P-ala-din

> Very recently as in 'in the UN assembly resolution authorizing the creation of Israel' (1947) or the 1985 basic law etc.

You are correct. I'm sorry. I was misremembering the news from when "Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People" [1] was passed in 2018. My bad, I can no longer edit my post though. So apparently "Jewish ethnic homeland in Palestine", "Jewish state" and "Jewish nation-state" mean different things and have different connotations. The latter being the recent and most controversial one.

for people that want to check the resolution referenced is UNGA181.[2]

Turns out the Palestinian opposition to the term is because they see it as giving up on their right of return (given to them by UNGA194 [3] )

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Law:_Israel_as_the_Natio...

[2] - https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/res181.asp

> the idea of Israel being a Jewish state

That was only very recently codified and was very controversial inside and outside of israel.

> They use it in very specific circumstances

I'm sorry but that's just incorrect, it's been used much more broadly.

for example according to Noam Chomsky:

"Actually, the locus classicus, the best formulation of this, was by an ambassador to the United Nations, Abba Eban, Israel's ambassador to the United Nations.... He advised the American Jewish community that they had two tasks to perform. One task was to show that criticism of the policy, what he called anti-Zionism—that means actually criticisms of the policy of the state of Israel—were anti-Semitism. That's the first task. Second task, if the criticism was made by Jews, their task was to show that it's neurotic self-hatred, needs psychiatric treatment. Then he gave two examples of the latter category. One was I. F. Stone. The other was me. So, we have to be treated for our psychiatric disorders, and non-Jews have to be condemned for anti-Semitism, if they're critical of the state of Israel. That's understandable why Israeli propaganda would take this position. I don’t particularly blame Abba Eban for doing what ambassadors are sometimes supposed to do. But we ought to understand that there is no sensible charge. No sensible charge. There's nothing to respond to. It's not a form of anti-Semitism. It's simply criticism of the criminal actions of a state, period"

on the subject of using accusations of anti-Semitism to stifle political debate inside the labour party, I'd recommend watching "the lobby" episode 3 [1]. Ironically the documentary itself was accused of antisemitism but Ofcom ruled against it. [2]

[1] - https://youtu.be/L3dn-VV3czc

[2] - https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/10/9/ofcom-dismisses-com...

> Taliban refusal to hand over Osama bin Laden for his central role in 9/11 terrorism

If we put in mind what we know post hoc about the torture and inhumane interrogation techniques used in both Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, wouldn't you agree that it's reasonable to assume that there was a high risk of torture? and isn't torture a well-accepted reason to block extradition.

In fact, let's take it even a step further in light of the fabrication of evidence seen in Iraq. The general atmosphere of hate at the time. not to mention that we now know that bin Laden not only was not tried but was thrown in a bag with the fish. How can we be so sure that he would have had received a fair trial? How would you even find an unbiased jury[1]?

Do we deem it ok to extradite someone to a place with a high risk of torture and unfair trial?

[1] - this is a rhetorical question but I'm actually curious how would one find such a jury that hasn't already made its mind?

What's kinda creepy in the Tunisian situation, is the amount of false information being spread on social media, especially Facebook.

For example, there are several posts of a screenshot of an aljazeera post, next to a not fully loaded screenshot of Blinken's twitter claiming that aljazeera mistranslated the tweet.

The narrative they are trying to push is that aljazeera is biased and therefore the president was justified in ordering its office raided.

Had the tweet's page been allowed to fully load, it would have shown that Blinken's tweet was part of a thread where the second tweet matches what Aljazeera said.

src: https://old.reddit.com/r/Tunisia/comments/out08w/influencers...

Even creepier, I saw that one of my acquaintances had shared one such post. I commented to inform them of the situation and linking the official tweet thread.

My comment got removed for "spam" (I only posted exactly one comment, once) and there was no option to appeal the removal. I contacted her through private channels and she claims she didn't even see the comment. (I presume the automated systems saw that tweet's link was being posted a lot??)

So not only is the false information kept up but attempts to correct it through discussion are automatically removed.

I just watched this video a few hours ago because youtube randomly recommended it to me.

I wonder if it's just the Baader–Meinhof effect or if the post was caused by the same youtube algorithm.

I would also recommend Bit Twiddling Hacks By Sean Eron Anderson [1] and Hacker's Delight.

[1] - https://graphics.stanford.edu/~seander/bithacks.html

Another stain on NYT's history is this: https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/43144/did-an-un...

that was not my question.

and wearing a giant cross is not mandatory in christianity.

- I mean freedom of religion is a human right.

- So In a majority christian state, is it ok to discriminate against jews?

The underlying assumption is if you wear a hijab, you're not integrated.

I honestly feel like this is just religious discrimation with extra steps.

A thing I want to stress, is that you pay for the "complexity" just once, and it gets amortized over all projects that use this code.

This is a standard technique, that is often used in String functions. You can see it also in implementations of strlen.

I feel like these are poor choices.

* linked lists shouldn't be used anyway. and if they are used, you should use the standard implementation

* directly applying fibbonacci is trivial.

* sort: This is just a memorisation task, what's the point? (99% of the time, you shouldn't implement your own sort)

although, I agree with the open-book approach in the problem solving part.

if masks don't make things worse, then they can only help.

(to explain more: there is a mechanism by which they help. so for them to not help (in total) , there must be a way in which they make things worse)

so you're saying that the gaps are so wide that almost no contaminated particle (getting in) will get stuck on the mask?

but somehow (some of the) particles going out will get stuck.

how is that simple?

I feel like I have a wrong model of how things work.

I'm thinking that for each virus there is a chance that it will infect a cell. The higher the viral load, the higher the number of chances that you will get infected.

a lower number of droplets -> lower viral load -> less chance to be infected.

just to make sure that I'm understanding:

- If using X reduces the probability of contracting P. then X protects you from X. right?

- If a mask prevents you from touching your face and that reduces the probability of contracting the disease. Then masks do indeed protect you.

> I wouldn't want my doctor to only wear a mask.

I feel that this is a strawman.

- - -

but even if we ignore the face-touching, I don't understand how is it possible for masks to make things worse.

if we were talking about bacteria, then yes the bacteria can fester there.

but if the virus is carried by droplets, and a part of these droplets end up on the mask instead of in your nose. then surely that would reduce the probability of being infected right?

just supporting your point: Why Women Don’t Apply for Jobs Unless They’re 100% Qualified [1]

[1] - https://hbr.org/2014/08/why-women-dont-apply-for-jobs-unless...

another factor is the desire to separate ideas from their author.

for example, double-blind peer review.

*then

> Don't you have sociology classes or political education in school?

yes, I've had an overly technical education but I fail to see how that's relevant.

> I just looked up the word to make sure

I feel like you misread my argument. "seems to think" means that I don't agree with him. Some people, including the person that this thread-tree is about (in my opinion) use integration when they mean cultural erasure. (aka assimilation)

if people speaking/dressing differently in a train implies that they are not integrated (according to him). Than integration (according to him) implies that people do not speak/dress differently which I see as cultural erasure.

And from my own experience, I've been told by a Turkish friend that he received cold stares and was yelled at for speaking Turkish with his daughter in public transportation (out of concern for her integration). Although, it's a common technique for each parent to speak a single language when you want to raise a bilingual child.

and honestly, it's not that novel of an idea:

- "In fact, integration has become a code word in some circles for intolerance and discrimination" - The Emerging Monoculture: Assimilation and the "model Minority" De William E et al

- 'the older völkish notion of German national identity lurks behind calls for acculturation as a condition for social acceptance.In contemporary Germany, "integration" is a codeword for cultural assimilation, with a strong emphasis on learning the majority language and history.' - From the Bonn to the Berlin Republic: Germany at the Twentieth Anniversary of Unification. Jeffrey J. Anderson. Eric Langenbacher.

> I do not have any sympathy for immigrants refusing to integrate?

what do you mean by integrate? are immigrants allowed to speak their native tongue, dress differently or act differently?

does Integration to you mean the complete erasure of their past identities? because that what the German in the pub seems to think.

I think we call things rights only if someone potentially wants to take them. If no one ever took or would ever take a specific right from anyone, I don't see what's the point of calling that a right.

for every right, there are situations where someone stands to gain something from denying it. Therefore financial gain, stopping the bad guys are not in themselves sufficient excuse to deny innocent people their rights.

This admittedly causes an asymmetry making the abolition of rights much costlier than their recognition.

but I'd argue that's a good thing, as it reduces ladder pulling where people only recognize rights in the periods where it suits them. And in the long run results in people having more recognized rights.

but as opposed to "offensive suggestions", there is nothing wrong with showing-skin.

if a study can't be replicated then the study is wrong isn't it?

either the sample was too small, they got unlucky or the result is stated too generally.

yeah, the definition of prevalence is clear to me.

but it's the other way around. Men and women are affected with the same severity but women are more likely to develop it. ( or at least that's what I understood from bradjohnson's comment).

That makes sense, thanks. I was misled by the use of "prevalence" in the first part of the sentence.

Of course, that's true but I can't map that to the statements at hand.

I understood it to be:

P(W) == P(M)

and P(W) > P(M)

the way I parsed the question made it seem that they are incompatible. hence why I asked. it's my bad because I didn't explain myself.

I understood the first sentence to be saying that the proportion of men experiencing "imposter's syndrome" is the equal to the proportion of woman experiencing it.

I understood The second sentence to say that a higher proportion of women experience it.

To my understanding, it's not possible for these two statements to be true at the same time. So one must be wrong.

so which one is wrong?