If your idea of winning an argument is to pretend I said things I never did, why even bother joining the conversation?

MrNaz claimed Israel supporters often make arguments based on starting "halfway through the story". So I asked him where the story's start point really is. I know what his answer likely is, but unlike you, I refuse to assume the worst about people I'm debating.

Enlighten me. When does the story begin?

At least, it's not complex if you decide to filter out pertinent facts. If you decide to actually get the context, complex it is, and no side turns out looking particularly nice.

Israel has a similar law. On Oct 7th United stranded me in the US. No accommodation, not even minimal attempt to find me an alternative flight, of course no food. When I asked to wait it out in Conneticuit, where I could crash at a friend's house, they wanted over $5300 for the added stop.

I had to sue them in small claims. I'm still waiting for the court date to see how it goes, but I'm fairly optimistic I'll get at least something.

You are technically right, in that this is a warning rather than an error. In fact, you used compilation flags no one ever uses to make your point (no warnings at all). That goes back to a core ideological, and quite purposeful, difference between the languages, where C++ wishes to help the programmer avoid errors whereas Rust wishes to prevent the programmer from making them.

In practice, I think this is a distinction without a difference. The tools Rust provide you on that front are available to you with C++, with the only practical difference being that they are not mandated by the language.

The fact in my code I achieve the exact same effect in C++, using the precise same tools. If you want an example, check out a FOSS project I built, add an enum case for the tokenizer (under lib/tokenizer.h), and try building. You will get precisely the behavior the speaker claims is impossible in C++: you can't build warning free until you've handled all of the cases, with the compiler telling you where you're missing cases all the way until you're done.

That's exactly the behavior of enum classes in C++ (since C++11).

I am getting the distinct feeling that these arguments are just people who don't know C++ well and people who don't know Rust well shouting at each other.

I'm not familiar enough with Rust. In the timepoint you linked the guy talks about using enums to replace flags being ORed. I have not found what Rust construct was used. Can you please provide a link?

In particular, how are Rust enums different than C++'s newer enum classes?

This!

Also, I have my browser delete all cookies every time I close it. Once I do watch a few videos, recommendations start coming in.

Since before this change (and, to a degree, also after it), what it would recommend me sans knowing my history was right wing shit, I think this is a major improvement.

I'm a creator. I'm not eligible for monetization. Whenever I watch my own videos without an ad blocker, the ads are just terrible.

Since I'm not eligible for monetization, this is all on YouTube. I have zero say in the matter. I believe, though not sure, that my longer videos even have mid-video ads.

Regardless of the merit of this argument, I think we can all agree that if you look at what's going on over here over the past few weeks and your best take is "Oh no! The Internet in Gaza is going down", you're doing something very very wrong.

There were three stages done here.

The first was limiting the call completion costs. The big providers could set any price they wanted when other provider's subscribers were calling. This meant that the bigger the provider, the higher the cost they placed, causing small providers to be automatically more expensive than big ones.

The reform capped the call completion costs. Very soon after that providers started eliminating structured prices. The consumer pays the same amount, whether you call someone on the local operator, a different operator or a land line.

The second step was numbers migration. The government forced the cell operators to allow migrating customers to take their phone number with them. Over the past ten years I've changed operators at least 5 times, while still retaining the same cell phone number throughout.

The third step was to encourage small operators, and force the big ops to support MVNOs, and limit the pricing.

This step is actually a mixed bag in terms of how successful it was.The first small providers is called "Golan Telecom", offered a flat rate plan. You pay 100NIS per month, no matter how long you are on the phone. The plan also covers international calls and international roaming. You can spend as much as a month and a half out of every year abroad, and that is all you'll pay. That price was about a third of what all other operators would charge you at the time, and their plans had minutes limitations.

That was soon followed by other MVNO providers. Today I'm paying less than 30 NIS/month on my plan.

The reason I'm saying this was a mixed bag is that it did not, in fact, result in new operators popping up. Aside from Golan, who launched with a mix of their own network and MVNO, all other small providers were MVNO only.

And then Golan started rolling back its own network deployment. Today they are fully MVNO.

Still, with MVNOs having their own numbers, and the ability to migrate their entire network between the big providers, prices, so far, have not gone up for quite some time.

Another thing that happened, but I'm not sure whether that was government triggered or just a byproduct of everything else, is that operator locked phones are gone from the landscape.

Oh, I know that you don't. Sadly, you are very much the exception rather than the rule. It's enough to read this thread to see multiple instances of people doing just that.

To be fair, the pro-Israeli side has it's own fair share of zealots. Miraculously, some of those are also making an appearance in this very thread.

Compensation can be phrased as a formula. It's a fairly standard approach. In fact, I think the UN even have standards to what that formula should be, though I haven't been able to find out for sure.

With that said, there's one thing I completely and utterly agree with you about: reading comprehension is really important.

Since I've answered every other point you raise within this specific thread, I think we're done here.

This has nothing to do with what I want, and everything to do with what the Palestinians want. They can want an independent state covering all of the west bank and 50% of Israel, compensation, and a personal slave to each Palestinian in return for considering the conflict resolved. But they need to state it.

That's how negotiations work. Each side state what they want, and then, and only then, do you begin negotiating something that, hopefully, will be acceptable to both sides, and almost definitely not what either side put in their initial proposal.

Except the Palestinians never gave such a proposal. They have never stated what they actually want, reasonable or not, in order for them to consider the conflict resolved.

Even if that were true, that'd be Israel's initial offer. A starting point from which to negotiate. Again, this is how negotiations work.

My point was not that Abbas is refusing to acknowledge Israel's right to exist. It would be suicidal for him to do so, for reasons I'll state in a second. My point was that Abbas is refusing to name any price at all after which he would recognize it.

Netanyahu put out a vision that included precisely that in 2009 (I erroneously said 2013 in my previous message). Barak and Olmert were even more explicit, and in official offers to the Palestinians. Certainly puts your accusing me of poor reading comprehension in proportion. Regardless, creating a symmetry on this point misses the whole point, IMHO.

Negotiations are about give and take. Everyone gives something in order to get something else. Since Israel has control of the land, resources and military, it's clear what we're negotiating about it giving. What are the Palestinians giving here? What is it that they have to offer?

The answer is the "end of the conflict". Only the Palestinians can declare the conflict resolved and have it mean anything. That is the "peace" that these talks are trying to achieve.

Israel acknowledging an independent Palestinian state is part of the price. You can, legitimately, claim that no agreement can be reached without it being part of the deal (and I'd personally agree), but Israel refusing to put it in the initial offer is, at the end of the day, just a negotiation tactic. This is also the reason it's easier for Israel to offer such a recognition than it is for the Palestinians.

For the Palestinians to do the same about Israel, however, means that we are having peace talks with peace not even on the table. They literally have nothing else to offer, and they are refusing to name a price for it.

I've skipped over the ad-hominem insults. I hope they were not germane to your argument.

I completely agree they want that. What I do not see, and you have not yet provided any citation that claim otherwise, is their willingness to consider the conflict resolved if they get it. At the moment, it's just something they want, where if that is satisfied, there will be other things they'll want as well.

Instead, when Abbas made a statement in 2012 from which it can be gleaned that the right of return isn't absolute, the outrage was such that he walked it back by 2014. If that counts, then surely so does Netanyahu's Bar Ilan speech from 2013, where he flat out says the solution will involve an independent Palestinian state. Unlike Abbas, Netanyahu never officially rescinded that claim.

As for actually ending the conflict (in particular, acknowledging that Israel has a right to exist), his statement to Obama was that the Palestinians will never, no matter what, do that.