Honestly? No. Israel does not deserve to exist, in the same way that Australia, Canada, the USA and other colonial countries don’t deserve to exist. The land was taken by the British under false pretences and outright lies (read: terra nullius) and the only colonial country I can think of that has a genuine treaty between the invaders and native populations is New Zealand. Even they have significant issues with managing the relationships between Anglo Kiwis and Māori.
Israel is stolen land, as are Australia, Canada, the USA etc. and all are equally illegitimate with regards to their right to exist as a nation.
The issue when discussing abortion is that there is no generally accepted point in which a blastocyst/zygote/foetus becomes a fully-fledged, sentient being. Some argue that the point of conception instills personhood; others make arguments based upon how developed a foetus is and if it has differentiated sensory organs; some make an arbitrary distinction based on the elapsing of time; and others still agree that personhood is conveyed only once a baby is born and survives labour.
Those arguing this point have a tendency to become entrenched in their opinions, be it because of religious or cultural norms, or even just the basic human condition of stubbornness. This creates permanent rifts between people who share FAR more in common than they differ.
My personal opinion is a technocratic one - I don’t believe that this decision should be made by anyone other than relevant medical professional(s) and the pregnant person. That means that legislatively (or constitutionally), I’m advocating for no legal restrictions on abortions whatsoever and empowering health professionals to determine what is reasonable or safe.
This position is often (intentionally) misunderstood as not believing that the unborn have rights as well - they absolutely do. I’m a child protection caseworker and we regularly work with pregnant people who show signs there may be risk of harm after birth (issues like substance abuse, mental health issues, domestic violence, disability without sufficient support etc.) in order to preserve the best start to life that an unborn child can have. I just don’t accept that there are any circumstances under which the right of an unborn child trumps professional medical opinions. Doctors are best placed to determine when and if an abortion is appropriate or necessary.
Each individual maintains the right to not have an abortion forced on them, but then gains the right to engage in an abortion if it’s medically safe and sound.
This here is the real answer; Elon doesn’t want X now and he never wanted Twitter. Much like Trump falling arse-backwards into the US Presidency he never actually wanted, he’s now just manipulating the thing he didn’t actually want, but now has, to follow his ego and whims. Trump’s presidency and Elon’s ownership of Twitter share a lot of similarities. Far, far too many similarities.
The same gooseneck can spray outside the confines of the sinks away from the bench edge as well. There’s around 180° of movement the tap can make behind the sinks that would cause water to not fall into the sink as well. There are many wrong ways to use taps in regular sinks as well; I think spilling water between the sinks would be a self-correcting issue after the first few times it happens.
I’m pretty sure you’d get used to it after the first few times it happens. We accommodate to the limitations of many technologies on a nearly constant basis, often without consciously making those adjustments.
Are Palestinian citizens being used as human shields not hostages? Both Israelis and Palestinians, and I know this might be a bit contentious, are human beings.
Yeah, I guess under that definition any web-based application that allows for a person to create an account/profile and generate and post content is a form of social media. That makes sense when you consider that they’re media that allow for social interaction.
What’s your definition of social media? Genuinely interested because I’m not sure that there even is a single definition that can be agreed upon.
I think the whole public vs anonymous profiles thing doesn’t really stack up, as I can create profiles on Facebook, Instagram, X, TikTok etc and provide no identifying information about myself, much as I do on Lemmy. I can also choose to add a profile picture and info about myself to identify myself on Lemmy if I choose, much as people do on other social media.
If your definition only includes those platforms that force you fully identify yourself in order to maintain a profile, that list will be pretty small and exclude a lot of sites that the vast majority would consider to be social media, including the ones I’ve named above.
Social media are interactive technologies that facilitate the creation and sharing of content, ideas, interests, and other forms of expression through virtual communities and networks. While challenges to the definition of social media arise due to the variety of stand-alone and built-in social media services currently available, there are some common features:
Social media are interactive Web 2.0 Internet-based applications.
User-generated content—such as text posts or comments, digital photos or videos, and data generated through all online interactions—is the lifeblood of social media.
Users create service-specific profiles for the website or app that are designed and maintained by the social media organization.
Social media helps the development of online social networks by connecting a user's profile with those of other individuals or groups.
Lemmy fits those criteria very well, and there’s nothing regarding anonymous profiles vs identified profiles. It may not be the only definition of social media, but it’s comprehensive and sensible.
Is the car in this meme flying above another car? What’s that thing on the road with a different orientation? Also, the car looks like a left-hand drive but the car is flying over the left lane. I’m so confused.
Yeah, he obviously dealt with a lot of cognitive dissonance between his experience and the culture he was raised in. He wasn’t some hypocrite who was preaching ‘family values’ or some other nonsense, just a tortured soul driven over the edge.
The world just lost another potential ally. He could have helped shape the discourse in his town for the better, but instead he’s being buried. This is a sad day.
Israel’s strategy over the last 70 years created Hamas and has ensured that it has continued to hold power in Gaza. I don’t know what that other commenter is thinking, but I think characterising Israel’s strategy as carrying water for Hamas recruitment is a strong understatement. They’re not just carrying water; they’re pumping it from the ground, putting it in containers, divvying it up, and carrying it as far as they’ll go. Hamas exists because of Israel, much as how Al Qaeda and ISIS exist(ed) because of the US (and allied forces) and Russia.
This is what I don't understand either - as someone who stopped using Youtube the day that they brought ads in (except for watching embedded videos elsewhere as they don't have ads), I haven't been exposed to the long-form enshittification others have experienced and so maybe that's why I don't get it, but who is using Youtube for hours on end and what are they watching? Is it just conspiracy theorists falling further and further down the rabbit hole? I really don't know.
Surely if they wanted to keep religion out of the state, they’d have written that into the Constitution or one of the early amendments, right? It’s not like they didn’t have the power to do so. They specifically chose not to, knowing that their government could easily invaded by religion, which indicates at least that they were ambivalent to the idea.
Those quotes are all well and good but what matters is the letter of the law. These men wrote the law, and the law doesn’t forbid religion in the state. It doesn’t matter what a politician says, but what they do - and what they did allowed for what we’re seeing today. It was obviously on their minds as they spoke about the idea of wanting to keep church and state separate, but then they did nothing at all to safeguard the state - the only protections are for the churches.
They were either in favour of the church being able to control the state, or wilfully ignorant that this could happen unless it was forbidden in the Constitution. If they wanted to stop this from happening, they would have.
Voice alone? It might be very difficult to claim you have a unique voice unless you’re Gilbert Gottfried or Bobcat Goldthwait. The issue in this ad was that it showed a real clip of Johansson saying ‘follow me’ before the images cut to something else and the AI-copy Johansson voice continued. The fake voice was heavily insinuated to be Johansson because it picked up where a real clip of Johansson left off.
It would be very hard to prove a person intended to mimic a specific person when creating an AI voice unless it’s accompanied by corroborating imagery.
Honestly? No. Israel does not deserve to exist, in the same way that Australia, Canada, the USA and other colonial countries don’t deserve to exist. The land was taken by the British under false pretences and outright lies (read: terra nullius) and the only colonial country I can think of that has a genuine treaty between the invaders and native populations is New Zealand. Even they have significant issues with managing the relationships between Anglo Kiwis and Māori.
Israel is stolen land, as are Australia, Canada, the USA etc. and all are equally illegitimate with regards to their right to exist as a nation.