Iran has been very patient with not striking American assets in surrounding countries in 2025. Their responses against an unprecedented assault on them were very limited.
That patience earned them another, bigger attack against them in 2026.
If Israel were attacked two years back to back like that, with the second attack killing its prime minister, it would have burned every belligerent country around it to ash without any consideration for whom they are killing, and the world wouldn't bat an eye.
In fact, they did just that in response to a much smaller attack, and the world didn't bat an eye. A quarter million dead and counting, many of the killings being straight-up, no ambiguity war crimes. Strange how they get to inflict disproportionate violence in retaliation with no consequences.
Somehow with all the thingamajigs that the Israeli apparatus has, from spy networks to informants at the upper levels of the IRGC, and a heavily militarized population, and a heavily fortified border along both the West Bank and Gaza (even more than the Jordanian or Egyptian borders), somehow they still couldn't detect and stop a breach of their barricades.... Hmm.....
And let's not forget, all of this happened right when protests in the streets against Netanyahu were at their highest levels.
> If I found a group of terrorist sympathizers invading my property and dancing on it I wouldn't be very empathetic to them
But it would be your choice to commit terrorism back at them. Plenty of people across history have chosen both ways. It tends to go much better for one group over the other.
I don't think that's "terrorism" as much as it is self defense. The Haitian Slave Revolt and Indigenous American Pueblo Revolts come to mind as analogous military actions that produced positive results.
> don't think that's "terrorism" as much as it is self defense
Everyone says this. If October 7 had limited itself to military targets, this would have been different. If current polling showed Gazans pushing for only military retaliation, I think things would be different.
Everyone has the right to self defense. But everyone also gets judged by how they do it.
> Haitian Slave Revolt
Claimed territory with a plan for maneouvre. Not particularly comparable outside minor tactical elements.
> Indigenous American Pueblo Revolts come to mind
This is a good analogy. I’ll have to read up on it more. To wit, however, they eventually accepted the new—awful, unfair and racist, I may add, but survivable and superior to the alternative of endless war—status quo.
> This is a good analogy. I’ll have to read up on it more. To wit, however, they eventually accepted the new—awful, unfair and racist, I may add, but survivable and superior to the alternative of endless war—status quo.
Well the Spanish returned and ultimately subjugated them but it's considered the reason that the South West was able to retain its indigenous culture and language to a degree not seen elsewhere.
Mind you this was 1680, which kind of brings into perspective how barbaric the Zionists have been to essentially recreate one of the greatest crimes in human history hundreds of years later, with a supposed framework of human rights that had developed since then.
I mean during ww2 civilians and supply chains were bombed to hell and back.
now this is a "small", "far away" war, so killing civilians isn't expected, but for them a supplier of agricultural products is feeding the soldiers that will be stomping their heads if this keeps escalating.
I'm not justifying anyone here, I'm just pointing out how ridiculous it sounds when we try to define a set of rules to kill each other and then say they are violating them, when we know that the good guys bombed whole cities to the ground, and will bomb whole cities to the ground, when it matters.
there's so much hate in the region that this stuff will only end one way, and I personally don't want to see Iran winning this, but let's call war by it's name.
How should the Israelis be expected to respond if Iran starts deliberately killing large numbers of civilians? You only have to follow the laws of war if your enemy is making an attempt to follow them.
Not at any given time, though. It's okay for Iran to kill Israeli children because they may some day serve in the IDF? Then I guess it's okay for the Israelis to carpet bomb Iranian cities?
It would force a company to come to the negotiating table when laying off workers and grading their performance. It would prevent a lot of bs layoffs; at the very least concrete reasons would be needed for RIFs.
I grew up in small town South GA that growing up has 5 or 6 factories. All but one left when they got tired of dealing with the unions. The one that is still there was never unionized
Sure it is, show me one business that actually closed from union costs and I’ll show you a million unionized businesses that have never closed for that same reason.
Cherry picking a few businesses and then saying all businesses are doomed because of unions is exactly propaganda.
So other businesses moved for cheaper labor elsewhere but one stayed open is proof that the cost of living in GA went up not that unions cause businesses to move. The greed of the business owner is what caused them to move.
What many of these articles miss is that even if you do everything they say you will still not get the promotion you want for several reasons.
My advice for Career Growth for engineers who like to do things is to be willing to take on problems that others might not want, things that aren’t “sexy”, if you find them interesting. Theres a lot of interesting problems and you can grow your career by following the direction that interests you rather than the company. And when it comes to promotions, its often easier and better compensated to get a new job rather than trying to convince a bunch of people that you should be promoted.
This is recipe to be track locked and miserable. It’s the exact path I have taken over my unfortunately long career as an IC. Now I’m too useful doing bullshit work, tied with a golden ball and chain, and have no hope of ever seeing a management track/easy job. I’m currently planning my exit from the field as I am becoming too interested in actual life to learn frameworks, do bullshit 8 tier 3 month coding interviews, and collect experience to write CRUD bullshit for the next 10 years.
The real advice to aspiring engineers who don’t want to have trouble sleeping from years of pagerduty and high blood pressure is to work in middle management as soon as possible. Forget IC work. The rewards are so much less than the morons who manage. Unless you are at a major dev first company (if you have VCs you aren’t) your manager will always outearn you by a large margin, have an easier life, and way more leeway. Every company I have been to only middle management converts to the VP/C level jobs where you do virtually nothing all day but waste everyone’s time. This is the ideal job. The absolute wastes of precious air in management have the life you want.
If you’re like me and followed this terrible advice decide on an amount of money that is good enough and then decide on how much competence that buys. Volunteer for nothing beyond that, game the ticketing system, use as much vacation as you possibly can without a PIP, vibe the shit out of even the most trivial amount of work, and fuck off once your house is paid off and accounts are appropriate for retirement in T+30 years. Use that time to take up goat herding, wood working, or conservationist work.
Every company is a bit different. There's IC's where I work making more than some managers.
The author suggests that nobody is going to come tap you on the shoulder and let you know it's time. Well, that's what happened to me where I am at now - hired at bottom level, regularly promoted, now at top level. Took 6 years to get to principal. Granted, my group is not SWE's, it's more like an Architect role.
What I learned having made principal is that the yearly bonuses can be lower, because expectations are so high. I got bigger bonuses at a lower title, because I was exceeding the expectations of that role by so much. Apparently principal's have such high expectations you almost never get beyond the target bonus for your role. Then there's the stress from all the layoffs across tech - a lot of Principal level people where I work got cut over the last ~2 years, presumably to save on costs. I almost wish I'd stayed at the lower level to get bigger bonuses, lower salary and higher job security. YMMV.
This is not how things work at any company where I have worked at with real leveling guidelines (including one BigTech company). It’s all about “scope”, “impact” and “dealing with ambiguity”. It’s stated in different ways depending on the company.
No one cares if you find it “interesting” when it is time for your promo doc. It’s visibility.
And when you interview at the next company and they level you, they are still going to ask behavioral questions that are concerned with scope, impact and dealing with ambiguity…
Microslop is clearly flailing. They were first movers with the OAI investment but OAI is doing fine on its own and microslop failed to capitalize on that early momentum. Now they’re resorting to increasingly desperate measures across their product portfolio to stay relevant.
Technology moves fast and is prone to hype. While NoSQL and Kafka were certainly oversold, almost every mid-large scale tech company has at least one nosql system and kafka-like system in use. The proponents weren’t wrong, they oversold the impact.
There is other tech that did completely change how we do things. CI/CD, Containers, Kubernetes, distributed tracing etc. are considered standard now (but weren’t not that long ago).
Containers and Kubernetes are not as standard as we'd like to think. They're standard for things of certain size, but for small-to-medium there are a good amount of serverless options. For a moderately sized website, it's easier to just stick the thing in Vercel than having to deal with the complexity of Kubernetes. Of course, once you grow then you do need that complexity, but I'm willing to bet that many people who got onboard into it don't actually need it, they just did it because everyone else is doing it.
It's not all. I tried as much as I could not commenting on it, but the delusions of _a lot_ of hn users on the subject, even a few whose opinion I respect, were unreal. People who are not MAGA btw.
And I'm not sure most of those realise how delusional they were, even now. They will probably rewire their memory to forget what they believed 3 weeks ago, compress the time they were wrong.
I initially thought the 'manufacturing consent' part of the war was botched, unlike Irak, but now to me it seems that people are much more susceptible to propaganda disguised as 'almost true' information on social media, and I am afraid I might be in the same boat.
It was certainly notable that so many HNers seemed absolutely certain that the Kurds would come to the USA's aid, ignoring the fact that America had facilitated the one-sided ceasefire imposed on Rojava just weeks before.
A few more sceptical voices brought this up, and were told repeatedly that it didn't matter because the Kurds in Syria and Turkey are very different from those in Iraq & Iran.
And there's certainly something in that - but it ignored the clunkingly obvious point that, if America had been thinking at all strategically, a bit more support of Rojava and would have demonstrated to all Kurds that "looking west" would be rewarded.
It has to be hard for Americans to realise that their government has pissed so much of the world off so badly. I suspect we'll see further such errors in analysis and response before the new reality fully sinks in.
Not forgetting Trump personally ordering the withdrawal of all US forces in Northern Syria in his first term, on a weekend so none of the generals were around to talk him out of it.
This resulted in the Turks moving in, massacring all the Kurds they could find, and a few thousand ISIS prisoners (including 60 'high value targets') escaping as the Kurds guarding them fled for their lives.
However Trump said this didn't pose any threat to the US because "They’re going to be escaping to Europe.”
Maybe it's time for us to decide who our allies are more carefully.
I will never forgive Saudi Arabia for the content of the 28 pages. Those who did 9/11 on us remain unpunished because geopolitics demands that we keep good relations with their "royal family".
I'd be happy to abandon whatever "alliance" we have with Turkey/Hungry, and a few other states that have shown evidence that they don't like democracy and are hostile to it.
Sure, and the question really came down to how much autonomy they'd end up getting within an integrated Syria. The answer turns out to be "not much".
And to make matters worse, Trump didn't even make an attempt to let them down gently - saying "the Kurds were paid tremendous amounts of money, were given oil and other things. So they were doing it for themselves more so than they were doing it for us"...
...and then, 4 weeks later, expected their Iraqi and Iranian cousins to ride to the USA's aid!
Possibly they think they can make up what they lost in good will and cooperation with blackmail and pressure. It is doubtful it will work as reliably as in the past, though (second order effects even left aside).
Also the Kurds are very much aware how quickly the US abandoned them in Syria where they joined the fight on ISIS and now are left as a gift to new Syrian regime.
I had a gut feeling the US wasn't serious about the Kurd uprising in Iran when they failed to take PJAK off the terrorist list (Treasury one, not the DoS one), which is necessary to fund them.
> It has to be hard for Americans to realise that their government has pissed so much of the world off so badly.
It is not hard, at all, for roughly 1/3 of Americans to understand this. Another 1/3 don't think it, or anything past their TikTok feed, matters. The last 1/3 thought Team America was a documentary.
> It is not hard, at all, for roughly 1/3 of Americans to understand this.
Sorry, but I don't think they do understand.
America has managed to piss off Canada FFS. And lets be honest, you've got to work really hard to piss off the Canadians.
Frankly, Americans (former) allies have seen the American people VOTE for Trump. Twice. Even if Trump goes tomorrow, the (former) allies know what a significant proportion of the US people want in a leader, and so may be in store at the next election.
I can't speak for anyone else, but the depth of our self-disgrace is pretty damned obvious. (What I can or should do personally is less obvious.)
Having elected Donald Trump twice - atop all our other failings - is a giant screaming proclamation that the United States is unfit for, and undeserving of, continued existence as a state or government. The responsible thing to do is to hold a Constitutional Convention and dissolve the damned thing, and then the individual states can figure out how they ought to go forward from there. (I don't think current U.S. States are anything like perfect but they're what we have left once the United States government is gone.)
Sorry, but 1/3 of the country is deeply, keenly aware of what an absolute fucking disgrace the last year and two months have been for us on an international stage. There's no delusion, here, that Canadians are excited about being threatened with an invasion, in spite of your silly black/white post.
You're not. Really you don't understand the impact Trump has had.
Since 1945 America was a solid partner that could be mutually trusted by us all. That trust has been lost for good. There is simply no coming back from that.
My man, you are arguing with someone who fucking understands that. I get you think America is entirely dudes coal-rolling their pickup trucks in Bumfuck Texas because you're angry and you want to call us stupid. And sure, some of us are. But repeatedly telling someone "YOU DON'T GET IT" when they repeatedly demonstrate getting it is supremely childish.
A fair number of people, especially on this site, have like, traveled. Talk to people in other countries. Read the news. Etc. I get your angry and you're lashing out, but good god.
> because you're angry and you want to call us stupid
Please keep the tone civil. I said nor implied no such thing.
Rather, a significant number of posts on HN believe there will be change back to 'normality' when Trump is no longer president. Yet the world has now changed and what is normal has shifted. Maybe you understand that, but many very clearly do not comprehend the gravitas.
I mean, I assumed that any group of people stupid enough to be betrayed by the department of state twice would be first in line to get betrayed a third and fourth time.
The facts are that this administration removed most of the top generals in the pentagon a year ago[0]. Notice the pattern in other areas of the administration when the opportunity for new appointments is created: Loyalty over competence and experience in almost every case. There are a few exceptions, but most were from His first term (Jpowell).
Their key insight is that you don't have to manufacture consent when so many voters just love the guy in the White House and will stand by him no matter what.
Why waste time convincing anybody of anything, when support for the war will just converge on the president's approval rating anyway?
It certainly appears to be a cult of personality. If he had a massive stroke tomorrow, or one of his secret service detail took him out, could anyone around him pick up the baton and get that same level of support?
It is a ring of incompetent yes men, but behind those yes men is a nefarious foreign influence operation. These guys didn't arrive at their bad decisions by accident.
.. and a substantial domestic influence organization. Lots of US donors with US passports handing over good old US dollars. Lots of pro-regime news stations. More since the CBS takeover.
When you listen to the director of counterterrorism explain what happened in the run up to him resigning it fits pretty well the theory that Trump is compromised (possibly with kompromat) by a certain Middle Eastern country.
That used to be plausible. But what new revelation about Trump could hurt him? Misuse of office for personal gain? Trump Tower Moscow? Inciting an insurrection? Harassing young women? Adultery? Rape? Hanging out with a pedophile? Blowjob from a 13 year old girl? [1] Those are all on the record.
Look for the Tucker Carlson interview with Joe Kent.
(Tucker Carlson is weirdly intelligent and thoughtful in that interview in a way i did not expect, but Joe said the most eye opening stuff... I have a lot of respect for him)
There is this interesting split on the right on Israel, Tucker Carlson is one of the few large platforms talking on zionism. He also interviewed the US embassador to Israel Mike Huckabee who said they have a "biblical right to land from ‘wadi of Egypt to the great river’" (Greater Israel), he also reported on how Israeli is seeing Turkey as the next threat to eliminate after Iran.
The left, not liberals but actual antiwar/antizionist left has been warning about Zionism and the Iran war for decades, nothing Tucker is saying is new, it's just nobody ever listens to those voices they have no platform are completely ignored in liberal media which is exclusively Zionist and pro-war. So when Tucker talks about it it's the first time most people ever hear this stuff, that's what makes Tucker so dangerous he is a white supremacists with a large platform who reads the room and recognizes the historic unpopularity of Israel, who has built a viable independent media platform for himself. Tucker is what an intelligent fascist Trump 2.0 would look like make no mistake.
> he also reported on how Israeli is seeing Turkey as the next threat to eliminate after Iran.
Good thing that that's not at all true. What you are referring to was an (intentional) mistranslation of a public comment by an Israeli minister, who said that Turkey was their greatest threat after Iran.
He says constantly that he is against blood guilt, the killing of innocents no matter their heritage, and even went so far as to say that he doesn't even necessarily think the large scale replacement of white people in their home countries is a bad thing. I don't know how you could consider that to be white supremacy.
Yeah, I mean, if you ignore maybe half of the things he says about Black Americans or immigrants, you could maybe not see him as a white supremacist. Tucker Carlson is a good political communicator, and he is clever. But he's still a bad person.
But that doesn't make him a supremacist. Tucker knows his audience and gives them what they want. He's done content in support of both major parties in the US; he's a true capitalist not a supremacist.
He said immigrants make the country “poorer, and dirtier, and more divided.", he credited “white men” for “creating civilization.”, he was pro-iraq war he said he felt “no sympathy” for Iraqis, calling them “semiliterate primitive monkeys.”, he believes in the great replacement theory he said the Biden administration’s immigration policy is like “eugenics” against white people, he said black people killed by police that sparked the BLM protests deserved to have been killed, it's fucking endless like a week ago he called pro-hitler Oswald Mosley one of Britain's 'great war heroes'.
That's why the parent comment said "the large scale replacement of white people in their home countries" as a statement of fact, all you dog whistling nazi fucks
FWIW he has said many times he regrets his role in supporting the Iraq war, and says he has since change his views.
>Biden administration’s immigration
To quote Joe Biden: "An unrelenting stream of immigration, non-stop, non-stop. Folks like me who are of european caucasian descent for the first time in 2017 we'll be an absolute minority. Absolute minority. Fewer than 50% of the people in America will be white European stock. That's not a bad thing, that's the source of our strength."
Joe Biden's White House sued Texas and Arizona to get them to take down their border walls, and even sent the Border Patrol with fork lifts to forcibly open the barbed wire:
>"the large scale replacement of white people in their home countries" as a statement of fact
In one generation (1965 to now):
USA: 90% (higher than that in most states) -> 50%
UK: 100% -> 83% (predicted to be a minority by 2066)
Australia: 98% -> 55%
New Zealand: 90% -> 67%
Germany: 100% -> 80%
Spain: 98% -> 81%
France: 100% -> 85% (difficult to estimate but likely lower than 85%)
Netherlands: 100% -> 72%
Italy: 100% -> 92%
Denmark: 100% -> 82%
Belgium: 100% -> 64%
Sweden: 100% -> 75%
Norway: 100% -> 90%
This is just one generation, extrapolating these trends out another one or two generations and the result is that whites are a minority in most of their homelands.
>nazi fucks
I mean if you're saying that I want to invade Poland, quite the opposite is true. I'm saying we should leave Poland alone so they can manage their own borders and grow peacefully. :)
Holy shit that's not the point, other people will call you and Tucker white supremacists BECAUSE of the things you believe, do you not see how explaining those things (like the white replacement theory) isn't helpful? Like we already knew you think that, that's why you are a white supremacist in the first place, only other white supremacists will agree with you that's what makes somebody a white supremacist, it's believing those things.
Of course you don't like that, because that vile ideology is thankfully still generally reviled in society so you don't want to be called that. But that's not up to you. It's the same way that obviously the Nazis didn't think they were the bad guys, they thought they were the good guys saving Germany from non-whites and jews destroying their homeland, just like you think white people's homelands are being threatened by non-white people.
"I don't want to be a hated minority in my own country" is not supremacy.
China, Japan, Korea, India are nice places and I have no problem with them controlling their own borders. They are 99% ethnically homogeneous, but I don't think you would spend a second trying to claim they are "asian supremacists".
>do you not see how explaining those things (like the white replacement theory) isn't helpful?
Your original post seemed incredulous that I could claim it was happening at all, then I provided you numbers and now you've moved the goal post from "it isn't happening" to "why would you point out this thing that's obviously happening?".
Calling people Nazis doesn't work anymore, nobody cares. It's obvious your entire view on the topic is based on just trying to apply that label to everything you disagree with.
I mean, Joe Kent resigning in protest over the war with Iran is admirable, but Joe Kent is also a vocal anti-Semite who was upset that US policy was being directed by Israel. And I don't mean that Joe Kent dislikes the Israeli government or its actions specifically, I mean he engages in anti-Jewish conspiracy theories and associates with anti-Semites like Nick Fuentes.
These days conflating criticism of israel with anti semitism is a very clear, very obvious and very reliable racist calling card.
Mitch McConnell (adherent of the great replacement theory) accusing Joe Kent of anti semitism gave the accusation the same gravitas it would have if Strom Thurmond or the Grand wizard of the KKK did it.
i.e. it only serves to underscore the accuser's racism.
> These days conflating criticism of israel with anti semitism is a very clear, very obvious and very reliable racist calling card
No it isn't. There are lots of anti-Semites who just don't like Jews irrespective of Israel's foreign policy. There are also a lot of people criticising Israel who are idiots, alongside the–I believe–majority who have thought deeply about the issue and concluded dispassionately.
Yes, anti semites exist but trumped up accusations of anti semitism against israel critics is still one of the most reliable indicators of a vehement islamophobe.
And, they hate anti-racists almost as much as they hate muslims.
Those days people that hate Jews claiming they're "only anti-Zionists" are being white washed while synagogues are shot at and people displaying anything Jewish are attacked on the streets in western countries.
Antisemitism is at all times high. And not the "critical of Israel" type of antisemitism. The "jews control the weather", "space lasers from mars" and "let's kill all of them" type of antisemitism is rampant.
Comments like yours are the racist ones. Maybe you don't understand that but that's a whole problem on its own. People are completely uneducated on what antisemitism is, the traditional blood libels against the Jewish people, the history of the Jewish people, and how all that relates to what's going on today.
Yes and why do you think that is. Constant crying wolf means moderate persons are slowly feeling the word antisemite lose all meaning and therefore the real antisemites are gaining room to legitimise themselves.
Part of the game played here by the people that hate Jews is to attack the meaning of this word and they are being successful at it. Distortion of words and language is part of the tool set used by the anti-Israel camp here. The anti-Israel camp, which is also (broadly) antisemitic, is intentionally fueling antisemitism while pushing the argument that it's not antisemitism because it's really anti-Zionism or anti-Israel.
For countries like Iran and Qatar Israel should not exist because it's Jewish and Jews should not live in the Middle East because it's Muslim land. In their eyes there is no confusion that these are all the same thing. Only in those eyes of said "moderate" people.
No that's complete nonsense. In today's era actual antisemites won't need guesswork to locate, they'd openly vomit out a salad of zog, greedy bastards, traitors, that 109 country bs, holocaust denialism, etc etc. AIPAC for example has made the calculation that accusing moderate non-racists of antisemitism is much more effective than doing anything about actual hardcore antisemites whom they ignore. Actions like this are the reason words like ZOG are slowly becoming used in the mainstream. The accusation of antisemitism is losing all meaning.
Arabic countries didn't have much trouble coexisting with native jews. You might be overlooking the minor point of shipping Europeans en-masse into a place and displacing people who lived there before natively.
Arabic countries barely tolerated Jews as second class citizens under Islamic rule. That is the truth. What you're regurgitating here is the nonsense. If life was so great for the Jews under Arabic rulers where are the communities of Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Jordan, Iraq? How many Jews are left in those places? Zero.
So the fairy tale put forward by today's antisemites that you are echoing is historically false and nonsense. That's not to say there were some better periods for some Jews in some areas but as a rule they were still discriminated against, persecuted, and obviously never have the ability to determine their own future or to restore their historical homeland.
I'm not aware of any particular AIPAC policy on this topic so I only have to guess this is some other antisemitic fable. When we see holocaust denial happening right in front of our eyes by maybe people you call "moderate non-racists" then we are going to call that out. Holocaust denial is a strategy of the Palestinians because they believe that the world supports Israel's right to exist as a result of the bad things that happened to Jews by the hands of the German(tm). So their approach to that is to diminish the holocaust and compare it to their own "suffering" (which is another form of diminishing). Some Palestinian leaders like Mahmoud Abbas are outright holocaust deniers and their "opinions" are popular amongst their people: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/sep/07/palestinian-pr...
"shipping Europeans en-masse into a place and displacing people who lived there before natively." -> never happened. Jewish people that migrated to present day Israel did not displace anyone. The displacement that happened in 1948 happened as a result of the war that was started against Israel. "Europeans" meaning Jewish people who also lived there natively, just farther back in history.
See if you talk like this about e.g. Chinese immigration to Vancouver, Canada, and you say they came and displaced the white people who lived there (or the first nations or whatnot). Then you are immediately labelled, correctly, a racist. But it's ok to talk like that about Jewish refugees with nowhere to go, persecuted in Europe, who immigrated to a place they have immense historical connection to, did so legally, wanted to coexist peacefully with in a free and democratic society with everyone in the region, and then when brutally attacked by people who would not accept their right to be there defended themselves.
The accusation of antisemitism isn't really losing its meaning. It still means exactly what it meant. Those people who are being accused are actually antisemites. They are not "moderate non-racists". They are totally racist.
EDIT: So I don't know anything about you. Where you're from. Where you've absorbed your "knowledge" about the middle east and the Jewish people from. But you are repeating some story or narrative you've heard somewhere and that narrative is totally racist. Maybe you're not aware of it but it still is. This is exactly what racism and antisemitism looks like not like what you describe.
I just fed your reply into an LLM as a sanity check and asked whether that reply is antisemitic or racist and got this evaluation: "The statement you’ve shared is a complex mix of political critique and rhetoric that, in several places, moves beyond standard political debate and into the territory of established antisemitic tropes."
It goes on to say: ""The Accusation is Losing All Meaning" This is a common rhetorical tactic. While one can certainly debate whether specific organizations overreach in their definitions of antisemitism, using that debate to excuse or explain away the rise of terms like "ZOG" shifts the blame for bigotry onto the victims of that bigotry."
"European "Mass Shipping"
Referring to the Jewish population in Israel solely as "Europeans" ignores the fact that:
Over half of Israel’s Jewish population are Mizrahi (descendants of Jews from the Middle East and North Africa).
Jews are indigenous to the Levant; describing them exclusively as European colonizers is a way of delegitimizing their historical and ancestral ties to the region."
Llms are llms they will reflect status quo thinking in politics, a status quo that is shifting now.
Why the fuck would I have a problem with Chinese immigration to Canada and how the fuck would it be remotely equivalent to European jews forcibly being put on a land at the behest of a colonial power initially then their own terrorism to pressure the brits later? Immigrants to modern Canada have come with legal permission and are peacefully coexisting with the locals as equals. They didn't annex or displace anyone.
>Jews are indigenous to the Levant
The people already living there were much more indigenous than someone who married europeans for hundreds of generations.
This of course brings us to a funny point. Why do you feel a need to defend israelis on the basis of genetics? Its just a country, anyone ofany race should be able to immigrate right? If not then what do you want to say, that it is an ethnostate? If it's an ethnostate what is your opinion on forming an Aryan ethnostate? Do you have a problem with that?
And regarding genetic roots there. If I have 99% Nigerian and 1% French what would you say if I tried to tell you I am French, France is my ancestral land and I need to displace the fake people living in France currently?
I didn't say anything about local jews and arab jews. I am talking about slavic and german etc jews. They don't even look like anyone local. If you showed a photo without any religious garb people would say this person is white.
Again why this both waysing of Israel as simultaneously both a ethnic state for jews and as a liberal secular state? Pick a lane.
I don't give a shit about race, nationalism, religion anyone should be able to move anywhere as long as they aren't harming others. Israels origin and continued present action fails the latter test.
And arabs were bad compared to whom? Do you support toplling statues of Lincoln because he was bad person by modern standards? If arabs were bad to jews, how were Christians behaving to jews back then? It is neither an arab nor a muslim country that Holocausted jews.
Here I'm not ignoring you though I probably should.
The problem is you're providing cover for the antisemites even if you're not one yourself (which isn't clear at this point). They will fly under your cover pretending that they actually care about the same thing. We see this "mix" in the conversation (e.g. painting the Jews in the US as not being loyal or serving foreign interests).
The choice of the word "genocide" for the civilians killed in the war in Gaza is antisemitism. You might not think so but it objectively is. That word started getting used around 5 minutes into this war on Oct 8th or so. The Israeli "regime" (aka democratically elected government) is not absolute evil and it is fighting a war against a mix of innocent people and evil people which is true for most wars. While elements of this government may hold opinions that are let's say "extreme" that is different than evil. Evil is what Hamas' attack on Oct 7th looked like. Anyways, evil is meant to manipulate emotions as is genocide. Those are tools of propaganda and their usage indicates a certain mindset. The word genocide is not appropriate because it refers to the aim of destroying a national or ethnic group and Gaza is neither. Even if Israel wanted to kill, and killed, all Gazans that does not fit the commonly accepted definition of this word prior to the war in Gaza. Those that wield the word rely on some legalities that differ from the common usage and that is intentional. According to certain legal scholars even the killing of a single person can be considered a genocide but that's obviously not what the intent is/was. So the usage of this word is a "tell" in a bad way and the singling out of Israel is another "tell". There are ways of expressing your condemnation that would probably avoid the issue and the choices made do matter. The problem is then you'd actually have to say what you really think and that might not stand a test to the factual reality. You might have to also suggest what Israel could have done that would be acceptable to your morals and is something that stands other tests of reason.
The equating/comparison of the war in Gaza to the Holocaust is antisemitism.
The war in Gaza is not a "UN recognized genocide" and that title is meaningless anyways. We don't need to UN to tell us what's right and what's wrong.
There are many examples current and historical where more civilians were harmed, with more intent, and less or no reasons, that haven't drawn the kind of hate and condemnation that is aimed at Israel (or as you say the "regime" whatever that's supposed to mean). That "bias" is what racism and antisemitism is partly about.
So you are clearly possessed of this bias. I claim I have no bias. If you s/Palestinians/Swedes/ and s/Israel/Dutch/ my take on the Gaza war would be exactly the same. I do not view it through a lens of race. I view it purely through the facts of the matter. Any similar example in the world, any other war or conflict, with civilian casualties, I would view through the very same lens. No racism. Maybe you don't know that in every war ever innocent people die. Maybe you don't understand the realities and facts of this specific war. Maybe you don't understand the propaganda war going on. I really don't know. What I do know is that there is a correlation between physical attacks on Jews all over the world and this intentionally distorted view of the conflict so even if you claim that you support one and oppose the other that's clearly not how many people perceive the same propaganda.
> The word genocide is not appropriate because it refers to the aim of destroying a national or ethnic group and Gaza is neither. Even if Israel wanted to kill, and killed, all Gazans that does not fit the commonly accepted definition of this word prior to the war in Gaza.
Your definition of genocide is so narrow that it also excludes the Armenian genocide, are you okay with that? Some groups like those in Constantinople were spared, so a denier might claim that only rural Armenians were targeted, not the whole ethnic group (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_genocide_denial#Rheto...).
>Here I'm not ignoring you though I probably should.
Yes it is not wise to out oneself as a genocide denialist - whether it's the holocaust or (in your case) gaza.
>The choice of the word "genocide" for the civilians killed in the war in Gaza is antisemitism.
There was an enormous war crime committed and plenty of evidence, just like there was with the holocaust.
Commitment to genocide denial demonstrates an equal level of racism as a holocaust denier. They are, as I'm sure you'll agree, anti semites whether they admit it or not.
>I view it purely through the facts of the matter. We don't need to UN to tell us what's right and what's wrong.
The UN is there to tell us what happened as a neutral party. THEY view it through the facts of the matter, which is why they confirmed that it is a genocide - over two years after it started and the evidence had mounted up.
It is seems likely that you view this conflict exclusively through a racial prism. That is very sad.
> We see this "mix" in the conversation (e.g. painting the Jews in the US as not being loyal or serving foreign interests).
Nothing special about jews, dual citizens by definition have mixed loyalties, whether they be a dual citizen to Israel, Russia, Egypt, Netherlands, anywhere else.
This is another example where a perfectly general and non-jewish aspect is taken and construed to be "antisemitism".
Genes are also a nice argument. Jews have all kinds of genetic origins from Russians, Poles to Middle Eastern. Would you be saying the same thing if it was jews instead of Palestinians?
Physical attacks on jews are happening precisely because Israel is deliberately confusing real antisemitism and perfectly normal non-racist views. This gives cover to the actual antisemites. People are growing sick of giving disclaimers they condemn the holocaust, they have nothing against jews as a people, etc etc and at that point what do you think someone with less energy and willpower will do once they see an attack: bah whatever.
Did I cite Mitch McConnell? No, I did not. I tried to be clear that I am not accusing Joe Kent of anti-Semitism because he is criticizing Israel, and Mitch engaging in that kind of rhetoric is only serving to make it harder for me to make my point. I am accusing Kent of anti-Semitism because he has a history of engaging in anti-Jewish conspiracy theories and consorting with neo-Nazis. My point is simple: we should not respect Joe Kent. His resignation is correct; his reasoning is flawed.
"The Senate on Wednesday confirmed Joe Kent to a top counterterrorism role, overcoming opposition from Democrats who described the retired Army Green Beret as a conspiracy theorist who has associated with White nationalists and other far-right extremists. "
Well there was the incident at Amazon[1]: "Amazon just did something unprecedented: they're forcing a 90-day safety reset across 335 critical systems after their AI coding tool caused catastrophic outages. The March 5th incident alone lost 6.3 million orders and triggered 21,716 peak Downdetector reports"
And two at Meta[2]: "A rogue AI agent at Meta took action without approval and exposed sensitive company and user data to employees who were not authorized to access it"
"director of alignment at Meta Superintelligence Labs, described a different but related failure in a viral post on X last month. She asked an OpenClaw agent to review her email inbox with clear instructions to confirm before acting. The agent began deleting emails on its own."
Even Elon Musk has shared the wisdom to proceed with caution! [3]
I wonder if Anthropic has overtaken them in revenue, seems like more people would pay for Claude code than to chat with ChatGTP. Would be good to see Codex vs Claude Code income.
It's not because of the bubble. There is literally no advantage to generating slop videos. It looks cool for a while but no audience is going to consume such videos.
Any platform which focusses on AI generated videos is doomed.
My girlfriend keeps sending me AI generated tiktoks, despite me complaining about them. To be fair, I've seen literally nothing on tiktok that isn't garbage, so the competition is pretty low. Your point "It looks cool for a while" might have some merit - I think I've seen less and less interest in these things over the last year which fits the news articles I've seen mentioning people got bored of using Sora pretty quickly.
So much for “replacing VFX artists”. It’s not necessarily a harbinger of doom for the AI industry, but this indicates that the most fervent AI boosters were dead wrong.
It's more like the VFX market is too small for OpenAI to bother killing. They are only interested in business models that can justify a trillion dollar valuation.
> but this indicates that the most fervent AI boosters were dead wrong.
I dont do design, or make videos, or ask ai for legal advice, or medical advice cause I lack the skill and understanding of these fields. Dunning Kruger still applies...
There is interesting "AI" content out there, clearly the person(s) behind it put some thought into it and had a vision.
True, I did try to make some useful 1 minute videos, and found it really difficult to arrive at a finished product
Sure, I can write the screenplay and Veo will generate it for me. But I don't have experience in video creation/production , so it is difficult for me to write good prompts which generate engaging video
Oh there's a huge (and wildly depressing) market for people endlessly scrolling video slop, it's just the barriers to entry and expectations of the market are so low you can't really differentiate with 'slightly better branded slop'.
Nothing like an ill-considered war with global economic consequences to bring reality crashing back down on Silicon Valley; sometimes life throws a big old margin call your way and things break down.
i heard that they asked LinkedIn to do this too and they either refused or their systems were too complex so they refused to. Maybe that explains why LI availability seems ok
We celebrate the other option so why not celebrate child free lives? It seems like historically a lot of people have had to make this decision not by their own will or need. Showing people that they can have just as compelling lives as parents is a net-good.
reply