> It’s very natural to want to return the same in kind
They didn't return the same in kind. Compare the "stats" of Oct 7 vs what Israel did over the next 2 years.
If you think that what happened on Oct 7 justified such a response, then you should shudder at the thought of what is justified in a merely proportional response to Israel's response. Proportionality being the foundation of justice and all that.
Those are some serious claims there. It's been 2 years and all the captured people have been returned to Israel. Still no actual proof of such claims that are casually repeated by pro-Israeli media. Not even mere supporting testimonies by those who were held captive.
Anyway, you dodged nearly the entirety of my comment. You know very well what a proportional response to what Israel has done would be.
> It's been 2 years and all the captured people have been returned to Israel
No. The IDF retrieved some people and some bodies, sometimes Hamas returned live people, sometimes bodies like the Bibas babies they beat to death, sometimes other bodies that they pretended were the victim.
> Still no actual proof of such claims that are casually repeated by pro-Israeli media.
Most are from the victims. You can listen to the testimony of these people, in many cases via video:
Arbel Yehoud was sexually assaulted almost every single day during her 482 days in captivity by her captors (Palestinian Islamic Jihad, affiliated with Hamas operations).
https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/article-886646
> Anyway, you dodged nearly the entirety of my comment
Yes because it was disgusting. Maybe after reading this you should acknowledge that and apologise?
> You know very well what a proportional response to what Israel has done would be.
Hamas risking the lives of its own people to save some fictional hostages the IDF has not kidnapped?
Likewise, you haven’t acknowledged that IDF having a proportional response would be a drug fuelled death and rape rampage like Hamas did.
It seems like you support the Axis forces because more Germans died than British people. Israel defending its population from Hamas attacks doesn’t make Hamas good.
Seriously: listen to the victims and fix your life. Or better yet maybe Dang can do something about this new account.
First of all, Israel DOES conduct rape of Palestinians [1] [2], so that's not some hypothetical revenge scenario, but rather an everyday reality for Palestinians living under a brutal occupation. Randomly scoop up a few Palestinians every now and then, put them in prisons often at no charge at all ("administrative detention"), and then do anything you want to them behind the prison walls.
Second of all, I actually have principles, and I am against rape ALWAYS. If the victim testimonies that you referenced are actually true, then the perpetrators of those crimes deserve appropriate punishment. So do the Israelis who rape Palestinians.
> > Anyway, you dodged nearly the entirety of my comment
> Yes because it was disgusting.
No I won't let you keep dodging. What I wrote was that if you think that what happened on Oct 7 justified the response that Israel enacted by demolishing basically the entirety of Gaza, then you should shudder at the thought of what is justified in a merely proportional response to Israel's response. Proportionality being the foundation of justice and all that. For example, given that we know that Israel regularly kills and rapes Palestinians, would it be justified to do to Israel what Israel has done to Gaza? No? Then why do you people keep justifying what you have done to Gaza? When will you accept how disproportionally savage that was? Do you not see how disgusted by it the rest of the world is?
If you think that proportionality is disgusting, well, no need to engage any further.
> First of all, Israel DOES conduct rape of Palestinians [1] [2], so that's not some hypothetical revenge scenario, but rather an everyday reality for Palestinians
Your links don't support your statement that this is an everyday reality.
> If the victim testimonies that you referenced are actually true, then the perpetrators of those crimes deserve appropriate punishment. So do the Israelis who rape Palestinians.
Good, I'm glad about that. You seem to cast more doubt on the many cases of Hamas and regular Gazans brutalizing Israeli civilians than the few cases of Israeli soldiers brutalizing prisoners though. Why is that?
> No I won't let you keep dodging.
What have I dodged?
> What I wrote was that if you think that what happened on Oct 7 justified the response that Israel enacted by demolishing basically the entirety of Gaza, then you should shudder at the thought of what is justified in a merely proportional response to Israel's response.
Yes, I replied with what a proportional response by Hamas to Israel would have been:
> > Hamas risking the lives of its own people to save some fictional hostages the IDF has not kidnapped?
You seemed to have missed this.
> given that we know that Israel regularly kills and rapes Palestinians,
That's not given. Your links about an isolated brutality case does not support your case that this is regular or anything near the scale of the Oct 7 massacre. The soldiers that brutalized that man are being punished by the Israeli government. The Hamas operatives that perpetuated Oct 7 massacre are by the Gazan government.
> Then why do you people keep justifying what you have done to Gaza?
exactly. wanting to nuke the place is an absolute normal response to what the Palestininans did on 7 Oct. They livestreamed their joy of r_pe, enslavement and gruesome killings. Even the nazis, to which the Oct-7-abaters are never tired of comparing the Israelis to, had the decency to not openly advertise their atrocities.
Yes. I would much rather do that. This stuff is all over all of the other information sources. What is wrong with having HN purely tech focused? Politics with way more of a direct intersection with tech - for example the E2EE "bans", chat control, meta's misadventures - makes sense. But not unrelated crap.
Nobody is "raising awareness" here (saw this mentioned above in this thread). Trust me people will still hear about these things if HN doesn't post them. We're just sharing a BBC article for heaven's sake. Its not like we have some new information source like say a former-IDF tech founder whistleblowing. Its all so performative.
There is zero new information any HN reader gains from this post. Its a BBC article, the comments are the same as what you see on instagram twitter or reddit, and the responses from the "defenders" are the same as what you see on instagram twitter or reddit as well.
I've commented before[1] about the weird lack of moderation/enforcement of this guideline:
> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
This one is politics or crime depending on which side you're on.
Never seen it enforced. Not for gaza,iran,venezuela,pakistan,ukraine. The US elections, random nonsense trump does, US govt shutdowns, greenland too.
All of those have been covered here extensively with zero net benefit/net information transacted.
I'm not saying we should only talk about Flash Attention version 6546272. Like if you see the health insurance thread on the front page today, you can see a CFO, a tech worker in the space, etc, commenting and contributing net new information.
This simply doesn't (and I don't see how it can ever) happen on these gaza threads.
In the context of what Elon has done, the only real discussion should be condemnation. If that leads to Elon fans feeling embattled, well, they should get better role models to look up to.
Plenty of the scientists involved in the Manhattan projects had immediate regrets. Plenty of rich people working in tech don't. That's the difference between having morals and not having morals, and the latter group needs to be judged and shunned.
How would this work? What happens if a child picks up my unlocked phone and copies the authentication data to another device?
I guess you can put the proof-generating code inside some kind of a secure enclave? But then it's still not any better than classic asymmetric exchange, except that the government provides you a certificate that signs the private key held inside the TPM.
Or are you thinking about using a ZKP for a biometric proof? But then this still doesn't solve the issue of a malicious user just taking biometric pictures once, and then re-feeding them to the verifier.
I don't think this is solveable without some kind of trusted computing environment, at which point the classic asymmetrical crypto is fine anyway.
What's stupid about using a soft approach, instead of a violent approach, to take away a driver's license from a drunk driver?
Why do police so frequently resort to violence that you're probably not surprised to hear bystanders in NYC were shot by cops pursuing a subway turnstile hopper? Let the implications of that sink in for a moment.
Why have I heard so many times about people losing their life after being pulled over for speeding?
> What's stupid about using a soft approach, instead of a violent approach
The options aren't soft vs violent.
The problem with the soft approach is it's all about giving the suspected impaired drive more chances to prove they aren't impaired. It's about avoiding removing them from the road, not avoiding a violent confrontation.
While cops shouldn't be dicks to everyone and they should always work to de-escalate, what they shouldn't do is let someone they think is impaired drive off. And that's what the "soft" approach is all about. It's about letting the arresting officer make excuses like "well, they don't seem THAT drunk" or "Well, they seem a little buzzed, but not that bad."
For a regular citizen, the cops would do a field sobriety test, a breathalyzer blow, and then arrest if it comes back high. That's what they should do for everyone they suspect is impaired.
If we wanted to argue for a softer approach, then I could see removing the criminal aspects of a DUI and instead just focusing on getting that person off the road and potentially revoking their license. But in no case should a cop let someone drive off that they suspect isn't fully sober.
> [Letting someone they think is impaired drive off is] what the "soft" approach is all about. [...] But in no case should a cop let someone drive off that they suspect isn't fully sober.
You are reading more into the vague "softly" term than is present in this thread, instead of "respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
> The options aren't soft vs violent.
That there is a spectrum instead of a binary choice is what I discussed, though maybe it's a regional language quirk: "What's stupid about using a soft[er] approach, instead of a [more] violent approach..."
How are you framing this? It’s an Electron app so it exists but doesn’t integrate or perform great. Last I recall you still were required to provide a SIM to sign up & you needed an iOS or Android primary device to even use the desktop client. Can you use a standalone, fast desktop application like you can these other protocols? I would say no, so “support” has shades of gray to it.
This is how I got kicked off LINE… they had a Chromium app that I could use tethered to an app, they disabled support for LINE Lite (which had light/dark theme, E2EE, texting, voice/video calls, debatable trackers (Firebase), even stickers & sending a location @ 8MiB instead of 200MiB+ of the “heavy app”), I refused to “upgrade” as it was a downgrade to me, & since I was no longer registered with a “primary” device, I was booted from the network. I don’t think I want these mobile-duopoly-required apps to be my primary means of communication with folks—especially now that my primary phone isn’t Apple or Google (luckily Open Whisper lets WhisperFish exist).
Not GP but I've also had issues with the Signal Desktop app (installed from the Arch repos).
Its overall a little sluggish in general (like most Electron apps though, in fairness) and occasionally clicking and dragging images onto the application will cause it to freeze and eventually crash.
Plus, the general usability issues present in all variants of the signal client (like no easy way of restoring previous messages on a new device).
It's not terrible or anything, but it's just a solid 6/10 application. I personally wish they were more open to 3rd party clients, so I could have something that integrates with my desktop environment a little better and is snappier, like my Matrix clients.
I'll have to try clicking and dragging images onto the Signal application and see if I notice any difference. I usually actually click the button to add an attachment and then browse to it. I'm also on Win11 but I would hope the experience between OSs wouldn't be too drastically different.
I haven't used Signal desktop, but I find Electron apps in general to be very wasteful of system resources. Out of curiosity, I once compared an Electron-based chat app to a C++ alternative, and found that the former used about 25 times the RAM and generated more CPU load.
If GP's system resources are usually dedicated to other tasks, perhaps trying to run an Electron app on top of those led to resource contention, and poor performance. You wouldn't notice this if your hardware is overprovisioned for the things you do with it.
The Signal desktop app works fine, but you are right, it is still tied to a mobile account and a phone number. This is the main downside to Signal. I read that the Molly fork will support multiple accounts and a self hostable server. It probably won't be federated, but that is not really a problem when you can use multiple accounts and avoids a lot of headaches that come with federation.
The other downside of the Desktop is that it requires periodic re-verification with the device you used to set it up. Desktop users are definitely second class citizens in the Signal ecosystem.
Has done for years now, but its desktop support is far inferior to even Matrix chat clients. It works in a pinch but you have to lower your standards quite a lot to use it as a true alternative.
Typically, real humans have some agency on their own existence.
A simulated human is entirely at the mercy of the simulator; it is essentially a slave. As a society, we have decided that slavery is illegal for real humans; what would distinguish simulated humans from that?
