I do not agree with you that they have good intention or have good goals. They know what they are doing, and they are doing it to gain control. I think by saying they have good goals, but they don't know better, we are down playing the danger. They know what they are doing, and they are doing it to have more power over people.
I agree with you (i.e., I share your belief that the whole "safety" argument is a bold-faced excuse to just gain more control and surveillance power over the population), but I believe that the parent comment was just trying to be extra charitable to those pushing for the bill.
I think it is fair to give the opponent's position (which both you and I believe is in the wrong) a steel-man argument treatment, by assuming the best possible interpretation of their argument (even if they don't imo deserve it, and you don't believe in their stated intent).
The approach makes sense to me, as attacking and debating genuineness of someone's intentions is an endless rabbithole. So if you have an option to decimate their case, all while assuming their stated intent to be truthful and genuine, that's a pretty solid way to actually move the needle on the argument in a desired direction.
They have evil intentions, but they are also idiots. The nature of an authoritarian government is one that requires maximizing control for survival. As a particular country shifts to a more authoritarian government, and those people who enabled dumb ideas fall out of power (right, left, or whatever) those same tools will be used by their political adversaries to control, imprison, or kill them.
Why are they idiots? Because western Europe is not yet authoritarian and thus there is little personal benefit to hasten a slide towards it, there are so many other ways to gain power in a free society. (I wouldn't bet money that Europe will remain free in 25 years.)
There is a secondary problem here -- anything that decreases the information security of European countries hands more power to the US and China (and to a lesser degree other nations with advanced infosec capabilities like Russia and Israel.) If you are European (I'm not) the first thing that should be done is investigate the people pushing this stuff.
People need to understand that some people are abusers by nature and mentality, some from birth, some by upbringing. And they crave power.
The sayings like "those who want power rarely deserve it" exist for a reason, except until the last few decades we didn't have a good enough understanding of psychology to explain why. Now we do. Some people have anti-social traits and they should never be allowed in positions of power because they are mentally ill.
Difference is "normal" mental illness like psychosis is harmful to the individual who has it. Anti-social mental illness is harmful to those around them, especially those under them in hierarchical power structures.
It’s right there in the name: Chat Control. Take them at their word!
Look at Australia’s “hacking” bill. It was about letting the government hack (take over) your account and post as you. The “hacking” referred to ahat THEY would do — to YOUR accounts:
There needs to be accountablility regardless of intent for policies that affect everyone.
I agree with you though, they know what they are doing and about some implications at least.
I hope most services will just block Denmark though. Any investment in such technologies is a waste and should come to a great cost to developers. In this case Google products in general should be shunned. Not that they were famous for steady support of products instead of quickly killing them.
You are correct, but a country like Iran doesn't have any trade partner other than China, so if China wants it can put enough pressure on them to stop. I.e., Iran will be forced to listen to China, not that it likes.
It doesn't always work smoothly, sometimes players can corner the market, or become too big and own both side of development, and rental. That is why we need an agency to look at price fixing, monopoly and stuff like that.
In a good system, government doesn't subsidize cost. It just enters whenever the system is broken to work based on supply and demand of market.
The company that fails in even a simple good faith gesture in their employee aggreement, claims it is the only one who can handle AGI while government creating regulation to lock out open source.
#3 is impossible because you are talking about lot of value and lot of motivations. If we stop, as example, China is not going to stop, etc. This is like the arm race, no one will stop developing and whoever limit itself, will lose big at the end
#1 is tough one. Two issues, human need to be busy with something. While not needing to work seems great, but long term it makes us depressed, drug addict, and we lose our skill and become weaker and dumb. Second issue is whoever pays you, can tell you what to do or not. A huge wellfare system moves power from people to state, and can kill democracy. However,in limited version is generally better than starving people. #2 seems to be a decent option
I think it completely make sense. Google is private company and it was private event. No matter how important your message, you cannot go to any event stop people from doing business.
I bet if you got that city to get a permit to build a new condo, you need to spend shit ton of money and worst wait 6 months to get a permit, and at some point a neighbor blocks you because you are blocking a view or something. The problem is building, and in USA we have tons of land, we just some how don't let people to build homes
I generally agree with you, though within the particular context of small Canadian towns like the OP is discussion there's an additional issue that there's actually a dearth of investment and housing investment. In contrast to the vibrant cities like Vancouver where developers would love to build but they're blocked, in small towns there's often no developers, no builders, and no investment.
The remoteness and limited market of smaller towns can drive up the costs of creating new things.
In these cases of the lack of it's remarkably easier to simply buy a SFH and rent it out on Airbnb and I think that's how we get to these outcomes where there's seemingly tourist demand, but no one is creating anything new except trading around old SFHs.
In Canada the major issue is that zoning bylaws are generally 30 years old and so no one can do anything “as of right” which means that everyone has to go through a very long public engagement process and negotiation / shake down from the municipality to fund whatever the latest political desire is. So 6 months is, unfortunately, very very optimistic. Most of my developer friends spend 2-3 years and then still have to fight through the tribunals to get to build anything, even things ostensibly in line with what the city says it wants (like density around new rapid transit).
I haven't tried to avoid MAX, but I have two friends who tried very hard to change flights or only get flights that are not MAX. So you are not alone. You just need to spend more money and time
If this performs, and it is a big if, it can make life a lot easier for people with stateful services. You just push the service back to the browers and you are done. It can be a lot cheaper and lot faster, and also reduce complexity of making a stateful service scalable and reliable.
This statement is very uninformed. Isreal left Gaza very logn time ago. They had an election and Hamas came to power, and they never hold an election after. There is no land dispute between Isreal and Gaza (Unlike Westbank where there are serious disputes). The main problem is that Hamas and its supporter Iran consistentnly in word and in practice declared that want to wipe out and destroy Isreal. It is not about some land disupte. They want the whole Isreal gone. Now, the question is would it be wise to let this group of people with clear intention to completely destroy Israel have open borders? They make missles even without open borders.
If you want to be really honest here. The issue is that Hamas need to agree that Israel has the right to exist. Period. As far as they don't, I see this war very well justified similar to the War with Japanese Empire or Nazi Germany.
> They had an election and Hamas came to power, and they never hold an election after.
Israel has obstructed agreements between the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority and Hamas in Gaza on all-Palestine elections on several occasions since then (the fact that some people who would be voters in such elections live in occupied territory outside of what Israel claims as Israel but which is currently administered by Israel, among other factors, gives Israel the power to do this.)
> There is no land dispute between Isreal and Gaza
Yes, there is. Or, rather, there is no dispute at all that the kill zone of officially 100m and in practice up to 1500m that has been enforced by Israel since it supposed "disengagement" on the Gaza side of the security fence is Gaza, and not Israel, and that Israel is exercising control of that swath of Gaza territory, against the wishes and interests (and lives) of the people living in Gaza.
> The issue is that Hamas need to agree that Israel has the right to exist. Period.
Out of Israel, Fatah (the governing party of the PA centered in the West Bank), and Hamas, the only one that hasn't accepted the 1967 borders of Israel, with presently-occupied territories (plus Gaza, for those who accept Israel's claim that it is not presently occupied) outside of those borders as a Palestinian State is Israel.
Israeli rhetoric about other people needing to accept their right to exist is exactly backwards.
Israel left Gaza, and uprooted its own citizens, in an attempt to follow the 1990s model of gradually letting Palestinians have self determination and seeing if it lead to a corresponding reduction in attacks and planning of Israeli destruction. It proved a disastrous attempt, as Hamas (and Fatah who at that time still committed numerous terrorist attacks too) and lead many Israelis to double down on the belief that Palestinians would never give up on genocide against Israel.
The 100m "kill zone" has been proved necessary beyond doubt now. But if your claim is that total military and settler withdrawal besides 100m near the border for security means that Gaza was still occupied and its people justified in using terrorism, then it just shows the extremes that pro Palestinians will go to justify atrocities and explains why Israelis are tired of giving their implacable enemies the benefit of the doubt.
Sorry, but this adds nothing to the discussion. Yes, they were settlers (I don't think anyone in this sub-thread argued otherwise). Yes, they shouldn't have been there in the first place. And yet the Israeli government uprooted them at great pain for all involved (after encouraging them to settle there in the first place). Some interpret this as some grand political manuever intended to divide the Palestinians and make a diplomatic solution impossible. This is an odd assertion in my opinion since how could anyone have foreseen that Hamas would be voted into power and spiral us into more than a decade of war? I for one believe it was a gesture of good will (probably brought about by external pressure considering it was Ariel Sharon who led it, originally a strong pro-settlments politician), and an experiment to see what would happen if Israel returned land without an official agreement as all attempts at negotiations have failed at that point in time. The fact that this did not work has a lot to do with the choices made collectively by Palestinians at least as much as those made by Israelis. To say otherwise ignores their agency and freewill in these events.
> There is no land dispute between Isreal and Gaza
Of course there's a land dispute! Something like 70% of Gazans are direct descendants of refugees, or refugees themselves, of the original 1948 Nakba, which was literally when the Palestinians were violently forced out of their homes and driven into perpetual refugee status. Now those that live in Gaza, even before October 7, live under a perpetual blockade which quite literally restricts the calories entering the region, along with every other necessary resource (gas, steel, etc).
How could one, knowing that context, characterize it as "not a land dispute"? Really what you mean is that there are no Israeli settlements in Gaza right now. Which is true but besides the point, and also ignores that there quite literally were settlements, but Israel forced the zionist* settlers out when they withdrew their physical occupation of Gaza all those years ago (replacing the physical occupation with the blockades, border restrictions, policies of shooting anyone approaching the border wall with sniper rifles, etc)
* I know this term is loaded with a lot of baggage, in part because many seem to think it's a dogwhistle for "the jews", but it's the most accurate descriptor for the philosophy motivating these settlers. Settling the west bank is wrong, but settling gaza is next-level crazy. You have to be extremely ideologically possessed to want to establish an Israeli settlement there because it sure as hell isn't a nice place to live.
Israel is a democracy made up of various parties with a whole spectrum of opinions. Some are for a two state solution (center-left), some for a one state solution in the form of "greater israel" (hard right, fringe elements if you ask me), and others that honestly just don't give it much thought. Hamas, on the other hand, is quite ideological about its stance with regards to the destruction of Israel.
> Hamas, on the other hand, is quite ideological about its stance with regards to the destruction of Israel.
> Israel is a democracy made up of various parties with a whole spectrum of opinions.
That may be so but the Israeli state as a whole has been quite consistent over the last few decades in its systematic destruction of any political or geographical possible basis of a Palestinian state, be it in the West Bank or Gaza.
However as far as I can tell the settlements in the West Bank have grown through every government since the occupation - something which fundamentally undermines any moves towards a resolution.
Any attempt at peace has poor prospects if a significant part of civil society and army is dead set on colonisation.
Any yes, I'm aware of the complexities of Israeli politics and society.
Before Netanyahu there were at least four prime ministers - Ehud Olmert, Ehud Barak, Shimon Peres, and Yitzhak Rabin - who've made honest attempts at peace. Not to mention Ariel Sharon who has, despite being a hard right-winger, lead the disengagement from Gaza (at a tremendous political cost). You seem to be placing the responsibility for these failures entirely on one side.
> Ariel Sharon who has, despite being a hard right-winger, lead the disengagement from Gaza
This was not an attempt to further the peace process. It was motivated by the expense and difficulty of a military occupation of a densely populated urban area.
> You seem to be placing the responsibility for these failures entirely on one side.
Please, no need for that. I'm aware of Hamas' efforts to counter any moves towards peace. And of the effects of the suicide bombing campaign.
Similarly any talk of peace from the Israeli government is meaningless while settlement of the West Bank continues.
> Similarly any talk of peace from the Israeli government is meaningless while settlement of the West Bank continues.
The same can be said of the terror attacks. I strongly agree that the settlements are an obstacle to peace and apologize if my comment came off as aggressive. But you have to realize that this is a deadlock. No Israeli leader can stop the settlements as long as there are terror attacks, and no Palestinian leader can stop the terror attacks as long as there are settlements. That is our tragedy I suppose.
What you're apparently referring to is slight change in Hamas charter in 1997.
In fact, what they actually said was "Hamas advocates the liberation of all of Palestine but is ready to support the state on 1967 borders without recognising Israel or ceding any rights"
i.e. they would support the creation a Palestinian state within 1967 borders in the interim but not give up their fight for the rest of Israel.
This "softening" (as one left-wing newspaper called it apparently unironically) was in contrast with their previous stance which would reject a Palestinian state offer if it was based 1967 borders.
They have never gone back on their stated aim to reconquer all of Israel and never indicated they will tolerate Israel existing.
Should they act completely peacefully while Israel maintains settlements and themselves don't honor the agreed upon 1967 borders? Why is it wrong for one side to behave violently but not the other?
I don't condone those Israeli policies, but I don't think terrorist attacks are a productive way to incite peaceful reform. There's no fair solution when one side is much more powerful and cruel with that power, but responding with violence sure doesn't convince people to shake hands.
Israel may have left but they have had a blockade since then, not just on their border but sea and air as well. UN considers it to be occupied territory, Israel controls food and water. Human rights organisations calls it an open air prison. Doesn't sound like a situation that would be fruitful for peace?
Hamas was elected as Bush pushed for elections too early as he wanted to solve the situation before his term ended, PA was unpopular due to corruption. When Hamas won the US pushed PA to do a coup which failed, this caused Hamas to take over Gaza completely and push out PA and stopping future elections.
Hamas is certainly the main problem now, but the situation was caused by typical US fuckery, Netanyahu supporting Hamas didn't help either. Others big problems are the apartheid state of Israel and their systematic stealing of land in the West Bank. If what they have in the West Bank is the kind peace that Israel wants then I can see why people are resisting them.
Israel supplies only a small percentage of Gaza water.
Israel left in 2005, the "blockade" (which ignores the third border with Egypt) started in 2007 after Hamas seized control and Israel found itself with an enemy worse than Fatah despite it's largest since the Sinai withdrawal to exchange land for peace.
Natanyahu "supporting" Hamas was a policy of containment (coupled with recent pre-Oct-7 increase in work permits to Israel amogst other overtures) and which led to the October 7th. Israelis think a ceasefire would result in resumption of containment and eventually another October 7th so no go.
Gaza requires fuel to pump water, who controls access to fuel?
While Egypt physically controls the border Israel decides what and who can move through it.
Nethanyahu supports Hamas (see money transports most recently, but they've done it for decades) to divide and conquer Palestine between Hamas and PA. And a good Boogeyman is always good for staying in power, though he is likely finished.
