Permanently Deleted
barsoap @ barsoap @lemm.ee Posts 118Comments 5,119Joined 2 yr. ago
I mean... my condolences and/or yay you get to be a honorary machinist?
Permanently Deleted
the hell are you talking about are you a zionist under cover or just stupid?
How often do I have to say that Israel is committing genocide for people to stop calling me a zionist? It's getting tiring.
What for you would be a bulltet proof evidence?
It's abundantly clear that parts of the Israeli administration, the IDF, are guilty of genocide. Expanding that to the whole state of Israel, proving intent and not just mere incompetence at stopping rogue IDF elements, will probably require access to files and protocols Israel is withholding...
The icj is simply politically influenced
... and from the activists' perspective, a political perspective, that withholding is proof of guilt, for a court, it's more complicated. Before court, there's stricter requirements: The ICJ cannot follow the the political assessment not because it's politically influenced, but because it's not political. Because it can't make that kind of snap judgement.
Permanently Deleted
The icj despite all the evidences proving it still decided to not say definitely that there is a genocide.
Because they do not have the evidence necessary to rule that way. Mostly, yes, because Israel is rather uncooperative, and the ICJ can't just raid Netanyahu's office.
With their ruling no country has obligation to do their best to stop israel occupation and agression.
All countries have that obligation no matter what the ICJ rules.
Do you want the genocide to be admited a decade after it happened just like with the bostnian genocide declared as such after 12 years?
This is not about "admitting", or "strongly suspecting", or "preponderance of evidence", but "beyond reasonable doubt". Proof should only be declared when it's actually bullet-proof.
As said: Otherwise, you leave an attack surface for genocide deniers, they'll spend the next 1000 years talking about "The antisemitic conspiracy that managed to frame Israel for genocide, here, have a look, they suspended due process to come to that conclusion". Don't play into the hands of those assclowns.
Es ging wohl vor allem darum Russland zu ärgern. Aus der Sicht der anderen UN-Vertretungen ist der Umschwung von Helga Schmid auf Baerbock neutral was Deutschland angeht: Man will uns nicht vor den Karren fahren und tut das auch nicht, auf der anderen Seite ist Baerbock für den Kreml ein rotes Tuch, Schmid nur langweilige, neutrale, Diplomatin.
Weitere Auswirkungen wird das nicht haben, ist halt nur eine protokollarische Position. Und genau deshalb die richtige Gelegenheit um den Russen auf die Füße zu treten. Die sind in der UN nicht gerade beliebt und Diplomaten sind halt stutenbissig. "Wie, geehrter Kollege aus Russland, sie haben bei der Person bedenken? Das kann ich jetzt gar nicht nachvollziehen. Ein Affront? Dagegen verwehren wir uns ausdrücklich".
Permanently Deleted
And the judge, before all evidence, all arguments are in, the prosecutor has been heard, the defence has been heard, the defender has been heard, and everything has been deliberated with other judges? Would you also require of them to call it a genocide the day the prosecutor brings the case to court?
Permanently Deleted
You are simply doing genocide apologia here
I have been calling what Israel is doing a genocide like four or five times now. In this very thread. Watch where you're aiming.
There is a difference between a prosecutor calling the accused a murderer, and a judge calling the accused a murderer. Can you follow me this far.
Permanently Deleted
Free, Libre, and Open Source Software
The FSFE has an overview over the various terms but tldr FLOSS is the one that has the least amount of agitated neckbeards breathing down your neck because it a) includes both free software and open source and b) includes the "L" that clarifies that what's meant is free as in speech, not free as in beer.
...and I guess it's about software hygiene?
Permanently Deleted
Judges. Scholars. Neither operate on the assumption of guilt, but assumption of innocence. And there's a very fucking good reason to do that, to see what assumption of guilt does to a people simply observe how the Israeli right considers Palestinians: Guilty unless proven otherwise. You can't fight barbarism by succumbing to it.
Was soll denn ein Gesundheitsministerium sonst sagen?
"Nehmt einen Sonnenschirm und Planschbecken mit und trinkt noch was anderes als Bier (nein wir meinen nicht Wein)". Soweit zur Gesundheit, die Feuerwehr hat bei Hitze natürlich auch noch was zu sagen -- die sind aber auch die ersten die dann sagen "Kommt zu uns auf den Hof da isses brandsicher, wir heizen richtig ein und nass machen können wir euch auch".
Permanently Deleted
And that has to be established, instead of just assumed... If you're a scholar or judge. Activists can and should just assume it given that there's plenty of circumstantial evidence.
You don't want activist scholars or judges because then you don't have scholars or judges any more, is all I'm saying. Leave the activism to the activists.
Permanently Deleted
No such a thing as genocide proper and genocide not proper.
That's not what I said. There's a difference between genocidal acts and genocide, same as there's a difference between breaking a promise and fraud.
You don’t want a genocide to be declared a decade after just like it happened in Bosnia
Yes we want exactly that, because genocide needs to be proven thoroughly because otherwise deniers have an attack surface. But we also want to intervene much earlier. Those two things are not at odds.
Permanently Deleted
A livestreamed genocide where the perpetrators were unapologetically genocidal since day 0
That's evidence of a genocidal act, and of intent of the precise perpetrators. It does not, on its own, prove that Israel, as opposed to merely those people, are guilty of genocide. Israel could, for example, have brought them to justice themselves.
And you’re white-washing their cowardice as scholarly integrity and standards. Bullshit.
Upholding things like the presumption of innocence and due process does not preclude me from shouting "stop the thief". As said: I've been doing that since day one. Yet, when dragging that thief before court, I'd still expect the court to actually look at the matter in detail. Those procedural hoops exist for good reason: Justice cannot be served by mob rule.
Permanently Deleted
And many of them did. But if you’re a “genocide scholar” and you’re only now coming to the conclusion that this is genocide. 19 months after real scholars correctly pointed to it. You are not a scholar. You are a glorified record keeper.
All of them have been agreeing that Israel is committing genocidal acts pretty much since month, if not week, one. Then the scholarly debate started on whether the sum of genocidal acts already constitutes genocide proper. It's one of those cases where scholars make distinctions that activists don't like because activists like simple narratives, punchy slogans, clear-cut lines, as opposed to getting bogged down in nuance.
I'm not saying that activists are wrong calling it a genocide, I've been predicting that the Kahanites are going to use the opportunity on day fucking one, but it's also not right to expect scholars to lower their standards, simplify their analytic framework. There's a good reason why they apply metric tons of nuance to everything.
Bin kein Jurist, erklär' mir bitte mal warum das keine Rechtsbeugung sein soll: Der Mann ist Amtsträger und leitet und entscheidet über eine Rechtssache.
Wobei ja wäre jetzt nicht Beugehaft sondern gleich Haft. Ein bis fünf Jahre, Geldstrafe nicht vorgesehen.
Permanently Deleted
The EU is pumping a lot of money into FLOSS, often not even for administrative use (like, say, lemmy gets EU funding), but at far as adoption rate in administration is concerned well the Commission is one of the worst offenders. As in municipalities realising they can't fully switch to LibreOffice because they need to apply for EU funds and the commission only accepts .docx. Parliament happily spending money on something and the executive getting around to getting its shit together are two different things.
OTOH it's not all about Microsoft and the like, a lot of administrative software is special-purpose, written by private companies according to specs, paid for by public money. Making that kind of thing open source is a no-brainer. It's also a way better use of money to improve and customise some open source ERP than to go to SAP and get a customised solution there.
And a lot of that has to do with lacking competency in administration -- outside of police, specifically IT forensics, it's usually quite dire. States have no issues figuring out whether a blueprint makes sense when they're issuing building permits, road and railroad engineering, of course they can do that, but IT? Nope. Bring in the private consultants and private consultants are basically the marketing arm of big software companies.
Yep exactly that. A fascinating side-effect is that models become better at logic when you tell them to talk like a Vulkan.
Hate crime against gay people isn’t recognised by law
...it's not recognised in e.g. Germany either? Crime is recognised by law which plenty of states consider plenty. Punching people outside of self-defence is wrong doesn't really matter to many jurisdictions why you're doing it.
Protections against workplace etc. discrimination were introduced in 2014, gay marriage is on society's agenda but as so often the first reading was controversial and now there's a war and the constitution can't be changed, anyway.
You could say the same thing about people getting hospitalised at prides about Poland. Ukraine is a post-soviet state so the starting point was "not great, not terrible" (that is, it wasn't literally illegal to be gay but no social acceptance whatsoever), and is moving in the right direction. Don't make the perfect the enemy of the good.
Do note that the likes of right sector don't have wider societal backing. Politically, they're very much fringe.
Permanently Deleted
A was talking about how they fight, not how they spar... In an edited video. An edited video of a notoriously vain man, for consumption by his fans. Commented by another man with enough of a martial arts beard to declare a clear win a draw and who knows exactly how to keep armchair blackbelts clicking on his videos. No shade though I mean if just one Tate bro now watches Johnson instead of Tate that's a good thing.
He's got talent, yes, I already acknowledged that. He's got some training, that combination is how he beat up complete amateurs (seriously -- look at the fight record of the people he fought). He's probably hitting bags regularly, but, and here comes the kicker: Bags don't win Olympic medals. Bags don't study their opponent. Bags don't evade. Bags don't out-focus and out-strategise. There's a reason he quit kickboxing and that's because he realised he doesn't have the mind for it (Obligatory Bruce Lee) and quitting early allowed him to grift better.
Watch the Raab vs. Halmich fights one day if you get the chance. Raab is certainly not even a proper amateur when it comes to skill (those are meme fights), but just to get an impression of how 30kg weight difference don't mean shit in the face of a skill gap. Their height difference is 20cm, Khelif/Tate would be more around 10.
Supercomputers are a different beast than AI data centres. MareNostrum uses 1.3MW, that's peanuts and easily used up by hot showers, Barcelona has a lot of showers. It's also only the 4th largest EuroHPC computer. Private investors apparently plan to build a Gigawatt worth of compute in Aragon.
The ICJ is very well aware of all of that IIRC, most of it was even in the opening statements.
And, as said: Politically, that kind of stuff is damning, it's proof. For the judiciary, though, things are more complicated. They have to do more legwork to do until, at some point, they also come to the same conclusion, as the genocide scholars have done, and the scholar's judgement is way more bullet-proof than the political judgement I gave a month or two in that yes, Israel is falling to fascism, yes, they're committing genocide. And the judge's judgement will be even more bullet-proof. But it's going to take time to actually prove things to that kind of high standard.