gadilif

The specific composition of this specific mountain range in Fordow made it almost ideal for this purpose. It's not only the depth, but also the rock type, the fact that the rock layers were compressed, and overall accessibility - all of these limit the selection space for 'deep holes in the ground for building a nuclear facility'. Also, you need to take into account an important fact: It is in Iran... There may be other, better locations on Earth, but having sovereignty on the land is key:)

It's a bad law (although somewhat covered with 'good intentions', it does have a scent of racism which shouldn't exist in state laws). However, note that the outcome was the unintentional creation of Jewish/Arabs communities in the Galilee, which actually help bring Jews and Arabs together. It is also important to note that Arab Israelis have full rights as citizens, have representatives in the parliament and even were a part of the previous coalition. This, of course, is not the case for Palestinians in the occupied territories, and this issue MUST be resolved (one- or two-state solution, either way the current situation is unbearable). With that, the current coalition does include extremists, and many (according to recent polls, >60%) in Israel want to see them replaced.

So, a couple of thoughts: First, a nitpick - the range of emotions probably behaves more like a weighted average than a regular average (recent experience impact your overall interpretation of a certain event differently than the first time). Second, there seems to be an assumptions that thoughts and words are 'digital', and so follow the entropy laws of digital entities. This seems like a logical leap to me, which requires proof (especially since this seems to be in the foundation of the claims).

The facts are, well, different: As of now:

No international court has ruled that genocide has been committed by either side.

The term "genocide" is used politically and emotionally by many, but legally it carries a very high burden of proof.

The ICJ case and other investigations (e.g., by the International Criminal Court) are ongoing and may shape future judgments.

I'm not sure that's what he meant. My understanding from the post is: First, do your job (I'd add - do it well). That's table stakes, and, some people may be happy with that. But, if you want to get promoted, if you want to 'not feel trapped by your title', then, do more. Don't wait for others to tell you what you can or should do - take initiative. Then, people will notice and you'll either get more responsibility/get promoted, or at the very least, you'll gain more experience (with results to show for it), and in any case you're better off for your next position.

I see your point, and tend to agree. However, at least for the time being, I see the AI tools not inherently different than refactoring tools which were available over a decade ago. It helps me move faster, and I feel like it's one more tool I need to master, so it will be useful in my toolbox.

I can really relate to the feeling described after modifying save files to get more resources in a game, but I wonder if it's the same kind of 'cheating'. Doing better in a game has its own associsted feeling of achievement, and cheating definitely robs you of that, which to me explains why playing will be less fun. Moving faster on a side project or at work doesn't feel like the same kind of shortcut/cheat. Most of us no longer program in assembly language, and we still maintain a sense of achievement using elite languages, which naturally abstract away a lot of the details. Isn't using AI to hide away implementation details just a natural next step, where instead of lengthy error prone machine level code, you have a few modern language instructions?

The author writes "I do not foresee any smartphone app ever being approved for this purpose." (the purpose is 'passing classified information for military operations'), while in fact, I'm not sure I see the issue - all the app (any one of them, including WhatsApp, Signal, etc.) needs to add is what is referred to as 'conditional access' to some chats. Meaning, you can define chats as only authorized for users whose identity is provided by a trusted Identity Provider, or are running on certified devices. This type of security is already implemented in many enterprises, supported by browsers (to some extent, at least), and can be relatively easily be supported by applications. Custom made chat apps already use this (e.g. Workplace Chat, which is used by Meta), and so I'm not sure it's something we won't see supported by other commercial apps messaging apps.

+1 on traveling light. The author did mention this, too: " Your enjoyment of a trip will be inversely related to the weight of your luggage. Counterintuitively, the longer your trip, the less stuff you should haul. Travelers still happy on a 6-week trip will only have carry-on luggage."

The thing is, it's not about removing brain matter, it's about replacing brain matter (with a manufactured copy, for example), and applying the same process in a secondary location (physical or digital, I guess). Will 'you' at some point stop being 'you'? Will the secondary copy at some point become you?