For me it's not so much what's interesting as what affects my day to day. I love Chinese history but I'm unlikely to come across anything today with origins in Chinese law, or traverse the path of a Chinese road, or use an interesting word with a Chinese etymology and an associated story from old China.
For national history, Chinese is probably my favorite by far.
May I suggest you do a domain-specific history dive, such as the history of computing, the history of science or some other subject you may enjoy more. That's the real good stuff.
Amnesty International, The International Red Cross, Doctors Without Borders, numerous other human rights organizations and world governments all say the same thing: genocide. To deny this is to say that you believe all of those groups are wrong and it is actually Netanyahu, Trump, Biden and Harris, along with their cronies in congress are correct. It is a position that cannot be defended logically.
If you think for yourself—like you should do, absolutely—and look at this situation through all of the information that has come out, how can you conclude that the overwhelmingly unilateral and indiscriminate violence being acted on this territory is reasonable, justified, and not a systematic eradication of the people who live there?
I would really like to understand the based & logical reasoning that you use to arrive at this position.
I'll bite - disclaimer that I'm not the person you replied to.
If you look at comparable situations throughout history - urban warfare - Gaza doesn't really stand out as an outlier. It is tragic that urban warfare is usually so deadly, but singling out Gaza as a uniquely evil instance just doesn't seem to have any basis in the statistics.
The crime of Genocide is unique - it isn't enough to establish what physically happened, nor to establish intent, but all those and cause-effect must be proven. The bar was, intentionally, placed extremely high, in order to emphasize the extraordinarily evil nature of this crime. It seems to me that the purely circumstantial evidence does not meet this bar of intent, let alone being able to establish cause-effect.
Lowering the bar in order to prosecute more acts would only serve to de-emphasize why the term genocide was coined to describe the most heinous of crimes. It is supposed to represent something almost unfathomable, something that could only be carried out with intent or else the acts would make no rational sense, not something that could happen out of negligence and lack of caution. I find it notable that many historical genocides were defined by acts that took place outside of the actual military engagements.
Unfortunately, the trend seems to be try to use this word to describe all war acts people consider unjustified. If people need another way to describe such war acts, that is a separate question.
But I can accept there will be civilian casualties when fighting a war that will result in de-radicalization of a terrorist state and prevent decades to centuries of further violence.
The rate of civilian casualties in this action are significantly higher than in any other urban action. It has been this bad for so long that in 2023, the median age in Gaza was 18. The Israeli government has, over decades, performed so called lawn-mowing operations in Gaza.
Here's a question, what kind of defensive violence needs to be scheduled in advance and performed with clockwork regularity? The non-defensive, genocidal kind.
There is no amount of groups, no amount of evidence, no statistic that will get the supporters of Israel now to flip, that much is clear. They are only interested in denying. Facts to them are merely an inconvenience.
When you run cover for this action, in the future you will have to live with the fact that you defended and denied this genocide.
Indeed.. besides the herd mentality, and obvious bias in all of these authorities, what irks me most is the complete and utter randomness of the outrage over Gaza.
I'm sure horrible things happen there, also that Israel plays dirty, but the selectiveness of the outrage, and complete silence on similar situations, or for that matter, the United States foreign policy of the past century...
I honestly don't care what happens there. I've seen and read enough to know that the conflicts in the region are so ideological that trying to project any rationality on them is effectively moot.
How come so many Ukrainians were accepted into their neighbor countries when Russia invaded, and apparently none of the neighbors want to have anything to do with the Palestinians?
if you can't find rationality (or the root of ideology) in either side of the conflict, you haven't tried particularly hard.
israel's existence and industry is in the interest of the global bourgeoise. "what to do" with the palestinians they displaced has lingered until they were boldened enough by their utter impunity to enact the measures they've taken. israel is the final "classically" imperial nation: to proceed in any manner which favors the palestinians remotely strips the modern colonial empire of its credulity in its own eternal existence.
hamas is an anti-colonial bourgeois movement, of which we've seen many. their are less reactionary elements within the palestinian resistance as well. this pattern has emerged many times in e.g. north africa, what's unique about palestine is that its anti-colonial war has persisted 60 years past the ends of the others.
colonialism is suffocation. it serves only the u.s., israel, etc., to see it as a tit for tat and shield your eyes from any news out of the entire region.
...and, your last sentence is unreal, to be honest. it's a genocide, and you're curious why no one would like to take the unfortunate undesirables at the receiver's end? are you so immune to ideology?
I'm not sure, but it does seem like a great bit of historical foresight. It stands as a lesson to anyone standardizing something: wanna use a 32 bit integer? Make it 31 bits. Just in case. Obviously, this isn't always applicable (e.g. sizes, etc..), but the idea of leaving even the smallest amount of space for future extensibility is crucial.
Hacker News is explicitly not only for those two things.
"Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups."
I don't find anything political about mass murder, and you should consider your position if you do. This is about criminal proceedings, not political ones.
Personally, I find the fact that people still say a genocide, which has been broadcast for years on our tech platforms raw, is still being denied by anyone, quite disturbing, and definitely titillating to the mind
