domain:npr.org
that's because what, 1200 Israelis died, and they've killed more than 12,000. We're up to what, almost 60k?
You really can't compare raw numbers, given a) Israel tried to keep its own people alive, b) Hamas tries to put its own people in harms way, c) the war is being fought in Gaza and not in Israel proper, and d) Israel is the stronger faction. Nobody would say, "Well, only X US soldiers and civilians were killed in Pearl Harbor, and now that the US is winning in the Philippines, the casualty ratio is shifting significantly, that means the US is doing warfare wrong and needs to sue for peace".
A little bit of all three. The cost of legal services are unnaturally inflated by law schools and bar associations seeking to maintain the exclusivity of the profession and locking many simple services that could be performed by the client with maybe the help of a paralegal or online platform.
At the same time, law can also be very complicated, and something like going to trial is always going to be expensive simply due to the complexity and man hours required. The combination of high level research, writing, and public speaking skills required for quality litigation is rare and commands a high premium.
Certain aspects of law practice can also be very time-intensive and very expensive for thr attorneys involved. Going to court involves a lot of sitting around and waiting where you cant realistically do any other work. That's hourly time the client has to pay for. Expert witnesses, court reporters, private investigators, and the like also command steep rates, so while the big check might be made out to the law firm, a lot of that money is going right back out the door to these third party contractors. Often, you're not just hiring a lawyer. You're hiring a lawyer, his support team, multiple subject matter experts, an e-discovery vendor, graphic designers to create exhibits, etc.
Does Israel actually want to be the ones distributing aid? It was my impression that they kind of like the current situation, where Gaza mostly starves but it's not their fault directly (they can blame the UN and other NGOs for doing a bad job of distribution inside Gaza, which is admittedly an awful job with terrible logistics and security implications).
That offer is not in the pipeline for the Palestinians.
The etruscans predominately were not enslaved and conquered, they joined Rome as Allies like other italic peoples. And while the Gauls were conquered, the majority of the population remained intact and Gallic-speaking until after the edict of Caracalla granted them citizenship.
I don't deny their second-class within Israel but is an independent Palestine likely to develop living conditions that are on aggregate better?
Do you really believe that if Israël fell the entire citizen population wouldn’t be welcomed into the west with open arms?
If Israel fell, it would because the West (including the US in particular) had decided it was the bad guy, and no, the entire citizen population would not be welcomed under those circumstances.
If Hamas laid down their arms and initiated an actual unconditional surrender Gaza would likely be a below-median but perfectly functional part of Israel within a decade. Vice-versa hahahaha.
Probably would be some scruples about the orthodox population since they're not the most enthused net contributors
To be clear, you think that Gazans aren't starving, and the population is growing, during the war? What a strange take. (Statistically anyways in the pre-war period it's quite possible for a subset to starve while a different subset is above-replacement fertile, so I kind of wonder if you're just conflating headlines)
In the interest of full disclosure, I've sat down to write a reply to you three times now, and the previous two time I ended up figuratively crumpling the reply up and throwing it away in frustration because I'm getting the impression that you didn't actually read or try to engage with my post so much as just skimmed it looking for nits to pick.
Let me go back to this:
Imagine that you are someone who is deeply interested in space flight. You spend hours of your day thinking seriously about Orbital Mechanics and the implications of Relativity. One day you hear about a community devoted to discussing space travel and are excited at the prospect of participating. But when you get there what you find is a Star Trek fan-forum that is far more interested in talking about the Heisenberg compensators on fictional warp-drives than they are Hohmann transfers, thrust to ISP curves, or the effects on low-gravity on human physiology. That has essentially been my experience trying to discuss "Artificial Intelligence" with the rationalist community.
I hope you realise you are more on the side of the Star Trek fan-forum user than the aerospace engineering enthusiast. Your post was basically the equivalent of saying a Soyuz rocket is propelled by gunpowder and then calling the correction a nitpick. I don't care for credentialism, but I am a machine learning engineer who's actually deep in the weeds when it comes to training the kind of models we're talking about, and I can safely say that none of the arguments made in your post have any more technical merit than the kind of Lesswrong post you criticise.
In any case, to quote Dijkstra, "the question of whether Machines Can Think is about as relevant as the question of whether Submarines Can Swim". Despite their flaws, LLMs are being used to solve real-world problems daily, are used in an agentic manner, and I have never seen any research done by people obsessing over whether or not they are truly "intelligent" yield any competing alternative or actual upgrade to their capabilities.
I mean, senior partners routinely bill out at double thé rate of junior partners. And associates/junior partners bill at about double the rate of a high end plumbing or HVAC company. Law school is basically meritocratic and has no shortage of spots, but there’s a brutal prestige hierarchy.
And apparently that's the skillset that wins the presidency.
What's your point?
It's kind of incredible how the Vietnam war has seemed to fade so quickly from the public consciousness over the last decade or two. Maybe deserves a main thread post at some point.
Yes it is? There's a sizeable Israeli Arab population. Cease the nonsense and they'd be better off
It might be an exaggeration to say they were all genocided, many merely had their cultural identity destroyed through enslavement and conquest.
You win the prize! You are the 3rd person in this thread to tell me something I already know and said! Have a star.
To me this underscores that a one-state solution is actually the only plausible solution with a degree of stability or peace.
Yes, the peace of the mass grave for the Jews. Although the Palestinians, once they are done with that, will probably start warring with their neighbors.
And how much of that is useless Russian citizenship?
Do you really believe that if Israël fell the entire citizen population wouldn’t be welcomed into the west with open arms? The west needs young taxpayers, which Israël has.
First of all, that's quite an uncharitable take. The comment didn't read to me as Jew-hating.
Equally as famously, most Palestinians in Israel (or the area overall, depending on how you parse the term) are not citizens and live under second-class conditions. If we're being fair, that's partly because the PA is supposed to be in charge but actually are mostly grifters, so they've delegated blame, but ultimately you don't really see Israel trying to expand citizenship to more Palestinians, even though by your own logic that would probably increase their peacefulness?
Isnt the Hamas plan to let their citizens get killed by Israelis while they run a propaganda campaign that gets Western leftists to send them money so their leadership can live cushy lives in Dubai and London?
The alawites made their own bed. The public mostly isn’t ok with the murders of Druze and Christian civilians; if it was bigger news there would be an outcry.
To me this underscores that a one-state solution is actually the only plausible solution with a degree of stability or peace. You are correct, you can't get out of a permanent state of emergency or highly militarized watchfulness without low-level police stuff, that's what law and order actually looks like. And to do that, it seems to me that the end goal must be to get to a point where there are Jewish citizens, and Palestinian citizens, and the state becomes more secular. I'm not suggesting that needs to or even could happen overnight, but it could happen with enough dedication. That's obviously not the current trajectory, but I view it as inclement on the Israelis to at least make overtures in that direction if they want to keep any kind of moral-practical high ground.
The etruscans and Gauls disappeared because they started going by ‘Romans’. It’s not an option for the Palestinians to become Israelis.
She was always crazy, but when she turned against Jews she lost the leash.
There is nothing I've seen that would indicate that people somehow became not ok with it once the ratio went slightly over 10 to 1. Rather it seemed to be that Israel became mainstream news, that's all. People whose special interest was the Israel-Palestine conflict have been harping about "genocidal settlers" well before the war.
More options
Context Copy link