CapeWearingAeroplane

It's true that a lot of peoples (maybe most?) today live in a place which they took by force from someone else, though you don't have to look far to find areas that are still inhabited by the first people that arrived there. Still, for a fair comparison you need to separate between those that took areas by force either from necessity (e.g. they were displaced themselves) or otherwise before any kind of international regulation existed.

You cannot compare a tribe or small kingdom taking land by force 2000 years ago to a modern state annexing land, just like you cannot compare the sacking of a city 1000 years ago to a modern genocide. The world has changed.

No I didn't mix it up, I included the Amish, could have included Romani, and specified that I was talking about geographically dispersed ethnicities in general.

Yes, some Jewish people have ties to what is Israel today, and no it really doesn't open a can of worms. I was very clear that displacing any group of people is wrong: Hence, the state of Israel should never have been created, but now that it exists, we need to figure out a solution that doesn't involve displacing any more people.

To answer the "how far back" etc: Quite simply put, everyone today (sans a couple hundred thousand stateless Palestinian refugees, and a few others) have some citizenship and live on some land. Nobody has the right to displace others to claim that they have "more" of a right to that land. Thus: If you have ties to some land, and someone else lives there, you're shit outta luck unless they want to negotiate with you. If, like the Kurds, your living in the place you have ties to, but don't have your own state, you have a decent case.

It really isn't that complicated: Don't displace/murder people. Two wrongs don't make a right.

The way I understand this, the issue is that without reading it they cannot verify that it doesn't contain sensitive information, so they can't give it out. That sounds like a reasonable explanation to me.

Exactly: I am antizionist because Jews getting a place of their own implicitly means that some other group, which currently has that place, must be displaced.

Saying that Jews should have a place of their own is not comparable to saying that Italians should have a place of their own, because being Italian is tied to having hereditary ties to the place that is Italy, whereas being a Jew has no tie to a specific piece of land. It is rather comparable to saying that Christians, Muslims, the Amish, or some other group of people that are dispersed and unified by beliefs not tied to a place should have their own place, and that if such a place does not exist it is legitimate to displace others to establish it.

I firmly believe that Israel should never have been created. As do many Jews (often ultra orthodox ones). However, I recognise the reality on the ground, that the state now exists and that many of those that moved there have now lived there for up to several generations. I do not believe that two wrongs make a right, and as such, I'm not a proponent of dissolving the state of Israel and displacing the Jews that now live there to make room for those displaced following 1948. However, I do believe that the displaced Palestinians should be allowed to return and have equal rights within the now existing state of Israel.

It honestly feels like we somehow have to take back the (very loaded) word "antisemitism", as Israel and its supporters seem intent on making it mean "anything the Israeli government disagrees with".

I'm not an antisemite, and have no hate whatsoever for anyone because of theirs religious beliefs or where they come from. My views are antizionist and antigenocide. Which are strictly political views, not tied to any specific demographic of people.

The issue with online voting, no matter what you do, is that someone can force you under threat of violence to vote for a specific candidate, and watch to make sure you do it. Complete privacy in the voting booth is paramount to ensuring that everyone can vote freely.

Very dense, yes, but stuff can be very dense and have low viscosity at the same time. Lava has a viscosity similar to peanut butter is what I've heard. You can push stuff down into it, it just requires some force to prevent the stuff from floating back to the top.

You could in principle walk on lava, either by moving quickly enough that you stay on top, or by protecting your legs enough that you could sink in maybe around knee deep where you would float.

I'll be completely honest: I was on board the hype train. I thought it was awesome that someone was investing in EV's and pushing them into the market. Hell, I was even fooled by the whole hyperloop thing...

I'm glad it's not too late to admit that I was terribly wrong about the guy.

At the same time, I don't blame those that were fooled back then, and I most definitely don't blame anyone for having bought a Tesla and keeping it even though the guy turned out to be who he is. Some years ago he honestly looked like he was trying to do a lot of good, at least for those of us that didn't look very closely.

-Wfatal-errors is my friend

I see a lot of strange takes around here, and honestly cannot understand where you are coming from. Like really: I've written several 100+ page documents with everything from basic tables, figures and equations, to various custom-formatted environments and programmatically generated sections, and I've never encountered even a third of these formatting issues people are talking about.

You literally just \documentclass[whatever]{my doc type}, \usepackage{stuff} and fire away. To be honest, I've seen some absolutely horrifying preambles and unnecessary style sheets, and feel the need to ask: How are you people making latex so hard?

Honest question: Are there no limits in the US to what you can legally name your child? Where I'm from a name can be rejected if it can "cause significant harm or inconvenience to the child". This prevents idiots from naming their child "Traitor" or "Terrorist".

Software is a tool. I develop stuff that i know is of interest to companies working with everything from nuclear energy to hydrogen electrolysis and CO2 storage. I honestly believe I can make a positive contribution to the world by releasing that software under a permissive licence such that companies can freely integrate it into their proprietary production code.

I'm also very aware that the exact same software is of interest to the petroleum industry and weapons manufacturers, and that I enable them by releasing it under a permissive licence.

The way I see it, withholding a tool that can help do a lot of good because it can also be used for bad things just doesn't make much sense. If everybody thinks that way, how can we have positive progress? I don't think I can think of any more or less fundamental technology that can't be used for both. The same chemical process that has saved millions from starvation by introducing synthetic fertiliser has taken millions of lives by creating more and better explosives. If you ask those that were bombed, they would probably say they wish it was never invented, while if you ask those that were saved from the brink of starvation they likely praise the heavens for the technology. Today, that same chemical process is a promising candidate for developing zero-emission shipping.

I guess my point is this: For any sufficiently fundamental technology, it is impossible to foresee the uses it may have in the future. Withholding it because it may cause bad stuff is just holding technological development back, lively preventing just as much good as bad. I choose to focus on the positive impact my work can have.