I guess because people still use it. It might be obvious, but it isn’t common knowledge. All people are ignorant about most things. There’s just too much to know and not enough time to learn it unless you’re forced.

I don’t think it’s just Americans that put the year at the end.

If they did care and tried to improve it, they’d ruin it.

Appreciate how good you have it. In America, child sex abuse material is only illegal when children were abused in making it, or if it’s considered obscene by a community. If someone edits adult actors to look like children as they perform sex acts, it’s not illegal under federal law. If someone generates child nudity using ai models trained on nude adults and only clothed kids, it’s not illegal at the national level.

Fake porn of real people could be banned for being obscene, usually at a local level, but almost any porn could be banned by lawmakers this way. Harmless stuff like gay or trans porn could be banned by bigoted lawmakers, because obscenity is a fairly subjective mechanism. However, because of our near absolute freedom of speech, obscenity is basically all we have to regulate malicious porn.

Linux users are the homeowners who build and fix everything they can, but look down on people that don’t find craftsmanship fun, claiming that they’re saving money by doing the work themselves. Good on you for having that hobby, but if you don’t enjoy it, spending time to learn those skills costs time that could be spent earning more money than you’d save. Paying an expert to do things you don’t enjoy is usually the cheaper option. They can be found almost anywhere, similar to how Linux users use Apple or windows products from time to time.

Mac users are suburb dwellers who view their way of life as what everyone should aspire to, ignorant to the downsides of sprawl and reliance on cars to go anywhere. Commute times suck, while walkable neighborhoods with public transit make most people healthier and happier. There’s an important classist component, often bundled with racism, that underscores this ideal.

Windows users are people that live in urban areas for work, trying to find reasonable rent or home prices as unchecked capitalism makes everything worse, but unaware why things suck. They get annoyed when people share their passion for handiwork, and dislike suburban folks for thinking they’re superior rather than the downsides to suburban life. However, because most people live this way, and live this way for work, they usually don’t have strong identities like suburbanites or handy homeowners.

Homeless people are those who can’t afford computers, overlapping with actual homeless people, and rural people are those that don’t use computers more than they need to, socializing face to face and literally touching grass.

Palestine nationals did try to work towards a deal. Zionists did kick Arabs out of their homes, 80% of them in what shortly became Israel. Oh, but they’re not genocidal, they just want to kick the Arabs off their land and make them not exist as a collective people there. Why couldn’t I see that? Those pesky Palestinians need only accept being a minority in a Jewish theocracy, then they don’t have to leave their homes.

Jordan was not unilaterally turned into the kingdom of Jordan by the British, a Transjordan independence movement wanted to prevent immigration of Jews to Mandatory Palestine, but barely managed to unite the land in present day Jordan. Jordan wasn’t a fully independent nation at this time and Mandatory Palestine certainly wasn’t. They didn’t have a choice, and the king would have tried to unite Palestine with Jordan if the British didn’t have plans for it.

You seem to think that a common people with a shared culture will automatically unite as a nation, but organizing a state isn’t easy. Independent tribes need to be convinced of the usefulness of a larger collective in order to form a state. They give up autonomy in creating a nation, so the tradeoff must seem worthwhile. If not for the external threat of Europeans trying to carve up and control peoples in the Middle East for selfish interests, they would prefer to be tribal and borderless. This isn’t because they’re uncivilized or savages, but because regional autonomy is a cool vibe. It’s not true anarchy, but it’s a less centralized mode than what Europeans thought was normal and civilized.

This is why European empires carving up the Middle East and demanding they form nations is so fucked up. They made arbitrary borders, often intentionally drawn to perpetuate and create conflict, because they think centralized governments are just the norm. Centralized governments can be useful, but they’re not without drawbacks and aren’t always superior. They need to come about naturally out of shared interests and the desire to accomplish what can’t be done singularly. This is why the UK leaving the EU was so ironic and hypocritical: they wanted to be more than equal partners because they’re so used to dominating imperially. When you’re used privilege, equality feels like oppression.

Anyhow, your understanding is shallow and ignorant. I’m not in the mood to give you a college course in social science and history that you might not even listen to. The best I can do is advise you to ensure your arguments are supported by evidence. Try to use evidence to inform your opinion and not to cherrypick facts that support your preconceived worldview. It’s a struggle to do this and not as easy or convenient, but it is what people should try to do.

The checkpoints and control of roads in the West Bank prevent Palestinians from moving freely. The PLO “controls,” The West Bank, but when an occupying nation controls many of the roads, preventing usage of certain roads by the citizens of your territory and only letting their own citizens travel on them, how can they be considered independent? They lack basic sovereignty, with their citizens not being able to move within their own country due to an occupying force. You claim there is no authority to undermine, but even if correct, the reason for a lack of authority is squarely on Israel.

The idea that Palestine’s population has grown for the entire conflict falls apart when you look at the late 1940s, where over 700,000 Palestinian Arabs were expelled from their homes by Zionist militias. It was almost half of the Arab population. In just a few years, zealous Zionists used violence to flip the demographics of the region to favor Jews over non Jews. This wasn’t genocide, but was undeniably ethnic cleansing. It’s an important piece of context that Israeli fascists have tried to keep out of the conversation, focusing on population trends after their ethnic cleansing and assuming people won’t investigate.

I might describe Isreal’s practical intentions as genocidal because that’s the only way their strategy can make Israeli citizens safe like they claim to be working towards. Bombing Gaza does not make Israel safer unless they decimate the population enough to exert authoritarian control over the survivors. If they wanted Palestinians to live alongside Israel peacefully, they would ensure that there is a strong Palestinian state with little motivation to invade. If they got rid of settlements in the West Bank, funded a Palestinians state and reinvigorated their economy, and mutually agreed to harshly police hate crimes in both states, then they could coexist. The only ways to defeat Hamas in Gaza through force would be occupation of Gaza, or the expulsion of Palestinians from Gaza.

The reason they don’t go all out on purging Gaza probably has to do with Arabs outside Palestine who might attack if it happens too quickly. Israel has nukes, but they still want to avoid all out war. The long term goal of this subset of Zionists, genocidal Zionists, is to take over all of Palestine eventually, something that would likely be genocidal. Some Zionists want two states, but the Zionists in charge want a single Jewish theocracy.

I want peace and safety for Jewish people and Palestinians, something that will not happen without a true two state solution, or a single secular state. The long term plan of the state of Israel is ethnic cleansing at best, and genocide at worst.

The situation with Egypt requires contextual knowledge of their history with the Muslim Brotherhood. Hamas is a breakaway from the MB, and still ally with them. Egypt’s more secular military overthrew the Muslim Brotherhood’s democratic government, and the current government doesn’t want them to rise again. Letting in Palestinians would let in Hamas members, who might create problems for the government. It’s not the peacefulness of Palestinians, but the politics of Egypt that prevent them from accepting refugees. If Hamas was exactly the same but would oppose MB forces in Egypt, Egypt would probably let in some refugees. However, it’s hard for a nation with Egypt’s problems, to deal with so many refugees by themselves anyways. Israel, the ones creating refugees out of Palestinians, can’t expect their neighbors to happily foot the bill of caring for people who’s property they stole and destroyed.

You seem to misunderstand the Israeli occupation of Palestine. The West Bank is very much governed by the IDF and they treat Jews differently than non Jews. The IDF can legally detain Palestinians for up to 6 months without charges while being required to defend settlers who attack and harass Palestinians. They undermine the Palestinian Authority and override their supposed authority all the time. Gaza is more of an open air prison as people can’t leave. The reason Israel doesn’t occupy Gaza is because they did in the past and it was uneconomical.

There are a ton of people who basically paint all pro Palestinian groups and protests as antisemitic, from the ADL to Israeli lobbyists. These people are totally unreasonable and have a large amount of influence. “Opposing Israel’s actions = anti-Zionism = antisemitism,” isn’t the fringe narrative it should be. At the same time, there are braindead so called, “leftists,” who can’t comprehend that both Netanyahu’s government and Hamas are genocidal theocratic fascists. They’re also frustrating as fuck and cannot be tolerated. Far too many have lost their minds and morals over this conflict.

Both those jobs require PHDs, something only 2% of Americans ever get. It would be inaccurate to claim that there’s only a 1% chance of both your parents being doctors, but it is more exclusive than 1 doctor. They were definitely millionaires by the time he was an adult, and could probably afford excellent education for him since birth. The key thing is that closer you start to the bottom, the harder it is to become ultra wealthy.

It’s honestly amusing to see what batshit strategy Musk will use next to fuck up Twitter. It’s like he’s trying to force every smart employee to leave, drive away every advertiser possible, and get users to find other homes.

Men are 12 year old boys, women are adult men, and children are either FBI agents or catfishing pedophiles.

It obviously hasn’t worked.

I think he heard some philosophy stuff out of context or over simplified, and was knee deep in inferences when he tweeted that. Something like:

• The only thing we know with certainty that we exist.

• So we don’t know if anything, including what we perceive, is real.

• If our perception could be fake, we can’t even know that our sensory organs, like eyes, are real.

• However, in my perceived life, I can look at myself in a mirror, and see my own body and my own eyes.

• If my perception isn’t real, and my eyes aren’t real, how can I see them in that mirror?

• If our eyes aren’t real, we wouldn’t be able to see them in a mirror for… some reason.

• But my name is Jaden Smith, and I can’t understand that a fake reality could trick me into thinking I see my own eyes, so I think being able to see my eyes in a mirror means my eyes must be real, the mirror must be real, and the physical world exists with certainty. I disproved solipsism guys!

In all seriousness, I don’t think he believed his eyes weren’t real, he was asking a rhetorical question that he thought proved something deep. However, because he was a dumb teenager, he thought he could figure out something no one in history ever considered, and was thus making some grand contribution to society.

That’s just how the internet do. Not unique to lemmy.

LGBTQ rights activists were complaining about this already, and people didn’t listen. Using a more highly motivating issue like abortion is sadly necessary to get people to care. It could censor so many important issues, it’s a travesty it’s gotten this far.

To be fair, they aren’t exactly profiting from the current strategy.

Video editing and compositing are the main things. These don’t seem to specialize in those tasks, while Adobe offers too many features and has too many quality 3rd party plugins to really be replaced. Even if there were programs that could compete, learning how to do things you know how to do in another program is a pain in the ass. The way programs work together is also a key thing Adobe can offer because they own multiple programs. Ideally there would be common standards to allow programs from different teams to work together just as well, but I’ve yet to see it.

Bigger thing for me is the Adobe shit. Those fuckers have monopolized creativity tools, and I haven’t heard of good alternatives for Linux.

That’s still not ok. It’s just normalized.

I never said we’d be able to understand or prove everything, just that there is some logic underpinning reality. It might be that some things are fundamentally unknowable, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist to be known, just that we’ll never know it.

I also don’t get what the halting problem proves about reality. It might be possible that infinities or unresolvable results are real, so long as we can still exist. The cosmological principle proves that we have to live in a reality that it is possible for us to exist in, otherwise we wouldn’t be here to observe it. So long as the infinities or uncomputable problems don’t prevent our existence, it might represent reality. If the equation doesn’t allow us to exist, then it doesn’t represent reality.