I think it is a fair question: why is this allowed to stay on the front page while the deaths of people in Gaza is not? Israel just killed a bunch of journalists for organizations like the Associated Press in a double tap strike on a hospital and we're not allowed to discuss it?
I graduated 10 years ago from a public university in the US (albeit one of the best ones - so everyone was your typical high achieving student) and all of this tracks except for the functional illiteracy part.
Chronic absenteeism was normal. Disappearing students was normal. Pretending to take notes was normal. Indifference was normal. I'm sure all of the above has __always__ been happening.
I only realized how far down the rabbit hole Marc was when he was one of the first interviewees for a guy who came out of the neo-Nazi Salo forum, which means he was almost certainly reading Salo forum.
> When asked if the companies could shut down services, attorney Zviel Ganz of the legal department at the Finance Ministry said such scenarios had been taken into consideration when formulating the tenders.
> “According to the tender requirements, the answer is no,” he said, adding that the contracts also bar the firms from denying services to particular government entities.
Yeah, I've seen that mentioned as well, and am curious about the details. This techcrunch article[1] states "... strict contractual stipulations that prevent Google and Amazon from bowing to boycott pressure". That could be read as contract terms that don't mention anything about protest/boycott but rather just set a fixed term of contract, with penalties for terminating the contract. However, it also isn't uncommon for contracts with Israel to include anti-BDS clauses, and California has an anti-BDS law[2], which it could also be referring to.
> In addition to the above objectives, we will not design or deploy AI in the following application areas:
> 1. Technologies that cause or are likely to cause overall harm. Where there is a material risk of harm, we will proceed only where we believe that the benefits substantially outweigh the risks, and will incorporate appropriate safety constraints.
> 2. Weapons or other technologies whose principal purpose or implementation is to cause or directly facilitate injury to people.
> 3. Technologies that gather or use information for surveillance violating internationally accepted norms.
> 4. Technologies whose purpose contravenes widely accepted principles of international law and human rights.
The contract goes against those principles. Employees rightfully speak out about this and stonewalled.
I don't see any new revelations in that Time article. Project Nimbus from the beginning was publicly announced as providing cloud services to all divisions of the Israeli government, but at commercial security level. So the Defense Ministry is using it, but not for anything sensitive, certainly not building weapons. This is akin to Microsoft providing Office 365 to a military. In my mind there is nothing controversial about the service being provided, just who it is being provided to. That is, at some point a government's actions become so bad that doing any business with them becomes unjustifiable. Israel's conduct during this conflict has certainly pushed them in that direction.
In general, for a big city, you need _both_; there is only so far you can push the capacity of a bus lane (even the most ambitious BRT lanes are really only comparable to trams, not heavy metro rail, capacity wise), but it’s not feasible to serve everywhere with rail. You also ideally want simple interchange between them.
One thing we did in Dublin that greatly improved intermodal journeys was a travel card that works across everything. You tap it on rail/bus/tram, you’re debited 2 eur, and anything else you get on in the next 90 minutes, you’re charged nothing. This replaced a baroquely complex staging system, and it’s amazing how much simpler it has made things.
If everyone riding the NYC subway every day took a bus instead, it would need over 3x the bus capacity (2022 subway ridership was 1B, buses were 425M). Personally, I don’t think that’s going to make bus timeliness any better, even with more dedicated bus lanes. The answer is likely that we just need way fewer cars in the way even now. Have a look at 14th St. as an example.
I will dispute that. Double genocide theory is a debunked right wing nationalist myth, sorry. [1]
I'm not saying they were saints but they were on the same moral plane of the Allies, wishing to set up buffer states instead of absorbing them fully into the USSR. Political repression was a real issue in the eastern bloc countries but it's no where near as bad as what the US, France, or UK did in the post war period with their colonies, segregation, bombings, or coups.
Soviets did absorb plenty of buffer countries fully into USSR. Along with massacring a lot of people and/or sending them to gulags.
You’re thinking about USSR of 1980s when political repression and some hair cutting was the main issue. But USSR up to mid 1950s was a tad more evil to say the least.
And „debunking double genocide theory“ is fighting a strawman. Let’s talk how USSR started WW2 along with Nazis. Let’s talk Katyn or Rainiai. Let’s talk gulags. Stalin’s purges. Early USSR social reforms and consequences.
