ilmagico @ ilmagico @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

437

Joined

2 yr. ago

Only Israeli I know that actually spoke out against apartheid and the oppression of Palestinian is Yuval Abraham. Are there others? I hope there are, and they are just afraid to speak up.

There are very few Israeli that actually protest the killing of women and children, or any innocent Palestinian, while mostly are just upset the hostages haven't been rescued yet. I support those very few Israeli, who are probably afraid to come out (only one I know of here).

I mean, yeah sure, but are the alternatives that much better in this respect? Which alternative non-ad-ridden, privacy-respecting smart tv would you recommend (or ended up buying)? Asking for my future tv choice...

"security" for themselves, not the customer, I guess

Unauthorized as in, not authorized to work, i.e. illegal workers. At least, that's how I read it

I was not attacking you, I was trying to have a conversation. Yes, nazis spreading all over asia would be likely worse than two nukes over Japan, but in saying that, there is the underlying assumption that this spread was otherwise unstoppable, or in other words, that the Japanese were capable of perpetrating it, at the time (using the wording in my original comment) while in fact they were almost defeated already.

But maybe you disagree that they were effectively defeated, or maybe you had something else interesting to say other than "I don't need to make assumptions" right after making an assumption.

Anyways, you choose to call me dogshit, and have the guts to talk about nuance when you yourself don't seem to get it, so, I don't even know why I'm still wasting time with you. I'll just block you and move on. Au revoir.

I still run it on a 10 year old chromebox (replacing chrome with linux of course). It's really not that heavy. If it seems very slow, I'd try rebuilding the database from a dump (if mysql/mariadb), and making sure the db is on a fast drive. At least, those two things made a huge difference for me. Also, some people reported huge speedups switching to postgres.

From my understanding, Arch based distros don't link ssh with systemd, and so are likely unaffected. That includes EndeavourOS. Since researchers are still analyzing the code, Arch took some steps to patch it anyways, just in case there some other hidden backdoor.

TL;DR: Simply downgrade to a version before 5.6.0, or follow the official recommendations for your distro. For Arch, for example, simply upgrade your system.

Explanation (from my understanding ): a malicious developer snuck a backdoor into xz, starting with version 5.6.0,and thankfully it was caught before it could do much damage. This seems to only affect Fedora and Debian based distros, or otherwise distros where ssh is patched to link to systemd, which in turn links to xz. Arch doesn't seem to be affected, but they took some preventative action. Again, follow the announcements from your distro, or just downgrade xz.

It is not yet clear what a malicious actor can do with that backdoor, but it seems, in affected systems, it enables remote code execution (if you don't know what that means, just know it's really bad), but last I checked security researchers were still analyzing the code. Things move fast, so maybe by now it is known.

Trust me, if the leadership saw this first hand it would make a much bigger impression.

Anyways, I think the conversation derailed a bit, I cannot claim this would've worked for sure, I don't have a time machine. My point is, this was done with the intention to cause mass civilian casualties, which today one could argue it being a war crime (and that's why I don't approve of it), but of course, the Geneva convention didn't exist yet at the time.

Maybe there was a different way to get the Japanese to surrender, with fewer casualties, but it doesn't look like the US really tried.

The trinity tests weren't even close to Japan's shore... yes, spies would've seen it, or heard about it, but regular army people, generals, etc. and the emperor would only know a second or third hand story.

Compare that to walking down the street and seeing a giant mushroom cloud at a safe but not so far distance, potentially with a large part of Japan's navy gone in a blink (and maybe a bit of a tsunami as well). Let's say this was timed such that the emperor himself would likely observe it. We can't know for sure, and I concede that Japanese culture was very much "victory or death" at that time, but seeing it in person might, just might've changed some people's mind, with a much smaller civilian death toll.

I appreciate well written comments. ysjet's response was detailed and well explained, and didn't just say "of course nothing else would've stopped them", but actually went in depth to explain why (which, of course, I don't fully agree with, but I'm here to discuss and hear other people's opinion).

Three days isn't that huge amount of time for this kind of thing, and of course, even after two bombs some still didn't want to surrender. .. but the emperor did, and that's what matters. Maybe he would've surrendered after the first one, or maybe even with no bombs, given enough time to think... or maybe not, but the US didn't try to go that route really. It really seems like they went for maximum civilian casualty. That's the part I cannot agree with.

As for the comment, well, I'm always kind and respectful to those who are kind and respectful to me, despite disagreement, but if you just tell me to f off, all bets are off... so, feel free to remove if you want, but if you do, then please also remove the comment I was responding to. Thanks.

Thanks for the detailed response. Yes, I don't claim to say for sure that my idea would've worked, though you seem convinced it definitely wouldn't have, in hindsight. Yet, there are many other reports that point in the opposite direction, namely, that the Japanese were already beaten and likely to surrender anyways. I agree the culture was always to never surrender, so I doubt it, but the idea of being instantly destroyed after seeing the a-bomb in action could've changed somebody's mind.

And if that didn't work, maybe there was a way to avoid targeting civilians, while still hitting military targets, but it seems to me the intention was to hit civilians in large number, and that's what I don't like (and no, leaflets aren't really enough).

Also, I didn't know the US only had two bombs, so I did a bit of research, and actually, it seems a third one was gonna be ready pretty soon after. But then again, I'm glad a third one wasn't used...

You're right, this conversation is pointless. You keep making unproven assumptions, even in your last reply, and don't even know you're doing it. Maybe search "assumption" in the dictionary? Anyways, good luck.

Thanks for actually pointing out a specific atrocity committed by the Japanese, which did result in higher casualties than the bomb, though it happened over months rather than minutes, but ok, I'll accept it.

Still, the point is, what atrocities were the Japanese capable of perpetrating at the time the bombs were dropped, that were prevented by it, and couldn't have been prevented in a different way. There's a big chance that the Japanese were going to surrender anyways, and if not, maybe just the threat of dropping the bomb (maybe, say, after a demonstration at sea or otherwise away from civilians) would've been enough.

You made an implicit assumption, and that assumption is very possibly wrong. You are "theorizing about the consequences" just as much as me by making that assumption.

For example, I can think of at least one way the US could've tried to avoid the huge civilian death toll: drop the bombs in the ocean, target the japanese navy, close enough that the blast will be seen from the mainland , yet far enough to avoid most civilian casualties. Then tell the Japanese to surrender, or else they're next. I don't claim to say it would've worked for sure, but at least they would've tried.

You're assuming that dropping those bombs was the only way to stop the Japanese.

This is the solution. The problem is convincing the politicians, which would likely as a consequence be replaced by a third ("independent") party candidate, or face a tough reelection, to make a law causing their own demise