PeterMP

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.)

(The same guy in the same interview and in others also said the death of civilians during the attack was a mistake. He's also made the same claim in other interviews.) In an interview with the NYT, representatives said it was done to bring the Palestinian situation back to the world's attention. https://nytimes.com/2023/11/08/world/middleeast/hamas-israel-gaza-war.html (This is consistent with derailing the peace negotiations between Israel in the other countries in the region.) On the day of the attack, Hamas released an audio tape of the guy that is considered their military expert and he cited a number of things, including the blockade of Gaza, things happening at the Al-Aqsa Mosque (which is what they've named the attack after) (where Israel has been doing more shutting down access to Muslims so that Jews can pray at the Temple Mount), attacks and killings of Palestinians by Israel and settlers, and that Israel wouldn't participate in any prisoner exchanges. https://carnegieendowment.org/sada/90836 Another Hamas leader said they'd lay down their arms for the creation of a Palestinian state along the '67 borders. https://apnews.com/article/hamas-khalil-alhayya-qatar-ceasefire-1967-borders-4912532b11a9cec29464eab234045438

I would say we have no real allies in the Middle East. I guess if phrased it as that Israel is our best ally in the Middle East, I might agree. Not like other countries. We give them more aid than any other country. And it isn't close. And then we give a bunch of aid to Egypt which we're doing for Isreal. https://usafacts.org/articles/how-much-military-aid-does-the-us-give-to-israel/

There were numerous IRA attacks through the decades that you could look at and say if they were interested in a political solution they wouldn't have done them. But in the end, the IRA was part of a political solution. The PLO has a history of attacks and today it has morphed into the PA and lead by a man that nobody doubts supports a nonviolent solution the Israeli/Palestinian situation. I don't consider Israel a real ally (I can go through the history if you want). Also, I don't see not giving the aid as walking away from them. We don't just give most of our other allies huge amounts of military aid. We often sell them weapons and things, but we don't just give them things like we have Israel. Places like Japan and S. Korea pay to help offset troops stationed there. Things like that. They can be ally and we can include them in our defense umbrella in a manner that is more consistent with our other allies and not just give them huge amounts of aid. Also, the war in Ukraine and the war in Gaza aren't really comparable. Ukraine is pretty literally likely fighting for its existence. Hamas can't destroy Israel. The effect of cutting off aid to Israel and the Ukraine aren't comparable and that has to be considered. (With all that said, I don't think we should just cut off aid. I think aid should come with conditions (e.g. freezing settlements into the future for some period of time, etc.)

Sorry, I quoted the wrong post before. I had to switch things. From my perspective, it would be useful to know in what way I'm extending them the benefit of the doubt. I don't see myself extending them any real benefit of the doubt. (Admittedly, I also extend Israel very little to no benefit of the doubt.) You want to say that you think Hamas is a violent, anti-Semitic, terrorist, lying, POS, no good, organization and don't think they will ever be part of a successful peace process, I'm not really going to argue with you. (I think saying that there is no way that Hamas will ever be part of a successful peace process is too far. None of us know the future and similar terrorist organizations have changed in the past. But if you don't think/believe they can, I'm not going to disagree. And really, I think it is unlikely myself.)

I have expounded. That was your initial post. "Also, they pretty much are still calling for the elimination of Isreal. Basically, the big difference between the first and second charters is that instead of the elimination of all Jews, they'll just settle for Israel..." That statement isn't true. On one hand, I agree with this. On the other hand, we are the most powerful country in the world, and we can do great things if we get ourselves organized. Because of several things, including issues with our own electorate/political situation, I don't think there will be peace in the region (at least not in my life time). But I'm also not willing to tell people that they/we should just give up. *EDIT* Got my quoted posts mixed up. (For what it is worth, I don't think you are an Israeli apologist. I think you do focus to much on the latest attack.)

You do realize none of your response has anything to do with my question or your initial post. What the Hamas charter physically says is independent of whether they are lying or not, and as the charter didn't change on Oct. 7th, what happened on Oct 7th has no bearing on what the charter physically says. You made your initial post about what is in their charter. Not about whether Hamas is being honest in their charter or what happened on Oct. 7. Can you reason at that level? (I've never said Hamas was moderate. I've never said even compared to the other organizations that I was comparing them to they are moderate. The fact that that I said they were portraying/projecting themselves as such explicitly indicates that they might be lying. And I pretty specifically in the last post eluded to the idea that Hamas might be lying (playing at it). If you'd come in and said you don't think Hamas is moderate (in the context of a bunch of extreme and violent organization) and they lied in their charter, I probably wouldn't have said anything. If you would have said that they might be moderate (compared to those extreme organizations) but they are still too far extreme and violent for it to practically matter, I probably wouldn't have said anything. Both of those things might be true. I'm not sure that Hamas didn't lie in their charter and doesn't want to see the destruction of Israel, and I'm not sure that Hamas can ever lay down their weapons and achieve peace with Israel even if it would allow for the creation of a viable Palestinian state. Hamas can absolutely lie and will do so to serve their purposes. We saw it in the run up to the Palestinian elections vs. their actions after the elections (using violence and killing to eliminate political opposition after saying they wouldn't). Despite @CousinsCowgirl84 claims, I'm not pro-Hamas. (I just also don't believe everything Israel says without question.) Getting from where we are to a peaceful two state solution might require the the death/ending of Hamas. I'd even say that's pretty likely. But what the charter actually says about the destruction of Israel doesn't depend on any of that and is easily verifiable with a 5 second google search.) In the context of anything relevant to the conversation, your initial post, my question, and anything I've said, your whole post is worthless.

It means that they aren't actively calling for the destruction of Israel. It means they are at least suggesting they might settle for less than the destruction of Israel. Whether they actually will or not, I don't know. I don't know where Hamas is going to end up. And realistically, neither do you. And pretending like you do is just dumb. I do know it isn't uncommon for terrorists organizations to settle for much less than they originally want. I've discussed the IRA here before. The IRA (and off shots from it) spent almost a hundred years claiming they would settle for no less than a unified Irish country that was independent from Britain. That was their stated goal/requirement even up to a few months before they came gave up their arms and came to a peace agreement. As an organization, their public demands didn't move one iota through decades of fighting and ceasefire but in the end they settle for much much less than those public demands. 2 years before the last cease fire agreement that led to the final agreement nobody in the public (and even the British government) would have told you in 2 years the IRA is going to give up and agree to a peace deal based on N. Ireland having a vote that allowed them to stay part of the UK. Can/will Hamas ever give up violence, especially if it coincides with the creation of a viable Palestinian state? I don't know. The statement about them being moderate comes with enough qualifiers. @Barry.Randolphe (to my knowledge) is not part of or an armed anti-Israeli organization, so I'm not saying they are more moderate than him. I'm saying if you take that group organizations that are armed and anti-Israeli (Hamas, Hezbollah, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, etc. and doesn't include the PA), then they are at least projecting themselves as moderate in that they aren't actively calling for the destruction of Israel. I wouldn't say the Oct. 7th attack was moderate, but I'll also tell you all the other organizations that I've listed that fit into that category would have done the same and likely would do worse if they can (and some of them participated in Oct. 7). It isn't like Oct. 7 was just Hamas. I'm saying Hamas is trying to portray itself as moderate in the context of a group of organizations that are all violent and extreme. All of which would regularly carry out Oct 7th like attacks if they could. I'm not even saying Hamas is moderate. It is possible they are just playing at being moderate because they think it will help them. But of that group of organizations, none of them wouldn't carry out or help in an Oct. 7 if they could, so Hamas doing it doesn't make them less moderate than them. In fact, until Oct. 7 over the last few years Hamas has avoided attacking Israel while the PIJ and others had launched several attacks on Israel. Some people think part of the reason for the attack on Oct. 7 was that Hamas was worried about losing credibility as a resistance force against Israel compared to organizations that are openly more extreme like the PIJ (i.e. that are still calling for the destruction Israel, the large scale killing of Jews, and had been attacking Israel regularly). You also didn't answer my question.

There are things related to funding that most practitioners of science don't generally think about in terms of funding and how it affect science actually advancing. This is one of my favorite general/philosophy of science papers (Though, I think he over states he case.): https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 But two things from it: "Corollary 3: The greater the number and the lesser the selection of tested relationships in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true." More money generally means more tests (making the number of tested relationships greater) which means more false findings that in reality slow science down. If you increase funding properly (funding larger studies and not more studies), you can avoid that, but the people involved in science funding generally take the attitude of spread the wealth (and money). And funding just larger studies does have problems with training future scientist and things like that, so itself isn't a panacea when you think about the larger picture of growing science longer term. "Corollary 5: The greater the financial and other interests and prejudices in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true. Conflicts of interest and prejudice may increase bias, u. Conflicts of interest are very common in biomedical research [26], and typically they are inadequately and sparsely reported [26,27]." Obviously, if you increase funding, you increase the likelihood that people are in it for financial reasons which increases false findings. There has been reporting on a set of published false findings related to cancer. https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/24086809/fake-cancer-research-data-scientific-fraud Which is consistent with the idea that there might be issues in terms of the funding approach for cancer and how the science is being done. If you are just throwing more money into an environment where published false findings are at a certain level (without reforming the system), you don't actually push the field forward. You're just wasting money and really might actually be slowing down advances in the field by increasing the number of false findings. And I don't actually trust people in the field to recognize whether their field has reached that level or not. (From the first paper: "Scientists in a given field may be prejudiced purely because of their belief in a scientific theory or commitment to their own findings." "Of course, investigators working in any field are likely to resist accepting that the whole field in which they have spent their careers is a “null field.”") I'm not saying we are at that level of false findings with cancer. I don't know. But I'm also not going to run around and claim the key to finally eliminating cancers as deadly diseases is just money and not time and good and motivated workers and say it is mistake to not just dump more money in without looking at why there have been some false findings, what they can do to help fix the problem, and consider how wide the issue with false findings really is. (Again though none of this is anything that the Republicans really know anything about, care about, or are considering when it comes to their objections of sustaining the funding.)

Science and developing new technologies does take time. Especially for funding for a specific thing, you do get to the point that you are spending on ideas that just aren't likely to work and so are a waste of money. I'm not sure where that line is for cancer research and where we are with respect to it. But it is certainly possible that we're there. Spending on everything should be considered with some care and not just be arbitrary amounts of money selected by politicians or people heavily invested (emotionally and financially) in the field relevant to the funding. And there are people that question are traditional approach(es) to funding cancer related research: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-02609-2 (Though we all know that the Republicans saying it is because of the deficit is a joke. It is to curb economic growth to slow down the economy during a Democratic administration. As soon as a Republican is President again, they'll have no problem if the deficit explodes with money wasted towards whatever wasteful thing they decide to pursue (almost certainly something related to the military.)

That's not really true. The 2nd charter specifically call for the creation of Palestinian state that based on the '67 borders. They don't specifically call for an Israel that can then occupy the rest of the Palestine, but they also don't explicitly call for its elimination. And without being explicit then, that leaves open the possibility of a Jewish state (Israel) in the rest of Palestine. They don't formally recognize Israel but the document doesn't call for the explicit destruction of Israel and suggest that they'd agree to a two-state solution based on the '67 borders thought that's not explicit. You can go read the charter's yourself, but it is also been widely reported from sources as far apart as the Guardian and the WSJ. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/jan/12/israel "Hamas drops call for destruction of Israel from manifesto" https://www.wsj.com/articles/hamas-to-revise-anti-israel-stance-in-its-charter-official-says-1493649310 "Hamas Drops Call for Israel's Destruction" (Seriously, why would you come in and post something that is easily disprovable with a 5 second google search? Though, I guess I don't know what you mean by pretty much. It either does or does not actively call for the elimination of Israel. And it doesn't. It doesn't actively endorse the existence of Israel but that's not the same thing as calling for its destruction.)

You are setting up a scenario that has no basis in reality and so has no real value or meaning to what I said and isn't an accurate reflection of my comments. First, nobody knows they are drafting a pro bowl caliber player vs. average player. Nobody really knows what these people are going to become. If you knew for sure, then that would change the over all draft strategy. Second, I've never said only need matters. I said I would prioritize a need and that better teams heavily consider need. Especially for a team with multiple needs (like us), that you ever truly have a choice between a pro bowl player and an average player isn't realistic. Thirdly, you've ignored other options. For example, you can take the pro bowl player, trade whoever you have playing that role currently (for reasonable value), and pick up assets (Note, this is what the Lions did last year with RB. They drafted the RB and then they traded Swift essentially converting that pick into a need pick. A good team making their 1st round pick into a need pick.). And if you don't have somebody another team will give you something for what, then that pro bowl player is probably actually a need. Or even just a cut a player and use the salary space to sign a player that fits the need. Brining it back to this thread, my conclusion wasn't that drafting Sainristil was a mistake. It was that they don't think very much of our current secondary (including the two guys that we picked last year) so secondary then becomes a need and the pick is reasonable. In the case where your scenario was at all realistic, I'd take the pro bowl player. But in the context of the NFL draft, your scenario just doesn't matter. The fact of the matter is that the better teams regularly draft needs, and they make trades to get themselves where their need is a reasonable pick. The idea that somebody is too valuable to pass up and nobody will trade you reasonable value to get that player requires that you over value that player more than every other team. Every other team up to that point is passed on them and no team is interested in making a reasonable trade for the player means nobody else really agrees with your assessment. For you to be right and everybody else to wrong, requires that you know more about that player than every other team. And unless you have some real inside information, that you are right and everybody else is wrong is unlikely and should be concerning. A pick/player is worth what somebody will give you for it or the minimal cost to get it. No more or no less. Despite your earlier claim, need is heavily considered when the Eagles draft.

If nobody else is willing to give up what you think something is worth and the thing doesn't have some specific/particular use to you (i.e. isn't a need), that suggest that you've over valued it, and it isn't worth what you think it is.

If a guy that is super talented is available at a pick, then that should increase the value of the pick and other teams should be willing to trade that much more for it. This is a complete misreading of the Eagles needs last year. The previous year the Eagles had to sign Linval Joseph and Suh as FA during the season. Their DT position was so weak that in Nov., they had to sign 2 older DTs off the street. And they weren't planning on bringing either one of them back. In the Super Bowl Suh and Joseph combined for 21 snaps. And Hargrave who played 42 snaps left (only 3 less than Cox), signing as FA with 49ers in March. The Eagles lost 3 DTs that offseason that all significant playing time in the Super Bowl. The Eagles could see Jordan Davis' role grow and still have enough snaps left over to easily justify drafting a DT high in the draft. DT was a need for them in that draft.

I don't think it was like a single store in Israel. I think it was all of them. Actually in response to this McDonalds has bought all of its franchises in Israel from the franchisee (that was giving away the food). https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/4/5/mcdonalds-buys-all-225-of-israeli-franchise-restaurants-after-boycotts (To my knowledge, McDonalds has a single franchisee in Israel and has now bought all of the stores to stop this and at least minimize the backlash.)

First, I don't know why you think that's from the NIH. My guess is that you found it in a database that the NIH runs, but the NIH is just cataloging information in the database. The people that wrote it are from the Animal Welfare Committee, Canadian Veterinary Medical Association. Next, it is also from 1991. If you look at more recent things, gun shots are only really recommended in cases of wild animals, animals that are hurt, or for some reason that transport/time is an issue. https://www.avma.org/sites/default/files/2020-02/Guidelines-on-Euthanasia-2020.pdf (I'm not sure what year she shot her dog.) I grew up somewhere pretty rural, I've seen and heard of various animals killed various ways, and I've never heard of anybody shooting a healthy dog. I did know people that shot healthy cows and other animals as a way to put them down for butchering. But they were being killed for meat.

Then why are the Israeli's making separate cease fire agreements to organizations like the Islamic Jihad? https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-strikes-gaza-palestinians-fire-rockets-truce-bid-lingers-2023-05-13/ There are times also where Israel and Hamas have had a cease fire and the Islamic Jihad has taken credit for attacks. I'm not going to say Hamas has no pull over them, but unless you can actually post something to back up your claim, you seem to be making things up that you don't know about.

There are multiple organization that operate in Gaza that we consider terrorist organizations. Organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, etc. (Hamas realistically today is at least portraying itself as one of the more moderate armed anti-Israeli organizations in that they are no longer actively calling for the elimination Israel.) That you don't understand that says it all.

Then post a link from a credible source. I've given you multiple ones that simply say terrorists.

No. We drafted stupidly. I don't understand how anybody can look at last year's draft where we took DBs in the 1st and 2nd round when we clearly needed offensive lineman/offensive skill players and say we drafted for need. And there were players that look like they are pretty good players that would of fit needs when we drafted last year. A TE like Kincaid or LaPorta would have fit a need (giving a young QB another weapon and a big targer), and I suspect will end up being better players than Forbes. There are also some OL that were drafted after our pick that look like ok players.

The US has not said that Hamas attacked the area around the pier. That wasn't true. You can be neutral/factual. Not taking everything Israel says at face value doesn't make you pro-Hamas. The world is not only 2 extremes.