No, we have benchmarks for (pseudo-)objective measurements of capabilities. We have flashy news stories on repeat for marketing.
The point is that they are separate things. If you start mixing them up, analysis becomes more biased and less objective.
EDIT: And do not mistake this for transparency of ClosedAI either. Their incident report was so generic that no one serious can learn much from it anyway except that “a zeroday” was allegedly used. Very helpful…
We also have evidence that Anthropic distilled all human info they could get their hands on for the development of all their models.
Distillation should be fair game given the (current) game of LLM training. Yes, as a model creator you probably want to protect against it, but it does make you a hypocrite.
> The developer OpenAI has said it would be impossible to create tools like its groundbreaking chatbot ChatGPT without access to copyrighted material, as pressure grows on artificial intelligence firms over the content used to train their products.
Cool, but, the thing is… even though CF is genuinely very good at what they do, I do not think that they have real moat. Nor does any other CDN provider have it.
The top 5 CDNs in terms of popularity are all US-based companies. However, Bunny and other providers are growing and becoming real market competitors.
Switching from Microsoft, Amazon, or heavy Google-based infra to on-prem or other vendors is much more complicated than switching the CDN.
CDNs are a very replaceable component. Basically a DNS record update away, and a bit of config.
That’s not true and uninformed. What even makes you believe this?
Europe has tons of top research universities. Both EU and China are competing with the US [0].
And this news is not an isolated event. The majority of Americans rank US higher education research and innovation as: poor [1]. US top universities are shrinking PhD programs [2.
The thing that makes the US unique is that they are really dropping the ball in a lot of areas, because of bad leadership of the financial and political “elite”.
> Between October 7, 2023 and October 7, 2025, at least 20,179 children were killed, around 30% of the overall death toll.
> A rebuttal shared by Israel's mission in Geneva said Israel "consistently strives to minimize harm to children even in situations of conflict".
Well, it is certainly no question that Israel is killing children en masse.
Israeli officials are saying “but we are trying to minimize”. Well, these attempts clearly failed given 20,179 fatal cases, and let’s also consider all physically injured and traumatized children.
Still, as of today, Israel is killing a child per day in Gaza [1].
So either it is complete incompetence of Israels warfare methods, or it is done on purpose.
No matter how you try to frame it, package it: this is not right and Israel should be sanctioned internationally.
Fundamentalists rule this nation. Sanction them, no weapon exports and their actions are not aligned with their official rhetoric.
Also, October 7, October 7, October 7. Yes, horrible, but at what point does the consensus become that October 7 starts to look like a small event in light of the death toll on the other side?
Spoiler: we should be way beyond that. Over 97% of all total casualties are on the Palestinian side [2].
> Yes, horrible, but at what point does the consensus become that October 7 starts to look like a small event in light of the death toll on the other side
At the point when other side (free palestine and alike) start acknowledging it. Two wrongs don't make something right.
Start with teaching Palestine supporters that hamas is not the answer. And maybe, maybe after that people start seeing Palestine people as victims. Without it, most people will continue supporting Israel, not because they think that it does no wrong. But in comparison with hamas and their supporters Israel is lesser evil.
> maybe after that people start seeing Palestine people as victims. Without it, most people will continue supporting Israel
Most of the world sees Palestinians as the victims and Zionists are very much the global minority. Hamas made that a reality, so I think they are the answer. I certainly support their resistance to Zionism, just like the Haitian slave revolt.
Almost all Israelis are IDF members, members of various intelligence and defense companies. If we plotted a map of a suitable attack radius around all valid combat targets in Israel, almost the entirety of their "civilian" regions would be covered.
The idf doesn't fight near civilian infrastructure - it deploys to the borders. Military bases in israel are far from civilian infrastructure. I think you're probably just wrong here.
That's another fun one. Israel doesn't seem to mind launching missiles at non-serving non-military officers who are living in neutral countries like Qatar, and killing unrelated Qatari civilians in the process. So I would say by the same precedent, anyone has served or is serving in the IDF, which obviously would live in the cities as most of the population is a valid target.
I misunderstood your point earlier. Not that international law is necessarily always a valid philosophy we should accept, but international law does only consider people to be combatants if they're actively serving. Regardless of what international law says, I would argue that ethically, retired/non-serving army members should not be considered combatants or fair wartime targets (I think I mostly feel this way on the basis that targeting them causes civilian strife - e.g. the company they work for, family/community they support etc. is harmed - with zero war value). And I would say reservists are a more complicated case.
I care more about equality than international law. If Israel uses a tactic or policy, then its valid and just for those fighting Israel to not tie their hands behind their backs and avoid the same tactic.
>Khalil al-Hayya, a reported target of this air strike, was previously targeted by a 2007 assassination attempt, which killed at least seven of his family members.[33][34][35] His home in Gaza was struck by an airstrike in the 2014 Gaza War.
Israel hardly has difficulties with killing innocent family members. So "civilian strife" is irrelevant in my view, as symmetrically Palestine, Lebanon, Iran, etc are permitted to do the same against Israel. The people targeted in the Qatar strike were all political office holders not soldiers. So for instance it is valid for these countries to bomb the home or place of stay of Ben Gvir or Benjamin Netenyahu and kill them and their family members for the sake of just and fair combat.
Saying "I accept X using any tactic against Y that Y used against X" is meaningless in an ongoing tit-for-tat conflict unless you pick an arbitrary historical starting point. You may naturally lean towards picking an anti-israel starting point, but that isn't the only option.
Strikes against hamas leadership have war value, and I personally find proportional collateral damage justifiable.
Netanyahu is roughly (not legally but comparable) a commander in chief and targetting him likewise has war value and is justifiable. I'm not sure of ben gvir's role in military matters, but that's what I would base my answer on.
How does historical starting point matter? If Y started using traditionally inadmissible tactics then it is pure foolishness for X to constrain himself. Clearly Israel saw some benefit in killing the innocent family members of this non-military personnel. And then to lob a missile at him in a civilian building in an unrelated country that is in no conflict with Israel, killing further innocents. Ben Gvir is an equivalent example in Israel, so these countries are justified in killing Gvir's family. These countries are wholly justified in attacking Israel's sites whether military or civilian for Israel struck a civilian site in a neutral country. Its very simple, military tactics themselves depend on the combatants feeling morale, it would be quite unjust and a drain on morale for them to be unable to respond in kind to inadmissible actions.
I'm saying I could give you an example of unconstrained attacks against israel prior to this incident - so is X sinking to the level of Y, or vice-versa? The answer is, I believe, neither - the mental model simply isn't functional. And certainly we should still both advocate against tactics that are unjustified at baseline, no? Does that make sense?
We can naturally trace the history of back and forth violence, until we reach the point where we see the political entity had been founded by ingrates committing terroristic violence against the country that generously gifted them some of its colonial land.
You can trace it back much earlier than that - until at least the 1500s, when the conflict was present but at much less of a boil. I'm assuming you concede that "if X does it to Y, it's fine for Y to do it to X" is not a functional model here. You should at least ask yourself, "how would I need to change my outlook if I learned it was impossible to resolve who started it?"
Of course, we can go all the way back to the first cavemen fighting each other. But the difference here is that there is a very clear dividing line. The locals may nor may not have liked the Ottomans or British very much but they were clearly living their lives. Until some European invaders came and illegally took over their land by force. If the peoples before this event seem mostly satisfied, and after this event inflamed, then we have the key marking point for all the nonsense.
Jews have had a presence in the area that is today israel/palestine for thousands of years, and jews from the diaspora have been moving to israel/palestine gradually.
I would challenge you to name an initial inciting incident, which you believe was not preceded by or in reaction to an earlier incident. I can almost guarantee you I'll be able to name an inciting event, prior to it (and you will be able to find another one before that, etc.)
Why not? You tell me why committing acts of terrorism against its benefactor country with an ingrate sense as if its your own land not British land is valid or any previous precedent makes it valid? The reason why I don't go thousands of years back eg to Saxons and Vikings is that modern Britain and modern Denmark have long made peace, whereas Israel the state was formed itself as an act of ingratitude and terroristic thievery and is still illicitly expanding to lands clearly not its own.
Would you agree and support a group of people who wanted to immigrate to the United States but the USA decided for whatever reason to deny them immigration/citizenship and these people start bombing, kidnapping and torturing American officials and civilians? If not why is Israel special?
I love discussing this stuff, but I'm not interested in guessing what your non-specific language is referring to; I'll likely silently ignore that stuff.
I generally support israel because:
- I don't think it corresponds to your hypothetical (which I obviously disagree with)
- It was internationally recognized by the UN, and I find the collective jewish effort put towards nation-building to be legitimizing
- I support a jewish state, and I think jews, including those from the diaspora (based on genetic tests - dietary preferences are irrelevant to me), are indigenous to roughly the territory of modern-day israel
- It is a decently functioning democracy with human rights
- I think its war efforts are usually justified
I'm sure you disagree with all of these ^ and it's better to avoid a breadth-first conversation. I assume you've conceded that "X did it to Y, therefore it's fine for Y to do it to X" is not a functional model here. The ball is in your court.
Saying Israel is a “functioning democracy with human rights” is not a truthful statement.
First, Israel still has no single written constitution and instead operates through Basic Laws, something its own parliament acknowledges. So, not a democracy.
Second, Israel was established through armed Zionist paramilitary groups conducting terror campaigns. Look up the Irgun and Lehi, both of which carried out bombings and other attacks that were described as terrorism by contemporary governments and organizations.
Third, the claim that it “has human rights” is impossible to square with reality. Israel maintains a decades-long military occupation of the West Bank, where Palestinians live under military law while Israeli settlers living in the same territory are governed by Israeli civilian law. Human rights organizations document torture and abuse in Israeli detention facilities holding Palestinians. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch published extensive reports documenting systematic violations of Palestinians’ rights. both organizations completely reject the characterization of Israel as a state that upholds human rights. What evidence are you prepared to put forward that Israel “has human rights” in the face of the evidence that its human rights are reserved for one class of people?
What is vague about what I said? I am talking about how Israelis repaid Britain back for fighting the nazis and then granting them a parcel of British owned land completely free by violent terroristic attacks on British officers and civilians. History may trace back centuries, but what history of wrong doings did the British have with European white jews that they started terrorizing the Brits? It shows just how insane the level of ingratitude and entitlement was in this group that they behaved as if its their own owned land they are entitled to and not a gift given out of pure generosity. I think its fair for Britain to have retaliated with extreme violence against these immoral crimes. Its a shame Britain had lost the political will for these actions due to WW2. Which is why I asked, would you be fine with some people who were denied immigration to the USA launching a terror campaign of bombings and violence against the USA? That's what Israelis did during the 40s.
International recognition of Israel is a point you should be careful with. Just as Israel was formed with violent illicit methods but accepted by the UN later, the reverse could as well happen and "illicitly" retaken Israel will in time be recognized by the UN.
I do not support ethnic or religious states, but it's fine, many disagree. They could have gone anywhere they wanted, as long as it was legal immigration with consent of those already living there.
Explain me again how if these white jews were supposedly so deeply culturally connected to the place, they were whining about lack of European food and had to reverse engineer local food from native Arabs and Jews living there? Do you think eg if I had a scottish great great great grandfather and I lived in America all life, I'd suddenly unlock some knowledge of scottish culture hidden inside my blood somehow? And does it grant me rights to carve out a parcel of Scotland for myself forcing out locals violently against their wishes? The question can also be flipped, if it is just for Israel to kick out people from their so called ancestral home, then I believe it is perfectly justified for eg France or Netherlands to kick out jews living there as it is not their ancestral land and it is the just home of the French or Dutch peoples.
>- It is a decently functioning democracy with human rights
Meaningless if it is not justifiably their land and property. Its the opposite of democracy, its a violation of property rights.
>- I think its war efforts are usually justified
Do you think the present Lebensraum campaign is also justified?
It's easy to argue jews terrorized the british to reclaim their indigenous land, i.e the british had no right to jurisdiction there in the 1st place. Your analogy of denied US immigrants is different if it turns out the US was their original land they were displaced from, they all genetically trace back to it, there has consistently been a presence of that people living there, that people's artifacts are buried under the ground throughout the land, etc etc - no?
The British had perfect rights to that place, both legally, and I would say practically and morally. I am not personally black and white against colonialism as a concept anyways if they were better administrators than the natives. Many places in Africa, and yes Israel/Palestine itself would have been much better if it was British. (Even considering their blunder of promising the land to multiple groups, the aftermath would have been much better managed by them.)
Let me find that one patch of Africa where human life originated then. We should all have a right to that place.
What's so special about the value of 2000 years or whatever number Israel prefers? Why not 4000 years and therefore Babylonians/Iraqis? There is no naturalistic or scientific significance to the value selected by Israel. Let us take Israelis like Netenyahu back to their real homeland, the Steppes of Ukraine. A big portion of Israel trace their genetic origin there, their peoples artifacts are buried in Ukraine, etc etc.
Why do you not protest in support of British people of Norman ancestry forcibly taking over France?
Someone with continuous presence and cultural ties to the place wouldn't be cooking European dishes there and having trouble adapting to local cuisine to the point of having to reverse engineer food from locals for instance.
Start with teaching Israel supporters that IOF is not the answer. And maybe, maybe after that people start seeing Israelis as victims. Without it, most people will continue supporting Palestine, not because they think that it does no wrong. But in comparison with IOF and their supporters Palestine is lesser evil.
> On July 4, 2025, in a historic and unexpected move, Congress expanded RECA legislation, finally awarding overdue compensation to New Mexico families. Our newly revised film captures this emotional victory.
Were the families (at the very least) compensated to some extent at last?
The point is that they are separate things. If you start mixing them up, analysis becomes more biased and less objective.
EDIT: And do not mistake this for transparency of ClosedAI either. Their incident report was so generic that no one serious can learn much from it anyway except that “a zeroday” was allegedly used. Very helpful…
reply