Intent is something that will be proved if the any of the war criminals in this conflict (on either side) ever face justice. The relevant authorities have been pretty clear there is adequate evidence of intent to issue arrest warrants.
MSF care less about the label, and more about convicinging the international community to force Isreal into a ceasefire so they can do their job and save lives. It is unsurprising that MSF doesn't discuss intent, since it is the practical actions that concern them here, not the motivation behind them.
Why would they use a very strong label that they don't even have proofs for? All the genocide talk is only about labels. Genocide is something universally acknowledged to be bad, so calling something genocide is a good trick: who would argue for genocide?
> the international community to force Isreal into a ceasefire so they can do their job and save lives.
Well maybe saving hostage lives, that would also be a very strong argument for Israel to withdraw is something they should consider
> Why would they use a very strong label that they don't even have proofs for?
There's plenty of proof of intent which has been addressed by actual international law experts (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_genocide). MSF is not making a legal argument though, they are making a practical one. The practical effects of Israel's action, regardless of intent, look like genocide. From the MSF perspective, intent is irrelevant, it is only the practical situation on the ground that matters. Intent only matters in that it informs how we should go about stopping Israel from engaging in these actions, not whether those actions need to be stopped.
> Well maybe saving hostage lives, that would also be a very strong argument for Israel to withdraw is something they should consider
I don't doubt that it is something that has been considered and if that was something that any Israel's allies could do, they would.
However, saving 65 lives doesn't justify genocide, nor does it make what Israel is doing not genocide.
To be clear, the leaders of Hamas are also genocidal, just much less effective at it. The destruction of Hamas is a reasonable goal but genocide is not an acceptable means to that end.
> What does it mean to "look like genocide regardless of intent" if the intent is the defining feature of the genocide?
This isn't a case where you can say "oh, they didn't mean to, it's all good." It doesn't matter where you place Israel on the spectrum from incompetent, to reckless, to genocidal (and different parts of the government and military will clearly fall in different parts of that spectrum.) The effects of Israel's actions are the same, no matter how you measure their intent.
The report that says "current definition of genocide is too narrow to accuse Israel, so we need a different one"? That's exactly what I'm talking about:
> As outlined below, Amnesty International considers this an overly cramped interpretation of international jurisprudence and one that would effectively preclude a finding of genocide in the context of an armed conflict.
> The effects of Israel's actions are the same, no matter how you measure their intent.
The effect being lowest civilian to combatant death ratio in modern urban warfare? US in Iraq (battle of Mosul is commonly cited) had around 2:1.
You've missed the point entirely. The point is not that you can't recover the codes. The point is that if you are concerned about uploading codes due to the security implications (which most people on here are) then you need to do more than just disabling uploading, you also have to go rotate all the secrets that were uploaded.
I understood the point, thanks. But I'm concerned about the scenario in the article, where someone did a device recovery and got access to the cloud synced auth codes.
I don't particularly like that my codes were apparently synced to Google's cloud without my being aware, or the ux that prevented me from noticing. But I'm pretty confident that, having disabled the cloud sync, Google no longer has my codes
(And in fact I verified this by installing the authenticator on a tablet before turning off sync on my phone. The codes vanished from the tablet.)
In principle, yes I should rotate all the secrets. Because google may have borked their data retention, or is just outright lying and keeping my secrets. In practice, though, for my personal account, I'm content that nothing has been compromised.
> But I'm pretty confident that, having disabled the cloud sync, Google no longer has my codes
Based on just your intuition. Since you don't have access to the backend specs or code, assuming this isn't a responsible security practice. It is a shortcut you can choose to take personally but should never take with any professional credentials.
I'm going to point out that you responded "Not true." instead of adding a caveat about how you personally choose to ignore security best practices for personal accounts.
Every step you make someone who is being socially engineered jumo through, is an extra chance for them to realize what is happening, especially if those steps contain warnings.
> Yes but preventing what we can of it at this stage (which isn't much) will cost as much as a world war and will have huge impact on people's lives.
You seem to have gathered the wrong impression here. Yes, a certain amount of global warming is pretty much locked in, and that levels is high enough that it's gonna cause some pretty big problems. That doesn't mean that continuing to emmit CO2 at current levels for the next several decades won't make things significantly worse.
> Many areas will be fine and some will even improve (eg Siberia and Northern Canada might become a lot more habitable.
This also isn't true. While there are areas that will grow more temperate for growing crops, that doesn't mean those areas will be fine (or have good soil to do so). Sure Alaska might be able to grow more giant vegetables, but could lose a significant part or all of their fisheries and will face more problems with wildfires that it does today. Permafrost melting will destroy infrastructure. These northern ecosystems tend to be pretty fragile and warmer temperatures could cause significant ecological collapse.
There are areas where the impacts will be greater and lesser. There aren't significant areas that will be better off due to climate change.
What you are missing is the context of this phrase. It is almost exclusively used when talking about two entities are already competitors.
Some of your confusion may come because this phrase is intended neither as a statement of fact, nor a course of suggested action. It is instead a rhetorical flourish intended to imply that one company has a subpar product and is using the legal system to make up for that.
I'm partially with you, in that I do see tragedy in these choices. I see tragedy that we lack the cultural and economic institutions to support peope towards the end of life in ways (especially ones that don't make them feel like a burden.)
However, I don't think the solution to that tragedy to to make people suffer through. I think the solution is more and better institutions that reduce that suffering so fewer people are pushed to make the choice to end it.
Forgive me, but your last sentence seems like a platitude. What would such institutions look like, and how might they reduce the suffering of someone with, say, advanced dementia?
I'm not trying to have a go btw - it genuinely seems an intractable problem to me.
I think dementia and euthanasia is already legally and morally very complicated so not sure that is the best example. I do think that dementia often causes problems due to strain on caregivers and cost of outside help. If you have systems of support and resources for these caregivers, then fewer people would be inclined to end their lives to avoid becoming such a huge burden. If you legalize euthanasia and have good frameworks for people to use to determine where their limit is, then people who don't want to become a burden aren't pushed to kill themselves while they still have time.
There are lots of ways we can change systems and institutions to change the choices people make and I see good people working to make that happen.
I guess it is a kind of a platitude. I'm not trying to claim that such changes are easy, simple, fast, or even obvious (though some may be.)
I think the idea is that there are many factors that might motivate somebody's decision that their life is not worth living any longer. Each individual will have a different threshold for that, but if there are institutions that can alleviate the reasons for the people on the fringe, then there will be net fewer people that choose death when they otherwise may have.
Someone with advanced dementia may be too far from that threshold to change the decision for them, but that doesn't mean that better institutions wouldn't move the needle.
> “It seemed doomed almost from the moment they decided to go to a sealed bid,” Judge Lopez said. “Nobody knows what anybody else is bidding,” he added.
So it sounds like the judge specifically had issues with the use of sealed bids.
Debt can absolutely be sold for whatever it is worth. In this case, the Jones' debt owned by the Sandy Hook families is fairly valuable to Jones' other debtors because it means they get a bigger slice of the bankruptcy estate. Thus the Sandy Hook families can offer enough of their Jones' debt in the sale to make it more valuable. (Edit: more complicated than how I explained it because both sets of debtors include Sandy Hook families)
This isn't any more "imaginary" than money itself.
How about we eliminate billionaires while we're at it? To auto-adjust this for inflation, it can be defined as the current cost of 10,000 kg of gold. That's 10 metric tons which is a very generous amount for any individual.
Billionaires exist only because of exploitation of the environment and of other people. I would never be in that position because I would never be exploitative.
No. I don't leave any money in the bank account beyond what I need to pay the bills. This is because money is often stolen from users of bank accounts, and the bank generally refuses to make them whole.
If you invest money in other people's labor expecting a return (stock market, pension, but not crypto or a house), then you are exploitative. You just don't do it yourself, you delegated it.
You're trying to equate capitalism with exploitation, but they're not the same. There is such a thing as fair market compensation. Exploitation exists when people are made to work over 40 hours a week, or they get stifled with bad health insurance, or lack a safe work environment, or otherwise taken advantage of such as with a visa issue. Not every stock investment is exploitative.
Closing the loopholes is like writing a bug-free program. I.e. practically impossible. You can criminalize any exploits though (just like with software and security exploits).
>The Huangs were taking advantage of a precedent set nearly two decades earlier, in 1995, when the I.R.S. blessed a transaction [...]
Regardless of your position on the current tax code, I think most would agree it's a dick move for the government to prosecute someone for something that they previously said was legal.
Maybe, but the American tax system seems unreasonable complicated and trickable with its 'charitable foundations' and 'Donor-advised funds'. I think it's rather defeatist to think it's impossible to make a better and less exploitable system.
Of course, we are now entering the time of open oligarchy, so it probably won't happen soon.
I suspect the US tax system has far more smart people working on generally finding and exploiting its features and other holes and optimizations than your favorite OS or bloated web browser.
Intent is something that will be proved if the any of the war criminals in this conflict (on either side) ever face justice. The relevant authorities have been pretty clear there is adequate evidence of intent to issue arrest warrants.
MSF care less about the label, and more about convicinging the international community to force Isreal into a ceasefire so they can do their job and save lives. It is unsurprising that MSF doesn't discuss intent, since it is the practical actions that concern them here, not the motivation behind them.