• 1 Post
  • 33 Comments
Joined 4 months ago
cake
Cake day: February 29th, 2024

help-circle
  • Worked through my obsessions a bit and let go of them. In the following weeks I asked three women out and got shot down each time instead of thinking about doing so for a month and being a creep.

    Unironically, good on you. That’s character progress and it takes a lot of courage and self-confidence to accept rejection in a mature way and keep trying regardless. For what it’s worth I as an Internet stranger think we should help more people do the same sort of things.





  • I’d say it’s sometimes ok, sometimes necessary for brevity, and sometimes accurate. Accurate = “All people need oxygen, water, and calories to survive.” Brevity = “Generally speaking, people enjoy good food and good company so those situations work well for forming relationships.”

    Consequences of generalizations have a lot to do with how tolerable they are. If I say, “most people like pizza” there’s not much harm if several million people don’t. If I say, “all or most people of this gender/ethnicity/religion/whatever have X problem” that’s a lot more problematic because it can easily lead to a consequence of harmful prejudice. When it comes to matters of ethics, beliefs, accusations etc. it becomes very important to handle cases individually as much as humanly possible.



  • That’s a solid criticism and I upvoted. I hadn’t thought about YouTube. Anecdotally I’ve had factual comments about how many kids are killed, what Israeli politicians say, etc. auto-moderated into oblivion on YouTube. But at the same time I get a lot of my criticisms from YouTube (basically never been on TikTok) so it holds water. I also get a lot of info from other sources, but I can’t think of something specific I’d get from them that I could never find on YouTube.

    In my defense, I’m basing my opinion on why TikTok is particularly targeted on interviews like this one with Ted Cruz. He talks about how TikTok is specifically designed to push messages that are harmful to America, including what he calls pro-Hamas content but I suspect is actually anti-Israeli policy, pro-Palestine content. That is why I would argue there’s some evidence of a campaign against TikTok in particular that might skip over YouTube or other major platforms. Perhaps the Western powers feel that YouTube is still acceptably moderated towards their interests whereas TikTok isn’t. Perhaps Google is just too influential domestically.

    Doesn’t mean your point isn’t worth discussion, or that my points aren’t opinion. I’m interested to see how it develops.




  • Here’s Bernie Sanders from a year ago talking about how a handful of companies control the news people see, read, and hear. TL:DR - He makes the argument that it’s not fake news, that journalists are usually hard-working and honest. He says the problem is the limitation of allowed discussion - what topics make it to the consumer. He says for instance that he’s never asked about wealth and income inequality.

    I believe TikTok is being banned because as it stands now it brings topics outside the limits of allowed discussion to a lot of eyes in ways US government/companies haven’t proven able to control. If the issues justifying a potential ban were truly data security or mental health as some argue (not without merit mind you), then the legislation to address those issues would look a lot different and include companies like Meta, Google, Instagram, etc. Those are valid concerns but the new measure is clearly not designed around them.

    Finally, we’ve seen how Trump can tie up the courts for months on end even after all his self-snitching. Thus I very much doubt we’ll see any actual action in the 9 months + 3 months grace period laid out for the resolution of the TikTok matter. There are too many constitutional and business law challenges in my (admittedly layman’s) reading of expert opinion.


  • The footage of the premature baby born to a dead mother killed in a bombing, who then followed her into death moments later, was especially chilling. Can you imagine the outrage if that happened to someone from New York, or Britain, or Germany? But because they’re Palestinians the mother and child, both killed inside a “safe zone”, will be just a footnote.

    There are no safe zones for Palestinians as far as Israel is concerned. Just in the last day Israel’s Finance Minister Smotrich has called for the “complete destruction” of Gaza and stopping peace talks with Hamas. "He said Israel needed to attack Rafah “as fast and as strongly as possible, and then continue with the strip until its complete destruction”.



  • Thank you for responding to my question! I edited my original comment because I took a quick look into it and came to the same conclusion you did. I’m of the opinion that things like sex work can be done properly, and if they aren’t “officially” done properly they will be done improperly illegally. Sort of a “Prohibition” vs. “regulated alcohol sales” scenario. People like other sexy people, and some adults legitimately consent to be those other sexy people. However, in order for it to be ethical there have to be robust protections.

    It doesn’t take much research to find out these maid cafes do not always feature said protections. So I edited my original comment because I found the answer and then you kindly backed it up very shortly afterwards.



  • Any peace deal that doesn’t involve Russia leaving behind all Ukrainian territory rewards Putin’s Russia for their invasion. IMO Russia should have to at least pull back to the borders that existed before the 2022 offensive. Of course I’m not in a position to make decisions if it’s a bitter pill that must be taken, but real gains for Russia will be proof that aggression worked.

    Also, peace doesn’t need a specific broker. If an international effort including China, or even led by them, can broker a good deal then so be it. Maybe China’s relationship with Russia makes talks more likely to be productive. I can’t think of an explanation as to why a US-led deal with the same terms would be inherently better (that isn’t just nationalism/pride and much less important than halting war).



  • I don’t have a source for the drones or missiles used in this recent attack, but Forbes has an article from February titled, “$375,000 - The Sticker Price For An Iranian Shahed Drone”. “Its delta-winged Shahed-131/136 variants are believed to have a range of approximately 500 to 900 miles.” and “The documents show that a single Shahed costs $375,000 to produce.” I’m not sure that’s long enough of a range to make it to the Israeli targets though, so take it with a grain of salt.

    The New Arab’s article today about cost reports, “It is not known how much Iran spent on its attacks, though ballistic missiles in the country can cost up to $99,937 (₤80,000), The Guardian said.”

    Politico has an article from December called “A $2M missile vs. a $2,000 drone: Pentagon worried over cost of Houthi attacks”. “The cost of using expensive naval missiles — which can run up to $2.1 million a shot — to destroy unsophisticated Houthi drones — estimated at a few thousand dollars each — is a growing concern, according to three other DOD officials.” and “The cost offset is not on our side,” said one DOD official." I’m guessing those are the bottom end drones and likely not capable of crossing the distance between Iran and Israel. It does give an idea of how much it might cost for Iranian-backed groups closer to Israel to use drones in the future though.


  • According to Israeli sources, the defense was very costly for Israel. "Israel’s interception of hundreds of Iranian missiles and drones overnight has cost Tel Aviv around $1.35 billion (up to 5 billion shekels), Israeli media reported. On Sunday, the daily Yedioth Ahronoth quoted Brig. Gen. Ram Aminach, the former financial advisor to the Israeli chief of staff, as saying that “the cost of defence last night was estimated at between 4-5 billion shekels ($1.08-1.35B).”

    What I’m wondering is: if the US did most of the interception, is the price tag for that to US taxpayers included in that quote or did they pay even more? The USA pays for a lot of Israel’s Iron Dome defense to start, so what’s the final price tag for Americans?

    Edit: I kept looking but couldn’t find any info beyond different versions of what I already linked. I guess it’s just a question to think about for now. For me, the large expense is yet another reason among several why Israel should let not continue this back-and-forth with Iran.