Syndic @ Syndic @feddit.de

Posts

0

Comments

178

Joined

2 yr. ago

Well if you don't want your lawyers to do shit that puts you in a bad light, then you have to control them better. They literally only do what you tell them to do. So if you tell them to just deal with shit and don't bother you about it, then you shouldn't be surprised if it comes back to bite you in the ass. That's just PR 101!

To be fair, she could do that put people would still fixate on the private flight usage.

Some sure would. But with good PR she could definitely come up on top of it. Certainly better than she fares now. And if someone could pull it off, then it's her.

No, obfuscating her travel in charters is the viable ‘solution’ to this problem. Still roughly equivalent environmental impact (actually, potentially a bit more since a charter company might have to do extra empty flights for repositioning), but her travel would be harder to discern.

That would be the "rich way" to avoid such a problem yeah. But it certainly wouldn't make her a better person.

Especially since she's definitely rich enough to offset her global foot print from her jet usage by actively donating to charities trying to protect the planet ten times and she wouldn't feel it one bit.

Heck she could spend a tiny amount of her dragon hoard sized wealth to offset the environmental impact of her air travel. For example by buying endangered rain forest land and donating it to a public charity. But no, she rather uses her wealth as a legal club to try to silence people pointing out the harm she does to the planet.

No one is forcing her to fly around that much. And she's by no means a new up and coming celebrity but has been dealing with this since 2 decades now.

So no, she doesn't get a free pass to use her wealth to silence very deserved criticism of her disgusting global footprint! Heck, she could spend a tiny amount of her dragon hoard sized wealth to donate to environmental protection to offset this footprint. But no, she rather uses that money to sue someone who she knows doesn't have the wealth to fight her legally.

Every civilian aircraft is required by air traffic regulations to broadcast it's flight path and identifier.

So once a plane registration is publicly known to be owned by someone they can of course be tracked. Of course it doesn't mean that the owner is on the plane, but it certainly let's you gather how much they fly around. Turns out that Taylor's jet is used a lot even for private jets, which obviously doesn't make her look good from an environmental point of view. Now she tries to use her wealth to silence people tracking this and pointing it out to the public. Shame on her!

From democrats? When?

I absolutely don’t think any of these propositions are outlandish or even remotely insulting.

When you look at it from the perspective of the Palestinians who want their own country with the sovereignty this entails, it absolutely is insulting. With those limitations they would be little more than a puppet state of Israel. Not only another state but one they have serious grievances and a bloody history with. There's no way they could accept this. Israel knew this very well!

You're welcome. It was quite eye opening to me when I read it first, so it was worth saving.

I think we should measure this both in periods when relative dominance is held by Democrats and when it is held by Republicans.

OK, the same was still true under Trump. Both sides aren't the same.

What you say is orthogonal to that.

How so? The primary audience for violent propaganda are republicans. The worst you can find on the democrat/left side are people saying you should beat up Nazis. And even that is hardly done by "official" news channels.

So yeah, currently fanatic republicans are a lot more likely to commit murder than anyone on the other side. Their fetishisation of guns to "defend them self" against the government alone makes sure of that.

I meant the summit being the last attempt of a treaty that Arafat didnt even bother trying to negotiate.

@febra@lemmy.world has addressed this point very nicely in a post which unfortunately is no longer readable. So allow me to quote it because it shows very well how insulting, I'd say on purpose, the whole proposal of Israel was. They just wanted something so outlandish that it was refused outright so they can later say "See we tried but they don't want to talk!!!!!!". The whole tactic is very similar to Austria-Hungary's ultimatum to Serbia which they specifically worded so Serbia had to refuse it or stop being a sovereign state.

Anyway here's the post of @febra@lemmy.world. It's a bit long but definitely worth the read to get a better understanding of this very complex situation:

I am sorry to tell you this, but you definitely ought look deeper into the peace accords as they were discussed at the time. Especially the ones at Camp David which were supposed to be the most fruitious and the ones Palestinians "threw out the door". The Oslo accords were more of a guideline than a clear set of instructions. They were a very loose set of vague directions both sides were supposed to go down on. Before that there were no other concrete accords. One would argue that the Camp David Summit was the closest both sides ever got to making peace. So let's take a look at that one and use it as a good compass in this discussion.

Palestinians were supposed to:

• be completely demilitarized
• give Israel the right to send troops to Palestine in case of any emergency (what constitutes as an emergency was never defined)
• ask Israel for approval for every diplomatic alliance Palestine would ever make with other countries
• have Israeli military bases installed in Palestinian territory
• give the Israeli military complete control of their airspace
• have israeli military outposts be installed on the border between Palestine and Jordan for a temporary amount of time
• give Israel temporary control over Palestinian border crossings (without having a specified timeframe)
• give up 10% of the West Bank, the most fertile land in the West Bank, for 1% territorial gains of desert land near the Gaza strip (the land that would be conceded included symbolic and cultural territories such as the Al-Aqsa Mosque, whereas the Israeli land conceded was unspecified)
• Israel would keep parts of the West Bank under temporary occupation, without a timespan being given
• What constitutes the West Bank was to be defined by Israel and not by international law. Israel defined West Bank as being the internationally recognized West Bank minus all the settlements they had at the time.

As you can see, all of these concessions would never amount to a completely sovereign Palestinian state, and as a result of that these talks failed in the end. To me, it looks like they were designed to fail from the get-go. Nonetheless, they did spawn new discussions and as a result of said discussion the Taba negotiations were born. With that being said, these concessions were in no way, shape, or form popular in Israel (only 25% of the Israeli public thought his positions on Camp David were just right as opposed to 58% of the public that thought Ehud Barak compromised too much). The Israeli prime minister at the time, Barak, facing elections, suspended the talks since it greatly affected his popularity in Israel. As a result of trying to broker a peace deal with Palestine, even a very bad one that was meant to fail as it was, he failed to get re-elected. The highly unbalanced concessions were already considered to be too much by Israelis.

Ehud Barak was from the Labour governments you were talking about, and this is the best Israel could ever come up with.

Trying to paint this situation as it being a level field where both sides did the same amount of wrongdoing is not a fair representation of the history of the peace process.

Since the most promising talks ever, the Camp David Summit, Israel has allowed over 750k settlers to move into the West Bank. A military regime has been installed and forced upon the occupied population contrary to international law. If getting the 30k settlers out of Gaza in 2005 was hard enough and almost caused an uproar inside the IDF, getting 750k settlers out of the West Bank will be straight up impossible without a major conflict.

There will never be two states and I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that this was in majority the doing of the Palestinians. We should talk a good look at all these facts when we start discussing this conflict and use them as a compass.

You can read more on that on Wikipedia if you're interested in all the details. If wikipedia isn't a good enough source, there is a great book on this subject by a german professor specializing on the conflict between Israel and Palestine.

It’s not about republicans, it’s about mental health.

Republicans are actively making it as hard as possible to receive help for or pro actively address mental health issues. They also actively shame people for such problems and want them to just shut up about it. So no, Republicans definitely bear quite a lot of guilt for such "tragedies"!

Well I'd say the constant extremist propaganda pushed by FOX, OAN and the likes at the very least carelessly accept that their message will incite such mentally receptive people to commit violence. So while not "planned" it's certainly viewed as acceptable "collateral damage".

And for some of the more extreme ones of them they definitely DO want such acts of violence to occur and they knowingly using stochastic terrorism to ferment it.

Starting? This is by no means the first nutjob who kills for MAGA/Trump. They've had a whole insurrection with several deaths caused.

Well it matters when it comes to replacing ageing programmers with very few options available. It's definitely not something taught in schools today, so one has to be very deliberately learn it.

Don't get me wrong, you can make a lot of money in such a position. But you also have to deal with COBOL.

Sure, but how likely is this in this specific scenario. We're talking about a system that's not even directly controlling the train but just a display on it. The worst that can happen is that those displays won't work until the system is reinstalled. That's hardly a lucrative target for modern hackers. There's way easier target which are worth something.

Well yes. You can code software remotely. That doesn't mean the end system is reachable through the network. Given it's DB, I bet these systems are still patched by floppy. Until very recently they've used floppy's to distribute train schedules to be displayed in the train.

Frankly that's nothing. In the worst case a train won't start, which for DB really isn't something unusual. It's far more disturbing how the whole global financial market sometimes rely on code that's still written in COBOL.

I certainly got my 30 bucks worth out of it. If I can come back in a few years and find a better game with more content then that's just a cherry on top.