> it is rational to draw the conclusion that your reasoning (and sourcing) is motivated.
Have you provided any sources at all for you numerous claims throughout this thread? Would it also me rational to draw a the conclusion that someone who has provided no sources at all is also engaging in “motivated reasoning”? At least be consistent.
Do you have any sources at all for your assertion “This was very probably the most precisely targeted large-scale military strike of the last 100 years”? It is hard to engage with your statement in any reasonable fashion without knowing where you are getting your information.
Here is an excellent and HN-worthy writeup of the argument for legality, and the counterargument that it was an improper booby trap.[1] It seems to me most of the polarizarion on this board could have been avoided had the original article recognized (as does the one linked here) "that the legality or illegality of the pagers attack can only be determined on the basis of a detailed factual analysis and that the relevant facts are still not fully known."
I disagree with @dang's decision to leave the original link up, as it is nearly valuless in framing this discussion.
> I disagree with @dang's decision to leave the original link up, as it is nearly valuless in framing this discussion
I'm open to replacing it with a better link, but the one you've listed here (even though it's a much more in-depth article) isn't about this specific topic.
No, they're basically the same, and this Substack has some additional primary source material the MEE piece doesn't (MEE and this Substack have approximately the same editorial slant).
For whatever it's worth I think it's fine that the resource posted in that comment just makes it an especially valuable comment, without altering the story itself.
Just start from the premise that Israel targeted exclusively handheld military comms devices that would in ordinary practice only be in the custody of Hezbollah combatants, and from the additional premise that the explosions in the strikes were relatively small, so small that the overwhelming majority of the Hezbollah casualties were wounded and not KIA. Then try to make another story make sense.
We have significant evidence for both these premises!
This is not an argument that the strike incurred no civilian casualty, that no child of a Hezbollah combatant was in close proximity when one of the bombs went off, anything like that. It's rather a sanity check on arguments based on statistical claims about the casualties. There might have been quite a lot of civilian casualties! But for there to have been significantly more of them than combatant casualties, I would argue that you have to break one of my two premises.
Premise 1:
The pagers were military devices, but based on what we know about them, it is impossible to assert that all were in the custody of Hezbollah combatants at the moment they exploded. One would need to prove that the pagers were physically on the combatants’ persons—and not, for example, sitting on a coffee table or elsewhere—at the time of detonation.
Premise 2:
The physical location of the pagers directly affects the pattern of civilian injuries. Hospitals reported that many of the injured were civilians, including children, women, and non-combatants who were at home, at work, or in public areas. Even pro-Israel outlets, such as the Times of Israel, reported the same distribution of casualties.
Footage from Reuters, Al Jazeera, AP, and local Lebanese reporters shows numerous injured civilians with bandaged hands and faces, including people hurt inside homes, markets, farms, and workplaces, as well as children with hand and facial burns.
Now I would pose the question to you, why is your (likely novice) understanding of explosives and the footage you seen enough to overwrite the opinions of the hospitals and government of Lebanon?
Premise 1: I accept that they could have been on coffee tables! The problem isn't that I'm sure every pager was in a combatant pocket; it's that they were microcharges (we have videographic evidence!), and unless most of the pagers were for whatever reason not on hand to a combatant but rather for some reason close to a civilian, the Lebanese civilian/combatant casualty figures can't be made to make sense.
Premise 2 just repeats Premise 1, from what I can tell.
The footage argument doesn't rebut any claim I made. You're treating this as if it's an argument that the pager strike was clean, or even morally justifiable; I have made neither claim.
So, we established that there were injuries among people surrounding those with the pagers. Therefore, the parent comment’s claim was false — the explosions could hurt people nearby and weren’t small enough to affect only the combatant.
My other points still stand, but it’s strange to me that the argument seems to go (not necessarily from you, but from other commenters above):
The explosions were too small to hurt others, so the reported number of civilians injured must be false.
We see that the explosions did hurt civilians.
Well, only a small fraction — the numbers must still be false.
Can you see how this is moving the goalposts? The argument shifted from “the explosives were so precise that Israel must have known exactly who was targeted, and those injured were combatants,” to, in the grandparent comment:
How do you know they were civilians?
Now we see that civilians were present and injured. Perhaps you're correct that the videos show only a small number, but the videos still confirm the core point: civilians were harmed.
@tptacek, I don’t have a problem discussing this with you, but each thread you respond to splits off into new points I have to address. It feels like arguing with two people making contradictory claims.
I’ll leave you with this: the videos show only a minority of the pager detonations. Civilian injuries are most reliably known by Lebanese hospitals and government sources. The idea of detonating explosives in civilian-populated areas without knowing who is immediately around those devices is deeply problematic. And there is no way Israel could have known who would be harmed with any reasonable certainty; the reported numbers only reinforce that fact.
Sources show, the source commenter I was discussing with in this thread agreed, why are you challenging this that were established in the thread? Why are you insisting that we don't use the context in the thread to continue discussion?
He never provided any evidence. Every video of a pager explosion I saw showed it only injuring the person holding it. The amount of explosives in the pagers was so small it would be unlikely for it to harm bystanders much if at all.
I'm not moving the goalposts. Instead, what I'm pretty sure is happening is that you see this as an argument about whether the strike was good or justified. I don't. I'm not interested in that question, which will never, ever be resolved on a message board. I'm just interested in getting the clearest picture of what actually did happen.
Most of this comment is you arguing points that I don't disagree with. The one place we're clearly not aligned is your belief that there were more civilian casualties (or even a comparable number of civilian casualties) than combatant casualties. I've argued, at length and with specific details, as to why that doesn't seem possible, regardless of what Lebanon or Hezbollah reports. If you want to keep hashing this out, that's probably the place where there's something to actually discuss.
They weren't terrorists they were Hezbollah members during a time when Hezbollah was shooting thousands of missiles at Israel that forced 60,000 people to evacuate. This made them fair targets. The pagers contained about grams of explosives which only injured the person holding it.
Premise 2 is false. The vast majority of the injured were Hezbollah terrorists. You say The Times of Israel reported "many of the injured were civilians, including children, women, and non-combatant" - show me a source, please.
It's also false that footage shows numerous injured civilians with bandaged hands and faces. Again, show a credible source and explain how this happened to them.
Cmon man, there are sources pasted all over this thread from my discussion with OP. I'm not going to post the same source that was already discussed with him, why would I waste my time to do so?
OP did split this chain, but a sibling comment has the sources you want.
EDIT: Getting downvoted because I didn't want to paste the same source N times. Nice.
Vortex is a file format, where as delta lake and iceberg are table formats. it should be compared to Parquet rather than delta lake and iceberg.
This guest lecture by a maintainer of Vortex provides a good overview of the file format, motivations for its creation and its key features.
Agreed, really need a tl;dr here, because Parquet is boring technology. Going to require quite the sales pitch to move. At minimum, I assume it will be years before I could expect native integration in pandas/polars/etc which would make it low effort enough to consider.
Parquet is ..fine, I guess. It is good enough. Why invoke churn? Sell me on the vision.
I think it would still make sense to compare with those table formats, or is the idea that you would only use this if you could not use a table format?
Vortex is, roughly, how you save data to files and Iceberg is the database-like manager of those files. You’ll soon be able to run Iceberg using Vortex because they are complementary, not competing, technologies.
Similar to the Apple CEO who said who needs a degree. Meantime he has an MBA from Duke, and BS in Industrial Engineering from Auburn, not an absolute top school but a very good one.
You're asking the wrong question. Even if they do recognize the benefits they received from college education, it doesn't mean they want to share those benefits with others. These people have made it abundantly clear on many occasions that they hate sharing, and even more so when it comes to sharing access to quality education.
You're right. But I think we should be asking both questions because that's what this implies.
Either they:
- Don't recognize the factors that contributed to their own success
- Are ladder-pullers (pulling up the ladder behind them)
- (open to other interpretations that are less likely, such as their education not actually contributing to their success...)
I see the former as likely, and worth noting as we see this sentiment being quite common in Silicon Valley itself. I mean the (current) top comment falls into this category[0]. The sentiment is reinforced by replies and replicated through other comments. I'm sure we've all head this sentiment in many places and in our offline lives.[1]
But you're also right to consider the more malevolent interpretation, especially considering we're discussing Palantir. The "fuck you, I got mine" crowd is growing, even if people are participating without realizing it. In a way, these related to the earlier point [see 1]. Personally, I feel the "fuck you, got mine" crowd is destructive to society. Not just at large, but even locally. We are communal creatures, and we formed societies because coalitions, by definition, generate more utility than we could by our summed efforts alone. It's one of the key ingredients not to just the success of humans as a whole, but to each and every one of us. We all benefit from creating more ladders, just as we all are worse off when any is removed. A rising tide lifts all ships after all. You can't lift the biggest ships by sinking others.
I tend to want to give the benefit of the doubt and be kind. Hoping that others will interpret and infer consequences of the settings. But if anyone is denying the attribution of their own education, then you're probably most right in implying that they are not thinking that deeply and we should be more explicit. Though the right way to do this kindly and convincingly is more difficult. How do you find that balance of making one face reality yet not in a way that raises their defenses so much that they can't see what's staring right at them?
[1] Personally I think this is a bit of a defense mechanism for people. It can help build a view of the world that it is purely meritocratic and we can "pull ourselves up by our bootstraps." I'm not sure why we feel shame that others contributed to our success and have to tell this story that it was all us and everything was going against us.
they are looking for cheapest labor they can squeeze out. I am highly educated with 30 years in, won’t answer an email under $250/hr. my neighbour coming out of HS will work for $20/hr
Knowing that they are giving them civics education makes it obvious they are indoctrinating people to accept what are almost certainly unconstitutional endeavors in partnership with the rising authoritarian faction in the US. It won't have a complete success rate, so watch for whistleblowers to be punished or disappeared. If that seems like hyperbole, it shouldn't. We are already there, just in time for Nov 5th. Notably Guy Fawkes' turning to violence to fight the oppression of Catholics caused that oppression to solidify for another two centuries. So don't go blowing up parliament.
How and why did a news business that makes $18 million in revenue get valued at $150 million? That sort of multiple is typically only seen by high growth tech firms .
That surprises me, do you remember where you learned that?
reply