I wonder if this was some concession by Hamas as part of the negotiations

I think the bot is incredibly useful. The criticism falls under a very specific group of users being very loud about their preferred source not ranking the way they expect.

Linking additional sources will improve it. Wikipedia maintains an active list and has an incentive to do so. Personally, I’d like to see a transparent methodology applied to a source: number of articles retracted silently, corrections issued in last 30 days, etc.

That having been said, I’d rather see efforts invested in other areas rather than inventing yet another “weighing” function for multiple ratings. Let us decide if mbfc is good enough or if we prefer ad fontes or Wikipedia or whoever. Give us two or three options and let us decide on our own.

You got me. I was trying to bait you into saying that ethnic cleansing is obviously a bad thing and we should apply a consistent standard to avoid dehumanizing rhetoric.

So perhaps they can allow Israel to exist within US

It sounds like you’re suggesting ethnically cleansing Jews from the region. How is that any better than suggesting that all Palestinians be moved to Qatar or Iran?

There’s a fine line between disrespecting a fallible opinion and disrespecting the person. In writing, it’s easy to cross that line. It’s ok to disagree with people, but it’s important to sometimes take the step back and remember that the person is larger than any singular decision. There’s likely context you’re missing that lead them to that decision.

The biggest thing to remember is that more likely than not, if you really and truly fuck up your job, chances are the worst you do is create extra work for your team. They probably won’t even be in danger of losing their jobs if you truly screw up. It’s not likely that people will die. The blast radius of most software engineering jobs is incredibly small.

I’ll spell it out for you explicitly. The PA cannot govern in Gaza because all their personnel there have been dead since 2007. There are more barriers to the PA taking back governance in Gaza, and that should be plain as day. Yet here we are, with you making immature accusations of moving goalposts.

He benefits from it, sure. But saying he’s solely responsible is just false.

Good luck with it!

It is “fun”, and there are lessons that Ruby has that should be taken elsewhere, like the principle of least surprise. The most important one is MINASWAN: Matz is nice and so we are nice.

Matz described Ruby as Lisp with C semantics, and Perl convenience.

There’s a reason the CLI flags can put it in “perl mode”

11 years after Hamas took over Gaza, and as part of a ceasefire deal brokered by Qatar.

It serves his purposes, but again, was done long after Hamas took over Gaza.

Larry’s webpage

Hamas fought and killed the PLO in Gaza back in 2007.

Are you trying to say that Netanyahu was involved in that, or merely that he benefitted from it?

The polling data also shows they overwhelming don’t consider what Hamas did on October 7th to be atrocities. They have demonized Israel so much that they dont consider Israelis human. People like you just spread that same dehumanizing message outwards.

Seriously. Stop and think for a few minutes about what you just wrote and flip the word Israel with Palestine.

There are no economic or diplomatic ties to cut. Saudi Arabia does not recognize the existence of Israel.

Considering 63% of Gazans support terrorism, there is a very real risk that refugees could be Hamas supporters

You mean like Hamas not even showing up?

Because Iran says they’ll attack if the talks don’t work, and Sinwar wants that so this is the easiest way for him to cause it

Obligatory xckd what if

Thank you for explaining your rationale.

I think you are dangerously wrong. How do you suggest to prevent violence? some of the issues you are facing are historically Jewish neighborhoods in east Jerusalem launching terror attacks against settlers living there who purchased the land their grandparents were forced from (the actual situation is even more complicated than this one sentence explanation). Now imagine needing to solve that, but on a very large scale.

If you suddenly grant Palestinians full rights and movement, there is nothing preventing them from launching a genocidal campaign against Jewish Israelis. Hamas, PIJ, and other Palestinian groups have declared they will not stop until all Jews within Israel are dead.

Your rationale for wanting a one state solution is idealistic, but ultimately naive. It fails to capture the complexity of the conflict and serves to further violent interests while screaming their slogan.

So for the people who think like you do, it’s an explicit rejection of a two state solution, and publicly declaring that the only path to peace is one state shared by everyone.

I’d like to understand why you think a one state solution is the most viable path to peace?

No reasonable person would hear “destroy Mexico” and think “oh, he must really dislike the government and state of Mexico”. They will automatically assume that you mean to bring about the destruction of Mexico *\including the people who live there*.

if you truly intended to advocate merely for the immediate dissolution of the state, you would have said so.

Yes.

“From the river to the sea” on the other hand is a call for the destruction of one or the other. Neither is ok.