Don't get me wrong, I like it.
But there's a fake nostalgia around terminals lately (nvim, oh-my-zsh, etc) and it seems emotional
248 karma · joined November 3, 2021
This now classical approach where the US is some absolute evil confronted by the nice guy Stalinists could be funny if not widespread
From what I remember everything about that decade was full of unrealistic optimism (end of history etc)
Still alive, kicking and making millions
I am pretty sure it had this kind of interface complete with the sound effects, or maybe i am confusing it with another game from that era
It was this fully automated airport, where the checkin is self serviced and you only interact with computers.
Eventually, when I inserted my boarding pass I had a printed piece of paper back that said that they had to change my seat from aisle to midseat
I then tried to find someone to talk to the entire way, but computers can only interact in the way the UI was designed, and no programmer accounted or cared for my scenario
The ground attendant couldn't have done anything of course because it wasn't part of the scope of her job, and this was the part of germany where nice was not one of their stereotypes.
Eventually I got a survey a week later about a different leg of the flight, so could I really complain there? that one was fine? I had a paranoid wonder if that was intentional
sometimes life is surprisingly complicated
While even though hezbollah is part of the Lebanese government, their entire modus operandi is based on being a non-state organization, which helps them keep the conflict low intensity (until at least up until this year)
2. And so do terrorist organizations. As this does not qualify as an international conflict this does not apply without the annex
3. The civilian casualties are absolutely minimal in proportion to the military usefulness much more than a classic attack.
About the escalatory nature, this is purely my opinion but after 1 year of open conflict that left many refugees, Israel would have to attack eventually.
Also when looking at this entire conflict as an Iran-Israel confrontation, this is merely a natural continuation
1. the original intent of the law was so further away from this scenario that it isn't really applicable in any form. You can see from the first clause that they envisioned a scenario where a soldier is hurt by a booby trapped flag being left in some base. Hence the fact this is part of the mine convention.
2. I am not convinced this actually applies in the legal sense of who signed what and whether these are armed forces at all. Generally intelligence agencies are not bound by international law and regularly do things such as use other armed forces uniforms which is illegal, or simply have non-uniformed paramilitary forces
3. The morale aspect: It is generally accepted among democratic nations that targeted assassinations against terror group members is legal. See US, UK, and a whole bunch of nations that were members of the Afghanistan, Iraq and anti-ISIS coalition.
If Israel had went with that route, each of those 3000 houses bombed would lead to many more dead by the surrounding families, similarly to in Gaza. While in this scenario, most were incapacitated in a non-lethal way (although still horrifying, this is war after all). Making this much better than the alternative
Furthermore, from the language of the west point article I understand he only states that this (The booby trap clause) is the only part of international law that may apply, not that it actually applies in this case
Also I fail to understand how being a member of the UN makes each of its conventions a binding law for each member country, can you please explain why?
I didn't see it was very definite in its conclusion that this was illegal.
In any case they mentioned that this only may be illegal under an annex which Israel is not signatory to, while Lebanon never was signatory to even the original
His quoted convention refers to use of booby traps by armed forces on a battlefield.
This is a supply chain operation by a clandestine intel org (Mossad presumably) against an ununiformed miltia/designated terror org.
I am not an international lawyer but my opinion is that it is a stretch to apply it here
Does it apply to unlawful combatants?
I think this only goes out to show that criticism towards Israel waging warfare is not really about the way that warfare is fought, but really on the right of Israel to fight at all. As no one in history has achieved a more precise attack in urban setting towards a non-uniformed organization ever.
for some reason I remembered these used REST
https://www.amazon.com/Fear-Food-History-Worry-about/dp/0226...
Although this might have some external implications, most of GCP does not rely on gRPC, even the external customers are not usually dependent on gRPC when using Google services.
Correct me if I'm wrong but gcloud uses REST and so do the libraries google publishes for using GCP apis in different languages.
The question is can Google stop supporting gRPC, protobuf or stubby tomorrow, and I still think gRPC is relatively at risk
The REST apis are converted to stubby internally, not gRPC which what makes it relatively disposable
as far as I remember most of the API is built on REST