testfactor @ testfactor @lemmy.world

Posts

1

Comments

391

Joined

2 yr. ago

I think the question is one of balance for me personally. Where do you draw the line?

Like, this person seems to have been in a pretty long queue and had a lot of time to evaluate, but is that denying her dignity? Should there be a waiting period, or is that denying someone healthcare?

I think we would all agree that we shouldn't allow an 18yo who just broke up with their first SO to decide to have a doctor help them unalive themselves, right?

Is the three and a half years of waiting and treatments that this woman has undergone too much? Not enough?

I'll admit that it feels bad to me to allow a 29yo to go down this particular path. People who are seeking death are rarely in the kind of headspace where I think they are able to meaningfully consent to that?

And this feels meaningfully different than the case of a 90yo who's body is slowly failing them. This is an otherwise healthy young person.

Idk, there are no easy answers here. Bodily autonomy is important, but so is helping people not engage in extremely self destructive behavior. If we didn't have that imperative, fire departments wouldn't try and stop people from jumping off bridges, right? Where is that line? I don't know, and I wouldn't want to have to make that call.

Fair. Ngl, I just pulled up a map of Israel. Kinda surprised how much bigger the West Bank is than Gaza. My Middle Eastern geography isn't exactly stellar.

Fair point though. It's not exactly near the heart of the issue in Gaza. If the majority of the Israeli retaliation is there, it makes sense the West Bank should have little to no casualties.

What's the cut off for describing someone as a "youth"? 27 seems over that line to me.

But ngl, I'm kinda surprised the number is as low as 500, considering 35k have been killed in total, by all reports.

To be fair, if you read the article, it seems like it completely changed her tune, and she's super supportive of the current policies now.

She's getting a ton of backlash from her former supporters.

I mean, yeah, there was definitely more nuance in the article that I didn't capture in my ten word summary for sure.

I was mostly just rebutting the guy who was talking about tax exemptions without copy pasting the whole article, lol.

Yeah, I didn't bother to mention it because it was unrelated to the BLM stuff, but it really sucks for them. Definitely a lot going wrong at once. And it sounds like there's a pretty deep need where they're at too.

Did you read the article? They haven't lost their tax exempt status.

They were getting large donations from the police department, and the police department stopped donating because of their support for BLM.

I mean, you could project based on the casualties already incurred I suppose.

Looks to be about 65k Americans military members died in the Pacific theater, and we were still a long ways off from reaching mainland Japan, and the fighting was only gonna get worse the farther in we got. And that's just Americans. It doesn't count the Japanese casualties, which by all accounts dwarfed the American numbers.

200k civilians were killed in the atomic bombings. Now, it's worth noting that those are civilian deaths, which one can argue have a higher moral weight than combatant deaths.

So, all that said, in plain numbers I think it's an extremely safe bet that far more than 200k more people would have died in a blockade/land invasion scenario. But, you could argue that it's apples to oranges since the bombs were on civilian targets.

It's also worth noting to that the 200k dead to resolve the war were all non-American, which doesn't make it any less of a tragic loss of life, but matters in the "political" sense. If you are at war, and you are handed a solution that can end the war without sending any more of your own people to die, do you as the leader have a moral responsibility to do it? Like, if you have the choice in front of you to either bomb a civilian target, killing 200k "enemy" civilians but ending the war, or sending even 100k American's to their deaths, knowing that you are the one responsible for making sure those men and women get home safe, can you in good conscience choose the latter? Is it better to choose the latter? I wouldn't want to have to make that decision, but I also am loathe to second guess the decision of the person who has to make it.

I feel like the narrative surrounding the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings has changed enormously since I was a kid.

I remember learning that, while tragic, the number of lives lost in the bombing paled in comparison to the numbers of lives being lost and that would be lost in winning the war by conventional means. That it was a way to minimize further bloodshed.

I'm not super well read on the subject, but is that not true? Or, if it is true, does it not matter?

I'm mostly just trying to figure out what caused the shift.

That is one of the arguments most often used against gun control as well.

Yeah, I don't think I'm gonna defend the guy who got shot here. According to the article he was a real piece of work, and it seems like he was a credible threat to the life of the officer he put in the headlock.

I don't think the officers did anything wrong in this one. Broken clock twice a day and all that.

Yeah, it can for sure. Definitely worth mentioning. Gotta watch what interface is set as the default router, or you're bound to have a bad time. That said, the same is true with his originally proposed solution of pushing a trunk port to the VM, so it's not any worse in that regard.

But yeah, full agreement on the correct solution. Keep it simple.

I wouldn't let every VM have an interface into your management network, regardless of how you implement this. Your management network should be segregated with the ability to route to all the other VLANs with an appropriate firewall setup that only allows "related/established" connections back into it.

As for your services, having them on separate VLANs is fine, but it seems like you would benefit from having a reverse proxy to forward things to the appropriate VLAN, to reduce your management overhead.

But in general, having multiple interfaces per VM is fine. There shouldn't be any performance hit or anything. But remember that if you have a compromised VM, it'll be on any networks you give it an interface in, so minimizing that is key for security purposes. Ideally it would live in a VLAN that only has Internet access and/or direct access to your reverse proxy.

I'm sure the train of thought is something more akin to, "these people support the Palestinians, but Palestinians are bad people and they'd see that if they had to live with them."

Still stupid as hell, and racist to boot, but at least somewhat coherent?

Do I look like I know what a j-peg is?

I'm well aware of the existence of alternatives. But you must agree that what is achievable with an implant far outstrips the current alternatives?

Maybe someday, but that's not the point of the tech as it stands. It's accessibility.

They guy who it failed in (Noland Arbaugh) is a full on quadriplegic. The ability to use a computer in a semi-normal way is absolutely beyond life changing for him.

I think what you are probably actually after, based on your description/comments is a flash card app, not a dictionary app?

To that end, seems like a guy on the open source subreddit made a thread about it and built one that's FOSS. Some other good suggestions in the thread, even if his solution isn't what you're after.

https://www.reddit.com/r/opensource/comments/14azw6d/an_open_source_flashcard_studying_system/

Yeah, no, for sure on all counts. As before, I'd imagine it'd have to be pretty egregious to rise to the level of removal. Makes sense.

All fair points, and I don't disagree with any of them.

And yeah, I recognize my posts are rambly, but honestly, it's mostly just me jotting down thoughts. I'm not trying to write a dissertation, I'm trying to engage in conversation.

I do think there's levels to this though, right? Like, you list a bunch of other special interests that were at the Iraq protests that weren't policed, but there are certainly viewpoints that would have been, right? Like, if someone showed up with a, I don't know, a "just nuke'em, end the war, and get it over with" sign or something, that would have been policed, right?

Maybe not? Maybe anyone can join any protest for any reason? I tend to think there's some level of extreme that the group would self police, but who knows.

That said, the sign in question wasn't past that line by any stretch of the imagination. That wasn't even really the point of my original post though. I was more asking about what the messaging actually is.

I did go on a tangent about messaging because the guy two up basically said (to grossly paraphrase) messaging clarity doesn't matter, and I was just stating why I disagree. I did use the context of this protest though, so that's on me. I don't think this sign is out of line necessarily.

Ultimately my main point about messaging was that protests that don't have well stated outcomes (e.g. get troops out of Iraq or stop investing in Israel) are doomed to failure, as the group you are protesting against has no viable mechanism to capitulate.

There's probably a sub-point in there that if your stated goals are too fractured, it makes it impossible to capitulate as well?

Idk, I'm mostly just rambling again. I'm also not as invested in the conversation as I was three days ago.

We could have a whole dialog about which historical protests have led to meaningful change and which haven't and what distinguished the former from the latter. I'm no expert in protest philosophy (obviously) but I've seen protests make a difference and fall completely flat, and I think it'd be an interesting study to find out why, and to what degree coherent goals and messaging are correlated to success.

But, as I say, I'm not as invested as I was 3 days ago, so I'm probably gonna just do something else instead. Hope life is treating you well, and you've got an exciting weekend planned! :)