Or it could because there is increased awareness of the originally racist and authoritarian motives for modern drug laws? I'm not of the mind that weed cannot and does not frequently become a bad habit but weed abuse is far less problematic than alcohol abuse yet the former is treated as a criminal affair.

Black people are the most consistently anti-police demographic so I don't know where you're getting the idea that it's "young western kids" that are propagating the anti-police rhetoric.

I think that's the part most people overlook.

I have many wordpress sites, some large, some small, and only 1 was ever hacked and it was on a shared host 10+ years ago. Today I have sites that I haven't updated in 5+ years, no hacks no problems. Good wp depends on good server config and good wp setup.

Can't we just assess the information based on it's own merits?

The source is one of the merits. If you are getting the material from a source that is well known for fabricating "evidence" then it must be treated as suspect.

No, because this is noisy, incomplete data. We don't know how much other data wasn't released that would help us draw other conclusions.

Not if the suspicion is that interested parties have falsified the data.

I started a research institute. Our goal was to find out how to center divs in css.

Sir, I find this of great interest and a noble pursuit. I would very much like to invest large sums of my newly created cryptocurrency in this. Have your people contact my people.

Sir, please get in touch. Include the last 4-digits of your SSN so I can verify against my own records.

That's far beyond OP's already lofty ambitions, I'm afraid.

Your ideas are intriguing to me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

too hard, you might have a better chance in your endeavor by forking the web into 2 things.

- A web of apps: A (sand-boxed) VM environment that has the advantage of not having to install the programs locally and with a capability based model. this is already similar to what's already here but once you commit to it you can ditch the DOM and other things.

- A web of documents.

They have to pretend to have some humanitarian concerns. As for why they did it, the notice pretty much sums it up. To prevent media coverage. They also bomb schools, hospitals, and apartment buildings because a member of the locally elected government might have stopped by one time five years ago.

Hamas is the locally elected government. Gaza not allowed to have any military to defend themselves? Isreal free to inflict as much collateral damage as they want upon anyone, but anyone else following the same rules is a terrorist?

I'm not going to participate in what is bound to be a flamewar on this topic, so I'll probably just contribute with this single comment.

Hamas won the election in 2006, and no elections have been held since. While sort of democratically elected and likely still the majority party, Hamas has recently launched hundreds of rockets targeting the civilian population of Israel. This is unquestionably an act of government-run terrorism. It's not the first time - this is doctrine.

It's very hard to make sense of news reports on this conflict, as propaganda is bound to be rampant on both sides.

I've read plenty of news reports over the years stating that Hamas doctrine is to use civilian infrastructure for their operations. Meaning hospitals, civilian residences and most recently, press buildings. And also that Hamas intimidates journalists not to report such operations in any degree of detail. Israeli doctrine, on the other hand, is to give advance warning but systematically attack Hamas fighters that operate out of such locations.

It would be unsurprising if a military force uses lies and deception to achieve their objectives. It's impossible to be confident that reports are honest. Was this an attack on Hamas targets using a press building as a human shield, as the IDF states, or was it simply a pretext to destroy the press headquarters in Gaza? No journalists are reported to have been killed in the attack, as far as I can tell. I would wager that this was actually an attack on Hamas fighters or assets, but there's little evidence. I could be wrong.

Regardless, I would welcome a discussion that gives some serious thought to how to defend oneself against an adversary that operates like this. Meaning, deliberately attacking the civilian population and then using civilians and civilian infrastructure as human shields during the response.

There has never been elections in Gaza. Hamas runs a brutal dictatorship.

Fatah won elections in the West Bank in 2006, and has not allowed any elections since.

While there remains some Arab support for informal, low-level violence directed towards Israel, ever since Black September etc. the Palestinians not being able to have a formal military to defend themselves is what all their neighbours can agree on, not just Israel.

Sounds like they know how to keep private.

And that’s the problem. How do you know they are not a state actor?

I don't care tbh.

The threat I'm protecting against isn't the state reading my emails, it's Spotify (for example, but there are many, many more) refusing to sign me up because my IP is in a different country to my bank account.

Or every single bloody website on the internet ignoring my browser's preferred language settings and serving me content in the language that they think my IP address comes from.

I noticed Facebook started requiring today that you have to be logged in to view any page.

Why are you harassing and insulting them in the first place? Nobody taught you how to speak politely?

The GP said to tell the employee to get off his butt, which is usually interpreted as rude.

They didn't mean you should literally say those exact words. You could say something like "Would you mind checking it for me yourself? I'd really appreciate it."

I say it is true. There used to be a lot of very popular twitter desktop apps that were used by the early adopters who brought lot of traffic to the platform.