In addition many articles focus on individuals which offer a skewed perspective. I stopped using the bbc news app after noticing I was only occasionally enjoying the long reads, and even then I don’t want woke politics snuck in
You have a very simplistic view of the history. Many Arabs actually aren’t native to the land either, they moved there for work that the new Jewish immigrants provided. In fact there was significant mutual cooperation and benefit. Land wasn’t stolen either, but bought after the Ottomans empire fell and it became legal for Jews to buy Muslim land (the ottomans had some nasty rules).
Regarding the 700k Palestinians leaving in 1948, there was no historical order to evict anyone from outside the future Israeli borders, fact is they fled either from fear or through encouragement to leave by the 5 arab countries which declared war on Israel. Many millions of people have fled war, vastly more numerous than this, but yet that is the most infamous.
The problem is that while al jazeera can be balanced about certain topics, fact is it is entirely government funded by an authoritarian undemocratic state and on this topic in particular it seeks to purposefully take a prejudiced anti Israeli stance. It has also been criticised for biased to the Syrian dictator, and takes various stances according to the foreign ministry. We therefore cannot be certain if the claims are true.
Unfortunately as history has repeatedly proven, propaganda works. At the very least maybe source should include Government funded?
You can make a similar case against any media organization. They all publish true things and false things. They all have biases that highlight certain things that are happening while occluding others.
You have a very simplistic view of the history. Many Arabs actually aren’t native to the land either, they moved there for work that the new Jewish immigrants provided. In fact there was significant mutual cooperation and benefit. Land wasn’t stolen either, but bought after the Ottomans empire fell and it became legal for Jews to buy Muslim land (the ottomans had some nasty rules).
If you’re referring to 700k Palestinians leaving in 1948, there was no historical order to evict anyone from outside the future Israeli borders, fact is they fled either from fear or through encouragement. Many millions of people have fled war, more numerous than this, but yet that is the most infamous.
> 700k Palestinians leaving in 1948, there was no historical order to evict anyone from outside the future Israeli borders, fact is they fled either from fear or through encouragement
What weasel way to say killing and displacing the Palestinian to steal their land
On top of that, regardless of whatever history, it’s something that is happening right now. Everyday settlers are forcing Palestinians out of their homes, farms and land in the West Bank
Or are you saying Palestinians in the West Bank are also just “fleeing either from fear or through encouragement”?
The trouble with Java exceptions is that the forced error checking is rarely handled at the call site, making the code no longer linear. Calling var a = foo();bar(a); does not necessarily imply bar() will be called. Using a more functional approach, the exception can be even more explicit making it easier to reason about.
Agreed. I was actually hoping the article would talk about how to log (buffer, async, files or output stream, etc). I’ve seen at least 2 cases of excessive logging causing outages: One was using log4j zip rollover which blocked all threads in the app causing timeouts, the other was using json in an older android vm which couldn’t cope with all the garbage, causing OOM due to fragmentation (before compacting garbage collector was introduced)
Not sure if this has been shared, but Yuval Harari, eloquently explains why everyone should care about this, the first invasion of a democratic peaceful country in my memory
Our collective cowardice and inability to avoid repeating mistakes of the past (Poland) will come back to bite us in the ass. "But, but he has nukes!" - sure, and he'll still have nukes if/when they invade Poland, Romania, and the rest of Europe too - so let's just give him a pass.
Next we'll give China a pass when they "take back" Taiwan.
This feels like an assault on truth. I skipped to the blog on “Is Bitcoin mining environmentally unfriendly” and found numerous cases of cognitive biases. Calling it fact checking is disingenuous. More like “alternative” facts.
E.g, consider “Energy consumption comes primarily from mining blocks on the blockchain, not from transactions”. Bitcoin mining incentivises miners to create transaction blocks. The main purpose is to cement the transactions not mint coins. This is plain to see if you consider that the mining process is still necessary once all coins are minted. Therefore transaction energy cost is substantial.
If someone had an unlimited cheap source of green energy, it would actually make Bitcoin less secure as it goes against proof of work - proof of work literally requires an “expensive” operation, exchanging work (energy) for security. This actually makes Bitcoin incompatible with green energy.
I’ll let someone else more eloquently refute all the points in the article.
> If someone had an unlimited cheap source of green energy, it would actually make Bitcoin less secure as it goes against proof of work - proof of work literally requires an “expensive” operation, exchanging work (energy) for security. This actually makes Bitcoin incompatible with green energy..
Huh? The bitcoin protocol Proof-of-Work (PoW) doesn't take energy cost into account at all. PoW simply looks to see which chain is the longest, and it takes that to be true. Miners get to add their block by doing enough computations to find the correct nonce, depending on the network's current difficulty target. But Bitcoin, strictly speaking, could care less what a miner pays for energy.
Having said that, miners have huge incentives to minimize their energy costs, as paying too much puts them our of business. And that incentivises them to find the cheapest energy sources, which are more often than not renewables.
Green energy doesn't affect bitcoin's security, but it can help miners' bottom line.
PoW guarantees the energy has been spent to find the nonce. If one person had access to a perpetual motor, they could control the market. We assume everyone else would then have to find cheaper sources of energy to compete. If we take this to the extreme and energy were free for everyone then it would essentially become a lottery and the cost of additional mining equipment then becomes the limiting factor.
This energy-cost dilemma is required to required to balance the market. It’s also a highly speculative arms race incentivising mass misinformation campaigns to increase the value for existing Bitcoin owners.
In addition many articles focus on individuals which offer a skewed perspective. I stopped using the bbc news app after noticing I was only occasionally enjoying the long reads, and even then I don’t want woke politics snuck in