NPR is pretty great for left leaning media.

I’m as tankie as they come but I love shitting on Russia. Call it CIA brainwashing, its my absolute pleasure.

A core tenant of socialism is a democratized workplace, being able to vote for your wage and company policy, like an Engineer choosing when to launch the rocket instead of some MBS degree.

Last time I checked I dont think factory workers in China that make all our shit can do that.

Its open source isn’t it? It still has the same problems but on a privacy level, having it be open source is much better.

That’s not what anarchism is.

I like to call anarchism as neighborliness extended as a political ideology. Consider it libertarianism with a pinch of collectivism

You do it all the time when you organize a group of friends to go to the movies. There is no elected leader.

When Russia invaded Ukraine, they destroyed a lot of public and military comms infrastructure, so the military ended up teaming up with anarchists because they had a decentralized comms going.

Anarchism is compatible with existing political ideologies, however in my opinion works best at small scales.

I don’t think the analogy to Egypt works, because they have a peace treaty.

We all know Israel and Saudi Arabia have a shared adversary in the form of Iran. The US wants them to normalize so they can take care of that front.

As for getting impaled on the stick, I’d say Pakistan got impaled on the stick, because its likely they were the ones hiding Bin Laden.

As for Saddam falling on the stick, that was due to Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait over several reasons: a desire to reunify, oil, and Kuwait debt. That’s on top of having a history of using chemical weapons for mass murder.

And as we know, the US loves oil, but so does the world. Globalized markets want to be stable, and the US helps with that

A lot of people dont understand US foreign policy. Do not interpret my post as taking a stance.

US foreign policy is all about 3 key issues, carrot and stick diplomacy, containing China and Russia, and protecting the global market.

Carrot and stick diplomacy is using positive reinforcement to make changes in totalitarian governments.

Containing China is all about making friends with countries near China and putting a base there, along with allowing companies, military arms deals, and joint intelligence to happen in that country.

• That is why the US wants Saudi Arabia and Israel to normalize. And do to that, the US turns a blind eye to tons of bullshit done by countries in the Middle East. If they were to normalize, then a solid logistics chain from Europe to the Gulf can be established, and the two countries would bolster the front there. Then the US could pivot its power projection over to Taiwan.
• The US is powerful, but its not tactically sound to manage three fronts at the same time.

If you remember how pissed off the US got when Russia put missiles in Cuba, then you can see why China and Russia will team up with everyone they can to foil this plan to contain them.

Since the world is now globalized, the US has to protect lots of boats carrying oil, chips, and food. If something fucks up, then everyone pays for it. Of course, if youre resisting western imperialism then its in your best interest to make people suffer by blowing up the boats.

Now geopolitics makes sense.

From here, then if youre an idealist, you can make an informed opinion on US foreign policy. Should the US continue its world police campaign at the expense of people suffering under its allies?

Can you achieve US foreign policy goals without suffering?

Will a reversal of US foreign policy lead to more domestic suffering in the West due to economic turmoil?

These questions should be debated and examined thoroughly.

Nah it's because they decided to use cameras instead of LiDAR and then try to make it autonomous instead of driver aid.

AI is at its best when it's opening up productivity and freedom to think critically or leisurely, the same way sticky notes help someone study.

They have an official app LOL. You have to get it from their telegram. (I wouldn't do it tbh)

Some of the sources I wanted to sub to but could never afford it are TIME magazine and The Atlantic.

WSJ I don't believe gives all it's articles to Apple. Could be wrong.

I wish the NYT was still in there, but they pulled out a while back.

I think The Guardian is in there though.

Let it be noted that this is an opinion article.

Editorials and Opinion pieces do contribute to social discourse regarding news, and may be correct, but unlike their normal news, they can say whatever they want about the news from the authors they hire.

Opinion pieces allow news sources to use sensationalist and inflammatory articles to drive engagement without harming their credibility, because of that giant OPINION label.

NYT and WSJ's editorials and opinion pieces tend to be quite left and quite right leaning respectfully, to an almost satirical level. In my opinion, the WSJ's comment section under its editorials are much worse.

I'm not disparaging the article in any way, just saying for those that may not already know.

Al Jazeera had been live streaming and live reporting the entire thing, and there are multiple angles and phone videos from them and other sources that show the entire incident, from the rocket barrage, to the booster failure, to the hospital explosion.

The Associated Press has the complete analysis to your question, including the videos I mentioned, posted yesterday.

Alot of the videos in there were confirmed 8 hours after the incident, this is the first mainstream media outlet that put it all together.

The AP was one of the first to report what the Gaza Health Ministry said, "Israel strikes hospital, killing 500", then edited their article 3 times in 1 hour, with new titles and recharacterizing the report as "they said" to try and cover the increasing uncertainty of the situation. Along with the casualty number dropping. Now some might say "But any death at all is bad, 50 or 500!". That's true, it's still really tragic, but it's also a 90% error, which is a disaster for journalism.

The article covers the JDAM theories, the Israel warned them, the Hamas announcing their launching rockets a little after the incident. All things that would make the situation more murky.

I admit I do sound like I'm defending Israel with this. This particular event is a flashpoint for me personally since I'm heavily invested in the state of journalism in an age where the flood of information can overwhelm news and lead to innaccuracies.

The rocket turning around video is a different video from last year.

Unfortunately I got banned from World News on lemmy.ml because posting this was "War Crime Denial" apparently.

And that's why you would never be put on a jury Mr. "Hunt the predators and rapists down and kill them violently".

If I were in your position, I might be getting equally angry at the meer suggestion that privacy is important, but I would be wrong for being angry at the wrong topic.

Anyway, this fight against encryption is going to lose, for the sake if journalists who report in hostile countries without freedom of speech, for the sake of kids with parents who'd kill them if they came out as trans, and for people in the intelligence industry.

Well it's understandable that you think the predators are random men in white vans texting your kids, grooming, and abducting them, but in actuality, a ton of the major produces of CSAM are parents or family members.

This doesn't account for a smaller, but significant percentage of self-producers that post online because they're following online sexual trends, innocently self-expressing, or self-exploiting.

Having the goverment ban encryption will only undermine the privacy and security of law abiding citizens, and jeopardize national security. Parents don't have to send messages to their kids really.

The police won't protect your child from your spouse.

Banning encryption won't do anything to curb this concern of yours, its like banning car locks because people could hide heroin in cars.

I can empathize with your stance, but I have to tell you, that the "protect children" argument has been used to justify genocide, racial segregation, and so many other violations of civil rights within the last 100 years.

Well yes, because it's not up to the government to take care of or protect your kids. And it's your job to make sure they can protect themselves online. That's just common sense.

Additionally, the government is still effective at catching bad guys without backdoors to encryption, and this stuff doesn't stop you from monitoring your kids devices.

Yes in the US, Texas for example has used publicly available information to jail moms who travel for abortions.

If the government were to trample on the freedom of privacy, it would affect the right to protest, it would affect freedom of assembly, it would affect freedom of opinion.

China literally monitors most of their citizens communications this way.

We do NOT want governments to invade privacy for the sake of security.

Because, if the government can see what you do, then criminal actors can also see what you do too.

What do you mean deprives us of freedoms?

Everyone has a right to lock their bathroom door. Crime might be comitted behind the bathroom door, but usually there will be other evidence of that without looking in the bathroom, so there is no need for the government to legislate that all bathrooms should remove their locks.

No one ever questions the right of locking your bathroom door.

Okay I'll answer you. It's wrong for Israel to cut power to civilians. It's right for Israel to cut power to military targets.

If military targets embed their infrastructure with civilian infrastructure. Oopsies. Civilians are now military targets.

Palestinians MAYBE shouldn't have Hamas in power if they're going to power their military operations with civilian power. ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯

Every world power knows that, that's why most have pretty much gotten behind Israel, regardless of any apartheid Israel has done.

The US did the same thing when 9/11 happened. The US did the same thing in Operation Desert Storm along with other NATO countries who joined the US in operations in the middle east.

Nobody in the west complained then, and nobody's complaining now, because Hamas did the dumb dumb.

I'm not justifying anything that Israel has done in the past. The main point of my comment is that Hamas made a really poor decision here on behalf of the Palestinians. There is absolutely no doubt.

There is no moralizing or whataboutism.

The fact of the matter is that this caused a divided Israel to unite in anger. And support for Palestine has been cut by all European nations and Australia. Palestinian sympathizers and charity leaders have been among the victims.

The question you should be asking is if you support the Palestinian people is…

What the actual hell is this bonehead decision-making by Hamas? There is no scenario of success in this endeavor unless the Western world decided to withdraw all support from Israel and give it to Hamas.

Was that going to happen? No. Hamas never tried to establish good diplomatic relations with anyone.

The world stage is a democratic club, and Hamas rejected it all. Hamas burned every single bridge with other countries no matter how many citizens of those governments complain.

Depends on who you ask, there's 50 Senators and 221 House Representatives on the Republican party.

Despite the substantial erosion of decorem on the right, there are still some who operate with civility and reason, though they are not as vocal as they should be.

Before you respond with semi-justified cynicism, it's not an assumption. Republicans know they'd align mostly with Democrats on Israel.

I mean it's very politically divided, but in terms of securing Israel, most opposition leaders called 9ff protests and united behind Netanyahu since there are still Hamas militants in Israel.