran ignores that Israel is constantly provoking them. Going back and forth with "theyre terrorists" only leads to more terrorism.
I'm not advocating for anything. I'm just saying that it's unrealistic to expect people to just roll over for an enemy with greater conventional warfare capability.
Hiding among the civilian population is bad, but so is a situation where powerful states can oppress others without any check.
Personally, I'm not sure what a better alternative is. Which is why I asked my question.
Do we know approximately how many terrorists were killed and how many civilians were killed? Do we know what steps Israel took—if any—to prevent the target pagers from falling into civilian hands?
I like to think of abductive reasoning as the basis for science that explains natural processes that happened in the past -- like astronomy and geology and evolution -- where experiments are too big to conduct or processes too slow to observe in real-time. So we propose mechanistic explanations for nonobvious outcomes like the formations of stars, or motion of large land mass via plate tectonics or glaciation, or long-range organism speciation over millennia. That's the role for abduction, to explain how all that happened.
No, but agreement with priors is one way one might choose between possibilities.
For example suppose you go outside and the streets are wet. Perhaps it rained, or perhaps someone drove a fire truck around spraying water all over the streets. You might select the former because of its higher prior probability.
I don't know anyone doing good 1-5 day bootcamps, but I did recently do the multi-week live Kodeco (formerly Ray Wenderlich) iOS / SwiftUI bootcamp and really enjoyed it. I believe they also now offer an at-your-own-pace version as well.
This is very interesting to read. I am in Australia and quite interested in this investment thesis although I’m not an investment professional. What are the best things to read about the demand Supply mismatch?
Came here to make sure that Art of problem-solving and beast Academy are mentioned. They are fantastic. My son is deep into art of problem-solving after having finished beast Academy.
I think the second mocks the inclination of humans to reflexively admire everything that high status (ie rich) people do or say. It is similar to this amusing Yiddish saying: https://www.yiddishwit.com/gallery/sing.html
reply