nomad

Ideally thinking will turn into more big picture. Usually you have a team of people working the details. Now you can have the trivialities sorted out automatically. Humans will hopefully grow into thinking the hard stuff even more hardcore.

The word you are looking for is crony capitalism.

You must not have children. When you give them a bath and they slip they often behave the same. If you don’t minor them and sit them back upright, they would most likely drown too. Panic is a wild thing.

As far as i understand it, its not all hype. Its a little bit like having a really competent security researcher go deep through your complete codebase just really fast and with improved recall.

So no black magic, just stuff regular security reviews would find. Firefox is just a huge codebase and once a bug got past review it might stay there forever.

So this will be abused if released publicly sooner or later. This way is a little bit like responsible disclosure. This will make the initial wave hurt way less. And obviously it doesn’t hurt marketing.

Anybody working with software knows marketing people promise the world and understand nothing. Pretty sure they just heard “black magic” and ran with it.

Don’t just self host for yourself. Help out friends and family that can’t themselves. Infrastructure is for people not just for the fun of building it. :)

“Hysteria”, who remembers the treatment? ;)

I prefer Gemma 4. Does what I need. Obviously there are quite a few problems. But democratization of technology is starting to catch up.

Its not the tool that is evil, but the intent its used with. That’s all I’m gonna say on that topic.

I agree people turn a blind eye to a breakthrough just to be left behind when its used against them. Inform yourself so you can be an informed member of society.

i know the author personally. We went to the same university for IT security. His skills are undeniable. Ignoring a legitimately working tool that finds legitimate security problems is just asking for trouble. For all its flaws there are some legitimate uses of LLMs and this is one of them.

maintainers of critical Software can’t afford to be that ignorant.

You only need the reboot if a package update masks the retirement.

The system is not lying to you, it holds some critical updates back to be installed separately and manually.

The output shows you which packages have been held back. Just do apt-get install linux-image-amd64 for example, reboot and apt autoremove to remove the old kernel.

You’re asserting certainty where the facts are actually contested, and that’s the core problem.

1. Haavara ≠ “alliance with Nazis” The Haavara Agreement was a limited, controversial arrangement to get some Jews out of Nazi Germany with part of their assets. It wasn’t ideological alignment or a “Zionist–Nazi alliance.” Reducing it to that ignores the context: people trying to escape persecution with very few options.

2. Refuge elsewhere wasn’t realistically available Before and after the war, large-scale refuge largely did not materialize. The Évian Conference is a clear example—many countries expressed sympathy but refused to take in significant numbers. After the war, millions were displaced and many survivors had no homes or communities left to return to.

3. Nakba is real—but “genocide since founding” is not a settled legal fact The Nakba involved expulsions and flight on a massive scale—serious and well-documented. But calling Israel’s entire existence “genocide” is a legal claim that is actively disputed, including under the United Nations Genocide Convention. You can argue it—but you can’t present it as uncontested fact.

4. “Ethnostate = genocide” is not how the term works Many states define themselves in ethnic or national terms. That alone doesn’t meet the legal threshold for genocide, which requires intent to destroy a group. Conflating these weakens your argument.

5. Wars in the region aren’t one-sided The Arab–Israeli War of 1948 involved multiple states and actors. Israel has initiated some actions; so have others. Claiming everything is unilateral aggression isn’t supported by the historical record.

6. Nazi comparison breaks under scrutiny Invoking Nazi Germany doesn’t clarify anything. It’s rhetorically strong but analytically weak, because the structures, scale, and intent are not equivalent.

There are serious, evidence-based criticisms of Israeli policy—settlements, civilian harm, occupation. Those stand on their own. But when everything is framed as “objectively genocide, no debate,” you’re not strengthening the case—you’re stepping outside what can actually be demonstrated and defended.

Before or after the Israeli genocide?

What you’re arguing mixes a few real points with several claims that don’t hold up factually, and it ends up oversimplifying a very complex and still ongoing conflict.

First: the link between Jewish persecution and the creation of Israel is not “nothing.” Modern political Zionism (associated with figures like Theodor Herzl) predates the Holocaust, but the scale of the genocide during The Holocaust was a decisive factor in accelerating international support for a Jewish state. That’s historical consensus, not a post-hoc excuse.

Second: the idea that Jews could simply have been “given refuge” elsewhere ignores what actually happened. During the 1930s–40s, many Western countries severely restricted Jewish immigration (e.g. Évian Conference showed how little willingness there was to accept refugees). In practice, there was no large-scale safe alternative offered.

Third: the founding of Israel in 1948 did involve mass displacement of Palestinians (often referred to as the Nakba). That is a documented and serious historical grievance. But calling the state’s creation or its entire existence “genocide” is not how genocide is defined under international law. The term is used very specifically (e.g. by the United Nations Genocide Convention), and its application to this conflict is heavily disputed among legal scholars and institutions.

Fourth: describing Israel as uniquely “invading neighbors unprovoked” or as a simple “puppet state” ignores that the region has seen multiple wars initiated by different sides (e.g. the Arab–Israeli War of 1948). Responsibility is not one-sided.

Finally: comparisons to Nazi Germany are not just inflammatory—they collapse fundamentally different historical contexts and tend to shut down any serious discussion rather than clarify it.

There are legitimate criticisms to make of Israeli policy (including settlement expansion, military actions, and treatment of Palestinians), just as there are real security concerns and historical traumas on the Israeli side. Reducing everything to “genocide vs. pure victimhood” on either side doesn’t reflect the evidence and makes meaningful analysis impossible.

Sounds reasonable. I had only though to separating both and stop fighting and restoring original borders. But yes a democracy with both groups would make sense. How would you go about equal representation? They are not equal in numbers and simple direct democracy would create underrepresentation.

I’m saying you havesa right to your opinion and there should be no law restricting your freedom to speak it.

Also saying that power does not care about those opinions and that changing something requires more than just our opinions being spoken out publicly.

So you propose merging both States and creating a single governing body? What would that look like? UN coming in and both sides stop fighting? Honestly asking, sounds like an interesting idea.

Let’s pretend for a moment your comment history is not public and I’m unable to see the rest of your profile and how you interact with ther public and how the public ratios you for that.

You keep masking your unhappiness and anger with sputtering out learned facts and knowledge. Sounds quite undiagnosed nerodiverse to me, with a touch of anti social behavior and a pinch of missing life experience.

Please leave the house for an hour a day and touch grass. Try to reflect if the state of the world can really be your everyday concern. That is not healthy. If you want to help, volunteer in a soup kitchen, making people happy by helping them will greatly influence those moods of yours.

And you can always come back and do the internet warrior thing just a few hours more afterwards. But you will be calm and less aggressive and somebody might actually be inclined to listen to what you have to say.

Much love

There is a reason the Jews needed a place to go. Neither the first nor last time probably this reason exists. Probably simpler to give them a place of refuge. Also your comment shows you don’t know how Palestine cameu to be, because it happens to match exactly these circumstances as well. Should we treat them the same as you suggest we treat Israel?

Nobody expected them to go full fascism and genocidal. But then again, this is the cycle of abuse, isn’t it?

You can feel the same. And you have the right to speak out for that. Your and my feelings are not a suitable basis for international politics.