@MartianNight's banner p




0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 17 20:50:31 UTC


User ID: 1244



0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 17 20:50:31 UTC


No bio...


User ID: 1244

Do you feel more pride over gaining a PhD, or gaining a bronze swimming certificate? Why?

This is the wrong comparison. You can feel pride in getting a doctorate degree, but does that mean nobody should be able to get a master's or bachelor's degree?

Saying “there should only be hard mode” is akin to saying “nobody should be allowed to get a bachelor's degree, so I can take pride in my doctorate degree” which is obviously (hopefully) nonsense. The fact that people can get bachelor's degrees doesn't invalidate your doctorate degree at all. Everyone understands that getting a doctorate degree is a bigger accomplishment than getting a master's or bachelor's degree. Why deny others the opportunity to get a lesser degree?

What you're seeing is the government making efforts to get it so that software for the government is written in memory safe languages.

This is definitely not true. Have you read the report (pdf) or even just the abstract? From the introduction:

This report speaks directly to the technical community, including technology manufacturers and academic researchers, illustrating two ways their actions can make significant improvements to the Nation’s cybersecurity posture.

Nowhere is the scope limited to purveyors of software to the US government.

Does this work? https://search.pullpush.io/

The US can extend its worldwide hegemony by another two generations if it just replaced its immigration criteria with an IQ test where anybody IQ 125+ was welcomed.

Remember Goodhart's law: When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.

The Oslo Accords ended because of suicide bombings and the start of the Oslo Accord.

Yes, Hamas tried to frustrate the peace process, but so did Orthodox Jews. You conveniently forget to mention that the PM of Israel was assassinated, not by Hamas, but by a Jewish extremist.

This was the moment where moderates on both sides should have stood their ground and enacted the two-state solution. But Israelis didn't want to do it. They reneged on their promise of withdrawing from Palestinian territories.

This of course completely destroyed the support Palestinian moderates had among the people, because it made it clear to the Palestinians that the Jews cannot be trusted and cannot be bargained with. Israel drove Palestinians into the arms of Hamas. And of course that's exactly how people like Netanyahu like it: the more extreme Palestinians are, and the more they support Hamas, the easier it is to justify killing Palestinians and annexing Palestinian lands.

Sorry you are just behaving in bad faith.

Don't throw baseless accusations around. I'm arguing in good faith, and if you are too, you should be able to support your position with arguments, instead of personal attacks.

The first paragraph is false, they have been offered numerous peace deals with self-rule. Turned them down.

Not true. In Oslo, the Palestinians agreed to recognize Israel and accepted only limited self-governance for Palestine, but it was Israel that reneged on the deal, once they realized that it would require actually withdrawing their occupation forces from Palestinian territories.

As long as Palestinians demand is the removal of Israel then Israel has a valid claim to fully evict Palestinians.

Again, see the Oslo accords, where the Palestinian leaders agreed to recognize Israel in exchange for partial autonomy in the Palestinian territories, but Israel reneged since they realized they can just keep occupying Palestinian land indefinitely without any repercussions.

So it's clearly not true that all Palestinians want total destruction of Israel, and aren't willing to compromise. That's just a lie spread by Zionists because it makes it easier to justify occupying Palestinian territories indefinitely.

You are really making it sound like they are just Nazis. Nazis too could have just had Germany but wanted other peoples land and more.

The comparison between Israel and Nazi Germany is a little awkward but there is some truth to what you say: just like Germany could thrive within its 1938 borders, Israel, too, could thrive within the 1947 borders, but just like Hitler felt the Germans were entitled to a larger country, Zionists believed that the Jews had a god-given right to rule Jerusalem and the West Bank, and since they had the military power to take them by force, they decided to just take Palestinian lands by force.

It was mostly uninhabited land. In 1922 a total of 757k people live in Palestine Mandate of which 78% were Muslim. Nobody living there today can claim ownership on what was essentially abandon land.

That's more than twice the number of people living in e.g. Iceland today, and I doubt anyone would call Iceland “uninhabited” or “abandoned”. And by your own admission: there was no significant Jewish presence in that area either (166k by your count) so it's not like the Jews have a better claim to the entire territory.

Palestinians don't just want peace, they also want independence. We both know that if Palestinians turned Jew-loving overnight, released their hostages and laid down their arms, what happens next is not that Israel withdraws from the occupied Palestinian territories, but rather that Israel will conquer the entire country (as Netanyahu has already said he intends to), and Palestinians will live under Jewish rule forever.

All armed conflicts can be resolved peacefully if one side is willing to give up all of their claims. But would you suggest this in any other conflict? Should the Ukrainians hand their country to Putin for the sake of peace, at the cost of their freedom? Should Taiwan give their country to the CCP? Should America have accepted British rule instead of establishing their independence?

And let's be clear: the source of the conflict has nothing to do with whether Palestinians love or hate Jews. The inhabitants of all surrounding countries hate the Jews just as much as the Palestinians do, but Israel is not occupying them, because Israel does not want their land.

The reason Israel is occupying territories like Jerusalem and the West Bank is that the Jews consider those part of their God-given holy land. It doesn't matter whether the citizens living in that land love or hate the Jews; the Jews want to conquer that land either way.

If Hamas agreed to release the hostages, then there would have been a ceasefire for at least six weeks, possibly forever.

Again, how is that supposed to be an enticing offer? “Hey Hamas, we want to murder all of you, but we can't do it while you have hostages! So we propose that you release the hostages, and in return we promise to wait six weeks before we murder you.”

I don't think simply being uncool equals punk, though. Punk is being counter-cultural plus being dramatic about it in a somewhat stylish way. Someone like Sam Hyde is punk, but your run-of-the-mill white guy isn't punk, he's just not considered fashionable by anyone.

He is talking about the women, elderly and wounded among Israeli citizens being held hostage by Hamas, right? Or so I hope?

Because if he is talking about Palestinian civilians, that's absolutely insane. The women and children living in the Gaza strip live there. Why should Hamas kick them out of their own country, just to make it easier for Israel to massacre the remaining adult male Palestinians (regardless of Hamas affiliation) without looking like the bad guy?

Even talking about hostages it seems like a frankly insane demand to make: “Hey, we want to murder all of you, but if we kill a few hostages in the process, that would make us look like the bad guys. Crazy, right? So can you do us a big favor and release your hostages so we can go ahead and kill you all without any repercussions? Thanks, Hamas! ... Oh, you refuse? How unreasonable of you!”

Can you please just summarize the whole thing for people who aren't in the know and aren't motivated to watch a 15 minute video?

we've broadly agreed to define this phenomenon in terms of ratios of genetic variation within and between populations

But then I have to press you: what exactly is this ratio, and how is it computed? How can I calculate it for various subspecies and for humans in order to verify independently that indeed, native Scandinavians and Aboriginal Australians are more closely related than any pair of subspecies of Chimpanzee?

And I have to point out that “subspecies” is a social construct too, in that the definition of subspecies is determined by biologists, who could very well define it as “subspecies are any subpopulations that have greater genetic differences than any two human subpopulations”. It doesn't tell you how to calculate genetic similarly, but it's clear that, by definition, there cannot be subspecies of Homo Sapiens, so problem solved. But of course that creates two problems:

  1. That's hardly carving reality at the joints: it's plausible that there are relevant distinctions that are more fine-grained than you allow. If there really is no significant difference between human subpopulations, you have to show that from first principle, not simply assert it by definition.

  2. Is this standard really being consistently applied? Again, think about the Chimpanzee subspecies. Are they really more differentiated than some human races? If biologists aren't using their own definition to determine subspecies in the first place, then appealing to the definition to assert there are no subspecies within the human race is meaningless.

Would have to disclose/prove to the people involved that he is indeed Satoshi, which is hard to do.

On the contrary, Bitcoin makes proving ownership trivial: Satoshi only needs to disclose his public key (which can be verified using public information in the blockchain) and then sign a random challenge string provided by the lenders to prove that he has the corresponding private key. This proves that he has the ability to spend those coins.

(Technically, this doesn't prove he is Satoshi, original author of the Bitcoin whitepaper, per se, but rather that he has the cryptographic keys needed to spend millions worth of Bitcoin, but the latter is what the lender really cares about anyway.)

Rather, students are expected to be able to discuss their values using a common language.

This common language will surely include terms like toxic masculinity, white privilege, and heteronormativity, but certainly not black violence, female privilege or Jewish in-group bias. So it will be strictly of the form “<negative adjective> <disfavored group>”, where the disfavored groups are exactly those hated by the radical left (only Jews are iffy here, depending on how radical they intent to go). And then students are free to express their personal values but required to use only terms that imply that cisgender straight white males suck.

That is from Wikipedia which is by default unreliable on social topics (and the cited sources seem no better at first glance, though I don't have access to the full contents) so I can't help but wonder: how much of that apparent connection is just due to the fact that wokeists like to LARP as both LGBTQ+ and autistic?

Is there any study that doesn't just rely on self-identification, and explicitly acknowledges the difference between “I'm a male who has had penetrative sex with multiple other males” and “I identify as pansexual online because heterosexuals aren't cool anymore and to be fair I do occasionally jerk off to femboy porn though all my crushes are on girls”? And the difference between nonverbal autists and people who claim to have Aspergers after scoring 17/20 on a test they found on tumblr?

Overall I suspect that the most prominent members of the LGBTQ+ community are only mildly autistic at best, if for no other reason than that it's still a social community.

In any case, I think it's a mistake to assume that the woke are natural allies to autists. Look at how much criticism an organization like Autism Speaks gets from the woke left for (very sensibly imo) saying it would be nice if autism could be cured. To the woke, the idea that autistic people might struggle in social situations is an unfair prejudice that ”neurotypicals” hold about autistic people.

And I think this tendency towards self-identification as fashion among the woke leads to less understanding, because it creates a false impression of how debilitating these conditions can be.

You say it's unfair that the police arrest you because you didn't realize the woman you met on the bus was deeply uncomfortable while you were talking at length about your favorite anime? Well, that sounds like a load of crap. My friend Ayden is a transman who suffers from self-diagnosed autism, dyslexia and OCD, and yet shhe has never been arrested for something like that, so it sounds to me like you are using your autism as an excuse for your toxic male behavior.

If he steps down for health reasons, he proves his critics right, and I think he is just too proud to admit he is no longer fit for the job.

Also you have to wonder what drives career politicians like Joe Biden. He has spent most of his life in politics. The office of president is the culmination of his career. I think it's plausible that he would much rather die in office as the most powerful man in the world, than spend his final years comfortably in a beach house while being politically irrelevant.

That picture shows Buck next to Laverne Cox

Yes, but he's still the smallest of the five people, smaller even than the only other female. The point is: most transmen aren't that masculine, even not the ones hand-picked by trans-advocates, not to mention obvious women like Elliot Page.

Anyway, I didn't want to get caught up in discussing individual cases. I'll grant you that some well-passing transmen exist, but I think they're the minority. My argument more broadly is:

  1. The average transman doesn't truly pass a man, and the average transwoman doesn't truly pass as a woman (arguably less so). So the argument that swapping transmen and transwomen is worse for women because now they suddenly share the bathroom with many more male-looking people isn't true: at best you're replacing male-looking men with male-looking women, which is sort of a wash.

  2. But the more important argument is that regardless of visual passing, transmen are much less likely to harrass or assault women than transwomen are. That's why it's better for ciswomen to share the bathroom with transmen than with transwomen.

I don't think enumerating exceptions to the rule invalidates this argument.

How are you supposed to enforce sex-segregated bathrooms anyhow?

I often wonder if people raising this question are disingenous. It's phrased as if the idea of sex-segregated spaces is a crazy far-out utopian idea, like universal basic income. In reality, all bathrooms in approximately the entire world worked like this throughout the entire 20th century, using the same mechanisms used to enforce most norms: through a mix of social contral and legal consequences.

Did you see the video of the Wi Spa where a male pervert enters the women-only section of the spa, so one of the women there goes to complain, and the employee at the desk can't do anything about it because in California it's illegal to kick male creeps out of women's spaces, and the only male patron who weighs in on the matter says "How can we know if the fully grown man with a penis isn't a woman?"

In the 90s, this scenario literally would not have happened. If a convicted sex offender entered a woman-only nude space with his dick out, all women present would scream at the top of their lungs for the pervert to get out. Employees would rush in to demand that the offender leave. Men would gather angrily at the door, ready to help escort the man out of the building, but careful enough not to trespass themselves. If necessary, the police would be called to take the man into custody.

Moreover, everyone knew that this is what happened to men who violated this social norm. That's why this type of crime was actually relatively rare.

Should you pepper spray anyone who you think doesn’t belong, like what happened to this tall biological female thinking they were in the presence of a biological male?

No, of course. But first, I don't see how putting transwomen in women's bathrooms solves this problem, since a woman that is willing to pepperspray a masculine looking woman will obviously do the same thing to your average non-passing transwoman.

Second, I think some of this paranoia is actually fueled by genderism. In the past, if you saw a masculine-looking person entering the women's bathroom, you'd assume it was just a masculine-looking woman, because who else would someone use the woman's bathroom? Today, you can no longer assume that because males entering women's spaces is stunning and brave, actually. This puts gender nonconforming women under suspicion in a way they wouldn't be in a society that strictly enforces sex-segregated spaces.

Third and finally, let me explain how this sort of situation should be handled. If you're a woman who sees a man enter the woman's room, you first say “Excuse me sir, this is the woman's bathroom?” In 90% of the cases, he will look shocked and say “Oh, my mistake! I must have entered the wrong door” and leave. If it's actually a woman, then she'll say “Excuse me, but I am a woman!” In the case of someone like Rain Dove you can tell from her voice that she is speaking the truth, so you say “Oh, my mistake!” and that's the end of it. Now imagine you don't believe her because the "woman" is actually Karen White wearing a bad wig who couldn't pass for female in his wildest dreams.

Then you escalate the situation by finding a person responsible for the space, e.g. a security card in a public mall, the bartender, the office manager, etc.. You tell them there is a man in the woman's bathroom. They join you and ask the perpetrator to identify themselves. If they refuse, they are again asked to leave, and if they refuse, the cops are called.

All of this depends on government-issued ID to accurately label a person's biological sex. In the current world, all western countries have removed this label. This should be reverted. My (actually serious!) proposal is to list biological sex and socially desired sex separately, so we can still be polite by addressing transwomen as Ms So-and-so while separating them from women where sex matters.

The sources I’ve looked up show no link between gender inclusive bathroom policies and crime rates, but if you have any that contradict that, feel free to share.

I don't think there are sources that can show this. Not in the current world where:

  • Transwomen are a tiny majority, so even if they are significantly more likely to misbehave in bathrooms, you would need a lot of data to show that. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence (actually it is, but only to a small degree, hard to get to p<0.05 that way). And that's before accounting for confounders. If a creepy male starts using the women's room and women stop going there, does that show he's not causing any problems?

  • You can't use crime statistics because the police is not even allowed to accurately register the biological sex of trans offenders, so while we could collect this information in a systematic way, gender activists ensure this doesn't happen (you might wonder why gender activists oppose this if they believe the results would be favorable to their cause?)

  • Academia is heavily politicized and genderism is one of those topics you are not allowed to objectively research. As a result, we cannot use academic sources to prove or disprove anything.

In short, I don't think you've seen compelling evidence that disproves the claim that transwomen are more dangerous to women than women (and transmen) are. I think you've seen a paper that said something like "we compared the number of reported incidents in inclusive bathrooms at the Google headquarters in Mountain View, California, populated entirely by highly-paid academics who value their jobs, with the numbers from the non-inclusive bathrooms at a Texas truck stop, and we didn't control for the myriad confounding variables that make that comparison meaningless, but we are going to conclude anyway that The Science™ shows inclusive bathrooms benefit women".

If you think I'm wrong, please cite the actual source you are thinking of. I'm sure I can poke one or more holes in it along the above lines.

On a meta-note: I feel a ton of this discussion about transgenderism is getting repetitive. I'm seriously considering putting together a document with the most common arguments pro and con, so instead of spending way too much time poorly reconstructing the same counterarguments, I can just say “you are using argument 69a, please see rebuttals 23a through c.”

It would save me a lot of time but I'm not sure if it would actually change anyone's mind.

If your worry is that seeing male-looking people go into the women's room will make life more dangerous for women

Let me stop you right there. It was never about male-looking people. It was always about males. It just so happens that being male-looking is a pretty good proxy for being male in the real world (despite what the trans lobby wants you to think).

The rationale is that many more males abuse women and girls than females do. Therefore, women and girls are safer in the presence of other females then they are in the presence of males. If you disagree with this fairly obvious statistic, what do you think women-only spaces are for?

Also, you know, the whole claim is mistaken to begin with, because: if trans people must use the bathroom of their birth gender, then Buck Angel has to use the women's room.

Why do people who want to scare women with pictures of trans-identified females always go for the photoshopped ones, and not for a more realistic one that shows that Buck Angel is actually pretty tiny and nonthreatening compared to her male counterparts?

Moving away from anecdotes, I think it's important to realize that for every masculine-looking trans-identified female, there are probably three trans-identified males that are absolutely deranged, like Karen White, Darren Merager, or Michael Pentillä. Would I rather have women share a bathroom with a female porn star, or with a male serial killer and unrepentant rapist of women and young girls, you ask? Wow, what a dilemma you put in front of me! I just don't know how to choose!

No seriously, obviously it's the female porn star. If it were up to me, I'd put a hundred Buck Angels in women's bathrooms before I'd let a single Michael Pentillä in. It seems the obvious choice, if you want to optimize for women's safety rather than maximizing the euphoria of rapist serial killers. Was that really supposed to be some sort of gotcha?

Day 8 is a bit of a bad example, the general solution is the chinese remainder problem which isn't much harder anyway.

Have you tried to solve the general problem yourself? It's absolutely much harder than the version contestants had to solve.

First, the Chinese remainder theorem is genuinely a lot harder than simply calculating the least common multiple. Second, the problem statement allows much more complicated input than that. For example, the problem statement allows loops with multiple end states; I don't even know how you'd deal with that efficiently, I doubt you know on the top off your head, and I certainly wouldn't fault ChatGPT for not knowing it either.

If you post your code I can probably come up with a test case that breaks it.

How could other humans learn how to construct those solutions? They read the same textbooks that are in the training set of ChatGPT (a miniscule fraction of them) and they understand their contents.

No, that's absolutely not how humans learn to code. Or at least it's not how I learned or anyone I know that's good at solving AoC style problems learned to solve them. Reading textbooks is the absolute minimum time investment. The majority of time is spent thinking about the problem, writing code, noticing it doesn't work, trying to find a flaw by reading through it, stepping through the execution with a debugger, or maybe adding printf() statements to get insight in the internal state, and so on.

It's a very interactive process. But the intermediate code, with all the printf() statements for debugging, isn't something that usually gets committed. That's why ChatGPT doesn't know to debug code that way. It has never even seen someone do this. It might have heard about printf() debugging from Wikipedia but it has never done it itself, or if it did (because of user requests), it keeps no memory of it.

You can also look at this as a question of whether ChatGPT Plus is worth it in general: it did better than straight API calls but I spent 2$ of API calls vs 20$ for plus, it isn't 10 times better.

I don't think this comparison makes sense. You're treating it as a comparison of efficiency: as if Model A is solving problems at a rate of X/day and Model B at a rate of 2X/day, so Model B is only twice as valuable as Model A. But that's not what's happening: Model B is solving problems that apparently Model A cannot solve at all. If Einstein can prove only 1% more theorems than the average physics major, does that mean he should be paid only 1% more?

It's likely that I misunderstood something; I'm not very familiar with the various offerings. I was going by OP's own admission that they didn't pay for the top model and their version was only able to solve 7 (sub)problems vs 13(ish) for “Chat GPT Plus” which seemed to imply that the latter is a stronger problem solver.

Nice writeup. Unfortunately not a lot of discussion yet so let me add some random comments:

And since all of the problems are novel the solutions can't come from overfitting.

Depends on what you call “novel”. A lot of the problems are based on well-known algorithms like path finding, Josephus problems, etc. And there is quite a bit of repetition of concepts between years as well. So I think LLMs and humans alike benefit from being having the previous problems in their data set.

There is also something that makes Advent of Code relatively harder for LLMs (and new competitors): on some days, the stated problem is generally much harder than the actual input file. In that case, careful inspection of the input data is required to figure out what the problem is actually asking, which I assume ChatGPT has no way of doing or even asking for.

(This year's Day 8 was an example of this, but this has happened pretty much every year.)

ChatGPT never did this: its debugging skills are completely non-existent. If it encounters an error it will simply rewrite entire functions, or more often the entire program, from scratch.

True, and it's consistent with it being a language model. It mostly sees completed code snippets (of varying quality) written by humans. How could it know how humans construct solutions like this?

It's probably the same reason why ChatGPT does so poorly at writing longform fiction. It has no idea how to construct an overarching narrative because the planning, rewriting and editing necessary is invisible to ChatGPT; it only sees the finished output.

I think coding assistants (like GitHub Copilot) will be able to fill this gap by observing how humans actually develop code.

Difficulty is very hard to gauge objectively. There's scatter plots for leaderboard fill-up time but time-to-complete isn't necessarily equivalent difficulty and the difference between this year and last year isn't big anyway (note: the scatter plots aren't to scale unfortunately).

True, and I agree with your subjective assessment that the problems aren't any harder this year, but I'd add also that the leaderboard is not really representative of the overall participant base. People on the leaderboard are the top 1% of all solvers (let alone participants), and they have their own specific strengths and weaknesses. For example, a problem that requires dynamic programming is easy for them (but hard for most casual programmers), while the top 1% still need more time on problems that require lots of of careful reading, convoluted input parsing, tricky edge cases, etc.

I don't pay for ChatGPT Plus, I only have a paid API key so I used instead a command line client, chatgpt-cli and manually ran the output programs.

Please explain the logic here because this is baffling to me. You were willing to invest the time to solve every single AoC problem this year with ChatGPT and you wrote up this summary of it, which together must have taken hours, but you couldn't fork over the $20 needed for a month-long pro subscription, which would make your results an order of magnitude more interesting? How do you value your time such that this makes sense?

(not really because... well you know)

Speak plainly please.

only Christianity is targeted. Would Atheists ever put up depictions of Muhammad (peace be upon him)?

That's just not true. Maybe in America, where Muslims make up a tiny minority of the population, but in Europe Islam is often criticized and even ridiculed, mostly by atheists. What did you think caused the assassination of Theo van Gogh, the Charlie Hebdo massacre, the bombing of the Danish embassy in Pakistan, the attack on the Swedish embassy in Iraq, the 2023 terrorist attacks in Belgium, Türkiye soft-blocking Sweden's ascension to NATO, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.?

I will likely continue to provide updates here until the chips have fallen.

Keep in mind that the previous formation period lasted over nine months. There probably won't be exciting news every week.

Post from 2 weeks ago here

These results aren't terribly surprising

I disagree. The enormous victory of Wilders far-right PVV was completely unexpected. A week ago he was not even in the top 3. One day before the election only one poll suggested PVV was tied with VVD for the lead. Now he has a projected 12 seat lead over the labour/green party in second place (37 vs 25, or a 50% lead!) with VVD demoted to third place (24 seats). This is was quite unexpected based on polls and unprecedented for the party itself.

It also has a huge effect on possible coalitions. In my comment two weeks ago I didn't even talk about PVV because I expected them to be ruled out. Now, it seems like including PVV is unavoidable.

In terms of coalition building, it's worth mentioning that there is huge discrepancy between representation in the house (after these elections) and in the senate, partially because Omtzigt's new NSC party has no seats in the senate yet. This means any majority in the house will likely not have a majority in the senate. While technically the government only needs majority support in the house, not having majority support in the senate it is problematic for parties that want to pass radical reforms, since they can't count on automatic support in the senate.

The challenge for Wilders now is not just to form a government, but to actually deliver on his promises. He has gained a lot of popular support with populist rhetoric, and even if not all of it was taken seriously by his voters (like his "head rag tax" which would require Muslim women to purchase a license to wear a head scarf in public), it's clear that voters expect some radical changes from him. If he doesn't manage to move the needle then it seems likely he will lose support from the voters who counted on him to make a real change (the comparison with Donald Trump seems apt).

Ironically, it seems like some of Wilders economically left-wing plans (e.g., lowering the age of retirement, abolishing the deductible on health care insurance) are actually more feasible in that they have broader support and don't contravene national and international law. It would be deeply ironic if a “far right” politician ends up implementing these left-wing policies, when the more moderate VVD probably wouldn't.

From a culture war perspective, it's amusing to see how poorly the left is taking the loss. The main stream media report on the event with a tone that suggests the election results are incredibly disappointing, rather than a legitimate expression of the people's will that is to be celebrated.

In Utrecht (the 4th largest city with a mostly left-leaning population) Antifa organized protests against the election results. First of all, protesting election results seems quite undemocratic. It's easy to compare this to the January 6th protests that the American left condemned, but in this case, protesters aren't even claiming the results are invalid, just that the results are bad, because people voted for the wrong guy. I don't want to overemphasize the scale of these projects though; it seems like only a few thousand people showed up. Still, people protesting election results is not common in the Netherlands.

It's also interesting that those protesters are shouting pro-Palestine slogans. It makes sense since Wilders is a staunch Israel supporter, which fits well with his anti-Islam stance, though he didn't campaign on this topic at all. It's kind of crazy to me that the far-right is now considered to be aligned with Israel, while the far-left opposes Israel, while a few decades ago “far right” was virtually synonymous with “antisemite” and therefore anti-Israel. We live in strange times.