If that were the case then they would have written that into their constitution 70 years ago. And they wouldn’t have assasinated their own prime minister 30 years ago.
Heck, the current minister of national security Ben-Gvir was rejecting from mandatory constriction by the IDF, and convicted in an Israeli court of supporting (Jewish) terrorism after being indicted by an Israeli prosecutor.
These are not things that happen in a country that is unified in its goals.
The Israeli government has no idea what it is doing. Literally. The current government was a barely held together coalition prior to October 7. In the direct aftermath, they formed a unity government and war cabinet that collapsed last week.
Their prime minister has been indicated on corruption and bribertmy charges, which are currently on hold for obvious reasons. By most indications his primary motivation in this matter is to stay in power himself, with Israel’s national interests being secondary.
Individual members of IDF leadership have called Israel’s stated objectives “unachievable”.
Israel simultaneously wants to live in peace as a liberal Jewish state without commiting any form of ethnic clensing; and achieve its manifest destiny of establishing a Jewish theocracy across Judea and Samaria.
These are deep questions that get to the core of what Israel is and stands for. Questions that are to be answered by the Israeli constitution in the 50s. That never happened because Israel was never able to agree on a constitution [0].
Right now, Israel is just reacting, without any long term strategic vision. Various factions are trying to use that chaos to advance their own long term vision.
[0] Which led to the big judicial reform constitutional crisis that was a giant political crisis before October.
Only anti-semite would acuse Bibi of lying.
Just ask the Israeli attorney general who, in 2019, indicted him on bribery and fraud charges.
And Israel obviously has the most moral military in the world. Just ask their minister of national security: convicted criminal Itamar Ben-Gvir. Specifically, he has been convicted of supporting a terrorist organization. He also never served in the IDF, because the IDF thought he was too extreme.
None of which are called terrorists by the BBC.
The BBC has a long standing policy against calling people/organizations terrorists.
Their position in this case says nothing about how they view Hamas. The position of those complaining about it says a lot about how they view the role news organizations.
And Israel has been attacking Hezbollah and Hamas.
Iran has been surprisingly restrained in not getting directly involved. However, directly attacking an Iranian embassy forces their hand in a way that retaliating against their proxies does not.
This is not some abstract notion about ethics. It is simply a basic strategic observation. The fact that Iran is attacking Israel directly, is a direct and predictably consequence of an strategic decision that Israel made.
That’s illegally discriminatory.
Under what law? I’m not familiar with Australia, but here the the US, transfolk are just piggybacking off of legal protections against gender discrimination; which were never actually intended to protect trans people.
In most cases, that actually works out fine. If you discriminate against a transwomen, it’s because you think they are a man presenting as a women. However, you have no problem with a women presenting as a women, so you are running afoul of gender discrimination laws. Legally speaking, your problem was discriminating against her for being a man.
In instances like this though, that argument doesn’t apply. Once you get to the “you are discriminating against her for being a man” stage of the analysis, the response is simply “yes, and I’m allowed to discriminate against men”.
It seems like Australia would need to have a law that specifically protects trans people for her to prevail here.
I’m not familiar with Australian law, but how do you get to “discrimination on the basis of gender identity” in this case. Wouldn’t the case for that be a trans man trying to join or stay on the app? (Or a cis man for that matter).
It sounds like Tickle’s position is that the app should be discriminating based on gender identity. Her complaint seems more like them discriminating on (vaguely defined policy ammounting to) assigned gender at birth.
Having said that, I suspect their tune will change if a trans man tried joining.
It is literally the 2 paragraphs that OP quoted in the submission.
I’m one of those security specialists (although not on mastodon). To be clear, if a vulnerable version of libxz were included in a distribution that we actually use; this would be an all hands on deck, drop everything until it is fixed emergency.
Having said that, for an average user, it probably doesn’t matter. First, many users just don’t have the vulnerable version installed. All things considered, it was found very quickly; so only rolling release distros would have it. Additionally, it appears that only .deb or .rpm based distributions would have it. Not because they are particularly vulnerable, the attack explicitly tests for it.
However, lets set all of this asside and assume a typical use is running a vulnerable system. In my assessment, the risk to them is still quite low. With most vulnerabilities, the hard part is discovering it. Once that happens, the barrier to exploiting it is relatively low, so you get a bunch of unrelated hackers trying to exploit any system they can find. This case is different; exploiting it requires the attackers private key. Even though the attack is now widely known, there is still only 1 organization capable of using it.
Further, this attack was sophisticated. I’m not going to go as far as others in saying that only a state actor could do it. However, it is hard to think of anyone other than a state actor who would do it. Maybe a group of college kids doing it for the lolz research? But, if the motivation us lolz, I don’t see them pivoting to do anything damaging with it. And even if they wanted to, there would still only be a handful of them. In short, this is one of those cases where obscurity works. Whoever did this attack does not know or care about Joe the Linux user; and they were probably never going to risk burning it by exploiting it on a large scale.
However, setting all of that asside, suppose you were using vulnerable software, and someone with the private key is interested in your home system. First, you would need to be running OpenSSH on a remotely accessible interface. [0]. Second, you would need your firewall to allow remote SSH traffic. Third, you would need your router to have port forwarding enabled; and explicitly configured to forward traffic to your OpenSSH server [1].
If all of that happens; then yes, you would be at risk.
[0] Even though the attack itself is in the libxz library, it appears to specifically target OpenSSH.
[1] Or, the attacker would need some other mechanism to get on the same network as you.
“Treat others the way you want to be treated”.
The US navy also has the world’s second largest air force. Beaten only by the US air force.
More aid is irrelevant once you have enough aid. And you can get enough aid in through land. More importantly, we have the roads and trucks to get food in today. We have been using the land route to get food into Gaza for years. The problem is that the most powerful military in the region is blocking the land route.
Now, instead of applying pressure on that military, we are going to spend months building a port to go around them.
By itself that makes sense; except that military is our close ally. We are their biggest shield on the international stage, and biggest supplier of weapons and defensive systems. However, instead of trying to leverage any of that to try and solve the actual barriers to aid delivery, we are going to spend months building a water route.
If this approach ends up working, it would not be because water routes are more efficient. It would ve because the US war ships operating the dock exert enough pressure that Isreal would not dare oppose them.
Of course, even success here only gets food into Gaza. It does not address internal distribution. Ideally, we would use established networks for that. However Israel has running a largly successful campaign to dismantle the only aid network that has been operating at scale within Gaza (unrwa)
When there is a severe shortage of food; any food is at risk of being targeted by desperate people. Food is a tier 1 need. It doesn’t matter if the food is being delivered by land or sea. The solution to this is to provide enough food that people know they are not going to starve to death even without resorting to violence to get what food they can
who will balance Israel’s right to self defence against the horrors we’re all looking at
I really hate this framing. Israel’s response has not been in Israel’s self interest. There is approximately 0% chance they will defeat Hamas, and approximately 100% chance they have hardended militant anti-Israel sentiment among Gazans for a generation. Further, they have alienated all of their potential regional allies (just as relations were starting to normalize), which is terrible for their long term security prospects in general; and their ability to resolve the Gaza problem in particular (since an ally that Gazan’s can trust would be incredibly useful).
Further, Hamas is not Israel’s biggest threat by far. They spent years planning an attack that only succeeded because of a massive failure on the part of the IDF; and only lasted for a day before the IDF completely steamrolled them.
As we can see know (and has been obvious from the beginning), Hezbolla in Lebanon is much greater military threat. Prior to the war, they were constrained by their rational self interest of avoiding a full war with Israel. In the beginning of the war, they made some pro-forma attacks, to which Israel offered some pro-forma responses; but things along the Israel Lebanon border were relatively quiet, because neither sude really wanted a war. However, as Israel continued its operation in Gaza, the political pressures in Lebanon grew, forcing an escallation of the conflict their. At this point, excluding the initial attack most of the damage to Israel has come not from Gaza, but Lebanon; and the IDF cannot just steamroll them.
And Israel is still in the “good case” of escalation. The elephant in the room here is Iran. As far as I can tell, Iran is not happy about this level of conflict, and is actively trying to avoid getting drawn in. However, it cannot simply abandon its proxies without massive loss of regional power. Nor can it be seen to abandon Gaza without significant internal political problems. The longer this war goes on, the greater the risk of Iran being fully dragged into it. If that happens, then everything up to this point will look like childs play. Israel will probably survive, but for the first time in decades, that will be brought into question.
None of this is new. This is the exact dynamic that was in play on October 6, when Israel’s actions were fully consistent with being aware of this dynamic. When October 7th happened, it did give Israel a bit more leeway to operate in Gaza; but that has always been limited, and has been long exhausted. Now, the dynamics are effectively the same as on October 6, but Israel is making the other decision of actively poking the bear of a regional war insted of simply tiptoeing around it as they had been doing. And Israel’s security suffers greatly for it.
Boing makes the plane. If they choose to contract out portions, they are responsible for managing the subcontractors; which includes quality control.
But having the US navy run it might. Essentially, it becomes a question of who blinks first. Humanitarian organizations run away scared when the regional power starts dropping bombs and shhoting at them; and Israel knows it.
Picking a fight wirh the US military is a much bigger deal. This is why the US response to conflicts is often just “send in an aircraft carrier to float around near the issue”
The big ship stays in the water, and is used to supply smaller water craft that can ferry them directly to the coast; either by using smaller existing docks, or by simplying beaching on the cost. Unless we are saying that the US military lacks the ability to do a water based ground attack unless the enemy kindly leaves a port for them to use.
What more do you want him to do? Politics moves on the margins, and Sanders is now and for as long as I can remember been one of the most Israel critical politicians both in terms of rhetoric and voting history. He is not a king; he is 1% of 1 chamber of the legislative branch of a country that has a lot of issues to deal with.
Coming around? When was he on the wrong side of this issue?
His October 10 statement includes:
Right now, the international community must focus on reducing humanitarian suffering and protecting innocent people on both sides of this conflict. The targeting of civilians is a war crime, no matter who does it. Israel’s blanket denial of food, water, and other necessities to Gaza is a serious violation of international law and will do nothing but harm innocent civilians. The United States has rightly offered solidarity and support to Israel in responding to Hamas’ attack. But we must also insist on restraint from Israeli forces attacking Gaza and work to secure UN humanitarian access. Let us not forget that half of the two million people in Gaza are children. Children and innocent people do not deserve to be punished for the acts of Hamas.
October 10. 3 days after the initial attack.
Back in January he tried conditioning aid to Israel and requiring the state department to issue human rights report on their conducts.
At a $188 price point. An addition 4GB of memory would probably add ~$10 to the cost, which is over a 5% increase. However, that is not the only component they cheaped out on. The linked unit also only has 64GB of storage, which they should probably increase to have a usable system …
And soon you find that you just reinvented a mid-market device instead of the low-market device you were trying to sell.
4GB of ram is still plenty to have a functioning computer. It will not be as capable of a more powerful computer, but that comes with the territory of buying the low cost version of a product.