Suits. It’s insanely unrealistic, full of nonsense drama for no reason, and just has some of the most insane bullshit. But God damn was it a fun show to watch.
You can get all the iron you need from vegetables and certain meat or even taking supplements. There's no need to go about eating rusty metal. In fact, my doctor has advised me not to eat nails. I have to trust what he says, he's printed out several impressive medical degrees.
I seem to be alone in that I see teleportation as a great way to travel all the time without ever having to set foot on a plane again. The time and money saved would allow me to visit with distant friends on the regular.
And move to a cheap spacious house in the middle of nowhere, ideally somewhere absolutely beautiful. You could work anywhere you want and never need to actually live there. You could also become the first person on every planet and moon. I’d probably try to get nasa to pay me a billion dollars to be on call to teleport anything they want to anywhere in the solar system.
I view Mastodon as a publishing platform. You follow some creator, and they post stuff. You can comment on it, boost it, maybe others will comment on that but probably not. It’s not for discussions, just like twitter.
By contrast Lemmy and other redditlikes are super forums. Discussion is the point.
People talking about wanting to lose weight or dieting. It’s one thing to say “I’m going to skip dessert because I’m watching what I eat” but more often than not, it turns into this dark, self hating thing, e.g. “I gained so much weight over the holidays, I can’t believe I’m up to X lbs, I look so ugly.” Women especially seem to bond over these conversations and it makes me really uncomfortable and sad to be honest.
The movie isn’t anywhere near the same as the book.
And it shouldn’t be thought of as the same story - it’s not an adaptation but an interpretation of the first book.
Though in doing that it ruins a few key points needed to link the sequels, which never received movie sequels because the movie was just that bad.
The only thing I can complement is some of the actor choices. Particularly the choice for Brom Murtagh, and galbatorix (though the mad king doesn’t appear in the books till the last book at the final showdown)
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?”
I don’t like the idea that if history repeats itself, a powerful entity can force the data vaults open and see who they should send to the showers. I could be on the “correct” side at that time yet something I did or said last year has the system deem me unfit for the noble breed.
Something seems odd with the idea that high rises were ‘natural’ :-)
For me, the “concept” is terribly wrong.
A park itself is fine, but you can’t use one park as an excuse for not having other parks, green areas etc. anymore in a big city.
New York has 5 times more people than Munich. But Munich’s biggest park is about the same size as New York’s Central Park (a little bigger even). And if you count all the green areas, parks etc. in Munich together, they are 6 times larger (counting only the ones that are publicly accessible and listed in wikipedia) than that Central Park.
So, give your New Yorker’s 30 central parks and lots of other green spots, and you got a concept.
Something seems odd with the idea that high rises were ‘natural’ :-)
They are better than spreading single family homes and ground floor commercial spaces over a huge swath of land that would inevitable need clearcutting and plowing under to be suitable for development.
asklemmy
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.