Destroying Israel is different from killing Jews. One is replacing a government, which is not necessarily evil. The other is killing people, which is. Advocating violent attacks is the evil thing he does, not advocating replacement of the government.
What bothers me about many of these discussions is that the two are so often conflated. When somebody carries a Nazi Swastika or calls for violence against Jews, that is antisemitic. When somebody opposes Israel, that is not. https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2023-12-12/antisemitis...
You're right, destroying Israel Hamas-style (as described in https://news.yahoo.com/hamas-member-says-repeat-attacks-0656...) is different from killing Jews. One involves Hamas re-committing the unspeakable monstrosities of Oct 7th again and again, and another is just regular murder.
Congrats on writing the most ignorantly hateful comment I've ever seen on HN.
> Destroying Israel is different from killing Jews
Israel exists because of the much-repeated global pogroms against Jews. The Mizrahi Jews fled Yemen, Morocco, and other Muslim countries because of antisemitic persecution. Beta Israel fled the Mengistu regime in Ethiopia, which threatened a Jewish genocide. Those Jews had that option because of the existence of Israel, a country located in the ancestral homeland of the Jews.
I sincerely believe that fighting for the destruction of Israel is akin to antisemitism. Because what will happen when the next round of Pogroms and genocides roll around? It's been happening for thousands of years, and as recently as the 70s. Jews need a safe country.
Does that justify taking land from others by force, instituting occasional pogroms on those who are displaced? Europe and North America have countries with stable governments that protect people from violence and accept refugees and allow them to purchase land legally without violence.
I disagree on the apartheid claim and so does former anti-apartheid activist and South African politician Mosiuoa Lekota [1].
Per Wikipedia, Apartheid is a "system of institutionalised racial segregation", and Israel's citizens include many Arab Muslims and even Palestinians, all of whom have equal rights. Israel's declaration of independence explicitly supported "equality...without distinction of race, creed, or sex" [2]. Arabs are 20% of the Israeli population and yet they are 40% of doctors [3].
The West bank and Gaza are basically separate countries with their own governments. The extremist Israeli settlers should leave those areas since they are not part of Israel, but I am just stating disagreement with the "apartheid" label. The concept of systemic Apartheid is unrelated to a few bad apples occupying and illegally settling in areas outside their national borders.
It's interesting that you are citing a former South African politician who opposed apartheid. I will quote a South African journalist who fought against apartheid, published books about it and defended Israel as a non-apartheid state for many years after moving there. Now, he states that it is indeed an apartheid state.
"In 2001, I joined Israel’s government delegation to the world conference against racism in Durban. The government of Ariel Sharon invited me because of my expertise after a quarter-century as a journalist in South Africa; my specialty was reporting on apartheid close up.
At the conference, I was disturbed and angered by the multitude of lies and exaggerations about Israel. During the years since, I have argued with all my might against the accusation that Israel is an apartheid state – in lectures, newspaper articles, on TV and in a book."
And later he writes:
"In Israel, I am now witnessing the apartheid with which I grew up."
TBF- Mosiuoa Lekota, who literally went to jail with Nelson Mandela, should probably be listened to more than the random journalist you cited.
I read the article though and it basically is saying that right wing extremism in Israel is doing some things reminiscent of Apartheid South Africa. That doesn't sound systemic - more like a warning that people need to stand up to the right wing extremism is Israel. Fair point. But definitely does not lend credence to the claim that there is widespread systemic Apartheid.
I'm not sure I agree with you, in the Humans Right report and Amnesty International report they clearly show evidence for systemic apartheid. Also former UN chief says Israel’s treatment of Palestinians may constitute apartheid [2].
Overview[1]:
"Since the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, successive governments have created and maintained a system of laws, policies, and practices designed to oppress and dominate Palestinians. This system plays out in different ways across the different areas where Israel exercises control over Palestinians’ rights, but the intent is always the same: to privilege Jewish Israelis at the expense of Palestinians.
Israeli authorities have done this through four main strategies:
Fragmentation into domains of control
At the heart of the system is keeping Palestinian separated from each other into distinct territorial, legal and administrative domains
Dispossession of land and property
Decades of discriminatory land and property seizures, home demolitions and forced evictions
Segregation and control
A system of laws and policies that keep Palestinians restricted to enclaves, subject to several measures that control their lives, and segregated from Jewish Israelis
Deprivation of economic & social rights
The deliberate impoverishment of Palestinians keeping them at great disadvantage in comparison to Jewish Israelis"
I dislike repeating myself but once again, per Wikipedia, apartheid is a "system of institutionalised racial segregation".
That Amnesty article contradicts that definition. It's talking about mistreating people in East Jerusalem, aka The West Bank, which again, is not part of Israel, has its own government, etc. And what is the primary race of those people in the West Bank? Arab. And Arabs comprise how much of the Israeli population? Around 20%. And are those Israeli Arabs being systemically mistreated, as though by apartheid? If they are, then this "apartheid" not only directly opposes Israel's declaration of independence, but it's a strange type of Apartheid that is highly supportive of Arabs becoming doctors at roughly double the expected rate per capita in Israel.
Yes, Israel is treating people differently, but it's not based on skin color or race. It's based on whether they live inside its national borders.
This is a complex and nuanced situation but please try to understand that it's dangerous to unilaterally redefine words the way that Amnesty does in that article. There's a huge difference between widespread systemic racism and some bad apples illegally occupying land outside a nation's borders.
It appears that they do not contradict that definition. Please read this article, where you can find the definitions in the context of the crime of apartheid:
There is a section there about definition of racial discrimination, it's not only about race.
"According to the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD),
the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.[17]
This definition does not make any difference between discrimination based on ethnicity and race, in part because the distinction between the two remains debatable among anthropologists.[18] Similarly, in British law the phrase racial group means "any group of people who are defined by reference to their race, colour, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origin"
To be fair, Israel was doing some bad stuff to them within its borders in the 1960s but "In 1966, martial law was lifted completely, and the government set about dismantling most of the discriminatory laws, while Arab citizens were granted the same rights as Jewish citizens under law".
It seems like the main issue today is treating people differently based on whether they currently live on the other side of a national border. Ex: apparently marriage to an Israeli is no longer a path to Israeli citizenship for Palestinians residing outside Israel- https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israels-knesset-pa...
But many, if not most, countries have policies that similarly punish people outside their borders so I don't see how that is particularly damning for Israel.
And Israel has been editing the equivalent of their Bill of Rights (ie. the Israeli Basic Laws) to grant certain civil rights fundamentally only to it's Jewish citizens.
Have you even read the actual legal text [1] for the Nation-State law? It basically just says that Israel will always retain certain elements of Jewish culture such as the flag, anthem, holidays, and official language. No one is preventing non-Jews from partaking in those cultural artifacts, just like how no one is preventing Mexican Americans from celebrating the 4th of July and no one prevents them from speaking Spanish.
Is every country now required to sing Kumbaya and officially honor every major culture within a 1000km radius? Can they not officially declare that certain cultural things are more important to them than others?
What would happen if that part was removed and 100 years from now, another group tried to claim Israel as their self-determined government?
Every time Jewish people try to be a peaceful minority inside someone else's society, they face discrimination, exile, or pogroms. And it just happens that many government leaders of neighboring countries have repeatedly declared their intention (or heck, literally tried) to mass murder them.
Separate world: definitely. I remember a random real estate agent inviting my friend to a party and saying "bring your good looking friends" while giving me the stink eye from a distance. I have an older neighbor who is tall and handsome, and his wife was saying how, when they were younger, women would walk past him then turn around and make some excuse to talk to him.
I can't believe how much I deluded myself when I was younger about the nature of social hierarchies. There was some research (can't find it now) about childhood aggression showing how, if a kid is better looking, then aggression actually improves their social standing, while if the kid was not good looking, the opposite happens.
Forgive your younger self, we all had our own coping strategies.
My coping mechanism was that, if I only I lived in South Korea I'd fit in and be popular and happy. I learned as adult the social hierarchy is just as cruel there as it is in America.
Whatever you do, just make sure you don't allow your kids to repeat the same mistakes.
I had a manager who was obsessed with "velocity" and I spent 4 hours per week on time estimates. None of it was accurate except tasks like tiny CSS changes. Yeah, if you want to reduce morale, force everyone to waste half a day per week on pointless BS.
And they never include the time to implement a process in their analysis of whether or not the process has a benefit to cost ratio greater than one. It’s always just assumed to be true.
I think multiple inheritance will always scare me. What order do the superclass inits run in? What happens if they do conflicting things? What if some superclasses call super().__init__ and others don't?
No thanks, I'll suffer through reading a few additional lines of:
def __init__(self, \*kwargs):
# What does this do? No one knows
super().__init__(self, \*kwargs)
def calculate(self):
source = self.get_source()
return self.get_stuff(source)
Meh, that's just the standard composition vs inheritance dichotomy. In reality, those two concepts are orthogonal, and you can use one, the other, and both, as suitable to the situation.
Using multiple inheritance to implement certain common functionality, using mixin classes, is possible in Python; it's another powerful tool in the arsenal, but doesn't mean that you have to use it.
Inheritance works best to denote "is-a" relationships, i.e. for defining subtypes, especially when using type annotations and checks. Sometimes - albeit very rarely - you need a class that belongs to two separate type hierarchies; multiple inheritance comes very handy in those cases.
I don't think he is unaware of any of that. His point was that multiple inheritance involves enough fiddly surprising behaviour that it's best avoided - you are better off manually delegating to distinct member variables, then it is clear what is happening even if it is a bit more tedious.
(Btw that's the only way to implement inheritance in Rust, even single inheritance.)
The Method Resolution Order (MRO) is firm and documented. It's just not something anyone keeps in mind unless you use multiple inheritance a lot.
Conflicts are determined by the MRO. If some classes don't call super(), then they won't call super --> classes further down the MRO won't be called and won't be initialized.
The choice isn't: multiple inheritance or a couple lines. In the right situation, multiple inheritance could save hundreds of lines and condense a complicated mechanism into a simplistic one. Used flippantly, they can be a nightmare -- but that's true of all programming paradigms.
Agree, core feature of Python is to be readable and familiar. While I enjoy reading more advanced deep dives in language features, at the point you’re being crafty to flex, it’s likely bad idea; aka if next person reading your code mostly will have no clue what it’s doing, it’s likely a bad idea to do.
Wish there was a way to visualize or rate how average code is - especially two separate versions covering same concept; hence my other comments on resources to quantify usage patterns.
Over thinking it, I think this is probably the "right" solution to multiple inheritance where there are conflicting attributes.
I suspect it is a hard pre-commit check but you would want to only inherit from classes with no conflict- then if there are it is down to this approach (!)
I bet humans could have done a lot better than -$881M, and it wouldn't have been very costly to employ them. How many homes did Zillow iBuy in total, 10-20k? If it takes 5 minutes to evaluate a house, that would be 100,000 minutes, which is ~50 people working full time for a week. Spending $100k on that could have saved 100s of millions, plus it might have generated better training data for the model.
Gent is an awesome city! Beautiful cathedrals and castles, a nice downtown riverside area, good art museums, lots of terraced pubs/cafes with excellent beer selections, plenty of smart people doing PhD work at UGent. And while people speak Dutch most of the time, 99% of people are fluent in English.
I think the main complaint about US public transit is that it's dirty and dangerous. If it was super safe and clean in+around all stations and on all trains/buses at all times, people would definitely use it more often.
https://news.yahoo.com/hamas-member-says-repeat-attacks-0656...