andrewrgross

I agree with all of that. It's tough to talk about because I really hate to give any impression of moral equivalence. I think the leaders on both sides are equivalent in their hearts, but in actions and outcomes there's simply no contest. Israel's killers are much, much, much more brutally effective. At least several hundred times so in numbers. Very possibly a thousand times so.

When I speak of Hamas, it's largely for the purpose of trying to understand their behavior.

I'm not terribly surprised, since whatever either side says is largely detached from what is really going on on the ground.

For instance, Israel has stated that it allows the vaccinations to take place, but four days ago blew up one of the aid trucks organized by a group called Anera after it had already been authorized for transit.

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/08/30/middleeast/israeli-strike-gaza-aid-convoy-intl-latam/index.html

Now, the IDF claims that the truck was hijacked by armed militants. Anera said that the truck was not hijacked, it was staffed with local Palestinian delivery drivers who asked to drive at the last minute, but also admitted that they were not among the people that the IDF had pre-aproved.

So we can see here that the IDF blows people up in a deconflicted setting. But I'll say something critics of Israel often won't: I can't guarantee that none of those drivers were actually part of Hamas. Would it surprise me if Hamas and the IDF agreed to peacefully allow vaccinations without interference and BOTH broke that agreement? No. Israel doesn't follow the rules of engagement, nor does Hamas. What either side says they agree to is not a reliable source of what is happening. Both say whatever they think sounds good and then their fighters do whatever the hell they like. Neither side is honest or in control of their fighters, so nothing anyone says really matters that much.

This makes me so sad. It's clear that the only reason that they're doing it is because unlike starvation, unconstrained polio virus can transmit to soldiers.

They'll allow limited aid to prevent kids from dying of this one particular thing. Not of dying of all the other horrible stuff. But just of this one special cause.

Sick.

I feel like this is a pretty crass joke to make.

A good friend of mine found a body a few months ago. It's a pretty shitty experience. And it's actually a lot like what OP describes. A sense of foreboding and suspicion combined with a conviction that these thoughts are foolish. And an uncertainty whether to check or to alert someone or to just try to forget it.

Op, I'd report it and ask them to please follow up with you and let you know. It's probably nothing, and you'll feel better once you know it was nothing, and that you did the responsible thing in having it dealt with.

I would suggest calling the city or county and reporting suspicious dumping. It could be a body. It could be a rotting animal carcass. It could have toxic chemicals in it.

You don't need to suspect that it's a body to call the city and report what looks like dangerous dumping.

To clarify a bit: I DO think that what this woman did was child abuse. But not specifically because she locked the kid in a bathroom. Because she did it for a social media audience.

For some context, I use what is often called "gentle parenting" (although I think it's just what I would call "parenting if you're humane and responsive to the needs of a child"). So I would never do this. But I also am very aware of the feeling of helplessness that comes from having a child in distress and having exhausted every remedy I know. I am familiar with the logic that a child who is screaming is doing so for attention, and will stop when their behavior isn't being tolerated. Putting a child into a time out until they stop doing something is not a radical approach. If I saw someone do this on a plane, I wouldn't immediately consider it abusing a child.

HOWEVER: if I saw this lady chatting animatedly into her phone's front facing camera while dragging a distressed kid (to whom she's not addressing her attention) toward a lavatory, I'd immediately think, 'Oh fuck: is that one of those people who turns every moment into a social media opportunity? That kid needs rescued.'

I think it's an omission that the article didn't recognize this. This woman didn't just put a kid in a bathroom to try to get them to calm down (dumb idea, but not abuse by itself, imo). She did all that while talking to strangers and saying, 'Hey everyone! Look at me! Look AT MEEE!'

THAT is what makes it abuse.

I was trying to explain what AI alignment is to my mom, and I ended up using the behavior of companies like OpenAI, and how they're distorted by profit motive as an example of a misaligned decision making system. And I realized that late stage capitalism is basically the paperclip maximizer made real.

This is a very good article. I think AI models have more to teach us about epistemology than people want to believe right now.

This is interesting.

It's fascinating how different people and different cultures view this stuff.

I'll say this: the grandmother doesn't get enough attention in this article. To start with, I simply don't think it's considerate at all to fly with a one year old. I didn't fly with my kid until he was about two and a half, specifically because one year olds have little to no self control, and the air pressure can be very painful. It's just bad for the kid and other passengers. And then this grandmother gives the kid some random person? Does that person have kids of their own? It's odd that the article doesn't say.

I don't think confining the child to the restroom was effective or healthy. Now I don't think it's child abuse... unless perhaps if you're filming it for TikTok. As soon as the woman is performing for likes, her credibility as a responsible care giver evaporates. I think filming it was probably the dumbest part of the story.

Really, "L"s for everyone all around.

This needs said over and over.

The settlement of the West Bank used to be a slow walk of annexation. Now, it's not even slow.

The Israeli civilian government is actively annexing the entire region. They are rounding up native residents and putting them into interment camps. They are openly discussing expanding their activity into their northern neighboring country, Lebanon. The military is serving as shock troops for the naked displacement of locals. The IDF is conducting air strikes on a totally defenseless demilitarized neighboring country that is already under total military occupation. While using a separate, unrelated war as a brazenly cynical excuse to just start attacking anyone whose land they happen to want next.

Thes sanctions are a band aid applied to a mortar wound to the chest. This is so wildly disproportionate to the needs of the situation that I genuinely feel it is far more offensive than doing nothing.

Hard to really say, but I would venture that the best way to tell was from what he did with the attention.

I doubt it's as simple as 'He did it for the money' or 'He did it for the clicks' etc. I'm guessing he did it for all the attention/money/influence it got him. I think as we confront a world where AI can be used to fabricate people with incredible ease, the lesson is that people need to occasionally meet in person if we want to guarantee that they have a physical personhood.

That sounds like some very cool engineering. I hope it sees as little use as possible, but I'm glad you're prepared.

Yeah... these are all such absolute fire. I'm not usually invested in DnD fiction, but this is so, so, SO good.