I don't doubt he said it, because I think it's pretty plain to see it's a correct analysis - antisemitism is rife with the new generation to a degree that, to me at least, is quite scary. I just think it's quite instructive that a hostile state is trying to use this to sow discord.
Is there an example one could provide of this which shows members of the new generation criticizing Jewish people for being Jewish? Surely it wouldn’t be examples of people voicing criticism of the actions of people who happen to be Jewish.
Yeah but what was the prevalence of anti-Israeli sentiment prior to the 40k civilian massacre?
I wasn’t even paying attention to the news one day and CNN was casually interviewing a Palestinian father holding a dead baby corpse in his hands, with the head covered in a blood soaked bag. On CNN, at 10am.
You don’t have to be particularly impressionable to be affected by this.
History is going to be unmerciful in its documenting of this, no one is going to forget the sin here.
Yeah, fair enough; it was a mistake to ask for examples, I realize that now. One could probably go to twitter and search “chemtrails” and find a lot of words written seemingly without preceding critical thought. I don’t think many people would assert that chemtrail conspiracy theories are rife with the new generation, however.
Sure, it's an old trope to sit back and ask for examples, pretending your epistemic standard is whether someone on a forum can muster up the examples, and then when nobody does or you wave them away, you've proved that something isn't happening. You've done the investigation.
There's an extent to which that word was used to mean criticism of the previous administration's foreign policy. Politicians are generally not known for their honor, and will try to hide behind anything, no matter how sacrosanct.
Anyone who actually cares the tiniest bit about antisemitism would have the decoupling of Israel and the Jewish identity as the first order of business. Nothing comes even close.
A state consistently using Jews to excuse its actions, behavior which is validated by US policymakers, it's just orders of magnitude worse than anything else, Israel has promoted antisemitism more in a year than every other group in the last 50 years put together.
It's also really easy for Greenblatt to issue a denial.
That is, of course, unless it is true.
A denial wouldnt necessarily indicate that it is false (he has every reason to deny it, but lying is a risk) but the lack of a denial is very strong evidence that it is, in fact, true.
There is a very low cost to denying lies, so the absence of a denial (unlike its presence) is a very good indicator.
"No rumour is true until it's categorically denied" -- Otto Von Bismarck.
> There is a very low cost to denying lies.
So people can just lie.
See: Clinton and Lewinski, the Profumo affair, Russian troop buildup on the Ukraine border 2022, Russian attacks on Ukraine 2014+, claims by NSA execs prior to the Snowden leaks, etc.
NYT, WaPo, etc would disclose whether they had been able to verify the source or authenticity of the recording in some way.
A state-controlled newspaper in an autocratic county? It could be something they did verify as true and just happens to align with their agenda - or it could be nonsense and they know it. Or they couldn't just shrugged and said "makes the US look bad, run it."
I think most people don't appreciate the levels of internal review and fact-checking that go on when a national paper in the US ends up with a big story in its lap.
> Schwartz said as much in an interview with Israeli Army Radio on December 31. “The New York Times said, ‘Let’s do an investigation into sexual violence’ — it was more a case of them having to convince me,” she said. Her host cut her off: “It was a proposal of The New York Times, the entire thing?”
> The bigger scandal may be the reporting itself, the process that allowed it into print, and the life-altering impact the reporting had for thousands of Palestinians whose deaths were justified by the alleged systematic sexual violence orchestrated by Hamas the paper claimed to have exposed
NYT, WaPo, etc aren't very likely to publish it. It'd be in the same bucket as Jeff Epstein - politically toxic and the majors aren't going to take the lead drawing attention to it even if it is plausible. Facts would need to be in the public sphere for a while and gaining traction before they pick it up.
It might be the Iranians making stuff up, although realistically that sort of activity is what should be expected without any leaks at all. It has been obvious since around 2016 that the corporate media doesn't have the ability to single-handily dominate the narrative any more and that will impact national security propaganda because, you know, what military would be stupid enough to leave that sort of messaging to chance?
Only worth noting if Greenblatt has denied the phone call.
E.g when Russia stopped denying the presence of North Korean troops, it was pretty much cast iron proof that Ukraine's recent videos of the prisoners were not fakes.
A denial wouldnt necessarily mean it wasn't true, but the lack of a denial is very strong evidence that it is.
It would correlate strongly that 8200 alumni end up being educated and working in tech, and likely living in Tel Aviv. This is a group of people who, by and large, are not big fans of the current government.
Based on the pager incident, I'd think you should avoid companies that don't have a publicly-known link to Israel. It's not like Hezbollah thought they were buying pagers from 8200 alumni.
Having been involved in several ISO8583 implementations/integrations, it's really quite wild how different each one was in both structure and required content from one another.
Then they also die/get injured. Being in close contact with a terrorist is a dangerous pass-time, and armies targeting foreign threats need to accept some level of collateral damage. In this case, we have thousands of injured terrorists, with hundreds dead, and an additional fraction of those numbers being non-military targets (civilians). It's certainly unfortunate and unpleasant, but this is an excellent ratio.
Abstracting everything you use has a (high) cost, and doesn't always achieve what you want. This article repeatedly states things "go no further", but realistically, some dependencies will have worse inconveniences than a bad field name. If database you rely on is relational, has token based pagination, and has eventual consistency, chances are that swapping to a consistent timeseries DB with only limit/offset based pagination will impact code in your *.core.* package.
Tangential: at my first company out of uni we worked on software that ran in cars. I had never heard the term "smoke test" during my studies, and for quite a while I thought we were running tests (diagnostics) to check if the car was smoking.
It is, as it should be. I'm struggling to format it nicely here in HN, but I believe that the formatting show here [0] is more readable than JSON or YAML. It gives you type flexibility (instead of JSON's string-only keys). What's the source of your confusion here?
Per that style guide, the above map should be formatted like this:
{:a 1
2 :bar
[1 2 3] :baz}
Most maps written in EDN have keys of a consistent type. A map whose keys are consistently keywords would look like this when formatted:
{:a 1
:bar "https://example.com/"
:baz [1 2 3]}
Or like this, when condensed to one line:
{:a 1, :bar "https://example.com/", :baz [1 2 3]}
The first map had keys of three different types: keyword `:a`, integer `2`, and vector `[1 2 3]`. Why would one want a format that supports maps with mixed-type keys? As a contrived example, mixed-type keys let you define a sparse 2D tile-based map for a game that is indexed by x and y coordinates:
The confusion is that the order of the key and value can be reversed, and commas are optional, so there's no way to tell at a glance what e.g. the value associated with:bar is.
This is the case with any hash-map in any language, modulo some of them making certain keys illegal.
But "string":"string" can be reversed in pretty much any language's hash-map.
>here's no way to tell at a glance what e.g. the value associated with:bar is.
You've certainly constructed and formatted a hash-map that is a little tricky to understand, but 1> this combination of key and value types is going to be pretty rare in the wild and 2> to the extent it exists, people would format it to be easier to parse, either by adding commas or newlines.
