Sorry, i dont want to be rude, but do you actually have any arguments other than gesturing at the article & giving both-sides-isms?

Hamas has committed war crimes, yes, however it shouldn’t be ignored that Israel is currently engaged in terrorism, genocide, land grabs, torture of prisoners and more. Simply saying “both sides bad” lays the blame more evenly than it should be laid.

The article also mentions that Israel has started using it in their own propaganda videos. showing the triangle over targets as they’re hit, and when you flip it like that there’s a very clear implication of destroying the symbol of freedom… Which is to say, I still fail to see your ultimate point. You’re just pointing at the news article and saying “SEE! THEY SAY ITS BAD!”

Could you provide some actual argumentation to go with that?

And just so it doesnt seem like I’m running, “Targeting reticle” would imply a weapon optic or similar, hence my confusion. “using it to mark targets” would have been clearer.

Asking you what you mean by calling the triangle a “targeting reticle” absolutely does not mean I don’t know the topic at hand, its me asking you to clarify your argumentation.

What is this even in reference to? Do you care to elaborate on the propaganda you’re trying to spew, or are you just expecting me to know the same talking points as you?

Now I might just be too stupid to understand what I’m displaying, but last I checked, the red triangle has been a symbol of pro-Palestinian support since the Palestinian Revolt in uhhhh… 1938. It’s possible Hamas might have co-opted it, but then you might as well ban the Palestinian flag as well since that’s the source of the triangle, and it has also existed since 1917, I’m failing to follow how this is a symbol of Hamas

Yes and at the end of the day it’s all just binary getting dumped into a cache and processed by the CPU. The point is that the intent of the file matters and while they do both hold text, the intent, purpose, and handling of the kernel mode/ring 0 driver is much different than a “simple text file”

So different in fact, that as another user pointed out, it has happened to Linux too

Calling a kernel mode driver a “simple text file” sure is interesting

Not to jump at you in another comment thread, but any OS that is deployed in a business environment should have some form of endpoint protection installed unless it is fully airgapped + isolated.

Despite the myth that “Linux doesn’t get malware”, it absolutely does and should have protection installed. Even if the OS itself was immune to infection, any possible update can introduce a vulnerability to that.

Additionally, again, even if the OS (or kernel in the case of linux) couldn’t be infected or attacked, the packages or services installed can be attacked, infected, or otherwise messed with and should be protected.

I’m not sure if you intended to reply to me, but I am aware of this. Thanks for checking my understanding though :)

I see you’re operating on a plane of reality where windows is the only bad software, so it’s kinda pointless for me to continue here. I hope you have a wonderful day.

Y’know, I’m pretty deep in the FLOSS brainrot, but as someone who: A. Daily drives Fedora and Debian B. Works for an MSP and deals with Windows daily

Most companies cannot afford the productivity, monetary, or labour hour investment that is involved with changing to a whole new OS and re-training all of the workforce. Thats even if you ignore that switching to Linux generally also involves changing some percentage of programs that are used for business critical processes.

I love Linux, but it’s not meant for every situation

Is your point “Linux and Mac dont get viruses or targeted for cyberattacks”?

Or is it “This wouldn’t have broken on a different operating system”?

This was very much not caused by windows

You know what, you’re right. Looks like I’ve gone too long assuming they were interchangeably usable by changing the surrounding words.

I’ll redact my previous statement, though to be clear, I still strongly disagree that one could say that the attackers schizophrenia was definitely a factor in this without having a previously existing mental evaluation and the expertise to understand it. You could say that it’s more likely to have been influenced by his schizophrenia, but as I previously noted, a relatively small minority of schizophrenic people are violent (10-15%).

You don’t need to be a psychologist to determine whether his mental illness was a factor.

I’m not saying his mental illness was the reason.

Please continue saying more contradictory statements.

If you think it could be a factor, then you think it might be a reason that he did this. It could be a factor, but again, neither of us are equipped to evaluate the mental status of someone based on news articles.

Edit: Factor =/= Reason. My argument in this message is flatly incorrect due to this, though I’ll leave it up.

Please don’t tell me to stop and breathe, I’m fully calm in this discussion.

My argument is that no one in this thread is a psychologist who has evaluated the schizophrenic person. Not you, not me, not anyone else. We can speculate as to the cause, but making prescriptive statements like “he did this because he has schizophrenia” only serve to stigmatize the condition further when we truly have no idea if that was the cause.

A person who is mentally ill and has done violent things, doesn’t mean they did those violent things because of their illness.

In fact, your “common sense” isn’t even supported by science.

• Only 10-15% of schizophrenic people exhibit violent tendencies

• Schizophrenic people living in communities are up to 14x more likely to be the victim of violence rather than the perpetrator

• Finally, this is anecdotal, but for whatever it’s worth, I have multiple (3) friends who are schizophrenic and they are genuinely the kindest people I know, whether or not they are on their medication.

Stop vilifying the mentally ill.

He’s had some incorrect stances, but on average, Chomsky is extremely based, actually.

Could you explain what part of it doesn’t make sense to you? (Or what part you disagree with) Maybe one of us can clarify better if we start there

Trans woman = woman, I fail to see your point.