There's other factors to consider as well:

- Israel (Natanyahu) deliberately allowed Qatar to smuggle cash into Gaza in order to keep Hamas strong. Not strong enough to carry out the Oct 7th attack, but strong enough to keep lobbing rockets and form a suitable villain.

- Israel has been blocking basic aid such as food from getting into Gaza. Deliberate famine is hardly "upholding the rules of war".

- What do you think "operational security" in Gaza is? A permanent Israeli army presence with the steady flow of casualties on both sides that entails?

Those dead Palestinian civilians are actually part of Hamas's plan.

The old equation was that Arab states would normalize ties with Israel when the Palestinian issue was settled, then in 2017 a normalization process without the Palestinians was started. This would obviously remove a lot of leverage from the Palestinians.

A major objective of the October 7th attack was to was to create a disproportionate Israeli response that would inflame the Arab world and stop the normalization of relations between Israel and the Arab states. Given how the war has gone with even Western partners starting to turn on Israel I'd say Hamas is probably saying "mission accomplished".

The site is a money pit doomed to failure, but if you're somehow looking for a way to justify the stock price I think you need to do something like video.

Even if Truth Social became the last alt-right Twitter clone standing it would still be a crappy business because it would be a tiny user base with toxic content that mainstream advertisers avoid.

But video ads go for higher rates and no one has really broken through as the alt-right YouTube. So maybe there's a shot at decent revenue before he blows through all the cash.

I mean it should still be a penny stock, but with video maybe it's worth 2c instead of 1c.

Here we go again with this.

NVidia shipped 100k AI GPUs last year, which - if run nonstop - would consume 7,4 TWh. Crypto consumes over 100 TWh per year, and the world as a whole consumes just under 25000 TWh per year.

AI consumption of power is a pittiance. To get these huge numbers, they have to assume long-term extreme exponential scaling. But you can make anything give insane numbers with an assumption like that.

I simply don't buy the assumption. Not even assuming an AI bust - even assuming that AI keeps hugely growing, and that nobody rests on their laurels but rather keeps training newer and better foundations - the simple fact is that there's far too much progress being made towards vastly more efficient architectures at every level - model structure, neuron structure, training methodologies, and hardware. . Not like "50% better", but like "orders of magnitude better". I just don't buy these notions of infinite exponential growth.

I reckon one of his biggest worries right now is how to find a running mate that won't backstab him with the 25th Amendment at the first opportunity.

True, and neither does Hamas. For that matter, neither the Israeli nor the Palestinian people get to claim the moral high ground, since both overwhelmingly support the actions of their governments. Both are in the gutter, and digging downward. A pox on both their houses, and I don't think we should support either one. I am okay with humanitarian aid to starving people, though.

I won't return in coin by calling you an idiot, because I don't think you are one. What I think you are is too *ignorant* to realize you're talking about evolution. "Survival of the fittest" is a phrase coined by Herbert Spencer in 1864 to refer to natural selection, a concept that's in the actual *title* of Darwin's book.

FTA:

Nahalat Shimon is trying to seize the property under an Israeli law allowing Jews to reclaim properties that were Jewish before Israel was established in 1948. Jordan controlled the area between 1948 and the 1967 war.

So Palestinians can't return to properties they fled in 1948, but some long dormant title here suddenly takes precedence over the Palestinian ownership.

So right of conquest?

It seems like you don't have much cause to complain about Hamas attacking Israel or is only one side allowed to win land in a war (btw, no one is).

This is going no where. I encourage you to imagine the narrative from the Palestinian side, I don't think your arguments are as compelling as you think they are.

Everyone (including Slashdot) is presenting the study wrong. It's forecasting that world incomes would drop by nearly a fifth relative to what they would have otherwise been, not relative to the present.

This sounds close.

I'm not sure what the debate seems to be about, it seems very hard to justify building settlements in someone else's territory.

So your claim is that Palestinians being expelled, officially and unofficially, from their homes and villages as the nearby Israeli Settlements expand isn't systematic? How is it anything other than "we have more guns and will take what we want"?

Maybe Republicans really like dick picks

Thanks Yuri. How's the weather in St. Petersburg?

Like your insistence is that the settler builds on the exact same lot? That's a weirdly pedantic standard, though easily established by the annexation of East Jerusalem.

But pushing out the nearby Palestinians in the West Bank for being too close to your newly established Settlement, or to use the land for grazing is easily established by those links, and should satisfy any reasonable judge.

I suppose. I prefer to plug in every time I park, then I basically never have to pay any attention to range except on long trips.

Yeah, that's another side of my second reason, though cycles really only begin to bite when you get close to full or close to empty. Oscillating near the middle is fine.

Not sure if you're being deliberately daft or not, but this pattern is very well established.

From the other side Israeli Jews have been constantly taking Palestinian land for over a century, and the backdrop of those "serious offers" was the consistent expansion of Settlements on Palestinian land. If you were the Palestinians, would you have trusted the Israeli's saying they were going to give back your land even as they built new houses on it?

I fully understand the historical aspirations (and need) for a Jewish homeland, even after the holocaust Jews spent years in refugee camps since they literally had nowhere to go.

But from the Palestinian side, invaders/colonizers came and took their land, when they predictably fought back the invaders took more, and now the invaders have established a long term pattern whereby the invader is regularly kicking Palestinians off of their land to build new Settlements.

Recall, the reason that Israeli security was so light around Gaza during the attack was the soldiers were relocated to the West Bank to contain unrest over expanded Settlement construction.

That pattern is going to create a lot of animosity.

I can only see three resolutions to the conflict.

First, is the two state solution. But that requires not only halting the construction of new Settlements and restrict or even freeze the expansion of existing ones for good. And you're probably not seeing the Palestinians trust it until you've maintained this for at least 10 years. That sounds extreme, but in reality it's just "stop taking other people's stuff".

Second, is what seems to be the current plan, keep expanding Settlements and pushing the Palestinians into smaller and smaller areas until you're literally left with just a couple Gaza like enclaves with all the Palestinians and then you want a few generations for emotions to die down (if you don't think of a way to literally push them into another country).

Third, Israel miscalculates in some serious way. For instance, they turn the Arab Israeli minority hostile and alienate too many Western allies, and suddenly moderate Jewish Israelis start leaving. If that keeps up people start getting scared and more folks start leaving, and at some point enough leave to top the balance and Hamas gets its wish and Israel ceases to exist.

Personally, my money is on Scenario #2 and that certainly seems to be the Israeli government's plan, unfortunately the path to that contains a potential detour to #3. This is why Hamas and Netanyahu so often find themselves objective allies. It's in both of their interests to keep the rockets flying in order to prevent any peace.