The vast majority of the international community does not recognise Israel's annexation of the Golan Heights.

Tl;dr Israel is illegally occupying land, and people who used to live there are...

*checks notes*

Upset about it? Weird.

If Israel has a right to defend itself, why don't their neighbors have the same rights?

D'oh, of course. Britain said it was probably fine, don't worry about it. Quick, let's all enforce the insane borders due to our historical tendency to support misguided decisions made by Britain as it's imperial power contracted and they used the opportunity to fuck over as many Muslims as possible.

As an atheist, all of this bickering over which version of Abraham's assertion of paternalistic traditions is more correct is exhausting, but if we're going to try to make a case that liberal institutions are effective, everyone needs to follow the same rules. Israel doesn't get a free pass because Britain said they were extra special that one time.

To be clear, I'm not calling for the end of Israel. They're there now and they have lots of guns so maybe don't fuck with them, BUT we can't seriously act shocked when Israeli settlers continue to illegally settle lands outside of Israel's borders and they face resistance. The behavior is abhorrent and should be condemned as such.

I disagree, these children are minors and the their behavior, while abhorrent, belies a fundamental lack of perspective and empathy.

I've been a teenage boy before and I did some bone-headed things. Maybe not this bad, but still, I agree with the judge in this instance that it would be inappropriate to impose permanent consequences on these kids before their life even gets started because they were stupid, horny, teenage boys.

Even if we assume that these kids don't all have well-meaning parents who who will impose their own punishments, having a probation officer in high school is not going to help with popularity. Then, mandatory classes that will force these boys to evaluate the situation from another perspective seems like a great add-on.

I know it doesn't feel like justice, but our goal as a society shouldn't be to dole out maximum punishment in every instance. The goal is to allow all of us to peacefully coexist and contribute to society - throwing children in a dark hole somewhere to be forgotten isn't going to help with that.

Having said all of the above, it feels like a good time to emphasize that we still don't have any good ideas for solving the core problem here, which is the malicious use of this technology that was dumped on society without any regard for the types of problems that it would create, and entirely without a plan to add guard rails. While I'm far from the only one considering this problem, it should be clear enough by now that dragging our feet on creating regulation isn't getting us any closer to a solution.

At a minimum it feels like we need to implement a mandatory class on the responsible use of technology, but the obvious question there is how to keep the material relevant. Maybe it's something that tech companies could be mandated to provide to all users under 18 - a brief, recurring training (could be a video, idc) and assessment that minors would have to complete quarterly to demonstrate that they understand their responsibilities.

They were never really hiding it, we just all assumed they were insane fringe ideas and nothing would come of it. Things have changed...

Since we're telling people to Google things, try "anecdotal fallacy" and let us know if it helps you to understand the source of the downvotes.

The OP is about survey data that directly contradicts your position. It's fantastic that you've found a position where you have work/life balance that works so well for you, but it simply doesn't match the experience of many commenting in this thread or those who were surveyed.

Be as obstinate as you like, it won't change the lived experiences of others in the industry.

It sounds like someone got ahold of a 6 year old copy of Google's risk register. Based on my reading of the article it sounds like Google has a robust process for identifying, prioritizing, and resolving risks that are identified internally. This is not only necessary for an organization their size, but is also indicative of a risk culture that incentivizes self reporting risks.

In contrast, I'd point to an organization like Boeing, which has recently been shown to have provided incentives to the opposite effect - prioritizing throughput over safety.

If the author had found a number of issues that were identified 6+ years ago and were still shown to be persistent within the environment, that might be some cause for alarm. But, per the reporting, it seems that when a bug, misconfiguration, or other type of risk is identified internally, Google takes steps to resolve the issue, and does so at a pace commensurate with the level of risk that the issue creates for the business.

Bottom line, while I have no doubt that the author of this article was well-intentioned, their lack of experience in information security / risk management seems obvious, and ultimately this article poses a number of questions that are shown to have innocuous answers.

Wait, you don't inherently trust pictures of text posted by anonymous strangers online? Clearly this sentiment deserves downvotes. /s

On a less sarcastic note, I've noticed this a lot with my gen z friends - instead of using the share button that is built into pretty much every website and app these days, I get a screenshot of a headline from an article and am left to find the source on my own. Infuriating.

In this thread: "Biden did not have a 1-on-1 conversation with my manager that resulted in a massive raise, so I declare these statistics invalid!"

This seems to happen a lot on Lemmy, makes me miss the Economics subreddit.

I know that not everyone has had the opportunity to take classes in economics, but the amount of people who are unable to see past their own nose is incredible.

How would we prefer our leaders to make policy decisions? Should they pick a random 10 people and ask what they think, or would it be better to gather a wide range of data on the topic to build an understanding of the economic impacts for 300M+ people? I'd argue that it would be irresponsible for policymakers to ignore the aggregate statistics, but commenters in this thread seem dead set on asserting that because their personal circumstances don't follow the narrative, the statistics must be a lie.

Based on the article, it sounds like dying of exhaustion is par for the course when it comes to elections in Indonesia; does anyone have any insight into why that happens? If the current process is so treacherous, are there calls to make it safer?

That is truly a superb owl

Just make the retirement age enforced for elected officials too. If the average American is expected to retire at 67, shouldn't our representatives be younger than that?

I'm not an expert, but I have family that operates within this industry, unaffiliated with the ugly homes organization.

Tl;dr The idea is that these companies buy homes that have fallen into a state of disrepair, fix them up so that they comply with modern building safety regulations, slap on a new coat of paint, then sell the property for a profit.

Since they don't fully investigate the issues that the home has before making an offer, they make offers that are wildly lower than most valuations would indicate, which leads to the reputation of being scammy. Sometimes there are structural issues that are extremely expensive to resolve and the project is barely profitable, but in other instances there is little repair work required, and they make a big profit. Lowballing every offer ensures that they can't lose, but also means that this is rarely a good option unless you are in serious financial straits.

It Takes Two is a masterpiece for co-op gameplay and is great for casual gameplay. A Way Out was made by the same studio before It Takes Two and it's easy to see where they were able to improve on the experience, but it's also a great game for local co-op.