We can argue about about how long you can squat someone’s house before it’s morally acceptable to keep living in it, and how much the crimes of the parents transfer to the children (if at all), and those are conversations that require some nuance.

However, specifically when it comes to Israel, you have to remember that the state was established within living memory. Many of the stolen houses were stolen by people living in them right now, and they’re actively being stolen. You frame it as a completed and long past action done by our forefathers, but this isn’t really accurate. It’s an actively ongoing process, right?

The problem is that there has already been very heavy meddeling, for as long as the Israeli state has existed. In fact, the existence of the state is a direct result of that exact outside meddling.

It’s not exactly ‘fair’ to put someone in another’s house, give them a gun and then say “further meddling is not allowed”.

Besides, no country can practically exist without “outside meddling”. What about international trade? If you trade with groups aligned with one side but not the other, is that meddling? What about diaspora? There’s a lot of displaced Palestinians and a lot of Jews who would both like to move into the same place. This has to be in part facilitated by the host countries, right? And there are many other small and large decision you have to make.

What you’re asking for is:

1. Practically impossible.
2. Enabling an ongoing genocide (since that is, seemingly, how Israel is currently aiming to achieving “peaceful homes” for themselves).

What if you build it on an asteroid or moon or planet. Uranus is ~-225⁰C, right?

I kinda disagree with the first one. Plenty of places which do not support humans are beautiful. And I don’t like the implication that to be beautiful, you must be hostile with hidden kindness underneath. I don’t know if that’s how Antoine meant it, though.

Guess what? The guy who picks up boxes ask day for a job will do it better and faster than you. That fits perfectly with your definition of “skill”.

I wish we could take cars of the road that way…

To be fair, programming is basically the art of making the computer do as much as possible with as little typing as possible.

To be clear, the accusation is that the mod team is Zionist, and that they consistently moderate all anti-Zionist content.

It’s a Zionist bar not just because there’s a few Zionists, but because the bar owner keeps kicking out the people who cause a ruckus with the Zionists.

1. They had a vote, and the people said strongly that they did not want to see this.
2. Platforming Facism is the best way to spread Facism, and deplatforming Facism is the best way to fight it. Supporting their freedom to speak is in effect the same as supporting the ideology.

Even if we do this, paternity tests are not guaranteed correct. This has the possibility to cause so much unneeded drama.

It’s not really even errors. It is well-suited for what it was designed. It produced pretty good text. It’s just that we’re using it for stuff it’s not suited for. Like digging a hole with a spoon, then complaining your hands hurt.

The government already knows all our ages, right? They issue our IDs after all. Have the government provide a “yes, this person is over 18” service. There are ways of providing signed files/tokens which don’t contain personal information.

If the government wants to write a law, then I think it’s reasonable they’re also responsible to help with a solution.

Fair, but nuanced rules are difficult to enforce, and somewhat open to interpretation. This leads to people trying to skirt the rules and also good faith posts which break the rules which leads to conflict also.

I think it’s better to keep things as simple as possible, as long as the rule is good enough.

This is why ‘American’ politics are banned, and not politics broadly, right?

I don’t see a problem with a bunch of European-specific questions being asked, so I question the need for an expanded rule.

If you broaden the rule, you run at risk of banning or discouraging desirable questions. Stuff about economics or lifestyle. Those are “political” too, after all.

What does this mean …?

It seems that the rule seems to work well enough here as is. In addition to the rule, how you enforce it is equally (if not more) important too.

If you want a simple explanation why he couldn’t spy:

Imagine that your internet traffic is a bunch of letters. HTTP are postcards. You can read the message and destination both. HTTPS are envelopes. You cannot read the message, but you can see the destination.

When using VPN, you stick every letter/postcard in another envelope, addressed to the VPN company’s address. They unpack the letter, set themselves as the return address, and send it on.

Your friend could previously look at the outside of your letters, and see who you’re sending to, and how much. Now, they can only see you’re sending to the VPN company, which isn’t helpful. (In theory, they can see the volume of data, but there isn’t much they can learn with just that).

Every rule has a back story. You can easily imagine a bunch of kids yelling at each other as they bike down the street. But you cannot make a sign that says “punk kids not allowed”.

Non-human, uncaring machines who amass and hoard wealth beyond human comprehension honestly doesn’t sound any different than what we have now.