So we're just going to hash this out every single day for the next 2 years, huh?
Edit: I do find it interesting how many replies to this comment are vague enough that you can't determine which side of this argument they're on, but I guess I did start it myself.
This sort of randomness seems more like the text produced by a markov chain than a modern LLM.
Hell my most played steam game, rimworld, I initially pirated and dropped before trying again later on and buying.
Back in the day you could buy Rimworld directly from the developer's website and that shit was portable. I played it off a flash drive on my high school computers. Did the same thing with FTL as well. Most of my hours in those games are not logged, lol.
And here I again wonder where your from to have such a mindset
Why does it matter?
These people aren't politicians...
That does not make them a purely objective and neutral third party, particularly when they are funded/employed by a state.
You've not seen Dutch news. They don't talk about hate speech as an equally valid option to our constitution the way that you'd expect with the current voting patterns and government composition if your statement were true.
I presented two different examples of how they can be biased; you have ruled out the latter and not the former. I don't even need to have seen Dutch news because you have actually expressed their percieved bias yourself, though you don't realize it. Supporting the validity of the constitution of their state government is a bias, regardless of whether or not you believe that to be a good thing. This is the status quo bias I mentioned.
I think you perceive the word bias to have a negative connotation, but it is actually a neutral term. A bias in favor of human rights, for example, is IMO a good thing.
You can be completely factual and still biased by the language you use and what you choose to focus on. Publicly-funded media is great and all, but that's because its bias is obvious and upfront, not because it is unbiased. Attempting to be purely objective leads either to a status quo bias or a "centrist" bias where multiple extremes are presented as being equally valid.
If you consume news that carry a bias (either way) then it is time to find other news sources.
There is no such thing as unbiased news sources, and any news orgs that claim to be are some of the least credible sources. The most credible news sources are honest and upfront about their biases.
What do you get out of pretending to be stupid?
Yes, as well as parts of the settings menu. What's not to love about constantly loading and unloading javascript just by clicking around in native apps? CPU spikes are good for your health.
I used to be a React dev. The only thing I hated more than React was my boss.
Personally, I think that's the wrong approach. We're very individualistic in the states and that leads to thinking that each child is the responsibility of their parent(s) and no one else, but if we had a more communal approach to raising children and acknowledged their wellbeing is a collective responsibility perhaps this could have been prevented. There's a lot of personal dysfunction in this story, but that's exactly the kind of thing that community can make up for.
We should have well funded and robust childcare services so that people who aren't responsible enough to take care of children have something to lean on. In a sane society one person dropping the ball shouldn't result in a child's death. Does having a communal place where children are well cared for without the need for payment really defy the imagination? In a nation where we can't even provide basic healthcare perhaps it defies expectation, but we will never achieve what we can't imagine.
I think responding to the question with "Israel has a right to exist as a state with equal rights" is the best way he could have phrased it. I know the preferred way for those on the left is "no state has a right to exist," but that's not a sentiment that's going to resonate with liberals, and many would see it as "scary radical wants to burn it all down."
His answer is a clever way of proposing a one-state solution without freaking people out.
I agree completely. Though I personally practice harm reduction at the ballot box, I don't believe that brow-beating people who express a reluctance to vote for a lesser evil into practicing harm reduction is an effective means of garnering their vote. Though it's easy to become frustrated with non-voters or third-party voters and place the blame on them for fascism taking over, the responsibility is really spread across the whole population, and most importantly our electeds and party officials who have consistently failed to present a positive and opposing narrative to the fascists.