Maybe Israel's neighbors object to that?

Or maybe they can't find bad enough musicians to get an entry together and are afraid of losing?

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/17/world/middleeast/israel-h...

Everything only works by agreement and adherence to rules: some explicit, some considered to be so blindingly obvious to a human that there should be no need to state them.

Some of the rules around warfare involve doing your utmost to avoid collateral damage. In this case the collateral damage involves a ten year old girl.

Please try to respond to the actual arguments instead of a cheap, easy strawman. It helps improve the quality of the site.

Certainly to me I don't see the difference between explosives supplied in a missile produced with US tax-subsidies to arms profiteers or explosives produced by someone else. Except that in the first case US voters have some control over the supply -- not much, but some.

The GP comment is clearly talking about the lack of precision or targeting. Here you may have a point if we consider absolute quantities instead of some relative measurement: a US-taxpayer-supplied-with-profits-to-a-private-company Hellfire missile fired into a refugee camp full of women and children might kill 10 obviously-innocent people for 1 presumed-to-be-a-terrorist-without-any-sort-of-trial person; whereas a pager bomb exploding might blow up the we-dont-know-yet-anything-but-he-was-in-Hezbollah and his ten-year old daughter.

If I were a moral simpleton I might argue that the Hellfire missile murders were worse than the pager murders.

But what do I know? After all hundreds of years of protocols and treaties and norms about this sort of thing are probably just old and in need of being re-envisioned by some clever code jockey.

We've seen the appointment of people with biographies suggesting affinity with US interests, for example Katherine Maher to the Signal Foundation (and the departure of the Moxie Marlinspike.)

I see a members list for the board overseeing the spec for Matrix, but does anyone know who they are[1]? And the spec is one thing, but who controls the development of the actually used clients and implementations?

Please note I am not imputing anything w.r.t. Matrix/Element etc, but if we're bothered to put effort into E2EE then it is probably worth thinking about this aspect in addition to whether the technical basis is sound. The historical record is clear on government attempts to influence things from that end.

I have the same sort of worries about GnuPG (and the SPoF that is the hard-working maintainer.)

Maybe E2EE is not of concern to the OP, in which case disregard the above.

1. https://matrix.org/foundation/governing-board-elections/

Nothing will change except the climate and then the "husband and wife" can make a rational decision about which of them gets to consume which proportion of the hugely diminished resources. Perhaps the "husband and wife" will regret the recently-vanished mild and predictable climate to which humans spent tens of millions of years adapting. Probably not though: the "husband and wife" are great at not looking physical reality in the eye.

> than disabled ppl in nl again due to

> car oriented infra.

Car-centered road and sidewalk design is hostile to wheelchair users, people with sight impairments, children, old people on so many fronts:

- noise from vehicular traffic

- the right to progess impeded at every block by having to wait until someone drives their horseless carriage

- the danger of crossing because the licensing process for the self-propelled horseless buggies does not select only for the reasonable and sane

Motonormativity is a loss for everyone except car manufacturers and oil companies.

Even the suckers driving them are cheating themselves out of exercise and experiencing the world.

I have some sympathy towards people that are arguing about different cost/benefit calculations applying to poorer people in the most motonormative parts of the USA. I don't buy all of it ( I have been poor in the USA and found that a bicycle was the key to freedom ), but I can believe there may be job situations where it just is more practical.

The people whose testimony I completely write off are upper-middleclass who could live closer to work with a smaller living space (or other tradeoff) -- we are all going to be burning in their self-justifying moralistic hell in the near future.

Get a bike losers -- and use it.

So, "zero shared lineage" seems like a very strong statement.

Yet you imply that others should do exactly that in order to take seriously your insinuation that actual bodily harm was incurred. If you have proof that someone was physically damaged by the blowing of the truck horns then it will a simple thing for you supply this information of which you have implied you are the possessor.

If you do not have it and have never had it then you could also help by just stating that, so that no one wastes their time.