yosamino

I was going to write a whole different comment, but then I thought

> What if, yosamino, your knowledge of the euphemism of knocking on a roof is outdated and this km3r is right? you should probably double check so that in case they are right, you are not having a stupid argument but one backed by facts.

And then I found this hilarious quote:

> As women and children lived in the house, a Hellfire missile was initially shot at the roof as a warning.

referring to American slaughter in Mosul, but still relevant.

The more relevant description is in this article

> The US has adopted a controversial air strike technique known as "roof-knocking", which is best known for its use by Israeli forces during conflicts in Gaza.

> The tactic involves detonating a small explosive above the roof a target as a way of signalling to nearby civilians to get out of range.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/27/us-adopts-contro...

Which tracks a lot better with the descriptions of the practice I have heard from people who experienced it.

So while this is from 2016 and by that metric is 10 years old, you'd have to please show me some information about the army of the state of Israel downgrading their tactics from sending as small bomb to sending a ... what are you claiming they are dropping? a rock ?

Hello friend.

From Palestine I want to send you all the best wishes for freedom in Iran. It's time.

And to my Jewish sisters and brothers and siblings in general I want to send a wish for for freedom and end of this stupid hatred..

There is not actually a good reason for all this violence.

> I recall some time ago an Israeli strike--they hit with a roof knocker, Hamas responded by ordering the neighbors to rush to the roof. Too slow, the house was packed with people when the bomb fell. And somehow that's Israel's fault?!

I don't even understand what you are trying to tell me here. You are constructing a sourceless story that after the Israeli Army dropped a small bomb on a house ( "roof knocker" is a euphemism) Hamas ordered some civilians to go on top of the roof.

Hamas did this, in your telling, because they knew that the first small bomb, was the precursor to a large second bomb designed to explode the whole building.

What would be the military objective here? Hamas knows that human shields do not stop the Israeli army. So it was not to stop the Israeli army from blowing up the building.

Even worse, your logic is not even that Hamas ordered the civilians to go up on the roof not because they thought it would prevent the Israeli army from blowing up the house, you write

> Hamas deliberately gets people killed.

that means you think that Hamas sent these people on the roof to let the Israeli army execute them, not even to use them as a human shield.

That is such a confused story.

Can you explain what you are talking about ?

What probably really happened is that Israel did a double tap: attack once, wait for people to rush back to tend to the injured, attack them again.

While atrocious, there is at least a military tactic behind this.

Your story about Hamas sending people on a roof in order for them to be killed has no sense to it and it seems it's only purpose is to dehumanize Palestinians.

But maybe I am off here. Please explain what you were trying to tell me again.

> Hamas murdering their own citizens again

A good test of whether claim like this is true is to swap out the actor and put in "the Jews"

Like this:

> The Jews murdering their own citizens again

Suddenly it sounds like an antisemitic conspiracy theory.

And the reason why that works, is that antisemitism has nothing to do with Jews, for stupid reasons they just ended up as the victim of it.

What it does do, is expose antisemitic thinking, which is, in the end, really just concentrated anti-human thinking.

So if I was you, I would start examining how I construct argument and critically evaluate information I come across.

Yes, there is a long term effort by the State of Israel to remove Palestinian life from Palestinian land.

The term "genocide" noes not mean "kill every single member of a group", it refers to the destruction of the group itself by whatever means.

> you’re just repeating what you read unthinkingly if you say genocide.

Your policy of deeming everybody who does not have the same opinion as you to be too stupid, is smug, self serving and lazy.

See, I could just also go ahead and tell you that you are too "unthinkingly" to know that "ethnic cleansing" is a euphemism for "genocide" and that "long term ethnic cleansing" is exactly congruent in meaning with "genocide" (look it up).

Instead of doing that, I would like you to consider that when I say that the state of Israel is committing a genocide against the Palestinian people, I have thought long and hard about whether that is the appropriate term, and without taking it lightly, I have for myself concluded that that is actually the correct term.

I find that a good sniff-test in politics is to change the actor in a claim to be Jewish and then consider if that make the claim an antisemitic conspiracy theory. Works surprisingly well.

For example:

> facing an enemy [Hamas] who does everything they can to get their own people killed to make you look bad

Imagine the "enemy" in that sentence was not "Hamas", but "The Jews" - that would be a very antisemitic narrative, and in a similar way that antisemitism has nothing really to do with Jews, but rather with antisemites what you are writing here just shows your hatred.

> does everything to get their own people killed

for the purposed of making the killer look bad, is such a naïve take on this. Do you think netanyahu and his cronies care about "looking bad" ? To whom ? That ship has sailed since at least the 90ies.

The meaning of your comment is

> The people I don't agree with are too stupid to understand what they are supporting.

That is lazy thinking, and your claim is unsubstantiated. That doesn't move a discussion towards a better understanding of each other, it fosters division.

Please don't do that.

here you go:

> The Israel Defense Forces believes that the Hamas-run health ministry’s death toll from the war in the Gaza Strip has been largely accurate, a senior Israeli military official acknowledged on Thursday.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-believes-70000-gazans-kill...

IDF claims 2/3 to 3/4 of killed are civilians. Now add in that around half of the population of Gaza is under 18 and also that half the population is female.

I know that I will not convince you, you are a person who thinks "lol" is adequate terminology when discussing the killing of humans, but you also don't get to lie about things on the internet that even the party you support does not lie about.

Please try and adhere to the standard of conversation that all of us on HN are trying have to elevate our discussion. Read it here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

> I literally quoted the comment in my reply.

You selectively quoted the comment in your reply, leaving out some crucial information in order to set up a straw man argument.

I just helpfully pointed this out to you, because you were asking why someone was accusing you of arguing in bad faith. You can do with that whatever you wish.

If you are interested in why it's easy to recognize your way or arguing ( and I just want to note that it was not me who accused you of 'bad faith' argumentation in the first place), I can recommend Schopenhauer's "Die Kunst Recht zu behalten"[0] - your original

> To be clear, do you think it's bad to use technology to detect and stop terrorism?

shows up there as Chapter 7 "Yield Admissions Through Questions" among others.

You will note that I gave you an entire explanation to your specific assertions instead of just pointing to some book.

The thing about that is, though, that it's a bit boring sometimes because It often seems like every thought has already been though before. We humans seem to like to go in a circle. Just like the two us are doing right now.

I hope you have great rest of the week.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_Being_Right

If you are arguing in good faith, why are you not reading what you are arguing about.

The full quote is:

> excuse me if I don't take their word as to whom they're fighting for granted. Especially not after what they did in Gaza.

That claim is not as as absolute as you make it out. It does not mean "Israel is lying about everything". "Not taking for granted" just means not to assume everything is true without questioning it. It just means, as I put it earlier: there is an overt thing being said, but there is also the suspicion of an ulterior motive.

The comment then goes on to give you a reason to be suspicious which in this case is the destruction of Gaza along with the atrocities the Israelis committed and the well documented dehumanizing rhetoric that points to a hatred against Palestinians as a whole that exists in Israeli society.

That comment doesn't argue that "somehow all the terrorism doesn't matter" - it says, there is more to it than just terrorism.

I am not sure why you are calling this a "mysterious thing" or "absurd" or "bizarre" - if you read any zionist literature or follow any zionist discussions, online or offline, then that viewpoint is regularly being expressed.

Or if you need another clue that technology is used for oppression and not just defense, go look at the West Bank and the land theft that is taking place there and how that is implemented.

Look, if you want to have a good faith political argument you need to consider that the people who you are arguing against are not all just crazy and stupid and that you somehow are in possession of some information that they somehow are not. People have different reasons for arguing different positions.

If you do not in fact actually believe that another person is arguing something crazy and bizarre, but instead you are using this as a rhetorical trick, then that is the almost the definition if arguing in bad faith.

But if you do actually believe someone's claim is crazy, mysterious or absurd, simply because you are refusing to understand their argument, then you are not contributing to discussion, and you need to go back and try to understand how it is possible that someone could come to a different understanding of a situation than you. You don't have to agree with it, you just need to understand it's possible.

Edit: Check how apropos the news is today

> “Destroy the idea of an Arab terror state; finally, formally and practically cancel the cursed Oslo Accords and get on the path of sovereignty, while encouraging migration both from Gaza and from Judea and Samaria,” said Smotrich, using the biblical term for the West Bank. “There is no other long-term solution.”

https://www.timesofisrael.com/smotrich-next-government-shoul...

No, the original argument was that Israel - spelled out for you, because you are pretending you missed it - is using these technologies for the brutal suppression of the whole of the of the Palestinian people and that the overt motive of "fighting terrorism" is used as a fig-leaf to hide the ulterior motive of ethnically cleansing the Palestinians from their lands.

Your question, which was really an assertion, asking if "it's bad to use technology to detect and stop terrorism" is in bad faith, because you know very precisely that the person you were replying to does not think it's bad to "use technology to detect and stop terrorism", but instead you were using that question as a rhetorical device to assert that all Israel is doing is the overt action "detect and stop terrorism" in an effort to deny that Israel is also doing the ulterior ethnically cleaning.

Whether that is true or not can be debated, but the way you are asking the question is pre-supposing that it cannot be debated, because your assertion by asking that question is that the ulterior motive does not exist and you are trying to create a "gotcha".

You then went on to call the claim that Irgun and Lehi were terrorist organizations and/or the claim that two members of the Israeli government ware wanted for war crimes and/or the claim that the Israeli government might have overt as well as ulterior motives and therefore they might not be trusted on what they overtly say alone, a "bizzare conspiracy theory" about Jewish people in an effort to undermine these claims without judging them based on factfulness or truth.

I hope I cleared that up for you.

I tried to ask an LLM to be an impartial judge and give your comment a hasbara score, but it immediately banned me.

food for thought.

> Which one is giving trouble there?

Probably all of them.

Section 5.4.3.1

  > The receiving entity SHOULD choose which certificate to present
  > based on the domainpart contained in the 'to' attribute of the
  > initial stream header (in essence, this domainpart is
  > functionally equivalent to the Server Name Indication defined for
  > TLS in [TLS-EXT]).

and 13.7.2 says

  > Once the identity of the stream peer has been validated, the
  > validating entity SHOULD also correlate the validated identity with
  > the 'from' address (if any) of the stream header it received from the
  > peer.  If the two identities do not match, the validating entity
  > SHOULD terminate the connection attempt (however, there might be good
  > reasons why the identities do not match, as described under
  > Section 4.7.1).

You can manually set a server in most clients, and I don't know how that is generally implemented. I guess that should work then.

But if you serve a certificate for jabber.example.com for a user trying to connect to an account user@example.com using SRV records then that mismatch will give you at least a certificate warning popup. And for good reason too: How would a user verify that a certificate

abcde.1234.jabber.freshhosting.donut

is valid for the account joe.doe@example.com ?

> The only good solution would be if all messaging apps used the same protocol so everyone could be reached.

That's exactly what XMPP was created to solve, an open standard that could be implemented by anyone. For a while it even looked like there was a chance for that to work out. Whatsapp, Google Talk, Cisco Jabber, and some others used to be based on XMPP.

Unfortunately it didn't quite pan out that way.

Correct, but that means you cannot share that domain securely with, let's say, a website. No ?

I worded that poorly.

Yes, that is of course correct. But that means that your clients have to trust you without technical safeguards, that you will not use this to get for certificates for purposes other than XMPP.

Which, in my mind, is a problem if the domain is not used just for XMPP, but lets say for a website as well.

> linux-> mobile voice

I've been using Dino on Linux to talk to Conversations/Monal with video and it's been working pretty well. Do you have a different experience ?

I've run an XMPP server in various states of professionalism for around 20 years now. From mom's basement all the way to a colocated server with a similar setup that's described in the post.

The only caveat I have not been able to solve is hosting an xmpp server for a different domain, like it's possible with email.

A client connecting the account joe.doe@example.ORG will find the server it wants to connect to via SRV to be , e.g., xmpp14.example.COM and expect a TLS certificate for "example.ORG" which that server does not have (nor can/should easily get) - which makes sense in a lot of ways, but limits the ways one can offer hosting services.

If anyone has creative solutions I'm all ears.

Not really. If their own their domain, then it's possible to swap out CF and LE for different companies.

That would certainly be a very annoying event, but not an unrecoverable one.

There is a lot of truth in what you write, so I am just going to point out the UnifiedPush project[0].

Of course with the, rather large, caveat of that not working outside of

> TestFlight or an analogous Android channel

This implements a push service (caveat: Android only) that is less restrictive than what google provides, and allows the reuse of an existing notification server (ntfy, prosody, etc) by other installed apps.

Since f-droid exists, this allows for a halfway decently user-friendly-ish way to completely self host outside of relying on googles server's and zulip, for example, could offer the ability to receive notifications through it if there's an a unified push distributor available on the phone. It seems that there is at least awareness for this in the project [1].

But with google tightening the noose around alternative ways to install apps, who knows how long this will be even possible.

[0] https://unifiedpush.org/ [1] https://github.com/zulip/zulip-flutter/issues/1198

I've had a similar issue recently and I found that rustdesk[0] works pretty well for casual use despite wayland support being labelled experimental. I use it for pair programming with someone on multiple monitors while I'm on a laptop and all the switching and zooming required worked.

[0] https://rustdesk.com/

Does this work for you with more than one client connected ? How did you configure the routing table ?

There's a chicken-egg-like problem involved with that based on the cryptokey routing that wireguard does.

The, a bit unfortunately named, 'allowed-ips' parameter determines to which peer wg routes a packet.

If you imagine three peers connected to your one central vpn server then for this to work you have to have an allowed-ips parameter set to the same /64 network for each of them from the point of view of the server, which creates a conflict.

There is a project to configure allowed-ips dynamically but it's not active any more unfortunately https://github.com/WireGuard/wg-dynamic/blob/master/docs/ide...

curious: that website mentions seven patents. I couldn't find it on the website, what patent are these ?

I will never by anything from an ad - by running an adblocker I am *helping* the site I am visiting by making their targeting more specific.

Someone paying $20 for an ad trying to sell me a product, will be happy that their ad is not served to me -I am not going to buy their product in the first place, their money is better spent advertizing to people who might buy it.

Me looking at an ad does not help sell any products.

A bit naviely using cucumber seems like a good idea. Could you share some advice or resources on why it might not be ?

> The books must have been all very bad or the article author just skimmed thru them.

It seems that you have not even bothered to skim the article...

Not true that in Austria you can be terminated for any reason at all. There are protections in place. For example, in the regular case, i.e. 'no urgent reason' there is no such thing as an immediate dismissal, and this can be fought. Of course as always with the law ymmv - but there are many different ways in which your rights as a worker are protected.

See this: https://www.usp.gv.at/mitarbeiter/beendigung-arbeitsverhaelt...

> I can't imagine writing code while standing on a train, for example.

This made me smile, because that used to be my morning commute. I had around an hour on a usually full train, and I could already start writing things that were on my mind. Everybody is a bit different.

Nevertheless, I have since learned to keep a better work-life balance. I also stopped commuting.

> Was my post confusing?

I possibly misunderstood what you were getting at. You are right - an android with a a keyboard is certainly not all that different.

All the things you would use a phone for in the early 2010s:

  * Phone calls
  * Video calls over XMPP
  * Text/XMPP messaging
  * Web browsing
  * Document editing
  * Writing and receiving email
  * Playing music ( it had a built in FM transmitter - how cool was that!)
  * Setting Alarms
  * weather widgets
  * Writing PHP programms
  * Writing python programms
  * ssh-ing into servers
  * gps navigation
  * take and share pictures
  * multi-colored status LEDs 
  * it had usb-otg so you could use as a flash drive
  * share an gsm internet connection via USB

Some of these things work better with a touch screen - some work better with a slide-out physical keyboard... it was just a really good device.