It amazing how the language differ in this kind of article when the roles are reversed. In the past we talked about inclusion, discrimination, and industries that excluded women. Now we have statements like "make girly jobs appeal to manly men.". I can just imagine how well received the statement "make manly jobs appeal to girly women" would had been around 2010.
It seems unlikely that the success of women in STEM was based on making STEM more feminine, and helping women understand that they can have STEM roles and still stay feminine. It seems more plausible that affirmative action, privileged opportunities, exclusive spaces, and preferential hiring practices had more to do in making women in STEM successful than words about femininity and masculinity.
Does this mean ceasefire is now broken? The 10 point plan was to be discussed later in the peace talks, but what was the exact conditions that predicated the ceasefire?
Definitively if they agreed to it as part of the ceasefire. What did each part actually agree to when they agreed to a ceasefire? There doesn't seem to be much concrete information about that part.
The ceasefire agreement was mediated by Shehbaz Sharif, the prime minister of Pakistan. He announced yesterday that the US and Iran had agreed to a ceasefire everywhere, including Lebanon. They agreed to base negotiations on Iran's 10-point proposal. [1] Trump released his own statement that the US was agreeing to the ceasefire, again using Iran's 10-point proposal as a basis. [2] Benjamin Netanyahu announced that Israel would comply with the ceasefire. [3] Hours later, Israel carried out a brutal strike on dense commercial and residential areas in Southern Lebanon without warning, killing at least 254 people and injuring more than 1,000 others. [4] The IRGC announced that if Trump didn't rein in Israel, Iran would exit the ceasefire arrangement. [5] Trump then told a reporter that Lebanon was not in the deal, contradicting Sharif's statement. [6] In response, Iran's speaker of the parliament released a statement outlining how the US had violated three of Iran's 10 points and that he viewed a bilateral ceasefire as now being unreasonable. [7]
> Benjamin Netanyahu announced that Israel would comply with the ceasefire. [3]
That's not really what the source says. There is no ceasefire agreement in force at all (only a basis for negotiations with Iran), let alone one that covers Hezbollah.
You're right that Netanyahu's statement contradicts Sharif's statement, which says that "the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States of America, along with their allies" agreed to the immediate ceasefire. It makes me wonder what was going on behind the scenes.
> Multiple diplomatic sources told CBS News that President Trump had been told that the ceasefire announced Thursday would apply to the Middle East region, and he agreed that included Lebanon. Mediators believed the ceasefire to include Lebanon, and Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif announced that it did. Araghchi also said it was included.
> On the day of the ceasefire, a White House official told CBS News that Israel had also agreed with the terms of the deal that Pakistan had helped to broker.
> However, the U.S. position shifted following a phone call between Netanyahu and Mr. Trump. Two sources familiar with the matter told CBS News that the changing U.S. positions, and the disjointed remnant of the regime in Iran, are making the diplomacy highly complex.
> Vice President JD Vance told reporters on Wednesday that there was a "legitimate misunderstanding" about the terms of the ceasefire, but he placed blame on the Iranians for misunderstanding that it included their proxy forces in Lebanon.
It's great to see that Israel has veto power over US foreign policy.
In other words, negotiations are underway and Israel hasn't agreed to anything yet, but some people went ahead and declared peace in the Middle East anyway.
Like any other state, Israel has the ability to enter into its own agreements; no one can consent on its behalf and then inform it that it's part of a deal.
As best I can tell, the Iranian regime and Sharif both said that they ceasefire included a cease to strikes on Lebanon, Netanyahu explicitly said that it did not, and the Trump admin, Lebanon, and Hezbollah have not yet commented either way.
Iran is ATM saying it closed the Strait again, implied that it will wait until Israel stand down at least.
Even if USA insist on Israel-Hezbollah (and so Lebanon) be kept apart from any deal to end their war in Iran, it would still mean a terrible strategic and diplomatic disaster between USA and Israel, because Israel Gov' will be left with two terrible scenarios:
1) Trump Admin' will concede to Iran they'd be leaving the region and leaving Israel to defend itself alone, because the Hormuz being open for business and the Gulf states being spared would be enough; or
2) USA will have to resume hostilities, meaning domestically Trump will have to explain the US Military is obliged to continue the war effort for as long as Israel want.
IMHO don't see how Israel-US can politically survive those two scenarios.
Israel is a nuclear-armed state. The world is in effect asking them to commit suicide. That's why we have been involved for the last 50 years--by siding with them we keep those bombs in their silos. Most of the Muslim world has come to the realization that coexistence is the right answer, but the Islamists have not. They'll keep pushing until they go up in a mushroom cloud.
Lest you blame the Jews we see the same sort of thing happening with India/Pakistan--fortunately the Islamists do not control the Pakistani bombs, but they keep trying to egg on war with India--a war that could only end with the nuclear destruction of Pakistan. And the Islamists have enough power that Pakistan can't just go after them without causing a civil war. That's why the mess in Afghanistan--Pakistan was exporting the problem. And now it's turning on them--now that the Islamists have a country they control they're looking to take Pakistan.
Lebanon has also said that the ceasefire doesn't apply to Hezbollah, since they insist that both them and Israel are at war with Hezbollah, not with each other. The only parties that say it does are Hezbollah and Pakistan.
Honestly, it’s a good counter to get both sides of the coin. At the moment you’ll find BBC, CNN, NYT et al on one end and Al Jazeera on the other. I also look at DW for a more balanced approach. Don’t consume from one camp!
Just be aware that DW is literally government propaganda. If you want news from a German perspective, it's great; however its purpose is explicitly to give the German governments POV.
Al Jazeera is a private news organization mostly funded by the state of Qatar.
It is not "the other side of the coin". Qatar is very much on the US side, and opposite to Iran.
Their reporting is fine, and I typically find it more informative than the US news sources. But let's not pretend you are getting the Iranian side of the deal here.
Particularly, my favorite news sources for the war is, oddly enough, FT
Yeah, I'm really just looking for less Americanized coverage from the region. Al Jazeera is fine, I'm glad to hear any other recommendations for sources. (thanks for FT)
Fair call on CNN and DW, but the NYT has always been at least somewhat aligned with Al Jazeera, and the BBC switches around with whatever the current government is.
> NYT has always been at least somewhat aligned with Al Jazeera
Hard disagree: the NYT adopts a weird passive voice that goes against its house style, along with headlines with no subject when it comes to events in Gaza[1]. Al Jazeera consistently names the doers of the verbs.
1. Once you're aware of it, it becomes impossible not to notice. It is the Wilhelm scream of news coverage.
This is such an important point, and I wish it were more widely spoken about. As a daily NYT reader, I noticed a profound shift in the early days of the current admin. I might be off on the timing, curious to know what other daily NYT readers have to say. It's an incredibly effective technique given the relative subtlety, and in my experience it seems to exhaust the mental resources of the critical reader.
You're very very off on the timing: the first year of the genocide (and the majority of the official casualties) was under the previous administration. The bias on Gaza was observed across the board from the start (and arguably for the last 70 years).
NYT is also frequently silent on certain news stories that paints U.S. in a bad light that I consider noteworthy enough. Whenever I encounter a story I want to know more about I check all the mainstream reporting; Reuters and CNN would have it most of the time (even if not in a neutral tone) but NYT often doesn’t cover it at all or bury it in a sentence or two in a related, milder story. Not gonna name specific instances but you can pay attention from now on and you’ll see a pattern after a while.
No? Sources? It's possible that Qatar's government has some editorial control over the Arabic content, but my understanding is that the English operations are separate.
Those don't really add to your argument. The Kashmir issue sounds like a mistake that Al Jazeera tried to address. The Factually analysis indicates that Al Jazeera is generally reliable for news, with caution advised for coverage of highly-political events and editorials, which I think is typical of any media organization.
> Also, I really wouldn't suggest using aljazeera.
Yeah, I agree - I have the same objections to ajazeera that I have to RT, CNN, Fox News, NYT, etc. - they are each overwhelming pressure from controlling corporations and states that they can't shine light where it needs to be shone.
But in this case, I was really only pasting them for links to the statements by Pakistan and Iran, which I do trust them to link / quote faithfully. It wasn't meant as an endorsement of their editorial or news-gathering quality.
I think only the US is not bombing anyone for the time being. I think, and hope, they will slowly pull out of there and not fuck up the status quo any further.
They don't have a way to reopen it without either a forever war in Iran or giving concessions to Iran to get it to open it. And an unsactioned, nuclear Iran is way worse than a booth toll in the strait.
Afghanistan was a 20 year long war. It was more costly in terms of troops, material etc.
Why would ending the war mean handing the world to the Iranian regime? That seems exaggerated. The iranians will charge a small toll for oil passing Hormuz, why would the US care? They have oil.
Iran stated that it needed to be. I know Israel/US said it isnt, but that isnt how a ceasefire works. All sides actually have to agree to the terms of a ceasefire to have a ceasefire.
I can't understand how it is possible that when such ceasefires are agreed there isn't a designated third party who has the signatures of both parties and can say, and prove, if it's been violated.
They say it, but can they prove it? Because everyone seems to be saying a different thing. Shouldn't Pakistan be able to say "this is the document, these are the terms, these are the signatures, case closed"?
I'm not saying they're lying, I am just wondering why they don't seem to have a definitive proof of what they say- they say one thing and the US "disagrees"- why can't any of the parties just show the fucking document?
Most likely not. I've seen Iranian sources claim that the 10 point plan is violated[1]. However I (1) do not know about Iran's government structure and (2) I can only trust other sources that I believe are trustworthy.
However I think assuming that Israel violating the ceasefire (as they have done multiple times in the past) is more reasonable than assuming a country with a ~400B GDP (similar to Hong Kong, Portugal) has leaders that "can't read".
reglardless if it was, it was an agreement with the US who can be convinced with money to stop the bombs. Israel is a different beast. they will only accept death as payment.
and yes because Iran does include it in their terms it.means US now gets to fight Israel.with diplomacy :') again.
Not that anyone is going to listen to Australia, but Australia believes it is part of the ceasefire terms that were agreed to:
Asked on 7.30 if the ceasefire should apply to Israel's action in Lebanon, [Australian Foreign Minister] Senator Wong was adamant it should. "Yes," she said. "Our position is that the world expects that the ceasefire should apply to the region."
"Our position is that it should" is very different from "the text of their statement says". This is Senator Wong's (or Australia's) idea of what would happen in an ideal world, not anything anybody involved recognizes as relevant. (I mean, they may not recognize the text as being relevant, either, but this is a step below even that.)
>Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif announced the ceasefire between Iran and the United States on X, saying the two sides agreed to an immediate ceasefire everywhere, including Lebanon, where Israel launched strikes.
This suggests that either the Americans are lying or they did not read the agreement carefully before signing. Either way I don't think it's a good look for the United States.
The US has plenty of ability to force Israel to stop its invasion of Lebanon and it has done similar things twice before by economic means. All parties to the agreement are aware of this.
I suspect more fighting in Lebanon means less oil through Hormuz. Iran kept its definition of "open" vague. Everyone is keeping the pressure up during negotiations.
Maybe I'm just cynical but I have to assume someone will test the extent Iran can hold them to a payment if it doesn't want to stop maintaining the terms of the ceasefire to back up the demand?
Is the US seriously going to side with Iran on a missing payment? Assuming not, is the value of the ceasefire more than $1m for Iran if a ship slyly doesn't pay or the few million if one starts a trend? As I said I might be cynical but I see layered games of chicken where some people are surprisingly risk tolerant..
Iran's terms are all ships transiting the strait have to coordinate with its military. One would assume they are monitoring ship movements, and know which ones are complying and which ones are not.
The US doesn't need to "side with Iran" on anything: ship captains, owners and insurers are free to gamble their ships and payloads against Iran's resolve and strike capabilities, my assumption is they like to predictability make money, and not losing customer's billion-dollar payloads is part of that.
Having your ship blown up won't guarantee the US will consider the ceasefire violated, history is littered with post-armistice engagements and deaths.
All very reasonable.. But plenty of odd stuff happened in maritime during covid and plenty of odd stuff related to ghost fleet.. My point is not that Exon is going to save a million my point is that it is an interesting way that I think the cease fire would come to an end if it became a stable one on other fronts. I.e. the US doesn't have to choose based on anything but what is expedient to it wanting an end to the cease fire, a boat may be from the right country with the wrong organizational finances for the mounting costs so far, and so on..
What's the incentive for a ship captain to risk this? Even if they're more confident than almost everyone else that it's a bluff and think there's a 95% chance Iran does nothing, a 5% chance of you and your crew being incinerated is a crazy risk to take.
Would you go to your normal job tomorrow if someone who has a history of carrying out threats has threatened to kill you for it?
You can't imagine someone who would go to that job simply because the owner hired a bouncer and they have a different faith in authority or really mean looking bouncers than you?
I can spend 10 minutes looking at demographics and tell you the world is not explainable if the measuring stick is my own risk tolerances.
too early to say. You always ask for more than you can possibly get in these things so that you have something to compromise on (it is stupid but that is how that game is played)
There was never going to be a ceasefire. It was just Taco Tuesday and yet another market manipulation day. Republicans and Democrats ruled by whoever has original Epstein files are just filling their boots.
The average electricity price for German households is approximately 32.5 to 34 cents per kWh.
We are not doing an apple to apple comparison if we are not actually looking at what people are paying. The cost of energy is to have the a stable supply of energy delivered at the time that the consumer wants to buy it. The cost of energy production is thus not just the price of producing one unit of energy in isolation, but to have it transmitted in a stable grid at a date and time specified by the consumer. Nuclear energy and solar energy both produce units of energy, but consumers need for transmission, grid stability and time aspects are completely different depending if they buy nuclear energy or solar energy. They are not interchangeable on those aspects.
The 9.71 ct/kwh is the levelized cost of producing electricity from solar. It is not the same as the average cost of consuming energy. Adding nuclear to the mix would not necessary increase costs of consuming energy, even if the average cost of producing energy would go up.
To make a very simplified illustration of this. A energy broker would happily trade 10 units for energy for 1 unit of energy, assuming that they can dictate when and where each unit get transmitted.
The cost of energy is also full lifecycle cost including waste handling, deconstruction and security. I am not saying that everything is that equation for renewables. However, one truth at least in Germany is that we still have not solved the waste problem. Other countries have both better options and also a societal consensus. Here is a study of societal cost of nuclear energy:
Climate change and climate change denial is not just about the scientific facts about what is happening to the climate, it is also the political opinion about what actions should be done. Those actions involve contested subjects like economical aspects (both national and global), fairness among population demographics, historical fairness (such as indigenous populations), border politics and wars, as well as what methods and technology is scientifically proven to be effective measures. Denialism in this aspect is very broad concept, and if we define it that anyone who disagree with the politician actions are idiots, and everyone who agree with them are intelligent, then a large portion of people will be idiots even if a large number of them are very intelligent in other areas.
> Climate change and climate change denial is not just about the scientific facts about what is happening to the climate, it is also the political opinion about what actions should be done.
It would be great if what you said is true, and people were just arguing about what to do about it.
It's not, though. "It's a hoax" is both the start, and the end point for a large portion of the population, the media, and the politicians that represent it.
How would you know if its a large portion of the population if media and politicians label people deniers just because they have a difference in opinion about what actions should be done?
In absolute terms, the portion of the worlds population that deny that the climate is changing is a single digit percentage, and that include the US (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_on_climate_chan...). The portion is a bit larger if you include people who think that the climate is changing but that is mostly caused by natural causes, but it is still a small minority compared to the wast majority that see climate change as either caused exclusively by human activity or as a mix between human activity and natural causes.
The "It's all a hoax" is a popular talking point but their followers are fewer in real life. It much more commonly to find that people with opposing view who actually agreeing that climate change is real, but that they disagree on policy. As an example, creating environmental policy based on per capita create a complete different policy compared to absolute emissions. The later is no more climate change denial than the first, and yet the later generally get labeled as denial.
> How would you know if its a large portion of the population if media and politicians label people deniers just because they have a difference in opinion about what actions should be done?
I don't need to trust what the media tells me about them, I can just listen to what those people and the politicians elect actually say, and what they say is flippin' 'Climate change is a chinese hoax' lunacy.
There's no need to sanewash them, or make excuses for them. It's not a matter of 'disagreement of what to do', it's that they are either really fucking stupid, or are disingenuously courting people who are really fucking stupid.
> I can just listen to what those people and the politicians elect actually say, and what they say is flippin' 'Climate change is a chinese hoax' lunacy.
You probably don’t actually listen to what they say. You probably instead listen to what your preferred media channels report on, and selectively quote from, what they say. You think these two things are the same, since you think that your news sources are perfectly accurate. But those who actually listen to those people, and prefer different media channels, probably have other opinions.
The pirate bay case, one of the laws cited by the judges was an law written to target biker bars and their owners. It only takes a bit of creative work to bend laws and prior cases to match an already made conclusion, if that conclusion has enough political support.
In that way, I don't really think the government need to design laws to have loop holes in them. With enough political pressure they can get the judges to make any decision they like.
To me (where English is a second language), Allowlist and denylist seem unclearer. Is it a block list, a exclude list, or a permission list? Allow/deny would lead me to the last one, as in authenticate users who has some permissions but not others.
Blacklist and whitelist would be closer to include/exclude, so the replacement would be a includelist and excludelist, or include/exclude as shorthand.
I feel like a permission list is kind of a superset of a block list and an exclude list. Or they're all different perspectives/solutions to the same kind of problem, that a permission list is the more generalizable solution for.
Or it's a way of framing the problem that doesn't embed the "exclusion" idea in the naming.
And it kinda bridges over to the idea of Access Control Lists a bit better?
Society went through the necessary lessons with DNA and fingerprints. Putting people in jail because the computer produce a match is a terrible idea, especially when its done by an proprietary dark box that no one really understand why it claims there is a match. It can be used as a tool of investigations to give the investigators an hint to find real more substantial clues, but using it like in fiction where the computer can act as the single truth is terrible for society and justice.
A month ago or so people on HN discussed facial recognition when looking victims and perpetrators in child exploitation material, and people were complaining that meta did not allow this fast enough. Neither the article or the people in that discussion draw any connection that the issues in this article could happen. People seemingly want to think that the lesson is "Never go back to North Dakota", as that is a much easier lesson than considering false positives in detection algorithms and their impact on a legal system that is constrained in budget, time, training and incentives.
Long distance transmission is part of the cost of production when the location of the production is non-local to the consumption.
With-holding permits is stupid, as are bans on new deployments, but neither are subsidies. You can cut subsidies to zero and at the same time give out all the permits people requests.
The extensive EV car subsidies has really got people to buy EV. With 98.3% of all new cars sold, it is amazing what subsidies that accounts for more than 25% of the value of a new car does to encourage people to buy electric. In Sweden, it is a well know concept that when Norway do subsidies, they don't do it ungenerously.
Norway has however started to cut down on those subsidies, with one cut 2023 and now a second cut next year, and then a third one in 2027. They are combining that with extra fees for ICE, and time will tell what that will do to voters.
It is absolutely sane and perfectly reasonable. The climate highly support it, you are already used to a grid that in some cases are not available 24/7, and the major energy consumptions are AC and fans which correlate with production.
It seems unlikely that the success of women in STEM was based on making STEM more feminine, and helping women understand that they can have STEM roles and still stay feminine. It seems more plausible that affirmative action, privileged opportunities, exclusive spaces, and preferential hiring practices had more to do in making women in STEM successful than words about femininity and masculinity.
reply