Yeah, everyone wants faster bureaucracy until they see the cost estimate for proper staffing, then just pretending there wasn't any harm to regulate in the first place becomes the preferred option.
Agreed that staffing the bureaucracy with good people costs a lot.
There is a large opportunity to simplify and rationalize the regulations. This would dramatically reduce the cost of both bureaucracy and compliance. In addition to massively reduced cost, it would enable people in CA to do more cool stuff faster!
But simplification, rationalization, and acceleration is not in the interest of the bureaucracy or the incumbents... so we are very unlikely to see change until there is an existential crisis.
Every bureaucracy I've ever experienced is constantly complaining about being under-staffed, but when they get more funding, the service level rarely improves. It seems like complaining about 'over-work' is just an easy excuse for doing a bad job, which makes sense given how many friends I have in government who are constantly complaining about their lazy and inept colleagues.
Not falling for an obvious distraction from the extremely blatant pattern of dehumanising Palestinians.
> In leaked recordings, Maj. Gen. Aharon Haliva — then head of Israeli military intelligence — stated that for every person killed on Oct. 7, “50 Palestinians must die,” adding that “it doesn’t matter now if they are children.” He described mass Palestinian deaths as “necessary” to send a deterrent message.
> Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant’s declaration of a “complete siege” on Gaza — cutting food, electricity, fuel, and water — was accompanied by explicitly dehumanizing language. Announcing the policy on Oct. 9, Gallant stated: “We are fighting human animals, and we are acting accordingly.” Israeli President Isaac Herzog’s assertion that “an entire nation out there is responsible” further blurs the institutional line between civilian and combatant.
> Such statements do not determine individual targeting decisions, but they shape the environment in which those decisions are made: how civilian life is valued, how much civilian harm is expected to be scrutinized, and how much is implicitly excused.
Welcome to the Middle East. The Gulf War had 50x deaths on the other side. The repression of the IRGC against peaceful protesters had the same kind of imbalance. Its how governments assert dominance there.
Just look at the reaction of Iran's "leaders" to the USA's threat to attack them. They keep their narrative logic intact: we'll sink your ships, etc. These are fearless people who's power is derived from the appearance of power.
I find it incredible that these isolated comments, of which even the various UN-backed panels can only find a handful quoted without context, is the basis for an evidence for an intent of genocide.
Besides the fact that it's a very poor genocide that after the war has ended has 100,000 palestinians leave (mostly on medical or humanitarian grounds) out of 2M Gazans and when Israel is constantly accused of blocking them in.
Bear in mind that Israel is a democracy with proportional representation resulting in a coalition government so you are essentially accusing a the majority of the population of supporting genocidal intent based on a few out-of-context and unclear quotes from some individuals. For example Smotrich - a right wing nut IMO - party won only 5 seats out of 120 in the last election.
The PM, and the official statements overwhelmingly and repeatedly state that they were not targetting civilians, whilst also adding as has been proven that the entire strip was criss-crossed with tunnels (longer and more extensive than the London metro) with exits under schools and hospitals and that their attacks met the proportionaility test which is that the miltary advantage must be proportional to risk of civilians harmed. They said no strikes were indiscrimate, they were all against verified presence of hamas. You and I might find that ugly, vicious and can question if there was another way to fight Hamas, but illegal it aint.
Herzog's comments were taken widly out of context. It takes a very particular and pre-dermined POV to discount the actual Q&Q where there quote ignored the entire paragraph which gives it a different meaning and the very next question asked him to clarify the statement anout responsible and he immediately replied (all this within a couple of minutes of the same presser) his intent. As (e.g.) HuffPost reported: when a reporter asked Herzog to clarify whether he meant to say that since Gazans did not remove Hamas from power “that makes them, by implication, legitimate targets,” Herzog said, “No, I didn’t say that.”
Here's a transcipt of the presser:
Journalist: "You spoke very passionately about you saying that Israel was not retaliating but
targeting with regards to the operations in Gaza. But even President Biden, who spoke so personally
and passionately with regard to what was happening in Israel, spoke about the importance of the laws
of war. So, with that in mind, what can Israel do to alleviate the impact of this conflict on two
million civilians, many of whom have nothing to do with Hamas?"
President Isaac Herzog: "First of all, we have to understand there's a state, there's a state, in a
way, that has built a machine of evil right at our doorstep. It's an entire nation out there that is
responsible. It's not true this rhetoric about civilians not aware, not involved—it's absolutely not
true. They could have risen up. They could have fought against that evil regime which took over Gaza
in a coup d'état, murdering their family members who were in Fatah."
Journalist: "I am sincerely sorry for what is happening in Israel right now, but I have been listening
to your answers for the last few minutes and I am a little confused. On the one hand, you say that
Israel follows international law in the Gaza Strip and that civilians are protected; you say you are
very careful to prevent casualties. But at the same time, you seem to hold the people of Gaza
responsible for not trying to remove Hamas, and therefore by implication, that makes them legitimate
targets."
President Isaac Herzog: "No, I did not say that. I did not say that and I want to make it clear. A
question was raised about the separation of Hamas and civilians. I said that in their homes, there are
missiles shooting at us. If you have a missile in your kitchen and you want to launch it at me, don't
I have the right to defend myself? We have to defend ourselves; we have the full right to do so. Hamas
carries full responsibility and accountability for the well-being of the hostages and for the
situation they have brought upon Gaza."
Journalist: "But my question is: Are civilians in Gaza held responsible for not destroying Hamas and
therefore become legitimate targets?"
President Isaac Herzog: "I repeat again: there is no excuse for murdering innocent civilians in any
way, in any context. And believe me, Israel will operate and always operates according to the
international rules."
Gallant was speaking less than 48 hours after Oct 7 when feelings were very high and it's clearly fighting talk which (a) was referring to Hamas as animals not Gazans (b) he didn't actually ever execute that quoted extent of the seige in full utilities ran low but never the extended cut off that's implied (c) Israel didn't actually provide 100% of the water and electricity that was internal desalination run on stockpiles of fuel so it was clear that cutting off supplies does not immediately harm civilians.
Even in Halavi's case, he might be a right-wing nutter and meant what was reported but the head of army intelligence does not decide policy. And when you look at the original I don't think it would pass court of law. Israeli Channel 12 added the square brackets intent to "it doesn't matter now [if they] are children" but actually the original in hebrew was only "זה לא משנה עכשיו ילדים" [1] which could mean instead "it doesn't matter [to this argument the mention of] children" which is equally plausable in idiomatic Hebrew. Either way, his comments in full don't tick the boxes of genocidal intent.
> Besides the fact that it's a very poor genocide that after the war has ended has 100,000 palestinians
You seem disappointed. Anywho...
A common misconception is that genocide must involve a very large number of deaths on the order of hundreds of thousands or millions. But this is false. The perpetrators of the Srebrenica massacre during the Bosnian War were found guilty of genocide despite the massacre’s death toll being less than 9,000. Hence the fact that “only” 70,000–100,000+ people have died in Gaza in no way refutes the charge of genocide.
> Gallant was speaking less than 48 hours after Oct 7 when feelings were very high
Genocidal feelings. Super normal.
> Even in Halavi's case, he might be a right-wing nutter
Nuts in highest military positions when warring with 4 or more states. Very normal, too.
> Bear in mind that Israel is a democracy with proportional representation resulting in a coalition government so you are essentially accusing a the majority of the population of supporting genocidal intent...
Perpetrating* a genocide, seems like.
Is the Gaza War a genocide? Two key features of the mortality data are consistent with that charge: first, unusually high mortality among women and children; second, the sudden and dramatic fall in life expectancy. In these respects, the war resembles the Rwandan and Cambodian genocides more closely than any other recent conflict involving the US or Israel.
> Is the Gaza War a genocide? Two key features of the mortality data are consistent with that charge: first, unusually high mortality among women and children; second, the sudden and dramatic fall in life expectancy.
To be fair, you'd also see this if your opponents were using human shields and hospitals for military operations, which Hamas has been documented as doing. This is not so clear cut.
That definition of 'human shield' is basically only used in this context by Israel and its advocates. If we adhere to it, the fact that Israel has military installations embedded in residential neighbourhoods ought to qualify, but it seemingly doesn't. And if one uses the most commonly accepted definition in IHL, Israel has a long history of participating in it. Is any of that fair?
Having military installations in residential areas is different than housing soldiers and civilians in the same buildings, using hospitals as bases for military operations and using medical transports remove weapons. It's not even a close comparison.
>Having military installations in residential areas is different than housing soldiers and civilians in the same buildings
It doesn't especially matter how different they are, since Israel's rather arbitrary definition includes both of those behaviours. Just like their definition of 'soldier', which, per their use of administrative detention, includes children as young as 12, and 'base', for which a dozen rifles spread out on a prayer mat often suffices.
It's a bit more complicated: the peace deal Trump got passed through the Security Council did create a board in charge of monitoring some aspects of the Gaza process (I'm not sure on the exact details) so there is a real UN body in the mix.
Then trump seems to have bolted on two or three entirely new and unrelated organisational levels "over" the UN affiliated board and declared himself king of all peacemaking.
There is much that is unclear about how things will work in practice, but the reality is there's a potentially important part of the Gaza deal being held hostage by this board of peace, and that's why the Arabs joined.
Indeed, and a fig leaf does technically provide some amount of coverage.
For an example of how big this accountability is, when 3 of the hostages escaped they were killed by the IDF and that's ok because there was no malice in the act of shooting bare chested unarmed civilians waving a white flag as they approach.
Learning by immersion is still a very different process from learning by being tutored. One is something that young childrens' brains do almost entirely subconsciously, the other is conscious academic work.
pornography is not a profitable industry. even famous participants like 'mia khalifa' only made GBP9.5k (USD 12.8k) lifetime earnings. The average onlyfans has about 21 fans, with an average subscription price of $7.20.
the future of the industry is probably ai slop, personalised ai, and so on
one of the purposes of the porn industry in 00s was money laundering: cash only, large stores with no CCTV, very sparse records, not possible to objectively value why a dvd was being sold for $85
Did you mean "mandatory" parental controls? All current systems are optional and as you describe they are frequently ineffective, so not clear why keeping things like they are would be different.
The current systems are not ineffective because they’re optional, they could be more effective and stay optional.
I also don’t mean “mandatory” as in “the software manufacturer must implement parental controls” like the Colorado bill. There only needs to exist one decent operating system, one decent messaging service, etc. with good parental controls; parents can use those technologies and block the others. Although regulators could pressure specific popular platforms like YouTube, and maybe that would be fine, I think it would be better to incentivize and support add-ons or alternatives (e.g. kid-safe YouTube frontend).
> we didnt have any of these guards in the 90s and early 2000s and everybody turned out just fine
One of the most highly valued tech companies of today makes a software that sometimes talks its user's into killing themselves. Some guy put "uwu notices bulge" on a bullet casing and shot Charlie Kirk: things turned out fine indeed.
reply