In Turkey, all searches hits to newspaper sites. Its like a sad joke. Related page is full of repetitive garbage where information is hidden somewhere.
No he is just rubbing them the wrong way. States, governments are control freaks. They make sure only their "disinformation" must be spread (public schooling, paid academia, controlled media). Rest will be muffled.bl Before musk Twitter was aligning with them, now not much.
A society can work without a centralized id system. Carry your id, save copies in a vault for verification if you want. Current id systems are just tools for surveillance and control, sugar coated with state welfare.
What do you mean without a centralised id system? Whose id are you going to carry then? How many entities will you end up with issuing them? How many types will an arbitrary place that needs to check your id accept?
This is such an odd comment given that this is literally how the US has always and still does work, and also how passports will continue to work.
You can present your out-of-state id, birth certificate, license plates and have them accepted anywhere. Universal != centralized, we build systems like this every day -- DNS, TLS, GPG, hell UUIDs.
They're not really decentralised - more delegated, right? Can any state decide to not allow another state's driving licence? What about birth certificate? They're documents valid/expected at federal level.
I don't know how; but I find that you said that ingenious. This comment section is full of touting it as a positive (somehow?) and being pessimistic about U.S. capabilities today in comparison to China. No one seems to mention that all this is unnecessary wastefulness. World hunger would have been solved decades earlier had they not hindered the productive output of those folk expended on such wastefulness.
The figure attributed to Netanyahu in that article is a total of fighters and civilians -- not the "women and children" you claimed above. It's also a very rough estimate.
I always wondered why did google involved with this project. It's a small amount of money and risky considering backlash, it is supposedly public use related. Why not leave it to usual guys who would jot question shady deals? What compelled Google when it came to state of Israel?
Every contract with a national government buying whole data centers for cloud services is a major one with big numbers attached. This is not a small amount of money and the backlash to date has yet to be impactful.
If you want to be a major cloud player - and Google does - you need to be willing to do what other major cloud players do and sell to national governments. AWS, Oracle, and other hyperscalers all do.
After a brief bit of research, Google also works extensively with US and UK governments. I would expect there's also quite a list of other rich-world governments that Google sells cloud services to.
Israel's only really special here in that it's far more objectionable to many people. To your other point, corrupt African countries are generally not stumping up billions of dollars for cloud computing, even if we assume Google would want to do business there.
There's actually a not particularly visible - but very real - sector of large companies that hire hyperscalers to build them private clouds. Those deals wind up looking very similar to Project Nimbus. Examples:
Certainly... it's just that anyone with any real knowledge/power knows that isn't happening (see the leaders of basically every consequential democracy from Germany to USA, even Ukraine).
"Everybody in the US's alliance structure agrees that the US's top Middle-East ally is behaving completely appropriately, which is strong evidence that they are. I am very smart."
I'm not appealing to authority, I'm stating a fact. But even if I were, there certainly isn't a better 'alliance structure' to appeal to. In any case, it's a good thing your opinion on the matter is essentially meaningless (as is mine) which was the only point I was really making.
What I'm disagreeing with in your statement is the conflation of "real knowledge" with "power." It is true that all the most powerful governments in the West have taken roughly the same line on the charge of genocide in Gaza, but it is not at all the case that everyone with "real knowledge" has agreed with them.
Correct. You shouldn't decide whether there's a genocide going on in Gaza by consulting official statements from interested governments. You should decide based on independent human rights researchers, international law scholars, journalists, and so on. Opinion on the subject among these people is very much split.
I think they should publish the Google services used by IDF, that way GCloud customers can also rely on them, because Google is not going to shutdown those services. It won't be appearing in killedbygoogle, I guess.
I think you have a point. We should look at ICJ rulings, WCK staff and other Journalists' killing, the destruction of hospitals, schools, even blowing up museums, in Gaza. Also the detention of thousands of people, including minors. And maybe, just maybe, sanction and cut off the apartheid regime. Google can then pull out much easily.
> When asked if the companies could shut down services, attorney Zviel Ganz of the legal department at the Finance Ministry said such scenarios had been taken into consideration when formulating the tenders.
> “According to the tender requirements, the answer is no,” he said, adding that the contracts also bar the firms from denying services to particular government entities.
Yeah, I've seen that mentioned as well, and am curious about the details. This techcrunch article[1] states "... strict contractual stipulations that prevent Google and Amazon from bowing to boycott pressure". That could be read as contract terms that don't mention anything about protest/boycott but rather just set a fixed term of contract, with penalties for terminating the contract. However, it also isn't uncommon for contracts with Israel to include anti-BDS clauses, and California has an anti-BDS law[2], which it could also be referring to.
Huh. now that they do not please their voters, conclusion is that they are infiltrated by neocons? I don't think they are changed. They just showed their true colors with the recent events.
Do you have data to back up the claim that private healthcare out performs public? I don't mean "if I have millions of dollars I can get treated for whatever I want, whenever I want", I mean "if you are an average person, with an average income, and average insurance what is the time to a necessary procedure, and how much will it cost you".
You can always find articles with people complaining about service in countries with actual PHS, but in my experience the same thing applies to US hospitals, with the added fun that your insurance may simply not cover anything so there's no waitlist by virtue of no treatment options, and then even if it does cover it you can still have a huge copay.
Very poor unsubstantiated viewpoint. The epitome of socialized healthcare would be healthcare in a communist state. And Cuba, in spite of completely inhumane and unreasonable sanctions imposed by the united states, still beats the US on metrics such as life expectancy. This proves the falsehood of the idea that state-run healthcare is inherently less efficient.
False. Cuba has shorter life expectancy than the USA.
But beyond basic stuff like immunizations, antibiotics, and trauma care, healthcare has a very small impact on life expectancy anyway. Once you have a serious chronic medical condition, even the most advanced healthcare system can generally only give you a few extra years.
> The current life expectancy for Cuba in 2024 is 79.33 years, a 0.19% increase from 2023.
> The current life expectancy for U.S. in 2024 is 79.25 years, a 0.18% increase from 2023.
Regardless of this whole discussion we're having, I'm confused as to how we're both able to come up with such different numbers from the same source. The above are direct quotes from the website we're both looking at.
And then there's this [1] study, which finds that socialized healthcare beats privatized on life expectancy by about 10 years on average. If you don't like life expectancy as a metric, consider [2]. It compares the US to various other developed countries, the primary difference being that the other countries have socialized healthcare. Private health care loses on all but one of a much wider range of metrics.
Your belief that private health care is in some sense better is pure ideology, and has no basis in reality.
I never claimed that private healthcare is better. Don't put words in my mouth.
As for impact of various healthcare funding models on life expectancy, you appear to be confusing correlation with causation. The larger point is that healthcare system quality beyond a certain minimum level has only a small impact on life expectancy. It matters far less than lifestyle issues (diet, exercise, substance abuse) and sanitation.
reply