For example, I find it incredibly hard to believe there aren't more than a few Palestinian war criminals (regardless of any opinion of the justness -or not- of their "struggle", each side should admit there are more than a few immoral actions committed on both sides), for example, yet we see zero action. ALL the prosecuted individuals from former Yugoslavia are from one particular side of the conflict ... it is completely absurd. The same can be said for half the countries listed, no shortage of genocides committed by these people. Those are just the things that really jump out at me.
Here's another thing: there are plenty of war criminals in the Netherlands. Even their home country, the Netherlands, has refused to persecute people involved in:
The Dutch state has chosen to protect both individuals, commanders and the chain of command in military and government in each case. Do I really need to point out that this directly contradicts the rules of the UN and the statutes of the ICC as well as Dutch law ? It seems redundant at this point.
And if you look to Dutch history, the role of the Dutch Royal family in hundreds of genocides ... this is not going to improve your opinion of the country (which the Royal family still more or less controls).
Yeah, Africans are also complaining that there are too many Africans among the prosecuted. But it's not like there's an alternative. Either we have ICC and at least some war criminals get prosecuted or we have nothing. Take your pick :/
ICC has jurisdiction over war crimes committed in Afghanistan after it's accession to the Rome Statute.
> Imagine European idealists prosecuting Clinton, Bush and Obama for "war crimes"?
The Prosecutor of the ICC is Gambian (the former Attorney-General and Minister of Justice of Gambia), and the Deputy Prosecutor is Canadian, so you should have no fear of European idealists...
Never in the history of mankind have we had the ability to go halfway around the world in one day, or hold a conversation with someone halfway around the world with mere seconds of latency.
Never in the history of mankind have we had weapons capable of annihilating a city with one shot.
Never in the history of mankind have we accessed enough energy and matter to change the balance of the global atmospheric gas concentrations.
This is a time in human history where "never in the history of mankind" things should be given serious consideration.
The things that you listed are scientific achievements. What I pointed out was human behavior, power struggles etc. These are two different things.
A Thousand years ago, various groups of humans were trying to control other groups of humans, with stronger groups setting rules and weaker groups following them. Today we're doing the same. A Thousand years from now, we'll likely be doing the same.
Unlikely. Because if we don't come up with an alternative strategy, there is insufficient incentive for the strong to refrain from using the things I just listed against the weaker groups---or the weaker groups to use them first, preemptively, on the assumption the strong cannot be trusted.
We go that road, and in a thousand years, we won't be doing much of anything because we'll be an extinct species.
That seems a likely outcome and a grim, if satisfying element of the Great Filter hypothesis. In the meantime idealism is generally suicidal. How many people cheered the Arab Spring, only to recoil in horror when the most predictable thing ever happened in its wake? We need to solve the problem of risking our own extinction, but if it isn’t clear yet, we need to do something new, not just volunteering to be hacked to death by the next strongman.
Not only am I skeptical that this will ever happen, a look at how the ICC actually works shows that it has no relation to any ideal of holding everyone to some standard. Just because someone created an organization called the International Criminal Court doesn't mean that it has any connection to fairness or that any reasonable nation ought to subordinate itself to them.
It'd be perfectly accurate to say that San Francisco has discrimination against homosexuals, but people are still relocating there to avoid the discrimination where they are. Some places are enormously better than other places.
It is perfectly accurate to say that anywhere has discrimination against anybody, because for any moderately sized group there is always going to be someone engaging in a given behavior.
Distributions and nuanced statements are the crux of this entire matter, yet in these discussions they're cast away in favor of simplistic narratives. If you draw the metric this way, "men" are paid more. If you draw the metric that way, "women" are paid more, surprise! This is already headed down the path to madness!
Generalizations using scalar metrics (or even slightly more advanced higher moments) can only inform - they simply cannot form a basis for prescriptive policies to reform! We generally see sexism/racism/xxism as wrong because they ignore individuals in favor of broken-ass group-based narratives. Yet over the past several years this collectivist thinking has re-sprouted in full force, sanctioned as acceptable because it's "helping" - yet it's still fundamentally broken!
Specifically, every company's basic incentive is to cheap out on every single employee as much as possible without having them leave. They are taking advantage of every person's individual reluctance to fully negotiate, essentially arbitraging their human-emotional holdups. Is it terribly surprising that there are going to be wide disparities between what different personalities (regardless of but also including gender) are paid?
Or let's get crazy: they are the problem. People tend to think other people think and act like them. That's why often the first to be vocal against some behavior are part of those displaying this behavior.
This provides access to hundreds of public and tens of thousands of restricted access cancer genomes (and often the matching "normal" samples): so you can see and visually verify mutations. Interestingly, too, you can check out germline polymorphisms which might predispose someone to get cancer.
Basically all the work is done in the browser : gzip decompression, custom parsing of sequencing alignment, png generation, etc. Lots of data are pushed to the client at load time like gene location information for genome build "hg38" (the latest). Server only provides reference sequence and sample genomic alignment "slices" for the region of interest. So, all the state is handled in the browser, server only provides trivial "wget" requests.
It is mostly wasm (source is C compiled with emcc). The front page is the requisite html/javascript start page. Pages are created in wasm code and pushed to JS for updating the DOM. Lots of calls to emscripten_run_script("your javascript here"). DOM manipulation straight from Rust/Go/C would be cool but it is not here yet.
Upside is server simplicity and security ... and no downloading and setting up complicated software.
We did. We had American Express, Diner's Club, Discover (the old Sears) ,department store cards, gas station cards, Bankamericard (Visa) and Interbank (Mastercard). In the 1960s there were hundreds of credit cards. Visa and Mastercard won the free market battle.
Key phrase from the article is "modern generation of insulin". A good overview of the design and effects of the new insulins are here :
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/dme.13692
( "Lessons for modern insulin development" ).
As rgbrenner noted, 1% growth after inflation. For the average salaried American that’s around $1/day increase. Not enough for a gallon of gas or a Starbucks coffee.
note the reason for using household income: it includes those who were previously unemployed. It's a way of blurring the line between the average person's earnings and unemployment. Of course if we want to know the unemployment rate, there are separate stats that clearly show that. The only reason to include it here is to make wage growth look better than it would otherwise.
Removing those who found a job, we get back to the lower 1% number. And a big part of that is people just working longer hours.
"Professional forecasters see economic growth easing to 2.4 percent in 2019." "The unemployment rate is forecast to average 3.6 percent in the fourth quarter of 2019, down slightly from four quarters earlier." : https://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/regional-economist/f...
I mean really though, why do people even care about "economist/analyst predicts X" stories at all these days? If you're around markets for any period of time (or read Taleb) you know they know nothing and their predictions are worse than useless. It's just garbage information noise and the people who say or publish it should be embarrassed that they think they can predict the future.
There is a lot of noise and one can never time the market, but I think many of us are interested in analysis because we have a general interest in the economy.
Imagine European idealists prosecuting Clinton, Bush and Obama for "war crimes"? No way.