> There is no Judaic Daesh, for example, and none of the well-documented atrocities of the IDF come close.
Ideologically there is an argument to be had that the most extreme versions of Zionism (e.g. Kahanism) is just as bad as the fundamentalist (and racist) ideology of ISIS. Behaviorally the IDF is far worse then ISIS ever had a chance to be. The total number of atrocities, the impunity of their actions, the systematic nature of them, the backing of the entire state apparatus behind those atrocities, the number of victims, and the concentrated location of those victims makes the IDF far far worse.
Of course it is very silly to compare atrocities, one should try not to do that, as one set of victims deserve justice just as equally as any other set of victims.
I never understood why the visually hidden has not been incorporated into the CSS standard proper (something like display: visually-none). Instead the standard is effectively recommending authors use a hack to do what is a very common pattern.
It's a hack either way. Screen readers really should support the title attribute like they do for image links; or maybe HTML should have had an alt attribute for <a href> as well.
When using a mouse pointer, you also want that information as a tooltip.
I think this is the solution to the Fermi paradox, that space is simply too big for civilizations across the galaxy too discover each other, let alone interact with each other.
Further more I don't think technologically advanced civilizations will be wasting their time and resources in colonizing new works, space is simply too big for that. And that they would conduct their explorations with telescopes, not probes, space is simply too big for probes.
It is already called ECMAScript; they do not need to change it. It is also called JavaScript. (I don't know if there is trademark issues with ECMA too though)
However, the name "JavaScript" (and "ECMAScript") is in use enough anyways (like is described in the article), so Oracle shouldn't properly restrict others to use it in this way.
Unlikely. There are both economical and moral reasons to never build a self replicating robotic fleet of probes. I think a sufficiently advanced civilization will always prefer telescopes over probes for anything more distant then the nearest couple of solar systems.
Just to ring the point home, we are technically (but not yet economically) capable of creating small telescopes which use our sun as a gravitational lens, which would be able to take photographs of exoplanets. In the far future we could potentially build very large telescopes which can do the same and see very distant objects with a fine resolution. That would be a much better investment then to send out self replicating robotic probes.
"There are both economical and moral reasons to never build a self replicating robotic fleet of probes."
Such as?
" I think a sufficiently advanced civilization will always prefer telescopes over probes for anything more distant then the nearest couple of solar systems."
What part of "immortal" don't you understand? traveling at 1% of c doesn't feel slow if you just turn off or slow down your brain during the trip.
I would expect that the probe makers would want some benefits from the fleet of probes they sent, the only benefit I can think of to be had are information about far away objects, which is of scientific value. The probe’s makers will therefor have to keep contact with an ever expanding fleet of probes and sift through an exponentially increasing amount of information for millions of years. This just does not seem practical when you can just build a telescope. Now time may not pass that slowly from the perspective of the probe, but for the civilization on the homeworld, this method is painfully slow. They could have built thousands or millions of telescopes during that time to gather the same information (albeit of lower quality). Which is why you would probably want to probe your nearest neighboring solar systems, but nothing farther.
As for the moral reasons to not send out a fleet of self replicating probes. These are an extreme pollution hazard. An ever expanding fleet of robots traveling across the galaxy over millions of years, growing in numbers exponentially, exploiting resources in foreign worlds, with nothing to stop them if something happens to their makers. Over millions of years these things would be everywhere, and—in the best case—be a huge nuisance, but at worse they would be a risk to the public safety of the worlds they travel to. With these risks I believe a sufficiently advanced civilization would just build telescopes for their exploration needs.
You don't understand. The "probes" WOULD BE the creators. Biological life is far too fragile to survive interstellar travel but AI running on much more durable hardware makes it downright easy.
And they wouldn't have to be inherently self-replicating.
When you can live millions of years your idea of what is "slow" changes pretty drastically.
Also a Japanese learner here—albeit a beginner. As I understand it, the pitch accent is about stress, languages can stress a syllable with length, volume, pitch, etc. Spanish uses vowel length, Icelandic uses volume, English uses a combination of length and volume, and Swedish (just like Japanese) uses pitch. Just like in English if you put the wrong stress on the word it can range anything from sounding foreign to being incomprehensible. (Aside: I always remember trying to say the name of the band Duran Duran to an English speaker, while putting the stress on the first syllable like is normal in Icelandic, but my listener had no idea what I was saying, it took probably 30 attempts before I was corrected with the correct stress).
I think Japanese is somewhat special though for a large number of homonyms (i.e. words that are spelled the same) so speaking with the correct pitch becomes somewhat more important.
Somewhat more important, but as someone with decent Japanese who knows about pitch accent but can barely hear the difference in real time, and never actively learned it except for the few well known examples like bridge/chopstick, I don't think it matters all that much. Yes, you'll sound foreign. But you'll be understood nevertheless, in the vast majority of cases.
Here's the problem: pitch accent is easy to hear in isolation and/or in comparison. Under real life conditions, in the middle of a sentence, it's a completely different experience. But then you're saved by context. Because candy is most likely not falling from the sky. Homophones that are still ambiguous in context are possible, but a rare occurrence in my experience.
I tried a 20 minute conversation, as a beginner Japanese learner (mid-to-high A1).
My first problem was setting my native language truthfully to Icelandic which seemed to confuse both me and the AI tutor. We spoke together in Japanese but asking how to say a word in Japanese but giving the Icelandic word didn’t quite work, giving the word in English worked much better.
Now as a beginner I don’t think this service is right for me. It is very hard to have a conversation—even a basic one—at my level and I didn’t actually learn that much as I wasn’t able to say anything. I did however learn that I need to practice creating sentences on my own, and I need to practice speaking, but honestly I would much rather do that via structured exercises from a textbook then from an AI tutor (or a human tutor for that matter). I have been skipping those exercises in the textbook that I use, so I guess having that 20 min conversation did indeed help me realize what I need to focus on. So I guess thanks for that.
A more useful feedback from a beginner’s perspective. Taking your time between sentences is something you can do with an AI tutor which you can‘t do with a human tutor, so I recommend you add stuff like dictionaries and grammar keys which beginners can look up before starting the next sentence.
I would also like to see some basic note-taking, or even message drafting, such that you can type in a draft before you start speaking your next sentence. I don’t think intermediate speakers would need these as they can just ask the AI tutor during the conversation, but for beginners it is nice to have some written materials as you practice.
A Japanese learner here (not commenting on this platform). I do recommend start using your target language script as soon as possible, maybe even earlier. The only exception are ideograms where you have to learn like 2000 unique characters, and even then you should learn the most common ones and start using them immediately.
Reading in a non-familiar script becomes much easier the more you do it, and the longer you put off learning it, the more opportunities you miss for using it.
I think you should only be using the latinized scripts in the absolute beginning where you are learning the most basic words and phrases like: “hello”, “yes”, and “no”, and “what is your name?”. This should only be for your first couple of weeks. After that you should have learned to read new words in the new script (albeit slowly). Learning the script makes everything much easier afterwards.
A lot of Palestinian activists do support the Land back movement in the USA. I‘m curious if you do? Or if you support indigenous rights in general (with the exception of Palestinians)?
I‘m also curious why you seem so fixated on the Arab conquest of the region in the 7th century, but not the Roman occupation 6 centuries earlier, or the Ottoman conquest 8 centuries later (or the British occupation later still)? Especially since the Roman occupation was far more brutal and left a much greater wound in Jewish history than any of the later conquests and occupations of the region.
For clarification, in 136 CE Hadrian banned Jews (as well as Christians) from living in Jerusalem after having ethnically cleansed the city of Jewish presence. Neither the Arabs nor the Ottomans did that. This was reversed a couple of centuries later. Ironically, the city remained unsegregated (where Jews, Christians, and Muslims were all allowed to live in the city and practice their respective religion) all the way until Israel conquered half the city in 1948, and occupied the other half of it in 1967, where it now excludes any Palestinian presence, be they Christian or Muslim.
Joran ethnically cleansed all Jews from East Jerusalem and West Bank. And then annexed it.
With regards "unsegregated": " For example, in public baths in Jerusalem, where all residents are allowed to go, Jews must continue to be distinguished from Muslims. In everyday life, the Jew must wear a yellow turban. Removing it or wearing any other color is interpreted as an attempt to pass oneself off as a Muslim. Jewish women must wear a yellow garment or piece of cloth to distinguish themselves from Muslim women. The nudity of public baths meant that another distinctive sign was required: any Jew entering the baths had to carry a bell to signal his arrival." aka "the day to day live of dhimmi"
Also, you make it sound like there are no Palestinians in Jerusalem. Wikipedia helpfully states: " In 2022, Jerusalem had a population of some 971,800 residents, of which almost 60% were Jews and almost 40% Palestinians.[14][note 4] In 2020, the population was 951,100, of which Jews comprised 570,100 (59.9%), Muslims 353,800 (37.2%), Christians 16,300 (1.7%), and 10,800 unclassified (1.1%)."
Sorry, I misspoke in my posting. I was gonna say zones which exclude Palestinians, i.e. the city is now segregated as a result of the Israeli occupation and illegal annexation of the city.
The segregation of 1948 was a direct result of Israels unilateral declaration of independence. So I think we can say that the city was unsegregated from the fourth century, throughout the Arab and the Ottoman conquest, all the way up to the formation of Israel, at which point the city became segregated again for the first time since the Roman period.
Just to clarify: I’m not a fan of segregation, it was not OK when Jordan did it, it was very bad that the Romans did it. And it is even worse that Israel is still doing it.
If you said this about black people in the USA it would correctly be marked as extremely racist.
Saying this about Palestinians is also very racist, participatory since there are people on this very thread flat out denying the existence of Palestinians (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44259547).
I didn’t accuse you of denying the existence of Palestinans, I merely pointed out there are other people on this thread that do. Your rhetoric about the displacement of Palestinians as if there is only some free-market/free-choice dynamic at play, but not a systematic exclusion of Palestinians from certain parts of the city lends it self well with the people on this threat that go even further then you in their racist beliefs.
> Also Mosab Hassan Yousef famously denies existence of Palestinians. Is he racist as well?
Yes.
Regarding Zuheir Mohsen there is a difference when you deny your ethnicity in solidarity with your neighbors with a common cause, then when you deny the existence of an indigenous population who are suffering at the hands of an oppressive settler colonial power. Zuheir Mohsen is doing the former while Mosab Hassan Yousef is doing the latter. Only the latter is racist.
i had no rhetoric on displacement of Palestinians. On the other side you repeatedly ignore that segregation of Jerusalem and ethnic cleansing of Jews from there and entire west bank was result of Jordanian aggression.
There is no systemic exclusion of palestinians from certain parts of the city. Your proofs are random real-estate articles about new neighborhoods been build.
>Regarding Zuheir Mohsen there is a difference when you deny your ethnicity in solidarity with your neighbors with a common cause,
You should revisit the quote. he doesn't deny it in solidarity. He says that it was invented: "The Palestinian people does not exist … there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians, and Lebanese. Between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese there are no differences. We are all part of one people, the Arab nation [...] Just for political reasons we carefully underwrite our Palestinian identity. Because it is of national interest for the Arabs to advocate the existence of Palestinians to balance Zionism. Yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian identity exists only for tactical reasons[...] Once we have acquired all our rights in all of Palestine, we must not delay for a moment the reunification of Jordan and Palestine".
You also seems not to be familiar with Mosam Hassan Yousef. I'll suggest you to find some of his talks where he describes west bank in 80s and how things rolled from there.
To be honest, I find your rhetoric borderline racist, both towards jewish refugees that exercised their right of return and self determination and towards palestinians whom you deny any agency (you literally called palestinian racist towards palestinians, because you think that you understand local matters better) and touching base with blood libels
Israeli Arabs and Druze are allowed into Jerusalem. It’s just not people from a specific territory with the history of causing violence towards Israelis.
Ramat Eshkol was established as a Jewish neighborhood soon after the 1967 occupation. It is one of 9 inner settlements in East Jerusalem where Palestinians are not allowed.
These “just not people from a specific territory” are Palestinians who are Christian or Muslim, because of their ethnicity, regardless of criminal history. This is segregation.
You know that doesn’t happen, and you know why. Israel has extreme racial discrimination, and the settlers that live in these neighborhoods are the some of the worst case of racial sectarian violence.
There are around 220,000 Jewish Israeli Settlers living in East Jerusalem, how many non-jewish Israelis do you think live in these neighborhoods? I tried to search for the number but couldn’t. I would be surprised if it is more then a 1000.
Whether this reality is because of policy or not is not what I am debating (although the answer seems kind of obvious; unless you dispute Israel’s apartheid policies). The reality is that Jerusalem is currently a segregated city.
I feel like you are trying to catch me in a contradiction. You may very well success (if you haven’t already) I am not good at debating. All I am trying to say is that Jerusalem is a segregated city now, like it was during the Roman period, but unlike during the Arab or the Ottoman rule.
> Both Ramat Eshkol and East Jerusalem more broadly are majority Arab.
East Jerusalem is yes. But there are inner settlements which exclude a certain ethnicity, which makes the city segregated.
Where did you get the information that Ramat Eshkol was majority Arab? I tried to search online and all I saw was the fact that it was a Jewish Neighborhood (a funny way to describe an illegal settlement).
> A lot of Palestinian activists do support the Land back movement in the USA. I‘m curious if you do?
No. I wouldn’t want to send the arabs back to the arabian peninsula, or get that land my family had in Ireland back from the British either. But history is history. Jews were there 1600 years before arab colonisation.
> I‘m also curious why you seem so fixated on the Arab conquest
I’m not focused on the arab conquest, happy to talk about BGRBACOB rather than just A but people are discussing Palestinians (who before the 1960s referred to themselves as Arabs).
I’m not sure if you’re unaware of the concepts of Dhimmis and Jizya or the violence against Jews from Arabs in the early 20th century, which prompted the partition of British Palestine into one Jewish and two Arab states. Jewish people living as second class citizens under the Arabs was not a viable option.
Allowing Israelis and foreigners of all nations and religions to visit Jerusalem, yet not allowing Palestinians to enter Israel makes sense given security issues, I’m sure you would do the same.
Again though, HN isn’t a politics chat and we’re all about to be warned by Dan G or the new person to stop this conversation so I’m probably not going to participate.
As I understand it (I‘m not a cosmologist by any means), saying that the observable universe began at big bang simply means that anything that happened before the big bang has no effect on what happens afterwards.
There may be other universes out there, with their own big bangs, but that has no effect on ours.
Reading this article, I think they are simply disputing the necessity of singularity inside a black hole, and hypothesize a universe which expands from non-singularity black hole, while staying inside its own event-horizon.
That is how I understood it at least, somebody please correct me if I misunderstood it.
Ideologically there is an argument to be had that the most extreme versions of Zionism (e.g. Kahanism) is just as bad as the fundamentalist (and racist) ideology of ISIS. Behaviorally the IDF is far worse then ISIS ever had a chance to be. The total number of atrocities, the impunity of their actions, the systematic nature of them, the backing of the entire state apparatus behind those atrocities, the number of victims, and the concentrated location of those victims makes the IDF far far worse.
Of course it is very silly to compare atrocities, one should try not to do that, as one set of victims deserve justice just as equally as any other set of victims.
reply