the other party has a known history of shooting anything that moves
as medical volunteers they went there to treat the wounded, many of which are likely unable to evacuate, and they lack the resources needed to at least get them moving
abandoning the wounded pretty much defeats the purpose of them going there in the first place
move your whole family and pets and everything in that short amount of time. nevermind that house was your retirement, and your children's future. you now have no money and no job and no home. leave everything you own. your entire lineage is now homeless.
I don't think staying is weird. I think most Americans would do the same.
They want them to evacuate to the desert and die of starvation or dehydration. They won't say the quiet part out loud because they think they are smarter than the rest of Earth's population.
AMMAN, Jordan — When Zain Abu Obeid died on Sunday at the last functioning hospital in Rafah, there was no one to collect the 7-year-old boy's body from the morgue.
He had been injured in an Israeli airstrike that killed his entire family, according to members of a U.S. medical team trapped at the European Hospital following Israel's closure of the nearby border crossing.
The only light is coming from outside," Dr. Ammar Ghanem, vice chair of the Syrian American Medical Society, said in a video that he filmed on Monday and sent to NPR.
Israel has told civilians to evacuate Rafah — where 1.3 million people who've fled fighting in other parts of Gaza have been crammed up against the Egyptian border.
According to the World Bank and the U.N., seven months of fighting has destroyed most of Gaza's infrastructure and the imported fuel runs everything from hospital ventilators to bakery ovens.
Johnston, in a phone interview from the hospital, talked of flies infesting the operating room and the intensive care unit.
The original article contains 1,167 words, the summary contains 173 words. Saved 85%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
In its statement, Hamas said its top leader, Ismail Haniyeh, had informed Qatar's prime minister and Egypt's intelligence minister "of the Hamas movement's approval of their proposal regarding the cease-fire agreement."
It is not immediately clear what the proposal entails, nor what Israel's position is. An Israeli official told local TV that the Israeli government was "checking which formula Hamas has agreed to."
If Hamas takes a deal, Israel won't. Because it means the deal isn't completely lopsided.
Well the Senate killed the earlier bill. There's a decent chance they pass the Ukraine/Israel aid bill without this amendment. It would then be stricken in reconciliation. Unfortunately there's also a decent chance the Senate passes it because this version probably fixes things the Senators had problems with.
If it does get passed there's a very good chance there's a court order to prevent anything until the courts rule on the constitutionality of the law. If Bytedance loses that there's zero chance they sell though. The US market is not big enough for them to jettison an international company.
Why are you cheerleading for TikTok to remain in the hands of a US adversary, during the same week when said adversary forced a US company to abjectly ban US-based messaging apps?
If the government can just point at a company and force a fire sale then there is no market, there is no order, there is no financial industry. This is an incredibly dangerous law.
The government absolutely has unconditional and unlimited authority to restrict enemy states from ownership of anything in the US they want to.
There is absolutely no possibility of any Constitutional issue. The government has explicit authority to handle anything they want about international commerce in the Constitution.
That's why they're having to pass this law I guess then? Because they already have the authority to do the thing they're trying to make the law to get the authority to do?
And TikTok isn't owned by China. It's owned by ByteDance, a MultiNational Corp with Chinese ties. It's not operated out of China, Tiktok is operated out of Singapore and Los Angeles.
And what exactly is the security concern of people making funny cat videos? Nobody is saying the government has to put Tiktok on government computers. So what exactly is the exposure here that trumps the first amendment and prohibition on bills of attainder in the US?
You're thinking of laws in terms of obedience. Law is about agreed-upon structure (sometimes functional, often dysfunctional).
Enforcement is about obedience, and comes up when people don't go along with the agreed-upon structure. When the structure is made poorly, enforcement has harmful consequences.
Examples:
food stamps (law)
no stealing (law)
preventing theft or multiple-subscription to food stamps (enforcement)
the wilderness act (law)
suing the government for not following the wilderness act (enforcement)
Law and enforcement are closely linked, but definitely distinct.
They have the authority to create structure (pass laws) regarding foreign powers operating within the States. So they pass laws (create structure) that state the agreed-upon structure, and enable that structure to be enforced.
Except we don't have that power. Not unless there's a national security threat. And they might make our children more woke isn't a national security threat.
American individuals and this company have a first amendment right. Furthermore this isn't a ban on all foreign owned companies. This is a ban on companies with ownership that have nebulous ties to certain countries. A list we can add to at any time. That is capricious and open to being abused. It's also unconstitutional under the no Bills of Attainder rule.
Except we do have that power. There's reasonable national security risk, and your lack of understanding of the dynamics involved doesn't make them nebulous to others.
In any case, if you don't like it, vote with your life choices. If it's not that important, well.. ..it's not that important.
You know nobody has yet to actually say what the risk is. Just that China is evil and therefore a risk. There's some overblown stuff about them pushing cancel culture but that's not a national security risk.
If it's not nebulous then tell me, how are they getting our nuclear codes with a social media app they don't directly control?
And again. No. We have rights in the US. Unless you guys go giving them away because you're afraid you might see a Chinese video.
The alternative is to outright ban it. Tik Tok is a cancer directly controlled by a hostile nation state. The government absolutely has the right to block foreign interference like this.
Technically according to this article tiktok won't share data with the PRC - but their parent company bytedance is obligated to share data with the PRC when requested. Bytedance has authority to require tiktok to share data. Therefore through this channel tiktok is obligated to share data with the PRC when requested.
Bytedance owning a stake in TikTok does not mean they can require TikTok to share data. Especially if we made a common sense law to protect data saying it's not allowed to leave the country.
Oh wait, that's already a thing. And we just let Meta and the other data vendors keep doing it.
We should have better and more comprehensive data privacy laws across the board but whataboutism doesn't change the fact that tiktok is obligated to share Americans data with a hostile and repressive foreign power.
Did... Did you actually read it? They sent user data for app engagement research. Oh no the CCP knows you're a middle aged white guy in Oklahoma! The world is going to end!!!
And if we're going to ban any data going to the CCP then we should just do that. It's not whataboutism to point out you're only punishing the odd duck for a crime all of the ducks are committing openly. Make that law and reform the industry. Anything less is just a racist excuse for a fire sale.
Nothing in the article cites a reason for why the data was sent. In fact the article specifically mentions that this data being sent was to circumvent attempts to limit the transmission of American citizens data to a hostile foreign government.
We should ban the sale and transmission of Americans sensitive data to hostile foreign powers regardless of the company. I support this action because it would help do that, and I would support (and I do advocate for) more broad data privacy legislation. If you support data privacy why would you not support a bill which enhances data privacy, even if it doesn't go far enough?
You started this discussion with me by saying that tiktok isnt obligated to send data, when I provided sourcing to that effect you brought up corporate structure questions asking if the data was being sent. I provided a source showing that it is transmitted through those avenues regardless. Now your argument is that because we don't have totally comprehensive data privacy regulation we can just ignore the fact that tiktok is sending American citizens private data to a hostile foreign power? If you think that isn't a big deal just say so, then we can have an honest conversation.
I have lots of Japanese family and friends, and none of them understand the horrors of WW2. As far as they were taught, America just randomly dropped nukes on them. They're mad because they think of Japan as a victim, not a monster that needed to be stopped. They raped and pillaged everyone who wasn't Japanese.
At least Germany teaches their kids about their atrocities in hopes that they never repeat it.
Japan was definitely a monster that needed to be stopped. But to say that made it okay to drop two nukes instantly killing thousands of civilians is not okay in any case.
Reminder: Hamas does not have a presence in the West Bank. Mass killings of Palestinians have never been about containing or defeating Hamas. The killing, destruction of property/seizure of land, and creation of fear are the point.
That's false.
Hamas does have a presence, and it has grown over the years of people being dissatisfied with Fatah. And the support of Hamas there is even greater than in Gaza.
Space travel is very expensive and NASA has a very small budget these days.
Back during the space race, NASA could afford to launch multiple missions per year. Now they can barely afford to maintain existing missions and are lucky to launch a major missions every few years. Which is why they’ve moved to buying space on commercial missions, as it’s cheaper to only pay for a spot on a rocket/craft than to pay for the whole thing.
NASA also has to justify its missions to congress. Sending rovers to mars and probes to the moons of Jupiter and Saturn have actual scientific interest and can answer questions about the formation of the solar system, and the viability of life off of earth.
Slingshotting something really fast sounds cool as fuck, but there’s not much data to be gathered there. We’ve also recently beaten the “fastest man made object” record with the Parker Solar Probe, as it’s currently whipping around the sun at ludicrous speeds while it collects data about the solar atmosphere and magnetic fields. It’s moving a lot faster than voyager ever did, as it needs an insane amount of speed to orbit so low to the sun. It’s actually much cheaper, fuel wise, to travel to Pluto than the sun.
So why waste billions of dollars to fling something out into deep space? We have barely even seen all
Of the celestial bodies in our own star system, and there’s not much to be learned about the empty vacuum beyond the sun. The only justifiable reason would be to send a probe to another star system entirely. But that probe alone would have to be the largest, most expensive space craft humanity has ever built. It would need to be able to power itself for centuries, have a communication system capable of sending data over interstellar distances, and likely need a way to autonomously harvest its own fuel, as there’s very little point in sending a probe screaming past Proxima Centauri and taking a few hazy pictures of planets as it goes. We’d want the probe to be able to stay in and explore the new star system, and the only way to do that is to have enough fuel to move around an entire system, or create more fuel as it goes. Something like that has never even been tried before, and the risk is high when you won’t know if it worked or not for a few hundred years.
In addition to what others have mentioned, there's also a problem of communication. Inverse square law is a bitch. It was actually assumed at the start that the limit of the Voyager missions would be communicating with the probes, but improvements in radio technology have kept it going longer.
Information on the heliopause is about the only useful thing we can get from something out that far. It turns out to be a lot more complex than we thought. After that, there's nothing interesting until you can get to the next star, and our radio technology isn't up for that.
Information on the heliopause is about the only useful thing we can get from something out that far. It turns out to be a lot more complex than we thought.
It seems to me that this would be worth a mission?
The truth is he's a jealous little turd of a person. The other reddit founders, the ones with brains and skills, got out early and got paid. Even the dead one was more successful. He wants to drain reddit of money while tanking it. He thinks he's entitled. It's a real shame he reproduced too, the poor kid is doomed with a godawful role model like that.
Shulman adds: "They're getting away with it because everybody is doing it. And they're getting away with it because now it's the new normal," he said. "Workers are more comfortable with it, stock investors are appreciating it, and so I think we'll see it continue for some time."
ughh this makes my blood boil
yeah workers are "OK" with it, yeah, no, they're too fucking terrified they're next to do anything about it
The core issue with the UN is that it’s an artifact of the Kisinger-esque “great powers” geopolitical mentality - specifically, that a handful of fuck-off powerful formerly (sometimes barely) colonial/imperialist nations “know best”. And sure - sometimes that collection of countries does push concepts that are genuinely constructive and helpful. But very often, it also devolves into simply preserving the vestiges of imperial-powers-of-old.
Until and unless the UN is able to reform itself in a way that the General Assembly has some sort of mechanism to actually override the UNSC (or, more specifically, whatever country on the UNSC decides to cast a veto - particularly permanent members), the UN will remain essentially impotent.
I do think it would be a fantastic idea if UNSC vetos required another SC member to second said veto for it to actually go into effect, and even then allowing some sort of override mechanism in the UNGA provided there’s an overwhelming majority… but I don’t see that happening, because the parties that would have to sign off on that sort of procedural amendment are the same parties that would lose unilateral power under that arrangement, and that’s simply not going to happen.
npr.org
Newest