nahumfarchi

It stopped charging and then died

Any kindle device that I bought barely lasted more than a couple of years, so joke is on them I guess?

Mathematically, it means that the number of lines read is bounded by 10*M, where M is some constant. So it's basically equivalent to saying that it's O(1).

I'm guessing that intention was to say "around 10 lines", though it kind of stretches the definition if we're being picky.

I don't get HN anymore. This comment reflects a legitimate stance that's articulated just fine. Why is it grayed out?

Sources?

The current government is in power by a small majority, meaning that it is strongly contested by about 50% of Israelis (on most matters). That means against settlements, for ending the war, and largely liberal views. But no, we won't put out head on a platter thank you very much.

A geometry processing library in the Odin language - https://github.com/nahumfarchi/odin-geometry.

Not much yet, it includes a basic half-edge implementation and a couple of small examples.

Yes, all finite languages are regular.

Specifically, you can construct a finite automata to represent it.

Their death is tragic, but such is war unfortunately... Lebanon is participating in this one whether they like to or not.

That aside, these definitions were written for a reason, even if they have no appeal to the current victims.

Proportionality is at the center of defining a war crime.

"The principle of proportionality (Article 51(5) (b) API) states that even if there is a clear military target it is not possible to attack it if the expected harm to civilians, or civilian property, is excessive in relation to the expected military advantage."

https://www.diakonia.se/ihl/resources/international-humanita...

So, the case that Israel has to make here is that the expected millitary advantage from the operation exceeds the collateral damage. The fact that civilians died doesn't automatically make it a war crime from an international law point of view.

I would love to see a list of "oldies but goldies" in various fields. Wonder if you're aware of such a thing?

Nit: the Israeli government is in Jerusalem, not Tel Aviv.

His policy towards Hamas was one of containment and not making a decision, which is classic Netanyahu behavior. I don't know whether or not his biographies agree with this, but this is pretty much the consensus among Israelis. Again, I truly doubt that October 7th is what he was aiming for (happy to change my mind if there is evidence otherwise).

> Similarly any talk of peace from the Israeli government is meaningless while settlement of the West Bank continues.

The same can be said of the terror attacks. I strongly agree that the settlements are an obstacle to peace and apologize if my comment came off as aggressive. But you have to realize that this is a deadlock. No Israeli leader can stop the settlements as long as there are terror attacks, and no Palestinian leader can stop the terror attacks as long as there are settlements. That is our tragedy I suppose.

Sorry, but this adds nothing to the discussion. Yes, they were settlers (I don't think anyone in this sub-thread argued otherwise). Yes, they shouldn't have been there in the first place. And yet the Israeli government uprooted them at great pain for all involved (after encouraging them to settle there in the first place). Some interpret this as some grand political manuever intended to divide the Palestinians and make a diplomatic solution impossible. This is an odd assertion in my opinion since how could anyone have foreseen that Hamas would be voted into power and spiral us into more than a decade of war? I for one believe it was a gesture of good will (probably brought about by external pressure considering it was Ariel Sharon who led it, originally a strong pro-settlments politician), and an experiment to see what would happen if Israel returned land without an official agreement as all attempts at negotiations have failed at that point in time. The fact that this did not work has a lot to do with the choices made collectively by Palestinians at least as much as those made by Israelis. To say otherwise ignores their agency and freewill in these events.

Excel is notoriously bad at that :)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leap_year_problem

Civillians and those who do not want to take part in the fighting have been allowed to move south for their own safety while the IDF deals with the numerous underground tunnels from which Hamas operates. This is not an ethnic cleansing (though easy to portray it as one), and if they're not allowed to go back when this is over then I'm willing to put down my Israeli passport and call it quits (I will cerainly vote against any politician who makes such a suggestion).

The conflict is insignificant in the sense that hundreds of thousands have been killed and displaced in other conflicts raging in the middle east, which has been largely ignored by the international community and the "ceasefire" crowd. Not to mention the fact that Hamas's ministry of health counts all deaths as civillians, while in truth a lot were probably combatants, and this is then treated as gospel by the international community. This is a major source of frustration among Israelis, and in my opinion an obstacle to having an honest discussion around this.

Regarding a one state solution - up to those living here. Currently, it doesn't seem to be a realistic solution, will probably be rejected by the majority, and will not end the fighting anyway.

Finally, regarding aid, Hamas received tons of money. It just chose to use it for military purposes instead of bettering the lives of their people. The tunnels alone cost an estimated 150$ million (or 200-300$ per meter). We can only imagine how much better life in Gaza would have been if this was spent otherwise.

And you're ignoring the fact that our neighbors are hostile towards us and share a border with another country.

In this certain case, it is. The aggressions (during this round) started on October 7th by Hamas. You can replace "defense" with "response" / "retaliation" / or "zionist agressions" if you're reading certain news sources. I will admit that the my background affected my word choice to some extent.

The history of this conflict is a lot more complex than the occupier/ occupied framing would imply. For one, there was a Jewish presence here for centuries, not to mention the ancient kingdom of Judea. But I find these discussions unconstructive usually since they seem to get into these "he hit me first" kind of arguments. I agree that a two state solution is what we should be striving for. Humans are creative, if the will was there, we would find a way to connect Gaza and the West Bank (tunnel/bridge/whatever), do some territory swaps as needed, divide Jerusalem, etc. The plans for this exist, it's the leadership that's failing (on both sides).

What about the Jews who were ejected from neighboring Arab countries during these various wars? Do they get to go back home? Do you truly believe a compromise can be reached with an organization that committed a massacre on the scale of October 7th? Personally, I'm willing to compromise a lot for peace (divide Jerusalem, give up the west bank, whatever. Fighting over land/religion is absurd), but I honestly don't believe that's what Hamas is aiming for. Their actions at least indicate otherwise.

Before Netanyahu there were at least four prime ministers - Ehud Olmert, Ehud Barak, Shimon Peres, and Yitzhak Rabin - who've made honest attempts at peace. Not to mention Ariel Sharon who has, despite being a hard right-winger, lead the disengagement from Gaza (at a tremendous political cost). You seem to be placing the responsibility for these failures entirely on one side.

The US and Canada seem to be doing fine. France and Germany. Thailand and Laos (as far as I know). Your statement is vague and does not seem to take into account the actual realities of living in perpetual insecurity.

That's quite a bit of selective reading there. Where you see "'67 borders", I see "Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea".

River = the Jordan River

Sea = the Mediterranean sea

=> calling for the destruction of Israel. But sure, we'll take '67 as an intermediate step.

Based on what? He's a cynical real politik kind of guy, but I doubt this is how he hoped this would play out. At the end of the day, I believe that his legacy is extremely important to him, and he probably did not want to be remembered as the one in power during one of the worse massacres against Jews since the holocaust. Not to mention that it's highly likely he'll be voted out during the next elections (TBD...)

We've tried defense, didn't work out. Which laws of armed conflict are you specifically referring to?

Israel is a democracy made up of various parties with a whole spectrum of opinions. Some are for a two state solution (center-left), some for a one state solution in the form of "greater israel" (hard right, fringe elements if you ask me), and others that honestly just don't give it much thought. Hamas, on the other hand, is quite ideological about its stance with regards to the destruction of Israel.

1. You've made the comparison between a (if we're being honest here), in the grand scale of things, rather insignificant military conflict between two parties, and industrial scale genocide. So I find the framing problematic. I would like this war to end just as much as you (probably more since I actually have something to lose here). But I don't see an alternative as long as Hamas is in power.

2. OK, let's agree to disagree.

3. I think a more accurate description would be that hardliners on both sides torpedoed it at various points in time. But sure, occupation.

So your solution for two groups of people who can't seem to stop killing each other is to put them together under one state? Sorry, but I think I'll politely pass :)

(And continue to hope for a peaceful, two state solution)

That is a weird tangent to take. The population size in Gaza nearly doubled in the last 20 years, reaching approximately 2 million (). If the sea blockade is a population control measure, it's a highly ineffective one. Did ever you stop to consider that it's, maybe, I don't know, to stop them from bringing in stuff to shoot at us?

() https://www.ft.com/content/7b618433-ba5f-4e92-a3e0-d5d41d6d1...

You're assuming that the probability to be drafted is the same for a tech worker as for the rest of the population. I don't know whether that's a valid assumption or not...

As a Jew, I have quite a few qualms with the comparison to Warsaw. I'm not denying the suffering in Gaza in any way, but it's far fetched to put this on the same grounds as Warsaw, in which an estimated 300-400k Jews were murdered, and which was just one of an industrial system of mass murder.

I agree that the settlements are an obstacle to peace, no argument there. But there are solid reasons why the border between Israel and Gaza has been closed (putting aside the fact that we're not obligated to open our borders, especially when the other side isn't exactly friendly). Note that they also have a border with Egypt, how come that's pretty much closed as well? (I'll give you a hint - Gaza is ruled by what is basically a fanatic death cult, and Eygpt wants nothing to do with it).

Your proposed solution is "end occupation and oppression". I'll ignore the one-sided phrasing and just say we've tried that with the Oslo accords, the disengagement from Gaza, and numerous negotiations, all leading to this point in time. So again, what would you do?