Basically, Israel wants the land that Gaza (and West bank) sit on, and wants the Palestinians that are there right now either gone, or dead.

If this is true, why did Israel give Gaza to the Palestinians, forcibly removing Israelis, in 2005? Wouldn't it have been easier to keep it than to give it away and go to war to take it back?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_disengagement_from_Gaza

If Israel just wants everyone gone or dead, why didn't they just bomb Gaza flat? Why do they bother "roof-knocking", setting up evacuation corridors, and sending their own troops into harm's way?

Is it a coincidence that Israel was in a cease-fire on October 6, only going to war after Hamas committed an act of war (killing over 1100 people, wounding many more, and taking 253 hostages)?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war_hostage_crisis

BVR was not a failure in Vietnam. It was a political mandate in Vietnam not to use it.

BVR was a failure in a 1960s Arab-Israeli war, in particular I think against the Egytians.

With sufficient radar intelligence, I think AWACs in Saudi watched aircraft take-off in Iraq and tracked them, or sufficient rarity of US aircraft in a region, ie parts of North Vietnam, BVR works just fine. The failure in the Sinai (?) was due to the confusing number of outbound and inbound aircraft from both sides. A returning Israeli sortie being mistaken for an inbound Egyptian (?) strike.

Before WW1, some predicted that machine guns would minimize casualties.

If one soldier could shoot as many bullets as a hundred soldiers, then armies would be much smaller.

I recently made a complaint to my country's regulators about my bank. A few weeks, later, the bank started nagging me to "verify my identity" as part of their "KYC" procedure. The bank threatened to cut off access to my account if I didn't comply. I had a quick look through the questionnaire on their website and decided the bank was asking for way too much information, most of it not relevant for a personal bank account. I eventually went into a branch (one of the few branches they haven't closed down to save money) and showed them an ID.

Lessons learned:
1. These KYC programs is not just to target shady money launderers. Large corporations can and do use these tools to harass and intimidate innocent people.
2. If the bank wants you to log into their website (or use their app) to do anything above or beyond simply paying a bill, don't do it. Go the branch in person, even if it's a hassle.
3. Keep a few bucks in cash in case the bank maliciously cuts you off. They'll call it an "error" and it will probably get fixed eventually.... but you'll need to eat in the meantime.
4. Banks are not run by nice people. Banks don't deliver profits to their shareholders by being nice to the their customers.

The most straightforward approach to safeguarding homeowners and discouraging criminals involves asserting that while a burglar remains on your property, you bear no responsibility for any harm that befalls them. Eliminate the self-defense prerequisite if the intruder is injured or killed after unlawfully entering your premises. In such harrowing circumstances, where adrenaline surges and panic sets in, homeowners find themselves at a disadvantage when it comes to protecting their homes and families. The law as stated seems to be designed to protect the criminal.

I think most people are just offended by the almost automatic arrest of someone who acts in self defence. But this is really a procedural matter - it might seem really obvious that the person was acting in self defence, but the police cannot just make that assumption at the outset, especially in serious cases involving a death.

It's also a side effect of the creeping ideological position that if you are arrested you're probably guilty, and hence there is no reason to fund decent remand prisons, legal aid, and a justice system that can resolve cases in a timely manner. That attitude's all fine until someone who is probably a victim gets sucked into the justice system and it becomes apparent how your punishment begins long before you ever make it to trial.

Roads should be funded by taxes on tires. That would reflect wear on the public's property the road better than fuel.

Broadcom CEO Hock Tan has realized that fast-moving changes to the subscription pricing model that force a change in customers' expenditures is causing many customers to reevaluate their loyalty to VMware products. Rather than pony up additional cash, Tan has seen many customers give Broadcom the virtual middle finger and switch to alternative platforms such as those based on OpenStack, Harvester, or other low or no-cost technologies. In a last ditch effort to salvage what's left of their customer base, Broadcom will be providing some ongoing security patches for customers who persist with their perpetual licenses instead of ceding to Broadcom's blatant extortion demands.

In the most idiotic way possible, too.

Who will quit? And who will bite the bullet because he cannot? The go-getter with a ton of projects under his belts he can show off and is instantly gobbled up by a company if he puts his resume out on LinkedIn? Or the dud that has been here for 20 years, stopped acquiring new skills 19.5 years ago and it working minimum effort to not get fired?

I don't know how the maths works in the USA. But I used to commute into London, at a cost of 15 pound a day. Times 230 days a year, that's 3,450 pound a year. I pay 40% income tax and 2% national insurance on that money, so you have to pay me (3,450 / 0.58) or 5,950 pound a year extra so that I have the same money in my pocket after paying for my train ticket. In addition, my employer pays 15% employer national insurance, so it costs them 6,840 pound a year to put the same money into my pocket.

That only pays for my train ticket. It doesn't pay for me driving to the train station, it doesn't pay me for three hours commute a day, it doesn't pay me for exorbitant prices in London to get some food at lunch time.

Now if I work from home, I do more work per hour because I'm not exhausted from the commute, I sometimes work longer because I'm in the flow and don't notice that it is 5 o'clock or because I just want to finish something and don't have to leave to get the train. The employer saves the office space.

So this is a win-win situation for everyone. If you don't count the benefits for the employees, just realise that given the choice between job A where I work from home, and job B where I go to the office every day, even spending 7,000 pound extra money from your annual budget doesn't manage to make your company more attractive.

It's not the office per se that people don't like, but having to go in to the office. For some people that's an extra hour or more they have to spend just getting to or returning from the office and if it's largely spent in traffic it's understandable why people want to work from home.

Look at it this way - you own the game, but most of it required a server that you did not buy.

It should be illegal to have a single player game require an Internet connection, and it should be a requirement of discontinuing server support to release a free private server and a final game update allowing connection to arbitrary servers. In fact, the required code should exist in escrow from the very first sale.

Firefox with the uBlock Origin extension still works to watch ad-free Youtube.

I wanna see how Ticketmaster/LiveNation tries to spin this to try to win the public o their side.