Huh?

The smartphone improvements hit a rubber wall a few years ago (disregarding folding screens, that compose a small market share, improvement rate slowed down drastically), and the industry is doing fine. It's not growing like it use to, but that just means people are keeping their smartphones for longer periods of time, not that people stopped using them.

Even if AI were to completely freeze right now, people will continue using it.

Why are people reacting like AI is going to get dropped?

No matter what you say, you won’t convince us to accept genocide when it’s happening to Palestinians or anyone else.

Oh, OK, thanks, that was genuinely helpful. If I understood correctly, you think I'm trying to convince you that "Israel = good", so you mentally add "and that's why Israel is in the right" after what I said, and are replying to that instead of what I actually said. I'm absolutely not trying to convince anyone Israel is in the right here, or that they aren't committing genocide. Not saying I agree or disagree with you on the subject, just saying that's not what I'm talking about. This started out as me pointing out that the reason people are saying Hamas are using civilians as human shields is because that's what's they're doing. Now I'm trying to understand why people focus so much on Gaza and are giving Hamas a free pass for what's going on there.

I fail to see the comparison with these other conflicts

It wasn't a comparison. I took the criteria you gave (number of casualties) and applied it to other situations. Which seemed to be productive because now you've given me new criteria. The only one that's unique is western support. I get that - as (probably?) a citizen of a western country, you don't want your tax money financing genocide. But that's more a criticism against your government, and, more importantly to my interest in the conversation, it doesn't explain the visceral hate people seem to have towards Israel in particular.

Sudanese civil war is terrible with over 60,000 deaths so far, we just want Gaza to not top that

That's what I'm asking - why do you "just want Gaza to not top that" and don't seem to care that much about what's going on Sudan? (I'm talking about the discourse among the, and I'm hoping I'm using the correct term, progressive left).

The problem is there can’t be an accurate count because Israel won’t let independent investigators in

According to your own source, there can't be an accurate account because "Collecting data is becoming increasingly difficult for the Gaza Health Ministry due to the destruction of much of the infrastructure."

Well people say Israel is in the right because they had people killed.

And those people would be wrong. That doesn't contradict anything I said.

Actually, 44,000 is about right for the IDF estimations.

Anyway, you're saying it's a numbers game? Let's say Israel were to round up 1,199 random Gazans and shoot them in the street, people would be saying "Well, Israel killed less people, so Hamas should stop their aggression"?

If Israel killed 1200 and then Hamas returned by killing 44,000, we’d be focusing on Hamas

Sorry, but I doubt that. Right now there are at least two other major conflicts, each with more casualties (the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the Sudanese civil war), yet the interest in Lemmy and like minded places is like that meme with the drowning kid and the skeleton (inb4 someone accuses me of "antisemitism" - I'm pointing out that Israel is singled out, not accusing anyone of anything).

I think trauma and hardship in general isn't additive, rather multiplicative or exponential.

Like, once there's a "core" trauma, small every day issues seems bigger and harder to deal with, and that kinda builds on itself so any new hardship seems bigger and bigger and so on.

Err... did I misunderstood the question, or do (nearly?) all commenters have no idea what they're talking about?

You're asking why Israel doesn't assassinate Hamas's top leaders, right? Or did I misunderstood and you asking Israel doesn't ONLY assassinate Hamas's top leaders? Or are you asking why Israel responded differently to Munich?

To answer the first question, well... they are. Hamas's top leaders according to BBC are:

• Ismail Haniyeh - Killed.
• Mohammed Deif - Probably killed.
• Marwan Issa - Killed.
• Mahmoud Zahar - Alive. is 79 years old and might not be active/influential in the leadership.
• Khaled Meshaal - Alive.
• Yahya Sinwar - Alive.

Also, keep in mind that the response to the Munich massacre took about 2 decades.

As to why Israel dosen't ONLY assassinate Hamas's leadership, the simple answer is that it won't solve anything. It won't bring the hostages home (It will probably have opposite effect as a. it will leave Israel without a centralized entity with whom to negotiate and b. Sinwar might be using hostages as human shields, which also might explain why he's still alive), and it will still leave Israel with a terrorist entity next door. The official Israeli version is that the assassinations, among other things, serve as leverage on Hamas leaders to secure a deal. Obviously, this is only effective if there is some leadership left.

If you're asking why Israel responded differently to Munich, it's because the situation is totally different in numerous ways. But the question itself is also factually wrong - Israel didn't only assassinate the leaders of Black September. Firstly, the goal was to "assassinate individuals they accused of being involved in the 1972 Munich massacre", not just the leaders. Not only that, Israel also responded with raids and bombings (for example: 1973 Israeli raid in Lebanon).

You can use LLMs to, well, do what they're designed to do - generate text. Need to write a marketing text? Summersie a meeting or make a summery more readable? Rewrite an "about" page to incorporate something new? Just be sure to read through the generated text and make sure it's correct.

I know that wasn't the point, but:

Holt as Sisko and Terry as Worf is cool (Holt might work better as Odo, but we'll get to that in a sec).

Rosa should be Kira (Worf looks mean but is a big softy, hence Terry. Kira is the one that will kick your ass if you piss her off), Jina as Quark (obviously), Amy as Odo, Boyle as Rom, Hitchcock and Scully as O'brian and Bashir in their "two buds going to the holosuite to pretend they're WW1 pilots" mode.

Jake works surprisingly well as Jadzia - both like to do silly things, kinda offbeat yet very good at their job.

That's a great insight into Israeli society.

The answer to your question is a resounding "yes".

In fact, among the 4 members of war cabinet, at least one other has children in active combat units, and ALL cabinet members served in a combat unit as well as had at least one child in active combat duty.

Most children of Israeli politicians are absolutely conscripted to the army, and the public would look very badly on a "fortunate son" type situation.

Furthermore, there's an unwritten rule the ultra-orthodox parties do not involve themselves or even voice an opinion on military matters because, and this something often said in Israel, "they don't risk their children's life in the army" (the ultra-orthodox are essentially exempt from conscription).

The Israeli Jewish public doesn't see the Israeli combatants as poor or uneducated "others", but as their children, brothers and fathers.

I think that's a more ethical way of looking at it. However, this also helps explain the seeming lack of consideration for Palestinian life. Take a random person and ask him to choose between risking the life of his kid, who is in active service, in a military operation or throwing bombs and risking harming other civilians. Most people will choose to risk others. And among those who'll choose to risk their kid, most would either be lying or didn't really think about the question.

In Hebrew, it's a horseshoe turn.