No one is saying this is a genocide at the "hands of the Jews". Jews are not a monoculture, and while there are Jewish people involved in this genocide, this is clearly at the hands of the current state of Israel (and more specifically at the hands of the IDF).
Conflicts have rules, and Israel could absolutely have a conflict with Hamas (whom, it should be noted, I do not support) without eradicating the civilian population in Gaza.
There are plenty of military conflicts around the world. And arguably many war crimes committed by all parties. What the IDF is doing in Gaza is uniquely terrible, absolutely targets civilians, and much of the violence and harm perpetrated is wholly unrelated to defeating Hamas.
> The consumers’ 2021 lawsuit said Amazon violated antitrust law by restricting third-party sellers from offering their products for lower prices elsewhere on rival platforms while they are also for sale on Amazon.
Holy shit, do Valve next! They do the exact same thing.
Valve does not do this. Best I can tell, the idea that they do was created either maliciously or incompetently by the law firm suing them on antitrust grounds. What Valve does is assert that you may not offer Steam keys for your game at lower prices on other platforms, permanently. This is only possible because Steam lets game makers sell Steam licenses to their games on other platforms, cutting Valve out of the platform fees altogether. If you list your game on both the Epic Games store and Steam, you're just fine setting different prices on the two. If you sell Steam products keys to your users directly, who can then go and use those keys to claim your game on Steam, you can't undercut your Steam store listing on a permanent basis. You are even allowed to do temporary promotions on other platforms where you sell your Steam keys that you don't on Steam.
They do not. You are free to sell your game anywhere online for less. You simply cannot use the ability to generate steam keys to sell steam games externally and then proceed to undercut steam.
You are leveraging their infrastructure for that transaction and sale, they are free to set the rules there. They do not otherwise charge you for the infrastructure costs related to purchasing the game, supplying continued redownload, supplying update infrastructure and so on.
You can otherwise take your game and sell it on the Epic store or GOG or run your own download infrastructure and foot the thousands in bandwidth bills. And charge whatever you want
Elden Ring is currently $15 cheaper on GameBillet compared to Steam[0] - it even comes with a Steam activation key. If Valve did the same thing, sites like isthereanydeal.com wouldn't really have as much of a purpose.
Every single major retailer does this. It's not collusion, it's just smart policy. Shelf space is insanely valuable. Retailers have customers walking around their stores (or making searches in Amazon's case) at the final step in the sales funnel. No retailer wants to get a customer that close to buying (often at considerable expense) then lose them because the brand either has weak channel price control or is trying to divert customers to their own website by offering a discount.
Curious, what makes that not safe for work? It's a discussion about a handgun manufacturing error, and the manufacturer's failure to respond adequately to it.
They might have very zealous web filters. Something like Websense would categorize that site as "Weapons" related and visiting the site, even if not blocked, would result in a scoring change to the user's profile.
I don't blame them for playing it safe. I've personally had to help Bay Area HR types understand that looking at "weapons" sites by itself was probably okay when the company we worked for had thousands of employees across California and at least some percentage of them hunted, went target shooting, etc.
Weapons are for hunting, target shooting and killing people.
These HR types (and many in the general population) need to understand that there's nothing wrong with the third point. Aside from the obvious case of self defense, people can only protect their freedom as long as they have equally powerful tools a those trying to oppress them.
Democracy can only work with the ability to kill evenly distributed.
There's a reason all dictatorships have strict gun control laws.
Because English language news sources aren't particularly interested in developing the relationships necessary to report on Chinese scientific breakthroughs. It undermines the prevailing media narrative that China is behind and backwater.
Americans don't like the idea that maybe China is actually rocketing past them technologically and infrastructurally, so news doesn't really report on it much.
> It undermines the prevailing media narrative that China is behind and backwater.
The prevailing narrative, particularly around hacker news, is that China is a dangerous foe and it's technological progress is a sign that we need to give our own government more money and less oversight so that we don't lose our "technological advantage."
> Americans don't like the idea that maybe China is actually rocketing past them technologically and infrastructurally
I don't buy this explanation given it's value to American propagandists. American society is naturally competitive. There's only two likely reasons why it doesn't get reported.
It's either not as true as the Chinese would like you to believe or American industry is already profiting off of it.
China is also nutoriuous for paper mill publishing houses and overblown scientific claims.
Its also needlessly complicated to send the experiment to space. It would be equally valid science if made on earth. So there is a clear performance in the experiment not justifiable by any scientific reason.
Not to say china isn't ahead in space development right now. Artemis is going quite badly and china could certainly be faster to building usable moon outpost.
Its also very cool science, if its claims are true.
What makes you think they didn't test it on Earth first? The Chinese report on this [1] makes this clear with more accurate verbiage: "China's space station has recently conducted experiments on extraterrestrial artificial photosynthesis technology, completing the in-orbit verification of efficient carbon dioxide conversion and oxygen regeneration processes." I think the reason you want to validate your findings in the domain that they'll be used are somewhat self evident.
I only want to point out that showing scepticism to chineese scientific claims when so few details are given is well grounded.
Microgravity is not the target environment for the technology , and it verifying its operation in microgravity feels like a very minor breakthrough compared to the tech itself.
So sending it to space is performance to show off and make headlines.
Its very important tech. If their claims are true its amazing... but doing it in orbit is not the amazing part.
China is doing alot of great research, and the idea that china is behind is laughable in many sectors. But sorting through the real science is so much harder in the noise of empty papers and puffy articles.
That's part of it too, but CNSA really does play its cards much closer to its chest than NASA. It's more in line with the Soviet approach of sharing the minimum information necessary to support a narrative. For example, try to find video of any Long March rocket failure, and literally the only one released is from the 90s and was only released a few years ago.
I read mandarin and I use WeChat. It's still less transparent. There are many self-congratulatory press releases without enough technical information. The Chinese haven't realized yet that transparency here is a form of soft power.
Especially considering the ruling class does not like when people are reminded that China has its own space station and has never allowed a single non-Chinese person on it, while we failed in several ways over months to return the astronauts from the ISS, and President Trump just decreed that he’s going to give 600,000 (more?) Chinese students visas to study at American universities and invariably displacing their indigenous.
I personally have nothing against the Chinese and respect them being oddly far more interested in the wellbeing of their own people than remotely anything in any western country, but it sure is odd behavior by people who consider China a threat.
“China’s an enemy” … “let’s bring in 600,000 Chinese every single year to learn from us and take the knowledge back to China and the ones that remain will be embedded spies like the people of other foreign nations who have burrowed into America and its power structure”.
I'm not sure that a government that goes out of its way to try to silence political dissent and enforce social order through fear should be considered interested in the wellbeing of its people. [0][1][2]
You talk about US or China? For outsiders, the lines are getting blurrier every day, in quite a few aspects US is currently the bigger/worse offender and a proper bully. China just wants to sell their cars here.
I wouldnt take my family to a trip to US these days for example, no such issue with China. One sample aspect, a very practical one too, but there are many others.
I quite like how link [2] he provided leads with something like "The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has many ways of administratively disappearing those it distrusts. It has punished tens of millions of people through its formal, but crude and opaque, criminal justice system."
US Incarceration Rate: 541 per 100k
Chinese Incarceration Rate: 119 per 100k
It leads to the amusing outcome that the US has more people incarcerated than China, in spite of China having 4x the population of the US. It's entirely possible to criticize the Chinese system without resorting to disinformation, but as you allude to, those critiques probably hit a bit too close to home. It's akin to how the Wiki page on authoritarianism [1] has been radically shifted over time to the point that "modern" definition and the definition of 20 years ago [2] are completely different. Yet the old definition is the one that literally everybody uses, but it, again, hits a bit too close to home.
Let’s be honest here. America has the extremely high incarceration rate because of two primary factors; many of Americas regions are effectively uncivilized (if you don’t know that, you simply cannot understand this issue), and there is also a high problem of violence by Africans and if justice and law enforcement were actually conducted to keep society safe and peaceful as should be, the per capita incarceration rate and the real number of Africans incarcerated in the USA would be even far higher.
The “amusing outcome” is actually that when you look at the crime rates of East Asians, you see similar rates as in east Asia, and if you look at all other ethnicities’ crime rates anywhere they are, you also see similar patterns, not matter how removed they are from each other.
These are not complicated or challenging things, the problem is just that a new kind of delusional religion has been constructed around believing nonsense as a base assumption.
Quite bold to say the quiet part out loud. I think for what good intention there was at some point, it was to prevent a repeat of America circa 1900 which worked as an inspiration to Germany circa 1930, but it ended up getting taken to a no less destructive extreme. Nonetheless, it makes pointing out issues with legal systems in other countries overt misinformation, as it's plainly false.
How is that any different than anything happening in the West? It’s not! At least the Chinese government does not seem to be importing tens of millions of foreigners to displace, disown, dispossess, plunder, dismember, and commit crimes and terrorize its own people.
Say what you want, but a government that is swapping out and replacing its own people (as von der Leyden basically admitted two days ago), all while claiming to be “democratic” (while not allowing anyone to vote on their own replacement) is exponentially more diabolical and evil than what you are highlighting. The western governments don’t “silence political dissent”? “Enforce social order through fear”?
Are you just lying to yourself of how can you not be aware of what is going on outside of what is likely an ideological bubble? What was the Palestine protests situation on college campuses in the U.S., if not “silencing political dissent” and “enforcing social order through fear”?? Now the Zionists are demanding America basically cancel the first amendment.
Can you raise public objections about tens of millions of Africans and Asians flooding into your communities that used to be safe in Europe, or will you be terrorized with judicial persecution and be downvoted online and censored simply because you have reasonable objections to being abused and harmed?
An American was just stabbed in the face by an “asylum seeker” in Germany, because he was trying to intervene in him attempting sexual assault on a woman. Did you hear about that? Do you know that rape in Europe had sky rocketed everywhere because of all the “asylum seekers”? Do you feel pangs of anxiety at hearing that and urges to make excuses for it or the fact that people who do excise it are accessories to those violent crimes that are being perpetrated all across Europe?
And that’s without even all the many other examples one could list to day’s end. You seem to be fooling yourself for some reason. This is not a sportsball game where “my team good, their team bad”. Let’s be principled here, regardless of team.
I don’t actually blame China for what you accuse them of, because there are long standing hostile, strategic plans that go well beyond what most people have any kind of understanding for, whose objective is basically destroying/taking over China just as they want to take over Russia in order to achieve total world domination. And no, you don’t have to believe me, you can read any of the many “think tank” and niche journal articles where they not only lay out their objectives, but also their strategic and tactical plans they’ve been executing for decades. I have even worked with them and discussed these types of plans with them. They’re insane and a certain kind of stupid, a kind of fools stupidity.
Frankly, what the Chinese themselves also probably do not understand is that those 600,000 Chinese students Trump wants to let in, are part of a strategy to prevent a two-front war with China and Russia and to separate and dominate them both, regardless of how successful that will be. (It won’t)
That's not what "dog whistles" are, lol. Dog Whistle means "coded language" basically.
Dog whistles are where someone says something that their audience will understand to mean a specific thing, but will be inaudible or neutral sounding to people who are not in their audience. They are named that because they are like the whistles only dogs can hear, while most people cannot.
"Inner city" is a canonical example of a dog whistle. Where the literal meaning is the districts in a city in the urban center, but is often used to denote poor minority communities. (If the literal meaning is only "city centers", then would you describe Manhattanites as inner city?)
On the left, "tax the rich" might be a dog whistle that carries a similar literal meaning disjoint from the understood meaning within the community.
> Dog whistles are where someone says something that their audience will understand to mean a specific thing, but will be inaudible or neutral sounding to people who are not in their audience. They are named that because they are like the whistles only dogs can hear, while most people cannot.
That's basically what I said, except you're missing that more often than not it's an intentional stretching of a literal phrase in order to cast aspersions on someone who didn't do the thing you're mad about.
For example, here was one of the top results when I googled "trump dog whistle",
> In February 2018, during Trump’s first term as president, the Department of Homeland Security issued a 14-word press release titled “We Must Secure The Border And Build The Wall To Make America Safe Again.” I and other investigators of far-right extremism attributed this phrase’s use to a clear dog whistle of the common white supremacist saying known as “the 14 words” – “we must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children.”
Or this top result from the search "musk dog whistle",
> Omar Suleiman has called on Elon Musk to stop blowing political "dog whistles of Islamophobia"
> Yet, for the past week, you have blown every conceivable dog whistle of Islamophobia, by highlighting a select group of (horrifying) incidents supposedly in the name of Islam
In this case absolutely no examples were given, but that's the great thing about accusing someone of dog whistling - you don't need to provide any evidence! In fact, literally any evidence you can provide would only serve to weaken your accusation because by definition anyone who isn't whichever -ist you're accusing them of will literally be unable to decode the -ism in their phrasing. If it sounds obviously -ist then by definition it can't be a dog whistle.
Just because you can find a bad article with bad examples, and some are for sure coincidences, but that doesn't mean its not true. Musk did heil, Musk does post well known white supremacy signals. Trump might be a racist and like the fascist power but he is not a white supremacist christian like the rest of his cabinet of project2025 people.
> I wouldn’t really care how someone got to the end result that is a PR.
I can generate 1,000 PRs today against an open source project using AI. I think you do care, you are only thinking about the happy path where someone uses a little AI to draft a well constructed PR.
There's a lot ways AI can be used to quickly overwhelm a project maintainer.
In that case a more correct rule (and probably one that can be automatically enforced) for that issue is a max number of PRs or opened issues per account.
I think this is sane, although possibly not sufficient. Asking people to self-disclose AI usage is not going shield maintainers from a flood of undisclosed AI submissions.
> I can generate 1,000 PRs today against an open source project using AI.
Then perhaps the way you contribute, review, and accept code is fundamentally wrong and needs to change with the times.
It may be that technologies like Github PRs and other VCS patterns are literally obsolete. We've done this before throughout many cycles of technology, and these are the questions we need to ask ourselves as engineers, not stick our heads in the sand and pretend it's 2019.
I don't think throwing out the concept of code reviews and version control is the correct response to a purported rise in low-effort high-volume patches. If anything it's even more required.
If machines can iterate faster than humans, we'll need machines to do the reviewing; that means the testing/QA will be done perhaps by machines which will operate on a spec similar to what Amazon is doing with Kilo.
Before PR's existed we passed around code changes via email. Before containers we installed software on bare metal servers. And before search engines we used message boards. It's not unfathomable that the whole idea of how we contribute and collaborate changes as well. Actually that is likely going to be the /least/ shocking thing in the next few years if acceleration happens (i.e. The entire OS is an LLM that renders pixels, for example)
Stop burning fossil fuels, build infrastructure to remove carbon from the atmosphere. Extract the minimum number of fossil fuels necessary to serve non-fuel uses.
It's definitely not easy, but it's not even particularly hard, either. The solutions are there and ready to go. Everything we need to do to solve it has been done before[1]. We have done and continue to do many more difficult things than solve climate change.
The only difference between the hard things we are doing, and solving climate change, is the latter would make the ludicrously-wealthy very slightly less wealthy, instead of very slightly more. That's it. That's the whole debate. That's what we're burning the planet for.
[1] With the exception of carbon capture, which is only necessary now because we wasted so long doing nothing.
It is not the solution because it simply just ignores the problem: coordination. It’s like saying the solution to cancer is to kill cancer cells without affecting the functioning of the body. Well, that’s the hard part.
China is expected to have hit peak coal consumption this year, and within 25 years it might not be burned as a base generation fuel any more. The trend line there is clearly renewable energy (particularly solar) taking over. The US is moving much slower.
I expect that countries that invest heavily in solar or nuclear like China will have a huge advantage in 20 years, when energy availability enables industries like steel production, datacenters, ammonia production, transportation, and water desalinization to essentially become cheaper and cheaper as more and more solar gets built.
Absolutely agree with that. They're good at solving the coordination problem and the West is not. But saying "all we have to do is solve the problem" is not a solution.
Would reducing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere reverse current problems? On it's own, it would start to, yes. It would reduce global temperatures, reduce weather irregularities, begin to cool the globe back down.
But we'd then have to move on to other things like deforestation, overfishing, water conflicts, plastics, etc. It's not a panacea, but it would reverse course on a pretty significant root cause.
Just because we should have started something 30+ years ago isn't a reason to not do it today.
I should have started going to the gym before, I'd be healthier today. I guess I'll just never go to the gym. I should have been eating heather food before I got diabetes and high blood pressure. I guess I'll just keep having a terrible diet. Same kind of logic.
third world countries who contributed nothing to the carbon levels should be exempt. USA, europe and china should foot the bill as they profited from it. You might even be able to figure out a rough estimate as to who and how much they profited from CO2, charge their descendants retroactively. It would probably amount to a few tens of thousands of rich people
That's needlessly complex. It's means testing for CO2. Means testing is a huge waste of effort, imo.
If the US, Europe, Russia, India, and China stop burning fossil fuels, we'll be well on our way. I'm not really worried about whether Ecuador is burning fossil fuels right now, it cannot be a meaningful amount of output compared to those 5.
all the mining, industrial etc companies were public companies on stock exchanges (most of em anyway), with audited accounts. you might still be able to find old order books, like they did with slavery and the dutch east india company. you could easily find numbers for production and then make rough conservative estimates off the back of that
You and I have very different experiences with police officers. Police Officers may walk by someone overdosing is hardly a claim that needs any evidence in my experience because it's so widely understood to be true.
Plenty of big thinkers out there think nations and citizenship are outmoded concepts, or they are concepts that provoke needless violence. They find their own nationalities an embarrassment.
> Plenty of big thinkers out there think nations and citizenship are outmoded concepts.
Big thinkers tend to live in wealthy, leafy areas where they don't have to worry about someone jumping over their fence, or appreciate the need for demarcation of land.
Same goes for people who are pro-immigration/pro-drugs/pro-construction - but just don't do it their affluent area.
I've been to plenty of Food Not Bombs events where people are being fed and the prevailing attitude was, "If there are people needing to be fed, let them come and we'll feed them." The same folks were handing out harm reduction supplies.
These same folks went on to figure out the logistics of preparing food. So no, I don't think it's at all axiomatic that the people who disagree with nationalism are necessarily affluent in the slightest. In fact, I've found most solidarity with refugees and anti-nationalist movements in the working class. The overall community of folks I saw ranged across income brackets -- plenty of software engineers, tech folks, trades folks, unemployed folks...
I think that when people say, "They don't really mean it" or "their principles wouldn't stand up if it meant a disruption to their lives", they are not aware of just how much work folks are actively doing every day to live by those principles and invite people in.
Conflicts have rules, and Israel could absolutely have a conflict with Hamas (whom, it should be noted, I do not support) without eradicating the civilian population in Gaza.
There are plenty of military conflicts around the world. And arguably many war crimes committed by all parties. What the IDF is doing in Gaza is uniquely terrible, absolutely targets civilians, and much of the violence and harm perpetrated is wholly unrelated to defeating Hamas.