Bush’s approval rating benefited from the US being attacked, and then responding. Trump has the order wrong; preemptively attacking countries (even bad ones) doesn’t poll very well with Americans.
(This is ahead of Trump’s base being isolationist; it’s not even clear who wants this besides conventional hawks.)
Combined with the fact that the media will be confused about how to respond. You’ll have Iranian diaspora celebrating, like Venezuelans did after the capture of Maduro, making it impossible for the media to frame this simply in terms of “Trump is racist.” As a result, the whole thing will get memory holed, just like the Venezuela attack.
I didn’t say the attack on Iran was like 9/11. I was responding to OP’s hypothetical about what would happen if the situation was reversed and Trump was killed.
Why would you feel guilty for the actions of Iran’s government? That doesn’t seem like the appropriate reaction, even if you’re directionally “pro” Iran because they’re directionally opposed to Israel.
(Ultranationalist/reactionary states like Iran and Israel love this kind of absolute framing, because it allows the state to ratchet, rather than de-escalate, cycles of violence.)
The guilt trip is aimed by people who support the genocide at meek liberals who might be worried that they're not demonstrating "equal" concern about Iran.
It was the same shit back when they used to accuse meek liberals of being antisemitic for criticizing some of the most extreme racists on planet earth.
It doesnt matter how Iran frames things. This isnt a "both sides" issue. Youll only get iran's opinion if you read presstv, they dont flood english speaking forums.
I don't know what equal concern means, per se. It seems normal for people to express more or less concern about individual tragedies based on their background, etc. This is distinct from being unable to acknowledge that any given action is bad, which would be the territory of an ideologue.
(I get Iran's opinion because I have Iranian friends.)
Mike Huckabee is a clown who was more or less strategically plonked into Israel to feed soothing quotes to the settler minority. I think it'd be an error to assume that his particularly evil flavor of Christian eschatology reflects the political or military policies of Israel (which is saying a lot, since Israel's military policy is very clearly good at producing war crimes).
Hmm well I don't think it'd be an error to assume that his particularly evil flavor of Christian eschatology reflects the political or military policies of Israel.
> Because the West doesn't fund and shield the perpetrators unlike Israel.
You could make an at least passable argument that the US offers a favorable media environment to our MENA allies (i.e., those other than Israel) during what is by all accounts an extremely brutal and mostly ignored conflict in Sudan.
Don't do what? Point out that "TFA' is selectively reporting on an (admittedly undeniably tragic and dystopian, as war inherently is) situation that has been weaponized by powerful, unfathomably wealthy “news” (”real” news can be framed such that it is “propaganda”) organizations?
Analysis of Potential Anti-Israel Bias
Bias in journalism is best assessed through criteria such as language tone, source selection and balance, contextual framing, omissions, and factual selectivity. This article exhibits several hallmarks of anti-Israel bias in its presentation, while reporting on verifiable elements of a tragic incident that has drawn international scrutiny.
Loaded and emotive language: Terms like "massacre," "executed," "execution-style killings," "ambushed," "point-blank range," and "deliberately" dominate descriptions of Israeli actions. Palestinian victims are consistently portrayed as unarmed, clearly identifiable "aid workers" with "emergency lights" and markings visible. Israeli forces are depicted as advancing methodically to kill survivors without provocation. By contrast, the article does not use neutral phrasing such as "incident," "exchange of fire," or "alleged." A quoted Forensic Architecture official explicitly links the event to "genocide," which the piece endorses without qualification.
One-sided sourcing and lack of balance: The core narrative relies on PRCS (a Palestinian organization), two named survivors, and Forensic Architecture/Earshot—entities whose prior work has frequently focused on alleged Israeli violations. A single supportive quote comes from a Center for Constitutional Rights attorney. The Israeli military's response is relegated to a brief paragraph near the end, presented without detailed rebuttal or independent corroboration of its claims (e.g., that the convoy was uncoordinated or posed a perceived threat in an active combat zone). No interviews with IDF personnel, Israeli forensic experts, or neutral third-party analysts appear.
Selective contextual framing and omissions: The article opens by noting Israel's "abandonment" of a January 2025 ceasefire and resumption of "scorched earth bombing," implying unprovoked aggression. It provides no discussion of the broader operational context in Rafah (an area of ongoing military activity post-ceasefire violations by both sides), Hamas's documented history of embedding in civilian and medical infrastructure, or any potential misidentification of vehicles/personnel in pre-dawn conditions. Claims of a "rescue convoy" responding to an airstrike omit whether movements were coordinated with Israeli forces (a point raised in Israeli accounts). Post-incident military engineering (the "Morag Corridor") is framed solely as evidence concealment rather than standard security measures. Autopsy details from PRCS/Guardian sources alleging "intent to kill" are accepted without cross-examination.
Publication context: Drop Site News, founded by journalists with records of critical coverage of Israel and U.S. policy, is rated left-biased by independent evaluators, with a tendency toward one-sided narratives on conflict issues. The timing aligns precisely with the Forensic Architecture/Earshot report release, functioning more as advocacy amplification than detached analysis.
Counterpoints and Broader Context
Independent reporting and Israeli statements acknowledge a serious incident involving the deaths of protected aid personnel, with autopsies indicating close-range upper-body wounds and an internal IDF probe admitting a "professional error" while denying executions. The audio-visual evidence cited (gunshot counts, shooter positioning via echolocation, lack of return fire) appears methodologically rigorous and has been cross-verified in allied outlets. However, Israeli accounts describe an ambush setup in a high-threat environment where the convoy's approach was deemed suspicious, with no coordination notified. The event occurred amid resumed hostilities following ceasefire breakdowns, and Palestinian Civil Defense has been alleged by Israel to have militant ties in other contexts. These elements receive minimal or no engagement in the article, limiting its analytical depth.
Overall Assessment
The article demonstrates clear anti-Israel bias through its adversarial framing, selective emphasis, emotive terminology, and near-exclusive reliance on sources critical of Israel, while marginalizing the Israeli perspective and relevant conflict context. It advances a narrative of deliberate, unprovoked executions as established fact, rather than a contested interpretation of evidence from a chaotic combat zone. That said, the underlying forensic reconstruction raises substantive questions about proportionality and accountability that merit transparent investigation by credible international bodies—not dismissal. A more balanced treatment would integrate diverse viewpoints, test competing hypotheses (e.g., misidentification versus intent), and avoid presuming genocidal motive. Readers seeking a fuller picture should consult primary sources, including the full Earshot/Forensic Architecture report, Israeli military statements, and contemporaneous coverage from multiple outlets.
> The citizens that protested because the Israeli military arrested (after a lot of international pressure) soldiers that were caught raping Palestinian prisoners.
The people you're talking about are Israel's far-right. I don't think you can index from them onto the median Israeli's political views anymore than you could reasonably index from a member of Hamas's armed wing onto the median Palestinian.
(A recurring theme in both I/P and MENA conflicts more generally is that political minorities - WB settlers in Israel, for example, manage to wield disproportionate power and induce chaos and strife across the region.)
Might behoove you to know how schooling in that "country" is handled..especially when it comes to Palestinians. Below is an excellent insight as to how this is a "country" wide homegrown effort to raise unhinged cilivians that celebrate the murder of children & women.
Exactly. I replied to the comment above, but a lot of people don't appreciate the right-left divide in Israel is very different to that in other western nations. A leftist in Israel would probably be considered extreme right in some other nations.
I know a fair number of leftists of both Israeli and Palestinian extraction, and I don't really think this is true. The more nuanced and IMO correct appreciation of left-right politics in Israel (and MENA more generally) is that they're flavored but not inherently dominated by ethnonationalist movements that reached their fever pitch in the 20th century, and have slowly been replaced by ethoreligious movements that have substituted declining follower numbers for more extreme activity.
Electronic intifada is propaganda. It is true that there are concerning directions the education in Israel is taking. But a propagandistic education is certainly not an issue in Israel alone, like this articles tries to paint. That is no excuse, but it still remains one-sided propaganda.
I don't know what to tell you. If you think I don't believe that Israel structurally dehumanizes Palestinians, you'd be wrong. But you'd also be wrong in thinking that this is somehow a deviation from the norm; both sides are actively governed by their political extremes, like I said.
You're painting with broad-strokes here which comes off as disingenuous, I presume that's not your intention but it calls into question your understanding of the history between these states being laid bare.
I suggest reading Hamas' 2017 charter in full for proper context.
I think I understand the two pretty well. And I've read both the 2017 and 1988 charters. The funny thing about charters is that you can put anything in them; the IDF's charter[1] is an exercise in frustration for anybody who knows literally anything about how the IDF actually behaves, and so for Hamas.
A stat I came across recently is that over 60% of Israeli's don't support a two state solution - i.e. they don't support the idea of Palestinians having a state.
This also tracks with my travels to Palestine, friends who have travelled more recently, and various videos and article: the right-left in Israel is quite different to the right-left in other Western nations: namely, if you talk to a leftist Israeli, they will also hold strong view against Palestinians.
> A stat I came across recently is that over 60% of Israeli's don't support a two state solution - i.e. they don't support the idea of Palestinians having a state.
This is, critically, a pretty different political position from defending people accused of wartime rape. That doesn't make it a good position, but we shouldn't conflate the two.
As for why: Israelis don't appear to disapprove of a two-state solution any more or less than Palestinians[1]. Both are absolutely committed to the idea that their one-state solution will be supreme.
Two years after the 2005 Israeli unilateral withdrawal from Gaza (and the Israeli government evicted Israeli settlers from Gaza), the support in Israel for a two-state solution was 70% in favor.
They were optimistic!
Looking at the long term history of Israel, the left was more optimistic in general about hopes for peace with the Palestinians, while the right more suspected that Arafat never really wanted peace, and was just being sneaky. But let it be noted that the Prime Minister who ordered the withdrawal from Gaza was right-wing Gen. Ariel Sharon, Likud member and previous advocate of settlements everywhere.
After the actions of Hamas in subsequent years, particularly Oct 7, 2023, that hope and optimism was completely eliminated.
The 'withdrawal' wasn't really a withdrawal, was it. There was still a blockade, and IDF's routine 'mowing the lawn'.
Let's not pretend that the 2005 'withdrawal' was a chance for a fresh start for the Palestinians that they floundered. The various negotiations were very one sided, and the offers were also unacceptable.
Since 2005, Israel has aggressively settled more and more people in the West Bank, to the point where more than 10% of Israel's Jewish population (read: first-class citizens) now live in West Bank settlements, so Israel's right wing has done everything in its power to make a two-state solution less and less practical.
IMO a one-state solution where everyone has equal rights is the only just and reasonable path forward. Like with the dismantling of apartheid, a transition plan will be needed.
Hamas has a one-state transition plan: kill or drive out the Jews, or enslave the ones with technical expertise. The Israel far right has a transition plan: kill or drive out the Palestinians in the West Bank or Gaza, except for the few that don't cause them problems.
Partition of disputed territory is the least bad solution in the world we live in. "One world" government remains a utopian fantasy. Dividing the world up according to a mix of consideration of peoplehood, self-determination, and whoever won the most recent war is what humankind has figured out so far.
People who disagree with that will want to start wars. Wars are bad.
Wars are bad, but sometimes the only way to end an unjust status quo. Is that a defense of war? Up to everyone to decide.
The American civil war occurred, in part, because Lincoln decided to end the institution of slavery. I know this is an oversimplification and justifies the means with the end, but I think if "bad"-ness of the civil war is compared to the "bad"-ness of an eternity of black people being enslavement in the U.S., I'd argue the war was significantly less "bad".
I think your other point about Hamas's supposed desire to genocide Jews lacks nuance, and your resignation to a world of ethno-nationalist states is a just-so story bordering on nihilism, but I suspect addressing those enters territory of tightly-held opinion, so I will just leave it at that.
Is this true? I would expect most of Stripe's fraud overhead to be statutory in nature, not something they hire for because they're a concentrated target.
(They certainly have more staff because more volume, but the actual regulatory requirements I'd expect to be roughly the same for the service they provide.)
When we used Stripe, we opted out of all their fraud prevention stuff to save money (not sure if that's still an option). As a b2b SaaS where payment happens after a free trial (not at signup), we're just not a target for fraud, so it was totally fine.
I can't speak to why Stripe's fraud protection is so expensive. Is it because they're a target? Or maybe because they realized people will pay for it (it seems valuable for something like ecommerce)? I dunno, but I can confidently say that as of ~5 years ago, it wasn't required by any regulation, and my business was perfectly fine without it.
Now we use Paddle, and they also try to sell us a bunch of stuff we don't need at ridiculous prices. We're just using them because we wanted a merchant of record (where they handle taxes and stuff), but no, I'm not going to pay a % of my revenue for basic dunning emails, fraud prevention, vague "optimizations" that "increase conversions" (lol no they don't), etc.
It's probably somewhere around "USG should not offer a chatbot on its websites."
You're right that the bot can't possibly do the right thing in all possible scenarios here, which makes it clear that the bot's only actual purpose is to enable self-dealing, not be of value to the public.
That something can be broken by a sufficiently bad actor does not mean it's not useful to the overwhelming majority of people who use it for what it was meant for.
I think the standard for public resources should be higher than this: it’s not good enough for it to be possibly useful, it has to be in fact useful. TFA provides evidence of the chatbot being the opposite of useful, beyond telling people to stick things in their butts.
(Or in other words: show me something you’d ask a chatbot here, and I’ll show you something you can put on a single HTML page.)
> I think the standard for public resources should be higher than this: it’s not good enough for it to be possibly useful, it has to be in fact useful.
And what evidence do you have that it is not in fact useful?
> TFA provides evidence of the chatbot being the opposite of useful, beyond telling people to stick things in their butts.
Where?
> Ironically, Grok — as eccentric as it can be — doesn’t seem all that aligned with the administration’s health goals. Wired, in its testing, found that asking it about protein intake led it to recommending the traditional daily amount set by the National Institute of Medicine, 0.8 grams per kilogram of body weight. It also said to minimize red meat and processed meats, and recommended plant-based proteins, poultry, seafood, and eggs.
At a very quick look, no evidence is given that the "bugs" found in requests are in fact reachable, i.e. not prevented by construction. And sure enough, the very first one is impossible because of a validating guard[1]: `address_in_network` only gets called after `is_valid_cidr`, which enforces the presence of a slash.
I think we should hold claims about effective static analysis and/or program verification to a higher standard than this.
> the very first one is impossible because of a validating guard[1]: `address_in_network` only gets called after `is_valid_cidr`, which enforces the presence of a slash.
It’s correct to flag this code. The check is performed manually outside of the function in question. If you call the function directly, the bug surfaces.
There is no mention in the function documentation of the validation requirement, making it easy to call incorrectly. Also, if it is required to call the validator before calling this function, then the function could just call it itself.
In short, it’s possible to make this code safe by definition, but instead it relies upon the developer to always make the undocumented right choices every single time it is called. I would expect something more rigorous from verified code.
> I would expect something more rigorous from verified code.
I think you just want the illusion of safety :p
A big advantage of verified code is that it enables you to write the sketchy and dangerous-looking code BECAUSE it's proven correct
In fact, skipping as many safety checks as possible is highly desirable. For performance, yes, but also because it's less code to maintain.
Our tools already do this to some extent, for performance. E.g. compilers that remove your bounds or type checks in the generated code when it can prove it's not needed.
> It’s correct to flag this code. The check is performed manually outside of the function in question. If you call the function directly, the bug surfaces.
No, that’s just called a precondition. I’m not aware of a single program that doesn’t have functions like these, particularly internal APIs.
(It should go without saying, but it’s not even an issue in this case: it’ll cause an IndexError, but so will thousands of other APIs. Python very explicitly doesn’t have exceptions in its type contract; anything can always raise anything.)
> I would expect something more rigorous from verified code.
Nobody said that requests is “formally verified.” The only place where that claim is made is in the AI-generated blog post above.
That doesn't mean there's a problem with the code, only with the documentation. So the article is wrong to call it a "real bug". At most it's poor code style that could theoretically lead to a bug in the future.
There's nothing inherently wrong with a function throwing an exception when it receives invalid input. The math.sqrt function isn't buggy because it fails if you pass it a negative argument.
“Two popular AES libraries, aes-js and pyaes, “helpfully” provide a default IV in their AES-CTR API, leading to a large number of key/IV reuse bugs. These bugs potentially affect thousands of downstream projects.”
Would you call that “poor code style that could theoretically lead to a bug in the future”, too?
The API in question is almost certainly internal. The only reason it isn’t marked as such is because Python doesn’t have great facilities for that kind of encapsulation.
Invariant-preserving types are always going to be the right way to eliminate certain classes of bugs, but they’re also completely overkill in this context given that the “bug” in question doesn’t even cause unsound program behavior; it just raises an exception, which is completely sound and well-defined.
Most (all?) static analyzers are conservative, and reducing your false positive rate is always a struggle. You should never expect a false positive rate of zero (it’s probably impossible to not have false positives), but you shouldn’t be presenting your false positives as successes either.
Sure, but this one doesn’t pass the sniff test. I’ve written plenty of static analysis tools (including ones that do symbolic execution), and one of the first things you do to ensure that your results are valid is create some model of tainting/reachability. Even an analysis that’s 1-callsite sensitive would have caught this and discarded it as a false positive.
(In case it isn’t clear, I’m saying this is slop that someone whipped up and didn’t even bother to spot check.)
clever, but no.. I agree that it is useful and appropriate to flag this section for attention.
I am concerned that the civilian population will be deprived of the benefits of this tech while hyper-competitive formal groups scoop up the talent needed to develop these..
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short,_sharp_shock
reply