mcpackieh

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the last time they had an election was 2006, and Hamas only won a plurality, not majority, of the votes then.

Assuming Palestinians had to be 18 to vote in that election, which was 17 years ago now, any Palestinian about 34 years old or younger didn't vote for Hamas, and most Palestinians older than that didn't vote for them either.

Visually and physically, Palestinians and Israelis are virtually impossible to distinguish. Some of them obviously can be distinguished by their fashion choices and circumstance, but physically they're basically identical. There are instances of people posting pictures of injured or scared Palestinian children mistaking them for Israeli children, their confusion evident from their outraged remarks accompanying the picture, then deleting the post shortly later when somebody points out their mistake.

https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/jamie-l...

Somebody could probably run this trick deliberately to make a point; go around to American evangelical churches using pictures of Palestinians presented as Israelis to tear-jerk the (overwhelmingly zionist) evangelical Christians, then reveal the truth to them. Maybe the message would get through to a few.

Selling literal piss for supposed health benefits sounds right up Gwyneth Paltrow's alley.

All existing pandas are owned by the PRC so the chance of somebody selling a panda for real, vs selling some sort of panda themed toy/book/etc, is virtually nil. No human would make this mistake; their filter is braindead.

Mmmm, I know rattlesnakes are said to be a pretty good meal. I wonder if pythons and boas taste any good. Those big snakes might make a delicious feast.

When it comes time to replace the batteries for your electric mower, you might consider getting an oldschool "reel" mower (the sort with no motor.) You might have to mow more often since they work better with shorter grass, but for a quarter of an acre they're pretty reasonable. The big advantage over an electric motor is lower operating costs in the long term. Of course it depends on what kind of grass you have.

Small pickup trucks used to be popular, when I was a kid most pickup trucks weren't much larger than a station wagon, but the government fucked it up by setting MPG requirements lower for larger trucks, incentivizing manufacturers to go big. At this point consumer tastes have adapted to the market and small trucks probably wouldn't sell well even if the regulations were fixed to make them feasible.

For my part, my tastes never changed. Modern pickup trucks are hideous giant blob abominations. But that's not the way most people feel anymore.

> Can't the maintainers simply ignore shitty code?

Giving honest feedback is infinitely more useful to any engineer who's skin is thick enough to receive it.

If an engineer can't receive criticism of their work without getting their feelings hurt, then other engineers they work with will be inclined to softball criticism of the work to preserve that engineer's feelings. Letting inter-personal considerations get in the way of engineering is a liability to the process. Engineers need to have thick skin and remember that they are not their work.

> a scientist who went to MIT for undergrad and Princeton for a Phd, and then taught at Cornell and Caltech

Hmm, you left out his work for the Manhattan Project. I get the impression he learned a lot there from the other people he worked with.

This attributes the drop to a price increase, but I wonder if rising anti-western sentiment has hurt western brands in China generally. Yes I know iPhones are made in China, it's probably still perceived as a western brand relative to Huawei.

It's also pretty easy to make your own yogurt. If you buy a little bit of live yogurt to start, you can start your own yogurt production using that.

Most old accounts would probably never try to log in again anyway. After you learn that you're 3/64-ths Irish you've gotten what you wanted, why log in again?

Yeah I know there's the whole genetic disorder screening thing which might receive more updates in the future, but I think most of their customers probably did this for the novelty of knowing where they came from.

There is no response too extreme in defense of the utility and relevance of the telephone system. The telephone system is one of modern humanity's crowning jewels, attacks against it are attacks against civilization itself. The government should be striking non-compliant telco executives with AGM-114R9X missiles (they've had several years of warning already) and then start working down the chain of command until the guilty telcos either surrender and comply or no longer exist. I am a moderate.

Nuclear attribution is probably easier than undersea sabotage attribution.

For one, the list of possible suspects is much smaller with a nuclear attack. This is particularly now that covert undersea sabotage using cheap undersea drones is technically feasible for countries without a traditional submarine force. Undersea sabotage may also be carried out in a plausibly deniable way, using fishing trawlers to "accidentally" snag a cable. Probably this has already happened numerous times already, but it's very difficult to prove intent with this sort of thing.

The traditional delivery mechanisms for a nuclear weapon are easily traceable. Even using an SLBM is relatively traceable; if an SLBM comes from the Barents Sea, there will be little doubt who sent it. And the chance of the launching boomer being actively monitored by an oppositional SSN when the launch occurs is too great to ignore. The ballistic properties of the SLBM probably reveal the make and model anyway.

The greatest risk is from a nuke smuggled into the target area. However the risk of discovery is very high relative to the risk of discovery for undersea sabotage and there's no plausible "just an accident" excuse. Furthermore you have the serious risk of forensic evidence from the blast and fallout revealing the manufacturer of the bomb. And what's the point of nuclear terrorism if not to send a message, and how can that message be sent if nobody can guess who did it? With pipe or cable sabotage, the point may be to directly inflict economic damage. Using nukes to inflict economic damage is complete overkill when alternatives exist (such as undersea sabotage, hacking attacks, etc) that don't put the aggressor nation's leadership personally at risk from a retaliatory nuclear strike.

Having most of the population holed up inside is bad for long-term economic growth too. Ineffectual internet-schooling replacing normal in-person schooling for more than a short time period would be particularly devastating to long-term economic growth.

Vote counts indicate post popularity with the subset of users who are in the thread, they don't indicate truth.

Post that there's no verifiable empirical evidence for aliens in a thread about Navy pilots spinning tall tales and you'll get a lower post score than the people saying that Navy pilots are unimpeachable founts of truth who would never lie, much less get confused. All this reflects is the fact that people who want to believe are more likely to be drawn to a thread about aliens, and people who are skeptical of it tend to ignore those threads or actively stay away because they're afraid of what might happen to their worthless internet point score.

"It can't be depression because my wife has it. You need to do more research, please subscribe to doomerist facebook groups to read all about it."

If you can only think of a single example of the police being excessively violent against a white person, then you are woefully under-informed. I'm not surprised though, I blame the media.

You're [deliberately?] misinterpreting the stated intent of the law. A gun that goes off when dropped is substantially less safe than a gun which doesn't. People who buy guns are in fact justified in considering such factors.

I think there's a real case to be made that the Californian law is duplicitous and is actually intended to reduce the availability of handguns in California, but that's not the point being raised here. The point is that for some reason Californian cops are exempt from from the law. That's like exempting cops from the lawn dart ban, it makes no sense.

California's Unsafe Handgun Act is ostensibly intended to protect consumers from cheaply manufactured handguns that might malfunction or otherwise be unsafe to operate.

Here is California's Attorney General explaining it:

https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bont...

> “California’s commonsense gun safety laws save lives, and the Unsafe Handgun Act is no exception,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Accidental shootings are preventable. The fact that children under five are the most likely victims makes these accidental gun deaths even more tragic and inexcusable. As weapons become faster, more powerful, and more deadly, this risk only increases. Flooding the marketplace with unsafe semiautomatic pistols that do not meet necessary safety requirements poses a serious threat to public health and safety, especially for children and young adults.”

> The UHA was originally enacted over two decades ago in response to the proliferation of low-cost, cheaply made handguns that posed consumer safety risks. Under the UHA, the California Department of Justice (DOJ) compiles and maintains a Roster of Certified Handguns that meet certain public safety requirements. Generally, a handgun must appear on the roster to be sold by a California firearm dealer.

> When the UHA was first enacted, revolvers and pistols were required to have safety devices and pass drop safety and firing tests at independent laboratories in order to be added to the roster. [...] The UHA has since been amended, adding additional safety requirements for semiautomatic pistols including that a new semiautomatic pistol must have:

> A chamber load indicator that indicates if the pistol is loaded; A magazine disconnect mechanism that prevents the pistol from firing when the magazine is not inserted; and Microstamping capabilities that allow law enforcement to trace a shell casing to the pistol that fired it.

So this law is ostensibly intended to protect people who buy handguns and those around them. But cops are exempt, because... cops never drop their guns?

If an engineer can't receive criticism of their work without taking it personally then they're a liability to the project. Taking criticism of your work in stride is an essential part of the job.

> but locking it behind an account (plus WEI, but 99% of users won't know the difference) seems like it wouldn't cause outrage.

You're probably right. For my part at least, 720p video from youtube almost always satisfies me (and leaves me with more battery life anyway.)

I'll repeat what I said elsewhere in this thread. Linus insulted the code, not the person who wrote it. In engineering, conflating criticism of your work with personal criticism of yourself is a sin.

His derisive "Congrats!?" would already be in violation of modern American corporate communication guidelines and policies. That sarcastic praise made me feel belittled. The exclamation mark made me feel threatened and unsafe. Failing to coddle me is aggression.

> You're in your mid thirties, and still talking like this.

This constitutes a personal insult (calling him immature for his age), so you aren't walking your talk. In this comment you're going much further than Linus's review being discussed, which doesn't contain any personal insults.

Maybe you think you're giving zelon88 a taste of his medicine like this, but if truly believe that people are obliged to communicate in a corporate-friendly manner you wouldn't be dishing out personal abuse like this to make a point. Overt tit-for-tat abusive communication doesn't fly in a modern psuedo-friendly corporate environment; you have to be more clever about it. In other words, you should lead by example.

> Clearly nobody has ever done it to you!

You really think nobody has ever been curt or even rude with zelon88? That beggars belief. Of course he has been on the receiving end of it; everybody has. Don't waste your time with the "you don't know what it's like" argument, nobody is going to believe that. You're wasting your time and undermining yourself with this tit-for-tat approach.

> swipes at the author's competency or intent ("worthless", "complete nonsense", "totally illogical"),

These remarks are directed at specific problems wit the code. Linus did not call the author worthless, nonsensical or illogical. In engineering, conflating criticism of your work with personal criticism of yourself is a sin.

> I do not think bypassing or blocking ads is the way forward. In the free democratic world...

Ads are psychological warfare against the human mind. Advertising campaigns are designed/directed by unscrupulous mercenaries trained in the latest psychology, willing to use every manipulative technique known to science to manipulate you on behalf of the highest bidder. This mass-manipulation undermines democracy and is broadly harmful to society in general.

Youtube wants to be a ubiquitous presence in modern culture, therefore it is in their interest to continue to support all the old and busted computers/etc that are still in common use. This includes allowing people to watch videos without an account using the old busted up computer they have in the back room at work, keeping youtube accessible on publicly shared IPs like libraries, coffee shops, even VPNs.

I believe they will be very reticent to cut off access to this long tail of users with outdated computers, with no account on shared IPs. As long as this is true, it will be possible to use youtube in contradiction to their TOS. They could lock things down quite tight overnight by requiring people to sign in and use up to date browsers/players, but doing so would threaten their ubiquity.

The game is rigged, so you should stop caring about the rules.

Also, don't associate your google account with your youtube usage. Problem solved.