mmustapic

Almost any Kim Stanley Robinson novel. In Pacific Edge he explicitly mentions he doesn’t want to write about utopia, he wants to describe the path, the struggle.

Also, “Another Now” by Yanis Varoufakis is very explicit in a path to a better future.

This man bought the prop recently

https://cowboystatedaily.com/2024/10/28/the-hunt-for-red-oct...

Sure there is, they can stop the military occupation and leave.

So if they don’t accept the offer Israel is giving them then they must suffer? It’s either what Israel offers or military occupation?

So the country that military occupies the territory where the Palestinian live, jails them, shoots them, restricts their movement, restricts their ability to build, restricts their airspace and borders, and they bear no responsibility? Israel’s primary policy is ethnicity, just check the “ Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People” enacted in 2018.

Maybe they don't like Israeli occupation which has been going on for 58 years, while their access to land has been reduced more and more.

And besides, I'm not even talking about statehood, my main point is Israel's awful treatment of Palestinians in the West Bank, based only on ethnicity.

So because in 1966 Egypt didn’t give them citizenship, Israel can do the same in 2025 plus occupying then military, displace them, jail them and kill them? Until when? 10 years more? 100? 1000?

Here’s more to this story https://conquer-and-divide.btselem.org/map-en.html

Israel owes them something because they control the territory where they live. If you are fine with countries anexing territories and then discriminating people based on ethnicity, then no, they don’t owe them anything.

So are Palestinians immigrants in Israel, without a visa? Even immigrants have freedom of movement and are subject to the same laws as nationals.

They are of course not illegals immigrants, because they were already there.

So what are they? When it’s convenient, they are a nation that doesn’t want peace. When it’s convenient, Palestine was never a country. So what is it?

Then don’t give them independence, but if Israel has administrative control of the area, it must respect the human rights of the people that live there. If I’m a foreign national in a country I can do almost everything a national can do besides voting: I can buy land wherever I want, move freely, work freely, travel abroad. Palestinians can’t. So it’s one or the other, either you consider them a nation with whom you can have a peace treaty and thus all the “they are not a country” doesn’t apply, or they are foreign nationals and you have to treat them as such. Israel chooses the awful option: apartheid, because then it can still keep an ethnic state whiteout killing or deporting millions. It is debatable if Israel needs to be an ethnic state to protect Jews, but at least its apologists should acknowledge that.

People live in the West Bank. If you take control of the area for 58 years you need to give them some rights and either make them citizens or give them independence. Neither thing happened, and the reality is that they live in an apartheid system, with different laws than other Israelis living in the same area. Israel might be a democracy but Palestinians are not citizens of Israel.

Germans expelled from parts of Europe was also bad, so?

It's either not occupied, it's part of Israel and Israel subjugates the Palestinians to an apartheid rule (with a big part of their lives controlled by Israel, included where they can move, work, live, and different laws applied to them), and harassed by colonists. Or it's Palestine and Israel is occupying it.

In any case the UN and the ICJ think it's occupied territory, and the colonies are a war crime.

The West Bank was occupied and colonised, which is a war crime. The peace deal involves leaving only a fraction of the territory to the Palestinians, and leaves Israeli citizens in the colonies.

It was called Half Life Day One, and I remember seeing it as a bundle with some hardware, not sure which one.

That’s not a choice to be made by superpower heads of state, but by individual people.

I don't think people who voted for Harris thought "yeah, let's keep healthcare pro corporate and screw the poor", they voted for other stuff. And I think people who voted for Trump didn't vote specifically against LGBTQ+ policies necessarily.

Of course, media and social media had a heavy influence, but on everybody.

This idolisation can also happen for the left (not democrats, I mean real left), but I think it's the minority. Unfortunately, people choose something new and potentially bad vs the same as usual. Not because of education, but because of limited choices.

I think you are terribly mistaken and, if I may, you are the one who seems to refuse to be educated (I don't say this as an insult). It is very easy to say "they are brutes" instead of looking at what exactly is going on and why democrats lost the elections.

As a non-US, I see very little difference between democrats and republicans, except maybe Trump. Democrats are the typical neoliberals: free markets, global capitalism, corporate rule, worldwide patents, etc. There is the famous chart that shows that since around the 80s the productivity went up while wages stagnate. Workers in the US right now are not in a much better position than 20 years ago.

Did the democrats campaign for improvements, raising the wages, improving healthcare, education? No, it was business as usual, "please don't vote Trump so we can keep things like now". Thus, many people said "fine, I'll vote for the other, he says things will be like before, literally".

So it's the Democratic Party who has baked into its DNA that things should not change, no matter what. I would say they could've won easily with some concessions, but those concessions go against their core beliefs.

Unfortunately, and because of this, Trump, a liar and conman, won. If they wanted to win they should've lied better, like Trump did.

> What's wrong with people getting rich by producing goods and services, and selling these to willing buyers?

They are not producing goods and services by themselves, but by having a usually massive workforce. We as a society are saying “ok, it is fine to keep the money if you work like that”.

On the other hand, we are seeing in real time what super rich people want in the end: power over the rest, not just money.

I would be exited if there were doing that, something really revolutionary, being faster with less fuel, or at least, flying at the same speed with less fuel. Unfortunately, it's something for the rich masquerading as an improvement for the entire world.

Still happy for the engineers working on this, they are probably having a great time designing a new aircraft.

Besides Sublime Text, the same company makes Sublime Merge, a great git UI.

> I’m sure this one will be.

If they are planning to make it more efficient than subsonic trips, it would be the first thing you would see in the website, or at least the FAQ. Supersonic flight is very cool, but for me this is just like Bugatti announcing a faster car for the rich, or an airline showing its first class luxury cabin: not very interesting.

Probably not, and for sure the company is not expecting to be more efficient than subsonic.

You can pay for business or first class. Supersonic flights won’t be cheaper.

> Efficient by what metric? Fuel use? That’s the new master of our existence, our six-proton czar?

If it can be cheap at supersonic speeds, it will be much cheaper at subsonic, always. And use less fuel. The only advantage you get is speed.

> The C.I.A. has said for years that it did not have enough information to conclude whether the Covid pandemic emerged naturally from a wet market in Wuhan, China, or from an accidental leak at a research lab there.

From "we don't know if it was a lab leak or spread from the market" to "we think it maybe is". Sure, they started this investigation with Biden, but just released it a couple of days ago AND they have even low confidence on it. So, why release it if the confidence is low? Why now? The answer is: new government, new conclusions.

So there’s a new president and the main intelligence agency changes its position radically in alignment with the new government. Why should we be confident in any other claim they made in the past?

It definitely happened with planes, we have a century of improvements that made them much much safer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_safety#Statistics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatigue_(material)#de_Havillan...

If all companies do that, who is going to buy their products?

If you are going to train black doctors, then you need to enrol them in universities. If you don’t want tu use scholarships or quotas, then you must make sure that those black candidates actually do good in high school, otherwise it’s DEI.

If you are giving scholarships or subsidies to black teenagers so they can eventually get into a university, that’s also DEI, so better subsidise their families so they can get a better primary education and upbringing… but that’s also DEI.

So you keep going back and the “solution” is basically to do nothing and keep the status quo.