I was talking about perception, not legality.

I’m Jewish. The taboo around the swastika does not negatively effect me. If the local Indian restaraunt were to redecorate and adorn their walls with swasitkas, I would stop going there. If I saw someone I didn’t know whereing a swasitka necklace, I would avoid them.

I do, however, have enough empathy to recognize that this situation must suck for Hindus, Jains, or any other group for which that symbol has significance.

I also have the capacity to imagine a world where the same exact thing happens to the star of David. One where I cannot go outside whereing it on a necklace. One where we need to censor any artwork or buildings that might be viewed by the general public, lest they misinterpret the symbol. One where Jewish establishments are avoided or vandalized because people see the Star of David and interpret it as a declaration of support for Israel. Or, worse, as a declaration of hate for Palestinians, Arabs, Muslims, or whatever other group the state of Israel gets into a fight with.

This is not some crazy hypothetical. The star of David is the iconic aspect of the Isreali flag; just like the swastika is the iconic aspect of the Nazi flag. There is a massive and media savy coalition devoted conflating Judism and Israel. A coalition that includes both pro-Israel members, and anti-Semitic members. In this very thread, just 3 posted my parent, we have someone openly admitting to doing this. I have a friend still in collage who has stopped wearing anything with the star of David on it. He has not taken down the Mezuzah from his dorm room door. He has not stopped wearing a kippah. The only symbol of Judism that has been causing him issues is the one plastered on the Israeli flag.

Not to detract from anything you said, but the swastika is also a religious symbol. The fact today, some 80 years after the Holocaust, it is still viewed visourally as a Nazi symbol does not bode well for us.

I think this is a case of “things can always get worse”.

He isn’t saying that Israel committed war crimes under his leadership; just that it is doing so now. With the subtext of what is going on now is far worse than what happened back then. Which, as far as I can tell, is accurate.

I keep bringing this up to show how far Israel has slid. Back in 2007, Israel convicted a man for supporting a terrorist organization. In 2022, that man was appointed as the Minister of National Security; and he is a lynchpin holding together Israel’s current governing coalition.

His political party, Otzma Yehudit (Jewish Power) is the successor of the Kach party, which was barred from public office in 1994 under Israeli anti-terrorism laws.

Prior to the 2018-2022 political crisis, the far right parties like Otzma Yehudit were a political third rail and essentially left out of governing coalitions in favor of relatively moderate parties.

I’ve used it a fair amount for memory mapped IO where the hardware defined bitfields. It is also useful when you have a data format with bitfields. I’d say it is also useful when your data does not respect byte boundaries, but the only time I’ve run into that involved the bit order being “backwards”, which means that I still had to bittwidle things back together.

From a performance perspective, a cache line is only 64 bytes. Space in registers, low level memory caches, and memory throughout are all limited as well.

I’ve had a couple of issues like this:

• Wireless mouse has a flaky connection. Turns out the issue was the USB port it was plugged into (probably RF interference as other devices worked fine on that port)

• We had a couple of radio receivers in a server rack. The scale of the project had shrunk over the years, so what used to fill up 2 racks now only half filled them (mostly because of upgraded components becoming faster and smaller over the years). Another project needed needed some rackspace, so we reracked everything into a single rack. When we were done, we found that one of our receivers couldn’t get a signal, and another would lose it regularly. Checked over all of our connections and the antennas, but everything seemed normal. Turns out something in the other project was blasting out RF interference.

• We would occasionally need to manually move data on/off a server using a USB2.0 hard drive. This worked fine for years, until one day we had a server that would randomly disconnect from the drive a few seconds into the transfer. Tried different ports, same issue. The drive itself worked with all the others, so we decided the issue must be with the server. We swapped it out for a brand new one with plans to send the old one back for warranty repairs. Except the new one has the exact same issue. Both servers came from a newish batch from the OEM. Turns out that the earlier versions had a hardware “bug” where the USB ports would source more than the 500ma allowed by the spec. Since they fixed that, our drive would trigger the current limit during sustained use and temporarily depower the port. Solution: get a USB Y cable and power provider power from a wall block

• I had a mouse that would double click (or more) when you pushed the button. This was pretty obviously a hardware issue, but I figured I could just tell the computer to ignore double clicks that happened “too fast” and avoid needing a new mouse. In theory that should have worked, but the input stack on Linux turned out to be a giant web that I couldn’t figure out, so I ended up opening the mouse and soldering on a random capacitor I had lieing around.

• We had a laptop with a dead monitor that would mysteriously work at times. It turns out that most of the time, it was sitting on another laptop (of the same type). Those laptops had a magnet latch to hold them shut. It turns out that said magnet also was used as part of a “laptop closed” sensor that would disable the monitor, and the bottom laptop would trigger the sensor in the top one.

What evidence is there that murder is effective in these circumstances?

It’s old, but The Wire

And put some guidelines in the road to assist with self driving. Maybe make them out of metal for improved durability. Then swap out the rubber-wheeled tires for some more efficient and less poluting conical metal wheels since we don’t need to worry about them running on asphalt anymore.

Oooh. And as long as we have multiple carriages connected, we can add a walkway between them. Then instead of all of them being for passengers, they can subsidize the cost by having a car dedicated to selling snacks, or other items. You can literally buy your morning coffee from the road!

A bit more context for that quote:

calling for a one-state solution without specifying equal rights for all people; Jewish in particular.

The “one state” in the one-state solution is Israel, which currently views itself as an occupying power, and has Jewish Supremacy enshrined in her basic law (essentially constitution). Jews are not the group that is at risk in this scenario.

Interested to see how this plays out.

Prohibiting Holocaust denial is relatively easy, because we have the benefit of it being history, and we have an ample historical record and a clear consensus among historians. Plus, no one can credibly claim that the legislatures were not thinking of the Holocaust when they wrote the law.

However, how are they planning on applying the law to contemporary international crimes? People make accusations of them all the time. And the other side always denied them. And the actual facts are generally obscured by a massive fog of war that can take years to see through, if ever.

There is also plenty of history where the answer is less clear. Do we really want courts involved in determining if the 15th century conquest of the Canary Islands counts as a genocide. Or if some unnamed mass grave an archeologists unearths was caused by an invading army killing all of a city’s adult males, or simply a burial site for fallen soldiers?

What about the book of Esther. Taken literally, it ends with what is arguably a genocide committed by the Jews against the Persians. However, outside of some Israeli hardliners reinterpreting that ending for contemporary political purposes, it is widely understood that that ending is a literary device, not a literal telling of events. Did my Hebrew school teachers violate this law when they told me we didn’t actually kill 75,000 Persians? [0].

What about the ongoing genocide against white Afrikaners going on in South Africa today? Am I violating the law when I say that genocide is not real, and just something the rightwing in the US invented for domestic political purposes. If the US has such a law, could Trump use it to jail his political opponents who criticized his recent stunt of accepting 60 Afrikaner refugees?

Do we defer to an international body like the ICC or ICJ? In that case, you have just outlawed disagreeing with those bodies.

The UN has repeatedly found it to be a massive human rights violation. Does disagreeing with those findings violate this new law?

[0] As an aside, secular historians generally consider all of Esther to be fiction.

According to the bill, denial of the Holocaust or other serious international crimes, such as those defined under the statutes of the International Criminal Court, would be punishable by a fine or a prison sentence of up to two years.

https://www.helsinkitimes.fi/finland/finland-news/domestic/26868-finland-moves-to-ban-holocaust-denial-under-new-criminal-law.html

I still burn DVDs. Ever since USB storage was deemed “not secure”, they are the easiest way to get data into and out of sensitive networks.

The left had a Joe Rogan. His name was Joe Rogan.

4% is widely used as a safe withdrawal rate. It’s based on modelling with historical data of market returns and achieving a near 100% probability of not drawing down your principle over the long term.

So, your mom is OK with gay sex, and recognizes trans people as being their chosen gender? How progressive!

The owners of Twitter made him go through with it, using the courts as the enforcement mechanism.

Be sure to check state law before doing this.

In Ohia V Miller (2024), Miller was found guilty of operating a vehicle under the influence after he drunkenly drove a horse drawn buggy. This finding was upheld my the appelete court.

In State v Blowers (1986), the Utah Supreme Court found that riding a horse while intoxicated did not qualify as DUI. This finding had 2 parts: A) A horse is not a vehicle and

B) The provision:

Every person riding an animal or driving any animal-drawn vehicle upon a roadway is subject to this chapter, except those provisions which by their nature can have no application.

Is unconstitutionally vague.

In the case of Mythbusters v Drunk Driving, the Mybuster found that it is illegal to operate a vehicle while drunk, even on a closed course. However, it is legal for a blind man to operate a vehicle under the direction of a drunk man.

The Gaza Ministry of Health systematically undercounts the dead. First, they only attemp to count direct casualties, which excludes preventable deaths from malnutrition, disease, loss of shelter, etc. Second, their capacity to find the dead is significantly reduced due to the war. This isn’t unique to this situation. For almost any disaster, casualty estimates continue to go up after the disaster itself is over, and there are resources to spend looking for dead bodies.

Congress does not have the constitutional authority to declare a prior Congresses laws invalid. For a bunch of internal stuff like the fillubuster rules, or remote voting, the current Congress can do whatever it wants without presidential review. However once a law is passed through the constitutional process, the constitution does not have a separate process for repealing it. This means that Congress would need to go through the same constitutional process to repeal it, which includes the possibility of a presidential veto.

Having said that, the Supreme Court does have the constitutional authority to declare a law invalid[0], and the President has no veto authority over that. Further, the current Supreme Court has invented out of nothingness two bedrock pillars of constitutional analysis:

1. The Major Questions Doctrine, which states that questions of major political or economic significance may not be delegated by Congress to the executive branch.

2. The Non-Delegation Doctrine, which states that Congress may not delegate it’s lawmaking authority to other entities.

Since the Supreme Court is an unbiased arbiter of the law, I’m confident that they will apply these principles consistently and determine that Congress’s initial delegation if tarrif authority was unconditional. /s

[0] This is not actually explicit in the Constitution. But has been how it is interpreted since Marbury v Madison in 1803.

)