There's always some place that's worse. What you're arguing for here is a race to the bottom, where everyone tries to be worse than their neighbours in order to get the undesirables to go there instead.

In essentially "the tragedy of the commons" but in an opposite sense. If everyone gets worse in an attempt to get rid of "undesirables", you just end up with everywhere being worse, and the "undesirables" still being around. What we need is for everyone to build safety nets together. That might actually improve the situation.

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.

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 do exactly this: Write code/frameworks that are used in academic research, which is useful to industry. Once we publish an article, we publish our models open-source under the MIT license. That is because companies that want to use it can then embed our models into their proprietary software, with essentially no strings attached. This gives them an incentive to support our research in terms of collaborative projects, because they see that our research results in stuff they can use.

If we had used the GPL, our main collaborators would probably not have been interested.

This take just baffles me.. you can disapprove of a war, and still respect people willing to put their life on the line for something they believe is right. Even in war, opposing sides have a long history of showing their enemy a certain amount of personal respect, even though they clearly disagree about something to the point of killing each other over it.

Your take is just condescending and unempathetic. You can respect someone for sacrificing themselves without agreeing with them about what they're sacrificing themselves for. Regardless, it shouldn't be hard to see how someone fighting to depose an infamously brutal dictator (Iraq) or a fundamentalist regime that stones women for wanting a divorce (Afghanistan) can believe that they are doing something good.

I'm not getting over how beautiful it is to see how powerful unions can be when they really need to. I've read articles with union leaders explicitly saying that they can and will tighten the screw on Tesla until they fold. I believe a major aluminium extrusion plant recently decided to stop production of profiles for Tesla.

Recently in Norway, one of the major unions were asked if they were going to stop unloading teslas at Norwegian harbours, and simply said "we're talking to our Swedish counterparts, they'll let us know if they need us. If Tesla tries to import vehicles to Sweden via Norwegian harbours, which they are not currently, we won't touch the cars."

I can imagine this spreading if Tesla doesn't fold, and it would be a sight to see a bunch of international Scandinavian / European Union organisations collectively decide to fuck up Tesla.

If you're "tired of fighting" it still costs you little to nothing to support those fighting, or at least not speak condescendingly about the fight they are fighting. Something about your comment tells me you weren't fighting much in the first place.

I want to respond to your edit:

wait for consensus before you publish, don't publish anything that isn't peer reviewed and replicated multiple times.

You need to understand that publishing is the way scientists communicate among each other. Of course, all reputable journals conduct peer review before publishing, but peer review is just that: Review. The peer review process is meant to uncover obviously bad, or poorly communicated, research.

Replication happens when other scientists read the paper and decide to replicate. In fact, by far most replication is likely never published, because it is done as a part of model/rig verification and testing. For example: If I implement a model or build an experimental rig and want to make sure I did it right, I'll go replicate some work to test it. If I successfully replicate I'm probably not going to spend time publishing that, because I built the rig/implemented to model to do my own research. If I'm unable to replicate, I'll first assume something is wrong with my rig/implementation. If I can rule that out (maybe by replicating something else) I might publish the new results on the stuff I couldn't replicate.

Consensus is built when a lot of publications agree on something, to the point where, if you aren't able to replicate it, you can feel quite positive it's because you're doing something wrong.

Basically: The idea of waiting for consensus before publishing can't work, because consensus is formed by a bunch of people publishing. Once solid consensus is established, you'll have a hard time getting a journal to accept an article further confirming the consensus.

You act like there would be less of a reaction if people ripped up, walked on, or in other ways desecrated the Quran. This isn't about book burning, this is about a group of people not tolerating that on of their symbols is desecrated.

Imagine if we prosecuted people for burning flags or signs with slogans... but maybe you think that should be illegal as well?

I think you should congratulate yourself a bit: You didn't make it due to dumb luck, but because you were smart enough to have several redundant safety measures in place, so that even though two of them failed (cutting the wrong way, with lock engaged) the last one (face shield) saved you. It wasn't luck, but routine and skill that made sure you were fine, even though your brain was completely turned off that day :)

This story is hilarious, I want to believe it.