Kleinbonum

The law should still apply equally to every company, shouldn't it?

You're spelling out how they're acting like a neutral party here.

Qatar is knowingly and willingly hosting the leadership of a terrorist organization that mass murders innocent civilians - both Israelis and Palestinians. Hamas leaders live in luxury in Qatar, they have billions of dollars stashed away.

That makes Qatar about as "neutral" about Hamas as the Taliban were "neutral" about al Qaeda.

It's a destitute open air prison. Come on now.

You act like I'm debating that, or like I'm taking sides.

I'm not.

I'm just pointing out that a totalitarian regime - a regime that tolerates no dissent, that enforces strict religious laws, that suppresses women, that has the death penalty for homosexuality, that openly uses slave labor - isn't some kind of neutral party if it has a vested interest in Gaza and has been openly supporting Hamas for decades.

I don't blindly trust their reporting.

That's all I'm asking for.

The hostage deal was negotiated by Qatar, the Hamas leadership is living in luxury in Qatar, Qatar is seeking to gain more influence in the future of Gaza.

Is this really the right moment to blindly trust the Qatar state owned news source with its reporting about a Qatar negotiated deal related to a conflict that Qatar has a vested interest in?

Point being that installing Chrome isn't the "trouble" you're making it out to be, when switching to Edge comes with zero advantage.

But you weren't asking an open ended question anyway, right?

Conversely, if they're both evil, why use Microsoft over Google?

People have their browser set up the way they want it, and downloading and installing Chrome to have everything sync back and work exactly the way they want things to work takes all of two minutes.

Why use Edge and spend time and effort to import bookmarks, import passwords, change settings, install extensions etc. only to have the exact same end result that downloading Chrome would have given them in the first place, but with the added annoyance of Microsoft leveraging Edge to nudge them into the Microsoft ecosystem?

Winamp wasn't a Google project.

As mentioned in the article.

Then I assume you're aware that the Geneva Convention make one exception where hospitals lose their protection: when they're used for a military purpose that is harmful to the enemy.

In other words: a warring faction cannot simply set up a military headquarter, a military outpost or a military attack position in a hospital and expect to enjoy the full protection granted to medical facilities while using it to attack the enemy.

You're aware of that, right?

Except that in this case, the UN is explicitly saying that the numbers they're quoting cannot be verified and they're merely cutting the numbers Hamas is giving them.

So the question is: if the IDF cannot be trusted, why should we trust the terrorists?

What does the Geneva Convention say about using civilians as human shields? What does the Geneva Convention say about using hospitals, schools, places of worship as military headquarters or outposts? What does the Geneva Convention say about murdering civilians to prevent them from evacuating from an area that is under attack?

Honestly, though: good for those Catholic laypeople in Texas to complain to the friggin' Vatican that this guy is a compete nut job!

Funny, given how much people hated ENT at the time. It was a good show, but the CGI has aged poorly.