Fried_out_Kombi @ Fried_out_Kombi @lemmy.world

embedded machine learning research engineer - georgist - urbanist - environ

---

Read more

Posts

13

Comments

217

Joined

2 yr. ago

Ah, but that says not to kill people. It says nothing about killing rats! /s

Seriously, though, that's exactly why we're so capable of committing atrocities: we dehumanize each other until we consider it acceptable to kill. Portraying Jews as rats and subhuman is exactly how the Holocaust happened, and portraying Palestinians as subhuman is exactly how Israel is currently doing what they're doing.

People complain about the UN doing nothing, but it's also important to remember it was literally designed to not be able to do anything if one of the security council nations -- USA, UK, France, Russia, or China -- vetoes it. And USA always vetoes anything against the Israeli government.

Considering the UN's hands are tied, I'm very glad they're at least using their figurative microphone and international influence to call attention to how fucked up the treatment of Palestinians is.

I don't know for others, but growing up American, Israel and its friends in Washington had done a terrific job of conflating any criticism of Israel with anti-semitism. What finally got me to re-evaluate my stance on the Israeli government a few years back was when well-known, respectable organizations like the Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International started using the word "apartheid" to describe the situation of Palestinians.

Hearing sources like the UN Office for Human Rights, the UN Secretary General, Human Rights Watch, and Amnesty International calling out the Israeli government's actions in strong, unequivocal terms like "war crime" and "apartheid" is a start. I wish they could do more, and I sure as heck am angry with US foreign policy in this, but I'm just glad the UN has the balls to actually call this a war crime.

No problemo!

To do the link, you want to do the brackets first, then the parentheses. Like this textlink:

It's really one of the best instances of the horror genre, imo. It captures the call of the void and sticks with you in a way no other horror piece has done for me. Granted, I don't consume much horror, but I do really love this one.

This video by a political science professor explains it best: https://youtu.be/zMxHU34IgyY?si=N5oHElN4Xlbiqznh

In short, the only people who truly know are Hamas, and the best the rest of us can do is speculate.

Some possibilities are that Hamas wanted to sabotage normalizing relations between Israel and the rest of the Muslim world, that Hamas wanted to bait Israel into a wildly disproportionate response that would garner themselves sympathy and recruits, that Hamas was bluffing and feigning strength and counting on Israel to think the attack was bait, that Hamas was just acting on bloodlust and wanted to attack regardless of the consequences, or many other possibilities.

Further, we focus a lot on the substative issues, i.e., the grievances and disagreements at hand, but we don't talk about the bargaining frictions nearly enough. There are countless border disputes around the world, and yet they rarely result in war. Why? Because war is costly and most wish to avoid it. War typically happens when there are both substantive issues and bargaining frictions, i.e., things preventing the two sides from negotiating a solution. But us onlookers can't even know for sure what these frictions are, only speculate.

All this is simply the nature of the fog of war, that the true strategies/goals won't be known for a while, if ever. Anyone who tries to tell you with certainty why they did what they did at this stage doesn't actually know with any degree of certainty. Nobody but Hamas actually knows.

I do recommend watching the full video above, as the professor is very engaging, rather amusing, and covers this topic quite thoroughly.

Well our they/them missiles and tanks sure are beating the crap out of the "manly" Russian military.

NATO = Sacred Band confirmed??

Yeah, it's the expected outcome when you grant a group of people a monopoly on violence but with insufficient to non-existent incentives for good behavior and insufficient to non-existent disincentivizes for bad behavior.

When you're a thin-skinned fascist conducting ethno-religious cleansing, any criticism must be met with absolute resistance. Fascism requires extreme black-and-white thinking and complete rejection of nuance.

We see the same pattern in the US with the MAGA movement, where even dyed-in-the-wool conservatives like Liz Cheney get demonized for "betraying" their "side". Facts and nuance are rejected, and the only thing that matters is team loyalty.

Ah yes, a totally normal thing that innocent, non-fascist governments do. Nothing to see here, UN. Certainly no war crimes or ethnic cleansing!

Yeah, we ignored the Tea Party as silly folks in 2008 and 2012, but by 2016 they had rebranded as MAGA and now they run the GOP.

Any delusional, hateful ideology -- be it tankies, Nazis, or whatever -- will fester if you let it.

Definitely. It's selfish but in a short-sighted, stupid way. Turns out housing crises are catastrophic for the economy in the long term, and all their selfish policies to jack up the value of their properties has resulted in decades of stagnation and everything (including labor for their precious businesses!) getting so dang expensive.

Likewise, not tackling the climate crisis is going to be devastating for the economy long-term. Basically all economists agree that we need immediate, drastic climate action, else we'll pay the price 10 times over.

And yet Republicans consistently choose the options that cost them dearly long-term.

And what's doubly ironic is they're INCREDIBLY selective about what they want free market for. Abolish restrictive zoning, parking minimums, and other arbitrary deed restrictions to allow literally anything but suburban sprawl and help alleviate the housing crisis? Nope, the GOP is all about government-mandated sprawl for all! Eliminating child labor laws? Hell yeah, GOP is all about that free market with zero government mandates at all, baby!

It's so blatantly obvious their whole schtick is just pure, unabashed selfishness. Keep burdensome land use regulations because it inflates their property values (which is profitable to existing landlords and speculators), but reject child labor laws so you can hire cheaper labor.

It'd be one thing if they actually tried to be consistent in support of the free market, but they don't even try to. As in many things, the GOP has no principles besides profit.

And Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) in cervids such as deer, moose, and elk, which thankfully has not been shown to be transmissible to humans yet. Prions are the stuff of nightmares.

Oh, and Fatal Familial Insomnia.

Definitely. If you don't understand how the world works, you can't tell if someone else does either. Only experts can easily spot fake experts. And that's exactly the trouble with things like pseudoscience and misinformation; it's easy to fall for without the domain knowledge necessary to avoid falling for it.

A great example is when you're in elementary school and you get that one really athletic kid on your team for some team sport in gym class. You know you're not on that level and never will be, so you tie yourself to them, knowing that them succeeding is good for you.

Likewise, we like to attach our fortunes to a designated person, and they become greater than just a person in our mind. Like, that athletic kid is not longer simply a kid who's good at sports; they're the athletic kid. Our favored 19th-century political thought leader is no longer just some person who had opinions on society and wrote them down; they're a political messiah.

Yeah, I think we did

The type of biome you get depends largely on availability of water, not temperature.

Deserts are deserts because they have very poor availability of water most of the time. This is most often caused by simple lack of precipitation, but other factors can influence this:

• High temperatures cause high evaporation rates, meaning to need more precipitation to achieve the same level of plant growth. This is why, for example, 10 inches (25.4 cm) of precipitation will get you desert in the tropics, subtropics, and temperate latitudes, but it'll get you boreal forest in the colder subpolar latitudes.
• Extremely low temperatures (such as in Antarctica) result in everything being perpetually frozen. Most of Antarctica is a desert, both because it gets very little precipitation and because all the ice on the ground isn't available as liquid water.
• Extremely sandy or gravelly soils which do not retain water cause poor water availability, even with abundant precipitation and a mild climate. While these aren't typically classified as "true deserts), the plant life certainly reflects the harsh conditions and poor availability of water.

As for why we largely don't see desert at the equator, it's because of precipitation. Due to the circulation of cold and warm air in the atmosphere, the equator typically sees warm air, often laden with moisture due to the oceans and the high moisture capacity of warm air, rise. As it rises, it cools, and because cool air cannot hold as much moisture as warm air can, it drops a lot of that moisture as rain. This results in most of the equator getting a lot of rain.

Once the air has risen and cooled, it cycles north and south into the subtropics, where it falls down to earth again. And in falling, it warms up again, especially as these regions still receive a ton of sunlight, particularly in the summer. But the air has already lost much of its moisture, so now it's just a bunch of hot, dry air blasting down over the subtropics. This is why we have bands of deserts across most of the subtropics, from the Sahara to the Middle East to the desert of the SW US and northern Mexico. Same on the opposite side of the equator, with the Kalahari desert in southern Africa, the Australian outback, and the Patagonian desert.

There are other factors, too, of course, such as rain shadows from mountains and ocean currents, but the atmospheric circulation is the big one to answer your question.

They don't just look like diamond; chemically they're extremely similar, too. Diamond is just a bunch of carbon atoms covalently bonded together into a 3D crystal, which is why they're so incredibly hard. Moissanite is basically the same but it's carbon and silicon atoms mixed together. Silicon has the same number of valence electrons, so it can function similarly chemically as carbon, hence why it works. Thus, moissanite is also extremely hard and refracts light in beautiful ways, too, except imo even more beautifully. Instead of a colorless luster, it's a subtle rainbow luster to moissanite.

Source: I got my fiancée a moissanite ring, and it's lovely. And because it's lab-made, I got her blue moissanite (the coloring is just from adding certain impurities) that matches our cat's eyes perfectly. It's way more unique, cheaper, and more ethical than diamond, but doesn't sacrifice on quality one bit.

Yeah, definitely. It's far better to have an admittedly weak UN that still tries to and often succeeds in being an influence for good in the world than to not have it at all. Thanks for your insights you're able to bring into this thread.