Do you believe that every party in every parliament in the world should be able to just stop parliament from working instead of trying to actually vote for laws/bills

Plenty of parliamentarians getting kicked out of western parliaments for wearing t-shirts with slogans, holding up signs, suchlike. Suspensions generally are extraordinarily short and little more than “ok we’ll give you some time to change into respectable attire”. Also make a scene? Add a day. Make them watch from the visitor’s benches. Pay attention they don’t miss (relevant) votes.

That would have been the proper reaction: The proper way to handle ritual stunts (and they’re a ritual, also the t-shirt thing) is with ritual slaps on the wrist.

The NZ reaction? They’re suspending parliamentarians for unprecedented amounts of time, and on top of that while the budget is being passed. That is, they’re fucking with the distribution of votes, which is fucking with the foundations of democracy. That is, for a parliament, nothing less than a declaration of bankruptcy.

I agree that immigration is a big part of fixing this.

It isn’t. Not for long at least, as the last large countries are currently finishing their own demographic transition and starting to shrink themselves.

Is the world’s population still growing? Yes. But the growth rate peaked in the 60s, it’s cratering just as fast as it spiked, and by 2100 thereabouts there will be overall shrinkage.

Also before we get at the question whether Japan wants to have lots of immigration, what about the question whether those people wouldn’t rather build their own countries.

There’s nothing wrong with the world’s population shrinking – and also not with it growing, the earth is far from its carrying capacity. What’s frightening is very quick population growth or shrinkage because it’s an absolute breeding ground for all kinds of inequalities and societal unrest.

It really depends on what you’re looking at. The history section of some random town? Absolutely bog-standard prose. I’m probably missing lots of implications as I’m no historian but at least I understand what’s going on. The article on asymmetric relations? Good luck getting your mathematical literacy from wikipedia all the maths articles require you to already have it, and that’s one of the easier ones. It’s a fucking trivial concept, it has a glaringly obvious example… which is mentioned, even as first example, but by that time most people’s eyes have glazed over. “Asymmetric relations are a generalisation of the idea that if a < b, then it is necessarily false that a > b: If it is true that Bob is taller than Tom, then it is false that Tom is taller than Bob.” Put that in the header.

Or let’s take Big O notation. Short overview, formal definition, examples… not practical, but theoretical, then infinitesimal asymptotics, which is deep into the weeds. You know what that article actually needs? After the short overview, have an intuitive/hand-wavy definition, then two well explained “find an entry in a telephone book”, examples, two different algorithms: O(n) (naive) and O(log n) (divide and conquer), to demonstrate the kind of differences the notation is supposed to highlight. Then, with the basics out of the way, one to demonstrate that the notation doesn’t care about multiplicative factors, what it (deliberately) sweeps under the rug. Short blurb about why that’s warranted in practice. Then, directly afterwards, the “orders of common functions” table but make sure to have examples that people actually might be acquainted with. Then talk about amortisation, and how you don’t always use hash tables “because they’re O(1) and trees are not”. Then get into the formal stuff, that is, the current article.

And, no, LLMs will be of absolutely no help doing that. What wikipedia needs is a didactics task force giving specialist editors a slap on the wrist because xkcd 2501.

Best guess: “out for delivery” means “loaded into the van”. Especially if the projected delivery time is rather late, that is, you’re at the tail end of their round, it can happen that they won’t make it. And because FedEx isn’t being smart about things and flips route directions every day it can be that they won’t make it the next day, either, because you’re still at the end of the route. Only when your location is covered by another driver which doesn’t have you towards the very end then is the package delivered.

There’s various ways to alleviate that, in particular switching around routes so the tail end problem doesn’t hit the same people all the time, but I guess the penny-pincher MBAs that be at FedEx don’t see it contributing to the quarterly results. Here in Germany it’s usually along the lines of “we’re fucking busy, sucks to be you, we brought it to a parcel pick up, go there, next delivery attempt in three days, then it’s going to stay at the pickup until you pick it up or we send it back. Did you know that you can register with parcel pickup and have all your packages sent there also it’s self-serve. Please, it’s right next to the supermarket our backs hurt. Do something for the environment, :)!”.

I feel bad for the schizos.

Don’t. We’re not the ones affected here and definitely, definitely, don’t have a monopoly on psychosis.

Personally, I’m completely unimpressed by the random nonsense LLMs spit out because it’s not my nonsense. There’s certainly people way deeper down the rabbit hole than me but they, too, have an infinite stream of as-of-yet-uninterpreted subconscious stuff knocking at their door so I don’t see why they would bother. And that’s all before paranoia kicks in and it’s the FBI trying to control you via the chat interface.

Feel bad for your capacity to relate to others, instead. Cuddle it, give it space, stop defining it. I don’t ever want to hear that “type of girl I’m interested in” talk ever again, do you hear me, you, you little ego, don’t get a say in that, that’s for another part of you to decide. Stop telling it what to do.

The issue is not lack of logic and consistency, the trouble is a completely different reference frame.

Let me put it, to grossly simplify, in this way: Imagine you’d be dreaming while awake, no way to stop it, and would have to integrate all that craziness in real time. It’s not that dreams make no sense – they all have their rhyme and reason – it’s that they’re talking a completely different language.

You might be hearing, out of nowhere, a cello note off to the side, move your gaze there, notice “that’s my trashcan that makes no sense”, and then be lost, and panic, lose faith in your senses, and that way lies psychosis. More productively, you say “ok mind which thought with as of yet unformed discernible meaning was it that you wanted me to pay attention to”, look for the place the thought came from (as schizo, you can tell with your kinaesthetic sense), consider it for a while, still being oblivious of the meaning, and then go on with your life.

We’re weird.

Oh, back to randomness: It can get you out of a rut and I do suppose that’s how Terry used it, aware of it or not, and framing it however he did. Could also be using it to self-soothe, as in, distracting from a negative spiral. There’s worse habits.

God, with almost 100% certainty, means “the genome and how it’s speaking to me through my instincts” in his dialect. Because that’s what it always means, what it always meant, for everyone, it meant that when it was the ancestors, it meant that when it became more detailed and became gods, it meant that when people realised all the gods are actually one thing, the theologists are just confused AF because politics and physics and cabbage-heads got into the mix. And so much for my schizo rant. Don’t discount what I say because I’m crazy, the reason you consider me crazy is because it’s true.

If the genocide get completed no amount of oh it was complicated would change anything.

Agreed. But the failure is with the political reaction, not the courts. Courts aren’t the police, the police is the police, and the police is asleep.

The ICJ is very well aware of all of that IIRC, most of it was even in the opening statements.

And, as said: Politically, that kind of stuff is damning, it’s proof. For the judiciary, though, things are more complicated. They have to do more legwork to do until, at some point, they also come to the same conclusion, as the genocide scholars have done, and the scholar’s judgement is way more bullet-proof than the political judgement I gave a month or two in that yes, Israel is falling to fascism, yes, they’re committing genocide. And the judge’s judgement will be even more bullet-proof. But it’s going to take time to actually prove things to that kind of high standard.

I mean… my condolences and/or yay you get to be a honorary machinist?

the hell are you talking about are you a zionist under cover or just stupid?

How often do I have to say that Israel is committing genocide for people to stop calling me a zionist? It’s getting tiring.

What for you would be a bulltet proof evidence?

It’s abundantly clear that parts of the Israeli administration, the IDF, are guilty of genocide. Expanding that to the whole state of Israel, proving intent and not just mere incompetence at stopping rogue IDF elements, will probably require access to files and protocols Israel is withholding…

The icj is simply politically influenced

… and from the activists’ perspective, a political perspective, that withholding is proof of guilt, for a court, it’s more complicated. Before court, there’s stricter requirements: The ICJ cannot follow the the political assessment not because it’s politically influenced, but because it’s not political. Because it can’t make that kind of snap judgement.

The icj despite all the evidences proving it still decided to not say definitely that there is a genocide.

Because they do not have the evidence necessary to rule that way. Mostly, yes, because Israel is rather uncooperative, and the ICJ can’t just raid Netanyahu’s office.

With their ruling no country has obligation to do their best to stop israel occupation and agression.

All countries have that obligation no matter what the ICJ rules.

Do you want the genocide to be admited a decade after it happened just like with the bostnian genocide declared as such after 12 years?

This is not about “admitting”, or “strongly suspecting”, or “preponderance of evidence”, but “beyond reasonable doubt”. Proof should only be declared when it’s actually bullet-proof.

As said: Otherwise, you leave an attack surface for genocide deniers, they’ll spend the next 1000 years talking about “The antisemitic conspiracy that managed to frame Israel for genocide, here, have a look, they suspended due process to come to that conclusion”. Don’t play into the hands of those assclowns.

And the judge, before all evidence, all arguments are in, the prosecutor has been heard, the defence has been heard, the defender has been heard, and everything has been deliberated with other judges? Would you also require of them to call it a genocide the day the prosecutor brings the case to court?

You are simply doing genocide apologia here

I have been calling what Israel is doing a genocide like four or five times now. In this very thread. Watch where you’re aiming.

There is a difference between a prosecutor calling the accused a murderer, and a judge calling the accused a murderer. Can you follow me this far.

Free, Libre, and Open Source Software

The FSFE has an overview over the various terms but tldr FLOSS is the one that has the least amount of agitated neckbeards breathing down your neck because it a) includes both free software and open source and b) includes the “L” that clarifies that what’s meant is free as in speech, not free as in beer.

…and I guess it’s about software hygiene?

Judges. Scholars. Neither operate on the assumption of guilt, but assumption of innocence. And there’s a very fucking good reason to do that, to see what assumption of guilt does to a people simply observe how the Israeli right considers Palestinians: Guilty unless proven otherwise. You can’t fight barbarism by succumbing to it.

And that has to be established, instead of just assumed… If you’re a scholar or judge. Activists can and should just assume it given that there’s plenty of circumstantial evidence.

You don’t want activist scholars or judges because then you don’t have scholars or judges any more, is all I’m saying. Leave the activism to the activists.

No such a thing as genocide proper and genocide not proper.

That’s not what I said. There’s a difference between genocidal acts and genocide, same as there’s a difference between breaking a promise and fraud.

You don’t want a genocide to be declared a decade after just like it happened in Bosnia

Yes we want exactly that, because genocide needs to be proven thoroughly because otherwise deniers have an attack surface. But we also want to intervene much earlier. Those two things are not at odds.

A livestreamed genocide where the perpetrators were unapologetically genocidal since day 0

That’s evidence of a genocidal act, and of intent of the precise perpetrators. It does not, on its own, prove that Israel, as opposed to merely those people, are guilty of genocide. Israel could, for example, have brought them to justice themselves.

And you’re white-washing their cowardice as scholarly integrity and standards. Bullshit.

Upholding things like the presumption of innocence and due process does not preclude me from shouting “stop the thief”. As said: I’ve been doing that since day one. Yet, when dragging that thief before court, I’d still expect the court to actually look at the matter in detail. Those procedural hoops exist for good reason: Justice cannot be served by mob rule.

And many of them did. But if you’re a “genocide scholar” and you’re only now coming to the conclusion that this is genocide. 19 months after real scholars correctly pointed to it. You are not a scholar. You are a glorified record keeper.

All of them have been agreeing that Israel is committing genocidal acts pretty much since month, if not week, one. Then the scholarly debate started on whether the sum of genocidal acts already constitutes genocide proper. It’s one of those cases where scholars make distinctions that activists don’t like because activists like simple narratives, punchy slogans, clear-cut lines, as opposed to getting bogged down in nuance.

I’m not saying that activists are wrong calling it a genocide, I’ve been predicting that the Kahanites are going to use the opportunity on day fucking one, but it’s also not right to expect scholars to lower their standards, simplify their analytic framework. There’s a good reason why they apply metric tons of nuance to everything.

The EU is pumping a lot of money into FLOSS, often not even for administrative use (like, say, lemmy gets EU funding), but at far as adoption rate in administration is concerned well the Commission is one of the worst offenders. As in municipalities realising they can’t fully switch to LibreOffice because they need to apply for EU funds and the commission only accepts .docx. Parliament happily spending money on something and the executive getting around to getting its shit together are two different things.

OTOH it’s not all about Microsoft and the like, a lot of administrative software is special-purpose, written by private companies according to specs, paid for by public money. Making that kind of thing open source is a no-brainer. It’s also a way better use of money to improve and customise some open source ERP than to go to SAP and get a customised solution there.

And a lot of that has to do with lacking competency in administration – outside of police, specifically IT forensics, it’s usually quite dire. States have no issues figuring out whether a blueprint makes sense when they’re issuing building permits, road and railroad engineering, of course they can do that, but IT? Nope. Bring in the private consultants and private consultants are basically the marketing arm of big software companies.