decohen
Joined 7 years ago
Joined 7 years ago
They have a fourth type they call "Explanation" that's "Here's why we made the flaps behave this way, and how that relates to the theory of aerodynamics"
The source you provided says "for every junior Hamas operative that Lavender marked, it was permissible to kill up to 15 or 20 civilians". This is clearly an upper bound, and makes no claim about how close to this they actually come.
In the same way, I might offer my customers an SLA of two nines in their contract, but never drop below three in practice. Part of effective planning is describing the worst case scenario, but that doesn't imply it will actually happen.
The Gaza Ministry of Health says as of today that 35,562 people have been killed [0]. The Israeli Ministry of Defense in March said it has killed 13,000 Hamas operatives [1].
Leaving aside the two month gap between these figures, the civilian casualty ratio is 1:1.7.
I tried to find a source for what a "typical" casualty ratio is in urban conflicts. This source [2] claims that 90% of overall casualties is a typical number. That would be a ratio of 1:9.
John Spencer, who chairs the Modern Warfare Institute at USMA, and seems to be an authority on the subject, has a tweet addressing this specifically [3], in which he cites the Battles of Mosul, and Manila as having casualty rates of 1:2.5, 1:6 respectively.
I don't think proving the negative of "lowest civilian casualty rate in modern history" is feasible, but a nearly 5x improvement in civilian casualties compared to the assumed norm, and lower civilian casualties than Spencer's comparisons seems to indicate that the claim is not without merit.
[0] https://www.aljazeera.com/news/longform/2023/10/9/israel-ham... [1] https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/hamas-says-gaza... [2] https://civiliansinconflict.org/our-work/conflict-trends/urb... [3] https://x.com/SpencerGuard/status/1786612914117349769
What if commercial dating apps actually had their incentives aligned with their users?
I'm imagining an open clearinghouse of profiles that can be be consumed by multiple apps. The owner of each profile puts up a bounty. When a app proposes a match that causes the owner to go inactive for more than say a month, the app claims that bounty.
Obviously, there's some details missing here, but directionally, this incentivizes apps to propose good matches, so they can claim the money. It also allows head-to-head competition, forcing the whole market to improve.
That, combined with the orographic lift as the air flows over the mountain, leads to unusually strong winds.
In that field, it seems typical to have both engineers and technicians working on projects. Engineers are responsible for design, and have degrees; Technicians do assembly and maintenance, and only need on-the-job training.
I’ve often wondered what our industry would look like if we adopted a similar distinction. In which case, bootcamp graduates would be a natural fit for a technician role.
FWIW, I did some thinking about this general problem a while back, and my best idea so far is to make content artificially scarce, by limiting the number of users that can see a given post in a given period.
This has the nice property of not requiring expensive moderation, complex algorithms, or (as is the proposal here) usage charges.
More details here, if interested: https://danielcohen.dev/politics/technology/2021/01/15/socia...
On my first visit, I was careful about the water I drank, but not very careful about other ingestion, and I got TD about halfway through the trip.
On the next visit, I was careful to keep my mouth closed while showering, and only use bottled water to clean my toothbrush, etc. Everyone else on the trip, eating the same food, got sick, but I didn't.
This is of course anecdata, but generally food, especially cooked food, is more likely to be safe.