I love to see free speech absolutism being so unshakable.

I don’t know if I’m a millennial or generation x

And maybe this answer is kinda what I was thinking of. The justification your are supplying about the diminished influence of record labels makes sense and logically I can see that probably means the sound of the decades I listed was less organic and more manufactured. I also feel that there is probably less air for experimental genres to establish and become dominant like in the past.

Thank you but if the discussion does start going toxic, please do take it down.

P.s. I updated the title to make it clearer that I do not wish to conflate the two

I did not mean to imply that supporting Israel’s right to exist as a state means you must support their actions or vice versa. It is not intended to be a loaded question.

Does one side disregarding the Geneva convention mean the other is free to do so?

I would argue that the Geneva convention is as much about protecting the humanity of adherants as it is about protecting the lives of the innocent.

If you sign up to it, you should not be considering the actions of your enemy in deciding whether to adhere to it or not. Yes the realities of war blur the lines, but as someone else said, if you become a monster to defeat the monster, you still lost.

This is the kind of response I was looking for.

I’m not seeking to pile on the anti Israel sentiment but to genuinely understand what the basis for the Israeli position and supporters of it might be.

No I’m genuinely interested in how people rationalise the actions of Israel against the articles of the Geneva convention. There have been some thoughtful answers already which I appreciate.

I guess it’s “I don’t want to use fossil fuels but I don’t have an alternative. Give me an alternative! Don’t have one? Then I’ll keep using fossil fuels”

In fairness though not using fossil fuels it’s something of a luxury at present. EVs are more expensive that non EVs. Maybe this will change but slowly. Home solar is very expensive and still doesn’t get you self sufficient in most cases. Power companies need to make the grid renewable to make it accessible to the average person for home power.

You can do this with PowerPoint. After recording it makes the video an object on your slide so you can position it anywhere. Different on each slide if needed.

Reading the headline I was about to post how ridiculous it is that AI is taking over everything. Then I read that it is being used to give someone the chance to say their own words in their own voice.

This was not motivated out of using AI to replace an actress. It was motivated out of respecting the wishes and dignity of a dying person. It’s there a better use of AI than this?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmNPyQ-OOp0

Your point is what? That 100% of the people voted for them? Or that those who opposed them should silently fall in line?

Sorry, they absolutely should protest and they absolutely are entitled to.

Am elected government shouldn’t have carte blanch to make changes designed to rig the system in their favour.

Or 081 811 8181

So you like it ruff?

Seems like a manufacturer problem. I’ve have the same LED bulbs in my house for 5 years plus with no replacements. Various makes too .Some of them came with me from my old house. No idea how old they are. With incandescent bulbs, I used to have to replace at least 1 a year. I used to keep a stock in the back of a cupboard.

“Politics of me” beats “politics of we” once again.

Agree that if an incident happens in a particular jurisdiction, the local court should handle it. That makes sense, no argument here. But here they get to choose the set of laws because there was no physical location? That just feels wrong somehow. Anyway there is a physical location and if anything, the incident was ‘perpetrated’ by a person who was physically located somewhere at the time. It should be handled by the court local to them at the time. In the case of organisations, I guess this would mean where the defendant company operates from. Or if we accept it is virtual and everywhere then, it should be governed by federal laws not state laws.

I’m sometimes baffled by people. My dog is a member of my family not a pet. My job is to protect her not hurt her. Surely a tall enough fence and a solution to prevent digging under are better than a torture device???

Are you guys all locking your dogs outside for long periods unsupervised?