Thanks for commenting on this supplement. What reactions or symptoms should we look for in order to suggest that we're ramping up too quickly on it? Are we talking gastrointestinal effects or something else?
Except that Kimmel's job was speech. He had a microphone -- and depended upon that (supposedly God-given) freedom of speech to perform that job. If he lost that job due to something that right didn't guarantee, then I'd understand. His dismissal's cause had nothing to do with a failure on his part. Instead we now have the government, specifically concerned with his criticisms of it, effectuating this block of Kimmel's speech and thereby ending his job. The government is supposed to guarantee your right to criticize it. What happened here?
FDR? FDR did spawn many (controversial) programs/agencies but he also got (the world) through WW2. There's something to be said for that. He also picked a pretty good VP. Yes, he overstayed his welcome, but his death in office wasn't something that people were necessarily looking forward to & his funeral was a very somber affair. Can we say the same thing about the Imperial Cheeto in Chief?
Shouldn't their donation be weighed against the revenues they enjoy using the Foundation's labors? Is Proxmox enjoying particularly strong revenues, and doesn't their product involve much more than what Perl provides? I think the donation is pretty fair. Their success certainly owes more to things beyond Perl itself.
I think the point is proxmox's donation is fair, but there's many more businesses getting much more value from perl which are not donating, if their fair donation is notable.
How about the concealment of drug use? Just now we're finding about the how Musk used so much Ketamine to get thru the nights at the White House that his urine turned bloody. Does anyone doubt that Trump snorts Adderall? That's just so he can sound coherent in public settings. That story has been repeated over & over by those who know but aren't able to survive the storm that Trump would levy in order to go public.
Nice work. Have you made available the CSV of this data, or is it easily obtainable using horse racing information online? I didn't see how that HKJC site offered it in CSV format. Perhaps you scraped the data to generate your CSV? Thank you.
I'm pretty sure this would remove (i.e., nullify) the majority of its nutrients & value to consumption to begin with. We need to find ways to cleanly grow rice, on lands that aren't already contaminated with arsenic.
What exactly are the 'unsafe anti-Semitic actions' that Harvard Univ has committed? Is this whole thing about how Harvard hasn't suppressed the free speech rights of its students as they protested the wholesale bombing of Gaza? Its not like Harvard is rife with far-right activists denying the Holocaust and such. I can't imagine that Harvard wouldn't win their case quite roundly. Law firms & universities have to stop bowing to the wanna-be dictator.
Why not try to do the minimum amount of research before complaining about it online? Here's a complaint from a recent lawsuit by a collection of Jewish Harvard students against the university. It's a good starting point. https://www.kasowitz.com/media/unxcnvpo/harvard-complaint.pd...
Key Allegations:
1. Hostile Environment: The complaint describes a campus atmosphere where pro-Hamas students and faculty have organized demonstrations featuring antisemitic slogans and calls for violence against Jews and Israel. These protests have reportedly disrupted classes and occupied campus spaces, creating an environment of fear and intimidation for Jewish students.
2. Administrative Inaction: Despite numerous complaints and reports of antisemitic incidents, the university administration is accused of failing to take appropriate disciplinary actions against perpetrators. The plaintiffs argue that this inaction amounts to deliberate indifference, exacerbating the hostile environment.
3. Double Standards: The lawsuit claims that Harvard enforces its anti-discrimination policies selectively, protecting other minority groups while neglecting the safety and rights of Jewish students. This alleged inconsistency is presented as evidence of institutional bias.
4. Faculty Conduct: Certain faculty members are accused of promoting antisemitic rhetoric in their teachings and public statements, further contributing to the hostile climate on campus.
5. Failure to Uphold Policies: The plaintiffs contend that Harvard has not adhered to its own stated policies on discrimination and harassment, thereby breaching contractual obligations to its students.
Legal Claims:
• Violation of Title VI: The university is accused of failing to prevent discrimination based on race, color, or national origin, as mandated by federal law.
• Breach of Contract: By not enforcing its anti-discrimination policies, Harvard is alleged to have breached its contractual commitments to provide a safe educational environment.
• Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing: The plaintiffs argue that the university’s actions, or lack thereof, violate the fundamental expectations of fairness and protection owed to students.
These protests were mostly against the state of Israel which isn't a violation of Title IX.I know there were specific instances of Anti-Semitism, which were wrong and should be punished, but is there evidence Harvard didn't take action for those?
-----
My concern is that Anti-Zionism is being conflated with Anti-Semitism by the complainants in order to
1. Bolster their case wrongfully by increasing the number of incidents
2. Defend the Israeli government
3. Expand Anti-Semitism to include Anti-Zionism in court decisions making future criticism of Israel dangerous
For example the complaint you linked to opens with
".. Since October 7, 2023, when Hamas terrorists invaded Israel and
slaughtered, tortured, raped, burned, and mutilated 1,200 people—including infants, children,
and the elderly"
Unnecessary details to the situation because if their claims against Harvard are valid the source of the anti-Semitism is irrelevant (edit: meaning anger at Israel's response to the attack)
This means it was placed at the beginning of the complaint to illicit an emotional reaction/reminder of the horrific event.
Edit: Just to add that if a person is criticizing Israel and a Jewish person feels threatened or avoids campus because of it that's not anti-Semitism.
"I know there were specific instances of Anti-Semitism, which were wrong and should be punished, but is there evidence Harvard didn't take action for those?"
That is literally the allegation made in the lawsuit. And calling these protests merely "anti-Israel" is intentionally obtuse — it ignores the blatant anti-Jewish bigotry that was plainly on display.
> And calling these protests merely "anti-Israel" is intentionally obtuse
No actually I think it's right on the money.
Some vaguely brown people being very mad at Israel does not antisemitism make.
Are they denying the Holocaust? Are they saying Jews should die? Or... are they saying Israel is committing a genocide? Are they blaming those particular jews running Israel?
I think we all know it's almost entirely the latter, and almost none of the former.
In every movement there are going to be extremists and people with prejudice.
However, you don't need to be antisemitic to be anti-Zionist. There are pretty much infinite reasons to denounce Israel, and the state seems to be making more every day.
If I, or anyone else, wanted to make a poignant argument against Israel we could simple gesture to the pile of crimes against humanity the state has committed. We wouldn't need to resort to antisemitism.
>That is literally the allegation made in the lawsuit.
"I'd like to open my case against John Smith for murder your honor. My only piece of evidence that he committed this horrific crime is that he was accused of it. I rest my case"
>And calling these protests merely "anti-Israel" is intentionally obtuse — it ignores the blatant anti-Jewish bigotry that was plainly on display.
By all who were there or just some? Being the protest was open to all how can you lump all protestors together because of the views of some.
References to Israel are not unnecessary details when protestors call for the elimination of the only existing Jewish state. Anti-Zionism isn't criticism of Israel. Its eliminationist rhetoric and plainly bigoted.
There are some who think Israel shouldn't exist others who think their government is wrong.
If a person thinks all Israelis should be murdered then that's wrong. This is not the whole representation of Anti-Zionism but you are trying to make it
You can only be bigoted against a person or group of people, not a country or government.
Israel gives the Palestinians a contiguous state with sea access is exchange for a mutual recognition of borders.
The root problem that anti-Zionists have in practice (rather than the "no state of Israel" loonies) is Palestinians having a viable state (economically and territorially).
Both of those are things Israel (with the help of Arab funding) could fix tomorrow, if its current government weren't kowtowing to its ultra-right / illegal settler minority for political reasons.
I can totally see how the settlements and politics of Israel in the westbank would prevent a viable Palestinian state.
I know less about Gaza (haven't been there to begin with), but my impression is that Gaza had much more freedom within it's borders. It's unfortunate that the people there voted for a terror organization back then that as their very first act murdered the opposition and has no interest at all to work for the benefit of the Palestinian people.
Recognition of borders by Hamas will obviously never happen, so as long as they rule in Gaza or might potentially rule in Gaza or the westbank in the future it would be way too much risk for Israel to expose their borders.
I think everyone forgets just how much money Palestinians receive, effectively because of the war with Israel (or they wouldn't receive anywhere near this amount without that war). This guarantees the war continues. None of the states in the middle east around Israel are anywhere close to Palestine, economically. What Palestinians are receiving amounts to $1000/person (or $13000/person/yr) for nothing. That doesn't include payments from the middle eastern countries like Qatar, which reportedly are enough to make all Palestinian government leaders billionaires, as well as run both hamas and the PA.
If Palestinians needed to support their own economy, well, let's look at the neighboring countries:
Egypt: 3,457.46 GDP/capita/yr
Jordan: 4,455.51 GDP/capita/yr
Lebanon: 3,654.36 GDP/capita/yr
(This is NOT income, it's GDP, let's generously say average income would be half that)
So napkin math: peace with Israel would cost Palestinians 7/8th or 87.5% of the average income of a Palestinian. Well, let's say they wouldn't lose all aid. Let's say it would cost them 75% of their income. It would be a worse economic disaster for them than WW2 was in Europe. Frankly it's so much of a loss that I do actually kind of believe Israel's government also wants the war: the business they get from Palestinians is still between 15 and 20% of Israel's GDP and would entirely disappear if there was peace. But the incentive for war is far stronger for Palestinians.
Currently, despite everything, Palestine is ahead of Eastern Europe in economic development (by which I mean "go into a random apartment, what would you find?"). You would destroy that. Frankly, I find it hard to believe Palestinians would even match Egypt, Lebanon or Jordan in terms of economy any time soon.
I think if you asked Palestinians if they wanted war, victims and all, in trade for keeping what they have (as opposed to losing 75%), they would want war. Frankly, I'm pretty sure that's not exactly an exception. If, say, the French had the option to 4x their average income in trade for war, they'd start a war. No doubt in my mind about that.
You have to discount Gaza's economic development by needing to rebuild their infrastructure every few years and a complete blockade since 2007.
Why is there so much per capita aid to Gaza?
Because Israel prevents them from having a functioning economy.
Why does Israel prevent that?
Because then it would have to bargain with a stronger counterparty for an ultimate resolution.
Until Israel realizes that it either needs to (a) kill every man, woman, and child in Gaza or (b) grant them a functioning, independent state, the wheel will keep on turning. Israel represses and provokes Palestinians; Palestinians lash out; Israel cracks down militarily until international pressure forces them to stop; GOTO 10.
I don't think your provoking theory holds because before the massacre on 7th October, the situation between Gaza and Israel was improving. That's also why intelligence didn't think Hamas would start such a massacre.
Israel tends to eventually destroy infrastructure that's (dual-)used to increase Hamas terror infrastructure. Unfortunately, that's virtually all of existing infrastructure right now.
Why hasn't Gaza normalized it's relationship with Egypt? They have closed their borders to Gaza as well because Hamas is friends with Muslim brotherhood and apparently Egypt thinks a proper border with Gaza would do harm to Egypt.
>Why hasn't Gaza normalized it's relationship with Egypt?
The border is controlled by Israel. Egypt US and Israel has a tripartite treaty to have Egypt act as a mere watchdog on the border. This border crossing is now controlled by Israel. The sea is controlled by Israel, and has fixed and detained any maritime peace activities, read the floatilla raid on Palestinian waters. Maybe we should be holding accountable those who call themselves to a democratic nation than a party in a small bombed out piece of land.
It is NOW. For obvious reasons. Other than that: bullshit. The border was controlled by Egypt and Hamas from 2005 to 2021. Incidentally it was Egypt that closed the border, not Israel (after hamas decided to murder Egyptian army officers "because they were Jews", I might add, the incidents (plural) that wikipedia euphemistically describes as "escalation of cross-border incidents between Israel and Hamas". Cross-border is correct, but somehow it is not relevant to point out that it was hamas attacks in Egypt, and that it was Egyptian security forces that died. Oh and they probably weren't even anti-Israel attacks but an attempt to sabotage one of the attempts of the Egyptians to hold an election. That attempt was succesfull I might add (of course it's still the middle east and "it's complicated")
I don't think most Palestinians want the war. Most of them just want to love their lives just as most people in the world do. When people voted for Hamas back then, they specifically didn't wanted what Hamas did afterwards. At least I have seen polls that strongly indicate that. People were angry back then that there wasn't enough progress on the matter.
Leadership is a different matter. Hamas is a terror organization, they achieve their goals by means of terror and that's what defined them. So they of course want terror. Don't know much about Fatah, but they seem to be much more interested in political solutions.
Israel gives them a hard time though as they keep demonstrating that they want to replace the Arab population in the westbank with Jewish settlers.
... and given the choice between war and 1000 usd/month/person help, or no war, but, let's say 250 usd/month/person in help, and the rest has to come from a job (and if you want 750 that will be a job in Israel, likely working for Jews, for less, let's say half, than Israeli make).
Not the "war or peace, with no further consequences" fake choice people like to pretend exists?
The Israel-Palestine conflict always was a proxy war. Maybe less so on Israel's side, but always on the muslim/Arab side, even before it started. Peace would mean support from the proxies stops and Israeli and Palestinians would have to care for themselves. Aid would drop to the level anyone else gets (which isn't even 1/4th of what they currently officially get, more like 1/20th, and probably even less if you count unofficial "aid")
Given that choice, the real choice, war or desperate poverty, what do Palestinians want? Frankly, if we look at history, I'd argue it historically took a lot less than what is bound to happen in Palestine to get people to start a war. For example, the French revolution was preceded and at least partly caused by a tax increase of 16%. This would be an effective 75% to 90% tax increase.
Oh and to add insult to injury, of course, stopping the war would mean economic disaster on the Palestinian side, but it would ALSO mean an immediate economic boom like nothing before on the Israeli side. Palestinians would be forced into desperate poverty ... and Israeli may see their wages double at the same time, for the same reason.
This conflict cannot end with this level of aid provided to the Palestinian side. It just can't.
Anyone who reads your initial comment will agree that EVERY point you made boils down to "this happened, but it's a Jewish conspiracy". You barely mention Palestinians.
The trouble is that Israel-Palestine is a proxy war with spiritual implications.
Israel is composed of people who just went through a legitimate holocaust and genocide themselves. Therefore it seems logical to most people that they'd be ready and willing to exact vengeance in the measure it was dished out to them. Furthermore, their Tanakh (our Old Testament) details the battles between the Children of Israel and their neighbors, which were murderous, atrocious, and genocidal on both sides. Why should modern warfare be any different?
Conversely, Palestine is composed of an amalgam of pan-Arabic people and, correct me if I'm wrong, no particularly deep roots in terms of common ethnic descent, or claim to such land or territory, since it was British until recently. Therefore, the Palestinians are a stand-in for all the Arab world, and by proxy, we're fighting all those Arab terrorists by targeting Palestine, and vice versa. Now the Arab world is nakedly genocidal against the Jews. They really make no bones about their desire to wipe Israel from the face of the Earth. By proxy they did a pretty good job during WWII -- the Third Reich, being the enemy of their enemy, was greatly pleasing to the Arab world.
So the Middle East has two little Davids fighting each other on behalf of their respective Goliaths. Israel's campaign has finally ramped up to the point where the rest of the world cries injustice and genocide and enough. But Israel has vowed "never again [to us]" while living under very real and existential threat that the entire Arab world would very much do it again to them, if they had half the chance.
So if the West puts the brakes on Israel, then we're letting the other Goliath's David win, and nobody around here wants that.
> the Arab world is nakedly genocidal against the Jews
The Arab world historically (specifically the Palestinians) has never been the enemy of the Jews. It has always been other Europeans that have been the enemy of the Jews. Why should the Palestinians pay reparations under the form of genocide for what the Europeans did to the Jews?
> Israel is composed of people who just went through a legitimate holocaust and genocide themselves.
This gives them a free pass to commit a second one, right?
Also, no it's not. That's just not true. Israel is not composed of survivors of the Nazi Holocaust. The youngest survivors of the Nazi Holocaust are over 80 years old now. Is Israel composed of people over 80 years old? And is 80 years ago a time that "just" happened?
“ Palestinians didn't do the holocaust. On the contrary, they took Jewish people in - on condition that no one would try and form an ethno-state”
Before World War II, the land was British Mandate Palestine, which was previously part of the Ottoman Empire. It was a land with a mixed population and growing nationalist movements among both Jews and Arabs.
Balfour Declaration 1917
“His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object..."
Under League of Nations, there was no explicit agreement that Jewish people could only come if they never formed a state.
1920s-30s more immigration occurred and clearly Zionists wanted to establish a Jewish state.
In 1939, before Holocaust, Britain severely limited Jewish immigration stating in a White Paper, “Palestine would not become a Jewish state”. It limited Jewish immigration to 75,000 over 5 years.
Fast forward to 1947 post WW2, Britain became increasingly concerned about tensions between Arabs and Jews. There became a strong demand for a Jewish state amongst Zionists it was referred to the United Nations in 1947.
UN partition plan divided Palestine into three parts. Jews accepted even though it had compromises and Palestinians rejected.
War broke out and in 1948, several Arab states attacked. After the Arab-Israeli War, Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt took Gaza, Israel expanded its borders. No Palestinian state was created.
Palestine identity started getting created in the 20th century. It had been known as Palestine for millennia and ruled by various empires over hundreds of years.
“ Palestinians – as well as other Levantine people – are primarily descended from ancient Levantines who inhabited what is today Israel and Palestine, at least 3700 years ago”
It’s complicated and there is a lot of nuance. Many cultural groups trace their origins there including Jews who consider themselves descendants of ancient Israelites.
>War broke out and in 1948, several Arab states attacked.
Please do mention the Dalet Plan, the massacres of the Palestinians by Zionists, and how the war broke out. Also killing UN mediators by Zionists would something to complete the history lesson, rather than Palestinians rejected. Wow, who would have thought people would reject taking their land and giving it to somebody else! And also mention the rejection by Zionists of the count Bernadotte's plan. So the Zionists just killed the one who made the plan, so whoever came after him just gave more land to Zionists.
That's fine, but allegations in a law suit aren't prima facie evidence of anything. Especially when the text of that law suit is filled with political invective (calling protesting students and faculty "uncontrolled antisemitic mobs" and so forth).
There's a very easy determination to be made here about which students are or are not being victimized. If my knowledge of current events is still accurate, not a single pro-Israel student has been extra-judicially kidnapped and imprisoned. Pro-Israel Jewish students very well may feel victimized or scared. But put into perspective, I can imagine that pro-Palestinian students feel it much more so.
The rhetoric at the top nowadays is that Israel == the Jewish people, and the will of Israel == the needs of the Jews. To criticise their policy is anti-Semitic.
Hard disagree on 'forever be an asterisk', if you're referring to the 2020 election itself. You really think a 7 million vote margin leaves room to question this election yet another time after all the audits and Krakens, etc.? Negative sentiment on Trump was strong going into the election, especially considering the economic conditions brought on by COVID. This, being the COVID that he was seen to have mishandled, largely with his own concern at heart, wanting testing curtailed so that ever-higher cases wouldn't hurt his election chances. I guess he loved America so much that he just didn't know how to express it.
Why Trump lost in 2020 and then won in 2024 is clear. Biden's election win was no fluke. The 2024 election was about going with the devil-that-you-know, hoping that kitchen table concerns could be alleviated, and still delivered no landslide (unless you're Stephen Miller).
Just wait until all these Trump voters have to swallow the totality of merely the last 2 weeks of changes (and recissions, in some cases), and they'll find that wanting a bull in a China shop has severe consequences. After 100 days, when actual results will be expected, all the fun Trump & Musk had as they had their way uprooting bureaucrats will be over. As recriminations flow, whether Trump can hold together the crew he started with will be a major question. Interesting times.
I am saying that the pandemic caused an statistical outlier election shift that year and Trump’s election in 2024 where the stats sort of reset to baseline makes it seem pretty likely that without the pandemic and with his ability to increase votes in every election, the 2020 election would have been much closer. Frankly with the weak dem field in 2020 and without the pandemic, I would have bet on Trump winning.
I am not sure what the first 100 days of his second term will bring and I will make no dire predictions (literally all of the dire predictions people made in 2016 were wrong). I have never voted for Trump, but I am not tribal enough to automatically assume that everything he does or is doing is bad either. Short of the last 9 months of his first presidency, his first time in office had zero negative impact on me.
Truthfully, my bet is this second term will likely be as equally uneventful…at least for me and my family.
Yes, the helo pilot accepted responsibility for tracking the 'CRJ' traffic via the visual separation callout, but unfortunately identifying AA 5342 in this way is not a clear or unique way to do so. They are a common plane type and come in several sizes/configurations.
That last second call from ATC should have been more than a confirmation that they had the traffic in sight. They were less than 1000ft apart in that moment. It should have been to tell them that the Collision Avoidance ('CA') system was alerting and that they had to "pull up". Even if 'pull up' was all that was said, it would have been better than asking for a confirmation of visual separation.
I caught a podcast the other day, telling the story of a plane crash that hinged on the ambiguity of what the word "clear" meant. One of the fixes was to alter the language, so that they'd only use the word "clear" when things actually were clear. They wouldn't say things like "proceed when it's clear", just in case they mis-heard.
I'm probably not describing it very accurately, but that's the gist. And it sounds as if a similar error occurred here. I'm a little surprised that such ambiguities would still exist after all this time.
