Is he really trying to move those goalposts? Or is he just voicing the most-common way for humans to process such events?
I'm thinking that 99% of people would feel horrible and/or morally responsible if they lent an axe to their neighbor Mr. Seemed-Nice, which he then used to kill his wife. Vs. far less so, if their neighbor bought his fatal ax from Amazon or Walmart.
I'd assume that all such statements carry a "my current emotions, based on recent headlines in my favored news sources" caveat. Vs. the far greater horrors in less well-covered nations. (Myamar, Sudan, Afghanistan, North Korea, etc., etc.)
Older folks may remember the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_genocide - and how little interest most of the world had, as 1/2 to 2/3 million people were slaughtered in a few months.
It's not just a numbers game. Many of those you've listed also only lasted a few years, while Israel's evil still continues after almost a century.
"Operation Cast Thy Bread was a top-secret biological warfare operation conducted by the Haganah and later the Israel Defense Forces which began in April 1948, during the 1948 Palestine war. The Haganah used typhoid bacteria to contaminate drinking water wells in violation of the 1925 Geneva Protocol."
You've now mentioned this twice in this thread. We can agree that you've pointed to some specific misdeeds but you've not demonstrated why is this so much worse than many of the other dreadful things happening in the world. There are massacres in Myanmar and Sudan, ethnic cleansing in China. If we're going back in history, the United States was founded on ethnic cleansing and was funded by the slave trade. Most major European countries have similar track records.
I'm not saying that the United States or Europe are evil places. I'm trying to illustrate that the things you've mentioned do not justify the claim that Israel is uniquely evil, either in modern or historical terms.
The article is all about exposing the kids to more microbes. Vs. I'd expect more actual benefits from the greatly enriched learning environment (vs. a few minimalist play structure in an area paved with wood chips) and socialization doing "real" work (there's also garden, and the kids eat some of what they grow).
Honestly I don't even think technical users would get the 'point' most of the time.
Whenever I visit a HTTP-only site, I assume the administrator is either old and does not understand how to set up SSL, or it's an unmaintained/forgotten web server that hasn't been touched in about a decade.
If it's (1) obviously recent content*, and (2) something that needs little security - a city council member's blog, or recipes - then how much do you care that it's HTTP-only?
That's precisely the point of HTTPS, your harmless recipe site can start spreading malware without your knowledge if you make it HTTP, as the content can be changed by anyone it passes through.
As can every recipe site with httpS - but a vulnerable WordPress plugin, or too-easy admin password, or malvertising, or a zillion other things.
But conveniently, "all sites gotta be httpS" puts the biggest part of the blame/load on the littlest little guys - who want to make and post good, unmonetized content. But don't have an IT skill set, nor want to deal with yet more admin overhead & costs.
Sounds like a great argument for keeping js disabled in my browser. Because "httpS://" does nothing whatever to sanitize the js that it delivers. And one perfectly legit site may pull in js from two dozen or more different servers. Zero of which are magically guaranteed to only deliver benevolent code.
Vs. `traceroute` suggests that would-be on-path attackers are up against a vastly smaller attack surface.
> Sounds like a great argument for keeping js disabled in my browser. Because "httpS://" does nothing whatever to sanitize the js that it delivers. And one perfectly legit site may pull in js from two dozen or more different servers. Zero of which are magically guaranteed to only deliver benevolent code.
The biggest "pretend" is where spokesmen, spin doctors, and sycophants for the plutocrat class have somehow convinced the 99% that stocks going up makes more jobs for the little people.
The most pernicious part of the con is that by systematically dismantling pensions and forcing everyone into 401(k)s, they've ensured that we all have to root for the plutocrats. We're forced to watch our retirement funds, which means we're incentivized to hope Amazon's stock does go up after firing 14k (or 30k according to other sources) people.
It's a system of forced complicity. We have to root for the billionaires, or we risk our own survival in old age.
I'm not even halfway there. I'd rather think long term and legitimately fix issues in the economy. I don't need number to go up explosively every year.
Our survival in old age is guaranteed to be a shit show no matter your wealth. Social security won’t be there. Medicare won’t be there. Your one room apartment in your assisted living place will run you $15,000/mo. And still, no one gets out alive.
Factor out the AI companies doing circular dealing to juke their stock price and GDP growth was like 0.1% combine that with purchasing power loss and US economy is net negative.
It's pretty clear what happens next.
Over 42 million people are about to lose their SNAP payments in 4 days[1] and millions more medical care.
The only publicly traded companies that are involved in what could be considered circular dealings in enough volume to affect their stock price are Nvidia and Oracle.
> Hopefully just a datetime recent enough that the job does not currently need to be (re-)run.
I can think of several ways to mess that seemingly trivial calculation up just from the top of my head. (Consider changing timezones, increasing the interval the job is running to within half a day of scheduling period etc.)
That's why the Gettysburg Address is so short!!! He was stuck writing it on a tiny phone on the way there, and he'd probably forgotten his charger back in Washington.
But Mr. Krugman really shoulda put more emphasis on another couple facts: That only "convenient" facts matter to Trump's political base. And that Washington decision makers who care about facts are going the way of the 8-track tape.
Except it isn't a fact-check at all. As usual, Paul Krugman is light on real details and heavy on cherry-picked facts to suit his own personal narrative, not unlike Trump.
Canada's advertisement aired during one of the World Series games, after Trump's initial tweet. As others here have commented, Reagan's position was more nuanced than "tariffs bad", which is how the ad portrays it. Krugman himself admits this in his own article.
Then Krugman goes on the usual ad hominem attack against Donald Trump, because he just admitted that Reagan was in favor of using tariffs to settle political disputes, particularly in response to countries leveling tariffs against the U.S.
Which, mind you, is exactly what Donald Trump says he is doing, raising tariffs on Canada in response to several long-standing tariffs they have had on the importation of U.S. goods. Krugman doesn't dispute this. He cleverly doesn't bring it up at all and instead calls Trump a petulant child levying tariffs for his own political purposes.
Forgive me if I can't take Krugman or anyone else parroting Krugman seriously when he hasn't been able to make a soundly reasoned argument in decades. These low-on-facts high-on-rhetoric articles are empowering Trump.
Yep. While there might be some use cases for his ultra-simplistic "Mossad/not-Mossad duality" - say, convincing Bob Jones that "b0bj0nes" is not a great password - it's 99% fairy tale.
And even if the CIA/Mossad/NSA/whoever is "interested" in you - this is the era of mass surveillance. The chances that you're worth a Stuxnet level of effort is 0.000000001%. Vs. 99.999% chance that they'll happily hoover up your data, if you make it pretty easy for their automated systems to do that.
Also worth noting that Mossad/CIA/etc. are not monoliths. Maybe you got a top agent assigned to you, but maybe your file is on the desk of the Mossad's version of Hitchcock and Scully from Brooklyn 99.
> Yep. While there might be some use cases for his ultra-simplistic "Mossad/not-Mossad duality" - say, convincing Bob Jones that "b0bj0nes" is not a great password - it's 99% fairy tale.
Honestly, the oversimplification here reads to me more like something Bob Jones could use to justify not caring about "b0bj0nes" not being a great password.
I was thinking, "Bob, stop making excuses about how it's hopeless, and you'd need a 'U0hBNTEyICgvdmFyL2xvZy9tZXNzYWdlcykgPSBjNGU2NGM1MmI5MDhiYWU3MDU5NzdlMzUzZDlk'-level password to be safe. That 'b0bj0nes' is so easy that a bored kid might get it in a few dozen guesses, and you need to change it to something better."
That password should include symbols too! Without symbols, each character is one of 62 values (sticking to ASCII letters and digits). Including symbols makes it much harder to guess passwords of a given length. Even better would be Unicode letters, digits, and symbols, even if you stick to the Basic Multilingual Plane.
Best would be non-text, binary strings. Since I already use a password manager, I don't really need to type passwords by hand. But I do understand most people prefer text passwords that could be entered by hand if necessary.
Except that's exactly what the Mossad will be expecting us to use, for our uber-secure password! By eschewing symbols and binary, we are actually meta-out-smarting their ultimate giga-quantum nuclear crypto cracker.
Or: This is Bob "Dim Bulb" Jones we're talking to. KISS, and maybe we can convince him to upgrade his password to "iwantacoldbeernow".
Sorry, your password does not meet complexity requirements because it does not contain at least one of each of the following: uppercase letters, lowercase letters, numeric digits, nonalphanumeric symbols.
I'm thinking that 99% of people would feel horrible and/or morally responsible if they lent an axe to their neighbor Mr. Seemed-Nice, which he then used to kill his wife. Vs. far less so, if their neighbor bought his fatal ax from Amazon or Walmart.
reply