The article says:

Eyewitnesses tell Asharq that beside the disguised troops, other special forces snuck into the Nuseirat camp inside an aid truck. The IDF has denied using humanitarian transports for the operation.

From the link you posted, it seems this would still be a war crime if it’s true, unless I’m misinterpreting the text:

Ruses of war are permitted. Warships and auxiliary vessels, however, are prohibited from launching an attack whilst flying a false flag and at all times from actively simulating the status of protected vessels such as hospitals ships, small coastal rescue craft or medical transports.

I assume the aid truck they were using would qualify as an “auxiliary vessel”, and they were using it to impersonate “medical transport”.

It wouldn’t be you, it would just be another person with the same memories that you had up until the point the copy was made.

When you transfer a file, for example, all you are really doing is sending a message telling the other machine what bits the file is made up of, and then that other machines creates a file that is just like the original - a copy, while the original still remains in the first machine. Nothing is even actually transferred.

If we apply this logic to consciousness, then to “transfer” your brain to a machine you will have to make a copy, which exist simultaneously with the original you. At that point in time, there will be two different instances of “you”; and in fact, from that point forward, the two instances will begin to create different memories and experience different things, thereby becoming two different identities.

They’re saying that the image should say :

who writes code without chatgpt

instead of :

that writes code without chatgpt

All those are fine suggestions, but a “free with ads” option isn’t that bad either; the real problem isn’t the ads themselves. The real problem is how intrusive the ads are, how many of them there are, as well as much information they (and YouTube) collect on you. Plus, in this case, the company in question isn’t exactly a small company who is financially struggling. It’s the classic capitalist problem of “infinite growth”, where your profits have to be constantly increasing.

But there’s nothing inherently wrong about the idea of having ads, just like there’s nothing inherently wrong about youtubers having sponsors.

Some sites won’t work properly with LibreWolf (which is typically when I switch to Firefox), and sometimes LibreWolf has to explicitly ask for my permission before doing certain things on certain sites - which is something I like, but it’s also why I wouldn’t recommend it to an average Joe like my dad, for example.

I already wrote in another comment, but since you’re asking here, I’ll add i to this thread:

You probably shouldn’t use Brave over Firefox (and it’s forks), at least not as a primary browser, but it’s a great out of the box plug and play browser for average people, most of which are probably currently using chrome with no ad block.

If the average user was decently tech literate, companies wouldn’t buy ads any more, because they wouldn’t make anything off of them, since people don’t watch; but obviously they do.

The average person doesn’t want to have to install an ad-blocker - hell, the average person probably has no real idea of what an ad-blocker even is - and they don’t want to bother configuring anything either. They just want plug and play applications that will do everything they need. And for that, Brave is probably the best. E.g. if a family member called me asking for a browser recommendation, I’d probably just tell them to install Brave. I think I’ll keep doing that until I see a better plug and play browser.

Not really.

The problem with this is that you imagine “the average user” as still being decently tech literate. They’re not. If they did, companies wouldn’t buy ads any more, because they wouldn’t make anything off of them, since people don’t watch; but obviously they do.

The average person doesn’t want to have to install an ad-blocker - hell, the average person probably has no real idea of what an ad-blocker even is - and they don’t want to bother configuring anything either. They just want plug and play applications that will do everything they need. And for that, Brave is probably the best. E.g. if a family member called me asking for a browser recommendation, I’d probably just tell them to install Brave; and I think I’ll keep doing that until I see a better plug and play browser.

P.S: I use LibreWolf and Firefox.

He created JavaScript?!?!

I can excuse controversial right-wing views and homophobia, but I draw the line at creating JavaScript!

I do agree I am matching with the wrong kind of women, I just don’t know what to change haha.

My swiping criteria are basically the same as yours; however, instead of seeing a lot of copy paste jokes, I see a lot of profiles that are just an Instagram handle. I’d say easily over 3/4 of profiles I see are empty, and a lot of the others only have an Instagram handle.

I’ve had good matches and conversations before, and the women I meet outside dating apps are a lot better to talk to, so I know it’s just bad luck; but knowing that doesn’t stop it being frustrating after several matches in a row where I have to carry the conversation, and that’s after swiping through hundreds of empty or bad profiles between each.

So after a while of all that, I decided to take a break. Maybe when/if I return, I’ll have a new look at my profile, see if anything can be improved or if there’s something that’s giving a wrong idea.

Maybe it’s just my experience, but this just does not work. Maybe it’s because I’m asking “get to know you questions” and perhaps those should be reserved for dates; but the one time I decided to start by arranging a date, I got the answer “I would prefer if we got to know each other better here first” - which I agree with, by the way. So I do end up asking “get to know you questions”, but the women I’ve matched with don’t even try to put effort into the conversation.

To demonstrate what I mean by that, here’s a fictional representation of an actual conversation I’ve had (the content is fictional, but the structure and tone is real):

in her profile, she says she likes movies, so maybe I’ll ask about that

Me: Hey! So, what was the last movie you watched?

Her: Oppenheimer

Me: Cool, I went to see it last week! What did you think of it?

Her: It’s good

ffs, it’s always like this. fuck it, instead of asking another question, I’ll just answer my own question and make force her to come up with something to say

Me: [Give some of my thoughts on the movie]

Her: Ok

I never replied to her “Ok”, and she never said anything else. Most conversations follow along the same lines: me asking questions and getting the shortest answer back with no question turned my way.

This might make me sound horrible, but I had to stop using dating apps because it was beginning to give me a horrible view of women.

To everyone who is against this, and call the people supporting it “disgusting”:

Here is a post on Beehaw about climate activists who spray-painted a yacht. Posted about 10 days ago but only has 68 upvotes, and 15 comments at this time; meanwhile this post sits at 182 votes and 151 comments just 1 day after. Off course, you could argue it’s because c/environment isn’t as big as c/news; although that could be said to be a demonstration of the problem itself. But the real questions are: why did it not spread further, and why did you almost certainly not hear about it?

Because no one gives a shit about that. It raises no eyebrows. Because it’s meaningless and doesn’t really inconvenience anyone. She probably just had her yacht cleaned, and it never bothered her for more than the 5 seconds she was made aware of the spray paint. It’s not going to stop any other rich people from buying yachts, and it’s not going to raise the awareness of the average person and cause them to reduce their consumption either. In the end, it accomplished absolutely nothing.

Climate activists have been trying peaceful protests for 50 years, do you need a reminder of how bad things are getting?

And before the arguments about how this affects “working class” people, but all of it is really the billionaire’s and companies fault and that governments need to act: What do companies stand to gain from ruining the planet? Money, which the people give to them while offering each other excuses to consume. What could a government do to stop it? Well, they could introduce carbon taxes, stop subsidizing meat, and invest in more bike lanes and public transport; which would all result in higher gas prices, higher prices for anything made of plastic (among other goods), more expensive energy, much more expensive meat, a lot more bike lanes with smaller roads, and more public transport. Are these all things you’re okay with? If yes, then there’s no reason to not get “ahead” (although we’re far behind) of the problem and start organizing; and if no… well, then you might have stumbled into the problem.

Finally, here is a picture from two posts on c/news that I think illustrates the problem quite well.