[-] JWayn596@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

Its open source isn't it? It still has the same problems but on a privacy level, having it be open source is much better.

[-] JWayn596@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Absolutely!!

There are video games that work like card games, you'd love Balatro or Magic the Gathering.

If you like puzzles, Tetris is the perfect start, its the greatest puzzle game of all time. Tetris Effect and Tetris 99 are good recent games for that.

If you want to graduate from Puzzles to something more gamey, I'd recommend any Mario or Zelda game, and to develop a game mind, Metroid and metroid-like games are excellent.

Many games work like movies too, so if you like movies those are nice.

If you like books, there is a genre of game called a visual novel, (most of those are from Japan though, but many have an English option for text)

[-] JWayn596@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago

Nah it's because they decided to use cameras instead of LiDAR and then try to make it autonomous instead of driver aid.

AI is at its best when it's opening up productivity and freedom to think critically or leisurely, the same way sticky notes help someone study.

[-] JWayn596@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

They have an official app LOL. You have to get it from their telegram. (I wouldn't do it tbh)

[-] JWayn596@lemmy.world 21 points 1 year ago

Let it be noted that this is an opinion article.

Editorials and Opinion pieces do contribute to social discourse regarding news, and may be correct, but unlike their normal news, they can say whatever they want about the news from the authors they hire.

Opinion pieces allow news sources to use sensationalist and inflammatory articles to drive engagement without harming their credibility, because of that giant OPINION label.

NYT and WSJ's editorials and opinion pieces tend to be quite left and quite right leaning respectfully, to an almost satirical level. In my opinion, the WSJ's comment section under its editorials are much worse.

I'm not disparaging the article in any way, just saying for those that may not already know.

[-] JWayn596@lemmy.world 43 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I would like to explain some more context in the comments before people say things like "I'm denying war crimes"

This was reported a day ago, but open source intelligence had confirmed these reports 8 hours after the attack. All which has been covered in this article, even the Al Jazeera stream that caught the whole thing on camera. (Interestingly, Al Jazeera still reported that it was still caused by Israel I believe based on the same evidence.)

AP was one of the first to report the Gaza Health Ministry said, with the article titled, "Israel strikes hospital, killing 500." Over the next hours, they edited the article title 3 times, and had to emphasize that it was just a statement by the Gaza Health Ministry.

By then, it had been reported across the media landscape as an Israeli airstrike. Now, considering the past actions of Israel, like that reporter they shot a year or so ago, it's quite easy to assume that Israel bombed it and tried to cover it up. But, news organizations are not supposed to assume. Instead, we learned that the Gaza Health Ministry, an organization controlled by Hamas, should be taken with a large grain of salt.

Casualties turn out to be far less than 500, more like 50-100. I am in no way minimizing the loss of life. But from a journalistic standpoint, this is a 90% error, a total disaster in reporting.

The NYTimes put out this Editorial reflecting on the error of the Gaza Hospital, comparing it to the error in the 2002 Jenin massacre.

The rush to judgment on Tuesday night will continue to haunt us all.

I'm inclined to agree, especially upon being banned from worldnews on the lemmy.ml instance for "denying war crimes and genocide" by posting this article FROM THE NYTIMES which was reported about a day after the incident.

I'm not trying to report "Pro-Israel" Propoganda, but this should make everyone take a seat back and be very careful when reading news. This conflict is extremely divisive and it's challenging the status quo in journalism and global politics.

Additionally, news media can get it wrong, but credibility can be gained just as it can be lost, so they should be given a second chance, especially if they admit it, like the AP or the NYTimes did.

57
34
-51
*actually PIJ 🤭 (lemmy.world)
submitted 1 year ago by JWayn596@lemmy.world to c/memes@lemmy.ml
41
submitted 1 year ago by JWayn596@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world
26
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by JWayn596@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

Since its founding, Hamas has declared that Israel has no right to exist, that there are no Israeli civilians and that every Israeli citizen is a soldier of the state, and thus a legitimate target.

Still, if Western nations considered Hamas a terrorist organization, they also thought that it was preoccupied with governing Palestinians crammed into Gaza. Hamas provided social services. It was even thought of as a restraint on what were considered even more radical groups.

In Israel, successive governments cut quiet deals with Hamas, hoping to keep a form of stability in the Gaza Strip, which the group controls, especially after the Israelis withdrew unilaterally from the territory in 2005.

But the assault launched by Hamas this weekend, with more than 900 Israelis listed as killed so far and more than 150 believed taken as hostages and human shields into Gaza, has now stripped away any remaining illusions about the group or its intentions. The attack by Hamas into Israel proper is notable for its terror, targeting not only uniformed soldiers, but also civilians, including women and children.

Senior Israeli officials now say Hamas must be crushed, both to restore stability in Gaza and credibility for Israel as an ineradicable part of the Middle East.

“We must admit that the conception was wrong, we can’t hide behind it,” said Tamir Hayman, a retired major general and managing director of Israel’s Institute for National Security Studies.

There is much the same disillusionment in the West, especially among Europeans who have provided significant aid to Gaza, some of which has always been siphoned off by Hamas. The horrors of the weekend now cast Hamas in a new light, one which is likely to have a major effect on events going forward.

The European Union, like the United States, has labeled Hamas a terrorist organization and officially boycotts it, but many Europeans see the group as freedom fighters struggling against an Israel that is slowly making a Palestinian state impossible.

For many in the West, especially the young and those on the left, “Gaza is a one-word argument for Israel’s brutality toward a blockaded enclave living in miserable conditions,” said Natan Sachs, director of the Center for Middle East Policy of the Brookings Institution.

Hamas, for them, was “fundamentally a nationalist resistance movement in the context of Gaza.” That view was shattered “for some, if not all, on Saturday,” he said.

In Europe, there have been uniform official condemnations of the attacks and of support for Israel. But tellingly on Monday there was confusion in Brussels, when an E.U. official, Oliver Varhelyi, announced that 691 million euros, or about $730 million, in aid to the Palestinians would be put under review, an announcement quickly softened to say that humanitarian aid would continue.

In Israel, the military had few illusions about Hamas, considering it among the most extreme of the Palestinian armed groups and recognizing that it would never accept any form of recognition of Israel, unlike Fatah, the heart of the Palestinian Authority, Mr. Hayman said in an interview.

The Authority, set up after the Oslo accords of the 1990s, controls the West Bank, and Israel has tried to strengthen it while working with the Authority to weaken Hamas in the West Bank.

Yet for Israeli leaders, Hamas was useful, too. It was someone in control of Gaza to talk to, Mr. Hayman said, that could help keep stability, which is why Israel had refrained from a full-scale assault in Gaza, he said. “This conception has failed.”

Yaakov Amidror, a retired major general who served as national security adviser to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in an earlier government, agreed.

“It’s a huge mistake that I did, believing that a terror organization can change its DNA,” he said. “I thought that Hamas, because of its responsibility and because it’s not only a terror organization, but also an organization with ideas about the future, a small branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, is more responsible, and I learned in the hard way that it is not so, that a terror organization is a terror organization.”

Mr. Amidror, now a senior fellow at the Jerusalem Institute for Strategic Studies, said bluntly: “We don’t want to make the same mistake again.” Hamas, he said, “should be killed and destroyed.”

Mr. Hayman also foresees a strong, prolonged Israeli response. “The context right now is after a brutal, unyielding terror activity of a kind Israel has never seen, worse than the atrocities of ISIS, with the slaughtering of people, the torturing of women and abducting children and old people,” he said. “This is a kind of madness which we never imagined.”

The Israeli military has launched a number of retaliatory strikes into Gaza since Saturday morning. Already, more than 680 Palestinians in Gaza have been killed in Israeli strikes, Gazan officials say.

Israel did not see “the strategic meaning of the rhetoric of Hamas,” said Shlomo Avineri, a former Israeli official and a political scientist. “It was dismissed as rhetoric, without considering how vulnerable Israel is, with all the kibbutzim near Gaza.”

When Hamas said that “every civilian is a soldier, this was not rhetoric but identifying the vulnerability of the Israeli communities inside Israel,” he said. Instead, he said, the army was focused on individual terrorism in the West Bank, and the government on its controversial efforts at judicial reform.

For many Palestinians, Hamas was a military organization using the only means it had to resist a far superior Israeli military and Israeli occupation, including terrorist acts, suicide bombings and rocket attacks.

For Israelis, Hamas’s brutality was clear from the suicide bombing campaign of the 1990s and early 2000s, and “Gaza is a one-word argument for the danger of unilateral withdrawal and trusting in Palestinian rule,” Mr. Sachs said.

Much will now depend on how the international community reacts to the inevitable deaths of civilians in Gaza, a tightly packed space where Hamas has had time to prepare its defenses.

Much will also depend on whether Hezbollah joins the fight from Lebanon, as it did in 2006. After Israel’s cautious effort to hurt Hezbollah then, few expect many limits this time on either side. With Hezbollah’s leader, Hassan Nasrallah, reportedly regretting his attack on Israel in 2006, but also equipped by Iran with far more sophisticated rockets, mutual deterrence may yet win out.

But if Mr. Amidror is correct, Israel will pursue its war against Hamas with little regard for Western opinion and criticism. “It is the last time that we can allow Hamas to be strong enough to attack Israel,” he said.

If Israel succeeds in destroying Hamas, he said, “it will show that when there is a real test, Israel is ready to pay the price, ready to fight and ready to make the difference. I think that we will be more appreciated by everyone in the Mideast, not just the Saudis. If the reaction of Israel will not be strong enough, we might lose some support in the Middle East.”

[-] JWayn596@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago

On the bright side, this means that Republicans may have to stop playing hardball with Ukraine, in order to not appear hypocritical.

Most support Ukrainian support, and most Western countries need Israel as a foothold in the middle east.

[-] JWayn596@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Well to be quite fair, it's better to judge a country by it's progress and current state of affairs than by its past actions. Because if we judged every country by their actions in the past, not many countries would have clean hands.

From 2016-2021, I was ready to move away. I was quite disillusioned by everything. What changed? Soccer 💀. Soccer made me comically nationalist for our national teams.

Honestly being in that environment of being able to be innocently prideful of my home without thinking about the past helped put things in perspective.

I'm now prideful to be American, and proud that my home heavily invests in NATO. I'm an adult now, and I've been working to push for some more improvements in things like infrastructure. I don't cringe at 4th of July celebrations anymore, and I feel great that I'm making an impact.

You probably won't see me putting a flag outside my home, but I have a lovely high quality flag.

Our national park system is the best in the world, our ecosystem, nature, and geography are spectacular and diverse. And NASA is phenomenal.

Don't allow yourself to wallow in this cynical disillusionment. It's not good for your mental health to focus on the terrible parts of America without having the ability to change those parts.

[-] JWayn596@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Guns are one of those things thats really hard to restrict. It's a freedom that most enjoy, and some abuse. Most that own guns responsibly don't want their guns taken away due to law changes.

This was actually the case with automatic firearms, automatic firearms were legal to buy until 1986, ironically with the support of the NRA, which is the largest gun lobby in favor of less gun control. In this ban of automatic firearms, they allowed existing owners to keep their automatics.

You can count self defense cases and crimes with those weapons on one hand, most crimes are committed with handguns.

Another argument is just banning "assault style rifles". This is basically the blanket description of an AR-15 style rifle, that is generally the same design as an M4 carbine in the military, with it's adjustable stock, 16 inch barrel, black color, with a comfy pistol grip, the automatic function removed, and an MLOK rail for attachments like lights, lasers, or sights.

The reason that this description is silly, is because a normal semi-auto hunting rifle is functionally the exact same as an "assault rifle". It has magazines and you can fire it rapidly buy pushing the trigger rapidly. You could ductape lights and lasers to it. Gun manufacturers could simply sell the same gun without the "tactical" features which are convenient for all users, and it would change nothing about crime.

Additionally, if there's a huge gun buyback and all gun owners turn in their guns because the second amendment has been repealed, criminals are not going to turn in their guns, and it would leave many defenseless.

Often times, guns are necessary for those living in rural areas, because there is a great number of threats from wildlife in rural areas, from Alligators, to Mountain Lions, to Grizzly Bears and Brown Bears and Black Bears. Hunting is required to control the ecosystems of large game and small game. Additionally, many hunters opt to use the "tactical assault style rifles" due to their modularity. (Not always, many still use bolt action rifles, when it's for sport).

Nobody in America actually has a problem with responsible gun ownership. The disagreements between states go down to magazine sizes, barrel sizes, concealed carry laws, concealed carry permits, etc.

Yes school shootings are a problem, with some troubled person shooting up a school with an "Assault style rifle". But the fact of the matter is that it makes up an extremely small minority of gun crime.

The only difference between the US and Switzerland for example, is the fact that we are allowed to use the weapons in self defense versus animals or human assailants in our homes or in public. The other difference is the process to obtain firearms.

The last reason you will see resistance against gun control comes from the left. Gun control was originally pushed by conservative Republicans in the mid 20th century as a response to the Black Panther movement, civil rights group that operated as a militia and open carried rifles around town.

There's an argument that gun control would be systemically racist agenda, because it would restrict gun control only to those with the money and time and clean records to complete the checks to complete a purchase of a firearm. It would leave minority groups less armed compared to conservative white males.

Weapons are inherently a check against violence in this way. Similar to how the world uses the fact that it can destroy each other as leverage for mutual and relative peace.

As for being able to relate this to someone from Europe who has never handled firearms or can't understand the need for them, or people stubborn about them, I can relate as someone who never felt the need to own a weapon until recently. It's quite similar to the freedom a motor vehicle gives you. You get used to the autonomy and independence that a vehicle gives you. Being able to take apart the machine, customize it, optimize it, make it yours and express yourself through that construction.

I'm not trying to draw a false equivalency, but it's the closest one I can portray.

I hope this answered your question!

:3

[-] JWayn596@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago

Self defense laws are pretty weird in Europe. I am spoiled on our second amendment laws, so let my bias be noted.

However, some guy can break into your house and if you defend yourself with a bat or knife, the laws there from what I hear (this isn't fact, I could be mistaken) can get you in trouble with the law. I remember reading that somewhere.

Sure it's like that in the US too but there are many protections for those who clearly have acted in self defense.

[-] JWayn596@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago

Getting a dumb TV with an Apple TV box has been amazing.

No ads, just turn on, and play.

Of course you'd think "ew Apple". I did but the Apple TV box is simply the best streaming device available right now. The only thing it can't do easily is sideloading and VPNs, for those the Shield is still king.

15
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by JWayn596@lemmy.world to c/android@lemmy.world

I'm looking to buy an iPhone 15 when it comes out. For those that also have a Pixel, what are some things that each phone does completely better than the other?

I was thinking of using the iPhone as a phone first, and having the Pixel as just a Personal Smart Device that I can use to do sideloading, emulation, file organizing, and other productivity and entertainment stuff, maybe even social media like having Mastadon and Lemmy there, maybe Signal too.

Whereas I'll have the iPhone for calling, texting, streaming, CarPlay, News, and Apple Watch stuff.

What are some other things I can segment?

(There's a lot of content and apps available on both, but I'm wanting to know if there's anything that's visibly or marginally better on either device that you've noticed)

[-] JWayn596@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago

Hi! I'm sure you have a lot of feelings about the US and maybe you have a specific situation that's causing you troubles.

However, I'd recommend looking at other places in the country before looking at other places.

Moving is a huge expense, and if you lurk all the time on reddit or lemmy. You may start thinking that things are terrible, because you become emotionally invested in the outcome of a collective you can't control.

In terms of other countries, the UK is going through the aftermath of Brexit, Italy is about to elect a controversial figure, France has some questionable anti-encryption policies under it's belt. Another commenter mentioned Canadas downsides.

Looking at Asian countries like Japan and Korea, they are generally homogenous countries, and it takes much more work as a foreigner to make headway socially, with Japan moreso than Korea, to be fair. Compared to the USA, there is nary a country as diverse.

In the USA, there are many many places that can give you relative peace. Investing in local communities is much healthier than looking at huge national controversies, because usually local problems affect you more directly.

If you have the funds and resources and job security and drive to learn the language, I would say take a look at Switzerland. They're relatively stable, neutral, and it's a beautiful place there. I'd say it's still quite homogenous though.

This isn't meant to dissuade you from moving, but as someone who went through a period of depression due to the state of the country and it's affect on my life, and has now found reasons to support the US wholeheartedly despite it's problems, definitely look at quieter places in the USA, like some beach towns or mountainous towns in New Mexico.

14
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by JWayn596@lemmy.world to c/privacyguides@lemmy.one

What's the efficacy of compartmentalizing proprietary services to different devices?

Some streaming apps are most efficient and fluid on Apple devices. I would say it would be a wise thing to use the apps on the Apple devices like Apple TV or iPad rather than put the apps on your Pixel running a FOSS operating system, where it can possibly collect more information about you.

I'd like some more thoughts on this idea.

view more: next ›

JWayn596

joined 1 year ago