I’d get a generation or two old pixel, can get fully unlocked ones on Amazon for pretty cheap. Just replaced my mother’s pixel 2 with a pixel 5 for less than $200
Agreed. I’m about to update to the new (to me) Google Pixel, probably the 6a. (I think they’re on the 8 now?) The battery on my current pixel is not holding up. My last two phones were pixels and probably my next couple will be as well
Word of advice, pixel is good for software, camera but that’s it. Don’t take it I less you can use esim with physical sim, as it has NO double SIM slot , that’s a must have feature for me. So quite useless in most of ASIA.
Unlocked means it’s not tied to a carrier (mobile phone provider).
Not too sure about the rest of the world, but North America has a huge problem with carrier-locked devices. You buy a phone from YourCellProvider, and you’re stuck using the phone only with YourCellProvider.
What a pain. They finally ended this in Canada at the end of 2017. All phones sold since then have to be sold unlocked. Any phone sold before that time is likely still locked to a carrier, but that carrier must provide the unlock code for free upon request. Feels like they did this one right, and it is great to be able to keep an old flagship device for 5+ years and travel with it or move services around as needed.
It’s more because they’ll let you pay for the phone in two years with 0% APR, but you can’t just leave, not pay, and use the phone on another provider.
Before it used to be free or heavily discounted, but now it’s just a 0% APR credit service.
I can not recommend pixels anymore after owning my 7 pro for a year (been using google phones since the nexus 5x). Their own tensor chip is behind the competition by 2 years, but importantly they use a shitty modem which causes issues for a large portion of users.
Also pixels used to have a significantly better camera than others, but I feel that gap is so small now that it doesn’t matter at the high end, they’re trading blows now.
The only edge compared to the competition is getting access to google app features earlier than others, like magic eraser. Ain’t what it used to be anymore…
The single best feature and the only one that I looked for before buying my pixel was the custom ROM support. Installed grapheneos on day 1, nothing is the only other company in the market here that allows you to unlock bootloader without voiding the warranty so didn’t really have much choice to go for tbh. Would be nice if other ones like fairphone would expand out soon.
I’ve worked with people who worked in software for the (property) insurance industry, which is similarly conservative and not tech oriented.
The advantage is that it tends to be extremely stable.
Like you can probably work there your entire life if you wanted, and they have a career path that accounts for that.
The downside is that you’re probably going to hate every minute of it. You won’t be doing anything that could be considered innovative. Doesn’t mean it won’t do anything that would fit on a resume or that it’s a dead end, it just won’t be new.
Personally, I would recommend the more interesting job. 27 isn’t an age I would worry about either.
If I could go back to 27 I’d take the interesting job. I’ve done both but waited until my late 30s to really spread my wings. I did a whole bunch of cool things that I wish I had done 10 years earlier so that I wouldn’t mind settling into a more boring thing later.
Suits that actually fit. Does nobody know anymore how a man in a suit is supposed to look? They all think they’re so fashionable, instead they look like they walked with a paper suit through a steam bath. Awful. Ah, and have you ever tried to get a real wool suit? Had to let mine have made. That. Was. Expensive.
Don’t go for the conservative position. I chose the same path a year ago and - as others said - hate every second of work there. The higher salary is not worth the bad time you’ll likely have. This is only my personal experience but maybe it helps you avoid the same mistake I did.
To me it’s who’s trying to kill who. Hamas (the group) wants to destroy Israel, Israel in turn wants to destroy Hamas, not Gaza (this part is actually very subjective)
It’s a good way to frame things. As an outsider, the subjectivity of the IDF’s target is why I wonder if people are choosing one term for the war over another. Some see the intentional bombing of refugee camps, ambulances, and aid convoys as targeting the civilians of Gaza in what amounts to a systematic extermination of Palestinians. The casualty numbers seem to heavily favor that interpretation. So could this be one reason for some news outlets to frame the conflict as Israel vs Gaza itself? Or is the word choice more nuanced than that, given how it seems as though the two names are being used interchangeably on both sides of the line?
Whoever thinks Israel purposefully targets civilians ignores how Hamas operates. It has been documented for years by the UN and human rights organizations that they use civilians as shields.
Getting Palestinian civilians dead is part of their strategy.
I’m not defending Israel settlements in the West Bank.
But that’s largely independent from Hamas actions or intentions. Hamas was founded before the first intifada, and it existed at relatively peaceful times when the talks about a two state solution were meant serious on the Israeli side. Their intentions then were not different from today’s.
Hamas never wanted peace, and they never wanted to peacefully coexist.
(*) edit: wait did you say me pointing out how Hamas uses civilians as shields is unfair against the Hamas??
whoever thinks Israel purposefully targets civilians…
They have for a while, and currently they are. And it’s well known and historically proven that behavior like that results in backlash eventually. And then nothing good happens.
Yeah the last point being so subjective is why many call it Israel vs Gaza and or Hamas. I find that Israel vs Hamas is more fitting however. This is because many civilian casualties are because Hamas officials use the population as their meat shield. Many of those schools, hospitals and other civilian centers often contained a cowardly official of Hamas. It’s important to acknowledge that this does not make it any less tragic but it does demonstrate Israel’s main objective is destroying Hamas and their leaders rather than Gaza itself. It’s all about intent
I agree that intent is an important consideration. In war, combatants are obligated to be intentional with who they target. That intentionality is even codified into international law. It’s why we say that civilian casualties must be minimized whenever possible. By law, commanders must attempt to discriminate between military and civilian targets, applying force appropriately to target only those who are part of the conflict. By law, retaliation is governed by the principal of minimum force, meaning only so much force as is required to remove the threat, and no more.
When those of us outside the conflict zone are confronted with dead children on the front page, that’s the standard of “intent” we’re weighing our reactions against. For many, it’s hard to see how attacks on refugee camps were intended to spare refugees. How attacks on aid convoys and ambulances intended to spare the sick and wounded. How refusing to allow food, water, and the gasoline that hospitals need in order to operate is intended to safeguard the welfare of civilians who have been forced to drink sea water just to stay alive. Even if Hamas is using the population as human shields, it doesn’t change that the intent should be to spare those civilians in spite of Hamas’ actions. They’re fellow human beings. They deserve that bare minimum of thought. Sure, dropping an atomic bomb on Gaza City would wipe out the terrorists, but I think we’d all agree that’d be a war crime since it would also murder millions. The same logic applies here on the smaller scale (though 10,000 residents - half of them children - isn’t exactly “small scale”). That’s why it’s hard to see intention in those headlines. At least aside from the intention to do exactly what you’d expect bombing a refugee camp to do - murder refugees. The indiscriminate leveling of a region isn’t targeted, but it sure as hell looks intentional.
I desperately want to be wrong here, and like I said, I’m an outside observer from America just like you. But that’s the train of logic that I see dominating calls for a humanitarian pause over here, and it’s rather compelling.
That’s what Hamas wants - forcing Israel to either not attack them because of civilians or for the whole world to condemn the attacks. That’s why they use civilians.
But they don’t particularly understand that you have to give your enemy an out - if Israel is fucked whether they attack or not, why shouldn’t they attack? They’ll still be fucked but they’ll at least stop worrying about this particular enemy.
They’ll still be fucked but they’ll at least stop worrying about this particular enemy.
The difference is that “in for a penny, in for a pound” implies all options are equal as long as the objective is achieved. “Surgical strike that kills 24 civilians? Nuclear strike that kills 2,400,000? Something in between? Why bother weighing the pros and cons because we’re fucked on the world stage either way. Might as well go big.” It’s an argument designed to sidestep the very real debate over “acceptable loss” calculations and the duty to safeguard human life. No one is saying that Israel shouldn’t retaliate. No one is saying that Hamas is playing fair. What they are saying is that 10,000 dead refugees might look like Israel doesn’t care that they’re dead. Especially when Israel says they targeted refugee camps and ambulances on purpose. And when you chime in saying “fuck it, just kill 'em” to a simple plea of “maybe count the kids before killing 'em all.”
The IDF is in an impossible situation, but the answer isn’t to shut down debate, it’s to actually talk about where the line should be drawn and try to minimize civilian harm. Allow foreign aid to reach the starving children. Allow civilians to leave the city. Listen to why there’s an outcry against indiscriminate bombings. Palestinians aren’t “meat shields.” Hamas might be hiding behind them, but that doesn’t mean you have to aim straight at the “shields” and pull the trigger. They’re people, and deserve more consideration than a simple “fuck it, what’s a little genocide if the bad guy’s dead?”
asklemmy
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.