xor @ xor @lemmy.blahaj.zone

Posts

0

Comments

530

Joined

2 yr. ago

Clearly.

shoot them

"they should have killed all the Israelis, and simultaneously are bastards for using exclusively tear gas against people actively throwing petrol bombs at them, and trying to burn down the building with them inside"

What a reasonable take

Absolutely wild accusations to throw out with no sources

You can't possibly think that a monitoring mission for the UN is armed with chemical weapons lmfao

That's not how UN peacekeepers work

So there's a few things to note; firstly, that this article isn't a eulogy, but about the smuggling and content of his diaries. Regardless of his political positions, those diaries are a fascinating artifact in their own right, especially his perspectives on Russian politics, and the experience of a political prisoner in the Russian prison system.

Also worth consideration is that his views/rhetoric shifted massively over the years, and he became far more liberal as he aged. People who manage to shift away from the far right are a valuable resource in understanding the thought process of other people who think like that.

Yes, to be clear, I'm not trying to argue that they aren't committing genocide, just that the initial copy-paste comment leaves out the most important part of doing so, because that's the bit that's actually challenging to prove

That's deeply upsetting, but still not the same as proving systematic intent to commit genocide

I do believe that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza, but you missed an important part of the definition from your source:

with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical (sic), racial or religions (sic) group

Doing one of the above actions alone isn't enough to be classified as genocide, it has to be done with systematic intent to destroy the group. That's the bit that's much harder to actually prove, because it requires having insider knowledge of Israel's military complex.

You understand incorrectly. "passkey" refers to a token used for the public key authentication that is used for sign in, which needs to be stored somewhere - this can be stored in a hardware key like a YubiKey, or in your device's credentials manager. In principle, this could be anywhere, but it needs to be somewhere secure to not be trivial to compromise (eg taking out your HDD and just copying your passkey off it)

In Windows' case, this secure credentials store is the TPM chip, which is why you are not able to use passkeys on Windows devices that have no TPM chip (unless you use another hardware implementation).

Tldr: passkeys are data, not software, and to store the data, you need some form of hardware, which needs to be secure to not be a really bad idea.

If you'd like to do some reading before confidently correcting me further, I'd suggest reading about how passkeys work.

devices themselves can act as passkeys

I didn't say a device needs a TPM to support passkeys - I said I believe it it needs one to be a passkey

Thank you for your passive aggressive response caused by poor reading comprehension, though

Get the knife!

...except the ones that can't

I think it depends on whether you have a TPM chip in it

I'm such a dunce, I didn't spot your username 🤦

Thought I was asking a db0 random, not the NaN himself

Slightly off topic, is db0 one of the anarchist instances you're referring to? I know it's a generally leftist instance, but don't know much more detail than that

And you can keep hand waving away the fact that lower precision because of less light is not the primary cause of racial bias in facial recognition systems - it's the fact that the datasets used for training are racially biased.

It's saying that it uses terminology that is well-understood, specific and explicit within the field, but depends on a common understanding of the language used. So people outside the field are unable to understand it, even though they would be able to understand the actual concepts.

Yet☝️🤓

Yeah that's a fair point wrt non-militant roles, my assumption was that they were primarily used in the military since their purpose was to avoid the issues with mobile networks being used to track them.

But we don't know exactly how the devices were distributed, so you're right that there were potentially a large number of non-military Hezbollah staff.

I mean, yeah. The tragic answer is that civilian casualties are inevitable in war, unfortunately.

According to a UN meeting from 2022, 90% of war casualties globally are civilians. That's not to say that's an acceptable ratio, in fact it's horrifying, but it does show that a ratio of "a handful" to "a bunch" is quite a lot better than the average.

https://press.un.org/en/2022/sc14904.doc.htm