PeterMP

Apparently, they gave her the phonetic spellings without telling her so. She thought she had how the names were actually spelled and was trying to guess at the pronunciations. She must have thought they had a bunch of students with very odd names.

It isn't like Hamas invented terrorism or taking hostages. And historically some times it works and some times it doesn't. The long term impacts on the people/society tend to be minimal. And it isn't like some other group in a similar situation isn't going to try because it didn't work for Hamas (if it doesn't). Now in the context of us ("WE"), what are we supposed to do? Let Israel commit something akin to genocide and kill everybody in Gaza and then invade Lebanon so that Oct 7th doesn't become an important date in the Palestinians winning independence? Is that the argument? How do you get from here to there being a Palestinian state without Oct. 7 being important? Israel could have prevented this by sitting down with the PA and others and negotiating the creation of a Palestinian state 20 years ago. And at some level if they did so today, they'd at leas minimize the effects of Oct. 7, but even if they do, some will always point to Oct. 7 as being the thing that drove them to the table. (Realistically, it is a dumb talking point because it doesn't give any clear options. It is a great sounding statement, but what does it practically mean. Really, I suspect whoever started that idea is against the creation of a Palestinian state.)

I did a little looking. Most countries that are born of violence celebrate some day other than an important violent day as their national holiday. (Though there are exceptions e.g. Bastille day) It certainly is possible that the Palestinians would celebrate Oct. 7th, especially if Hamas ends up being the entity that brings them a state. But there is plenty of precedent for them to pick something else (a day when the final documents are signed or they have a "national" election, etc.) We celebrate the signing of the Declaration of Independence. Not the battles of Concord and Lexington or the Battle of Trenton, or the Battle of Yorktown.

Avoiding a future where Oct 7th and Hamas become important is easy. Get serious in conversations with the PA over creating a Palestinian state. If the only way to create a Palestinian state is through violence, then if the Palestinians ever get a state then the day will probably be day associated with violence. The key is then to create a path to a viable independent state through an organization that isn't (openly) supporting violence.

I'm analytics person in general. And I think analytics generally fails in playoffs for every sport. What is the best course of option and what the stats say somebody should do based on a game against the Wizards and the Nets in a game in Nov. has no real bearing on the best course of action in the 2nd round of the playoffs. (To take it to baseball, the large scale stats on the value bunting that would include a game in May between the White Sox and Marlins really has no value and no bearing on whether bunting up a run in the 8th inning of game 7 of the World Series makes sense. Similar in the NFL with 4th/3rd down conversion rates. Using the stats last year from games between the Giants and Commanders to decide if you should go for it in conference championship game is nonsensical.) But then you get into a case of if you don't do it in the regular season then doing it the playoffs isn't generally going to be successful. To me if you're a mediocre team trying to pile up as many wins as possible during the regular season to make the playoffs, you should strictly adhere to analytics. If you're a team that has legit championship aspirations, you have to get beyond the analytics and think about how the game is going to be played in close playoff games and what you'll have to do to execute to win then. And sometimes that's going to mean not following the analytics. Telling guys to make mid range shots in the playoffs when they don't do it all season is bound to fail (and make the stats for taking mid range shots in the playoffs even look bad). Really good teams should recognize that in the playoffs, most 3's are going to be tightly contested and so are shots at the rim. The best shots might be mid range jump shots, but then actually run some of that in the regular season so their players are comfortable with that in the playoffs. Just like you can't ask a guy to bunt in the 8th inning of game 7 of the World Series if he's never bunted all year.

Israel has been pretty consistent in saying they won't agree to any cease fire that is permanent because it would prevent the destruction of Hamas. Hamas has been pretty consistent in saying that the release of all the remaining living hostages would have to be the result of a permanent cease fire. The difference essentially makes any further cease fire impossible.

I'm not sure this applies in this case. The implied assumption is that the one with the superior military doesn't already want to annihilate the other side. (This didn't start on Oct. 7.) If the side with the superior military already seems set on annihilation, then what?

Gaza doesn't border the Jordan river. The West Bank does. Gaza is on the Mediterranian.

The issue of Arab oil money coming into the US is a broader issue that the government (Congress) should address. Of course they won't.

Why does it appear to be well funded? It isn't like they are running tv or radio commercials or buying billboard space to support their protests (that I've seen). They're literally sleeping outside for free in tents. Different protestors support different things. The state of Israel has people in their government communicating different things (some have said they want to see Palestinians removed from Gaza), and the problem is a bunch of college protestors from different universities don't agree on everything?

I don't think the idea that the best workers got promoted was ever true. https://press.princeton.edu/ideas/a-belief-in-meritocracy-is-not-only-false-its-bad-for-you A belief in meritocracy is not only false: it’s bad for you With respect to the idea of quiet quitting, I think there are 2 things. There are people that are doing the bare minimum at work or that have an independent/entrepreneural (that doesn't actually pay the bills) side hustle and that seems to be their focus even at work. And those people are frustrating. Then I think for a lot of jobs changes in technology have created a situation where the job has creeped into all sorts of hours and times to the point that you're never off. And I think some people are pushing back against those sorts of things. That I don't have a problem with. (And really companies should be helping with that. Burning out your employees is real and doesn't do anybody any good.)

I'm going to put this here. I think Hubberman would deny he's anti-vaccine, but I think the label might apply. "The misleading information in one of America’s most popular podcasts The Huberman Lab has credentials and millions of fans, but it sometimes oversteps medical fact." https://www.vox.com/technology/24127540/huberman-lab-science-misleading-information-andrew-huberman-podcasts-joe-rogan-health-medicine I think this is a more general issue for people that end up in a for profit science communication. It isn't really feasible to put together a regular podcast/tv show, etc. in a specific field of science (even if we broadly call human health) that will be of general interest on a regular basis. Science doesn't move that fast. We don't learn new things that are of general interest and very significant to have a regular podcast on it. If you go back to the old model, magazines like Discover report(ed) on things all across science and have/had a staff to do it.

The way they get better is to get lucky and find a young player that the rest of the league has undervalued. And they need to get lucky and stay healthy. The problem is if they trade, the teams taking their players are taking them because they plan to be good, so you are taking back picks that aren't very good, making it hard to get good. Meanwhile, your not good and so drafting in the lottery, but those picks are going to the Pelicans or Portland. For example, the Sixers actually have a ton of cap space. They could trade picks for Giannis and not send any salary to Milwaukee. Milwaukee pretty much instantly becomes a lottery team. Meanwhile unless there is some catastrophe for at least the next few year Embiid, Maxey, and Gannis are at least a playoff team. The Pelicans and Portland are getting lottery picks from Milwaukee while Milwaukee is getting late first round picks from the Sixers. That would just be dumb. I guess if somehow trading Giannis and Lillard allowed them to get their picks back from the Pelicans and Portland that might make some sense. But I don't see why NOP or Portland would do that. (Now, what they should do that teams like that tend to be bad at doing is they should not emphasize a high seed. They need to find (some) young player(s) that they think can be reasonable rotational pieces and actually give them regular minutes during the regular season. And yes, you might lose some games but getting younger and lucky with the development of a young player would go along way to helping them win a championship.)

Unless they are going to somehow trade him and bring back another win now player makes the better/more likely to stay healthy that doesn't make sense. But I can't see how/who would give up such a player. They don't own any of their own 1st round picks out right until after 2030. Every 1st round pick either belongs to somebody else or is subject to swap. The Sixers on the other hand should absolutely look at moving Embiid (and Maxey).

I'll address this because @tshile essentially said before that he thought I was wrong for having a little hope that it is true (not quite his words but the general idea of his words). I think there is some chance that it is true (at some level). It is somewhat consistent with the new charter put out in 2008 and some agreements that they have with Fatah. So it is something that was out there before the latest attack and latest western pressure. I don't think that's something that's winning them support with their base. The "destroy Israel" interview that @Skins24 posted was the red meat for their base (an interview in Arabic on Lebanese tv). So I don't think they are doing it because it makes them more popular at "home". So why have they now for about 20 years putting out that they'd support a Palestinian state along the '67 borders? It hasn't stopped Israeli plans/expansion. Israel hasn't seemed to change or care one iota. It didn't cause the west to treat them better. (We didn't take them off the terrorist watch list or lift any sanctions against them for doing it.) We don't seem have cared at all. If there was any benefit for Hamas in putting that idea out there, I don't know what it has been. It seems somewhat possible it is because at least some people in the organization support that idea. (Now a few things: 1. It is possible they are lying and sometimes people lie for reasons that aren't very reasonable or very logical. It is possible that they've lied for some reason that doesn't make much sense. 2. It is possible (and I'd argue even likely) not everybody in Hamas agrees on what their goals should be. It is possible that some people would settle for a country based on the '67 borders and some wouldn't and would continue to attack. It is possible that their would be some sort of organizational split if Israel agreed to a country based on the '67 borders. Going back to the IRA, similar things happened at different times with the IRA. And certainly some Palestinians would continue to attack Israel. Organizations like Palestinian Islamic Jihad's officially stated objectives are still destroy Israel and kill the Jews, so if "Hamas" made peace with Israel the more militant people associated with Hamas would have already existing organizations that they could join if they didn't keep the Hamas name itself.) Arafat kept power after the PLO then becoming the PA made peace with Israel and recognized Israel. Yes he lost support (including losing Gaza to Hamas). But that's more an indication of the general situation than any real entity where enough people don't want peace. But he also kept a lot of power and some sense gained more by gaining international acceptance. I don't know, but it is possible he ended up better off. You'd hope the same can/could be true. (Which then ties into my other post, if they would lose support for making an agreement based on the '67 borders, then aren't they losing support for suggesting they would? And then why are they doing it? Because just suggesting they would isn't getting them international recognition.)