The Gaza Ministry of Health systematically undercounts the dead. First, they only attemp to count direct casualties, which excludes preventable deaths from malnutrition, disease, loss of shelter, etc. Second, their capacity to find the dead is significantly reduced due to the war. This isn’t unique to this situation. For almost any disaster, casualty estimates continue to go up after the disaster itself is over, and there are resources to spend looking for dead bodies.

Congress does not have the constitutional authority to declare a prior Congresses laws invalid. For a bunch of internal stuff like the fillubuster rules, or remote voting, the current Congress can do whatever it wants without presidential review. However once a law is passed through the constitutional process, the constitution does not have a separate process for repealing it. This means that Congress would need to go through the same constitutional process to repeal it, which includes the possibility of a presidential veto.

Having said that, the Supreme Court does have the constitutional authority to declare a law invalid[0], and the President has no veto authority over that. Further, the current Supreme Court has invented out of nothingness two bedrock pillars of constitutional analysis:

1. The Major Questions Doctrine, which states that questions of major political or economic significance may not be delegated by Congress to the executive branch.

2. The Non-Delegation Doctrine, which states that Congress may not delegate it’s lawmaking authority to other entities.

Since the Supreme Court is an unbiased arbiter of the law, I’m confident that they will apply these principles consistently and determine that Congress’s initial delegation if tarrif authority was unconditional. /s

[0] This is not actually explicit in the Constitution. But has been how it is interpreted since Marbury v Madison in 1803.

Normally, I would respond to this type of argument by explaining how the two party system is structural. But in this case, you are complaining about one of the only politicians that is not part of a political party.

Zionism is an ethnonationalist Ideology that says that Israel should exist as a Jewish state. Like all ethnonationalist movements, Zionism also has a strong component of territorial expansionism.

Israel’s founding was absolutely a Zionist project. And Zionism has been a large part of Israeli politics since then. However, there is another school of thought that goes “I don’t care how we got here, but it is 2025, and the state of Israel is a thing that exists, and I support the right of that entity and it’s citizens”.

This is a bit muddled in today’s climate, because the current Israeli leadership has been thoroughly captured by ultra Zionist. As in, Netenyahu’s government is only holding on to power by forming a coalition with far right fringe parties that until a few years ago were a third rail in Israeli politics. Back in 2007, their c now current Minister of National Security, Ben Gvir, was convicted of supporting a terrorist organization.

However, as with every country, people can have a different view towards the country as a whole, and it’s current political state.

In the same way that Americans speak English.

Sure, their language is mutual intelligible with English, but if an Englishman comes over here and asks for some chips, they’re going to get a bag of crisps. They’ll mess up verb conjunction on a bunch of collective nouns.

And bless the souls of my Australian mates who come here and call everyone a cunt.

The us also has a $14,600 standard deduction that effectively adds a 0% bracket and increases the lower thresholds by that amount (people in the higher thresholds would probably itemize, decreasing their effective tax even further).

The IRS does index the tax brackets for inflation.

Also, that table does not include state taxes.

This isn’t progress. It is actively incentiving having compensation be tips in the tax code.

Moral of the story: get nukes (see also, North Korea)

Also, the US has been regularlu conditioning its weapons supplies to Ukraine on them not being used in Russia proper; while calls to put any conditions on Israel’s usage of them have been a complete non-starter.

Delegates have been determined prior to the convention for as long as I can remember. That is the entire point of the primary.

In this case, the person who won the primary has withdrawn. The presumptive nominee is now the person who voters expected to be his VP pick; so they should have understood that their vote for Biden was a vote for Harris if something happens to Biden.

Additionally, Biden has endorsed Harris. Most of the delegates are pledge to support Biden. While they are technically free to vote their conscious, the argument of “I should support the person endorsed by the one I was sent here to support” is pretty persuasive. As is the argument of “no one is running against her”

The issue with Clinton was the presence of super delegates, who were not required to follow any primary election results. An open convention turns all delegates into super delegates.

If you want to learn about games you want combinatorial game theory. Traditional game theory isn’t completely divorced from real games either, but comes up more often in economics.

Have you ever worked in a place where every function/field needed a comment? Most of those comments end up being “This is the <variable name>, or this does <method name>”. Beyond, being useless, those comments are counter productive. The amount of screen space they take up (even if greyed out by the IDE) significantly hurts legability.

Fetlife is not a dating app. They have actively not implemented features such as filter by age/gender in order to avoid becoming a dating app. If you are looking to get involved in your local kink community, Fetlife is the answer [0]. For anything else, it is garbage. If you try using it to get laid, you will just be pissing a bunch of people off.

[0] At least for my local kink community. Other areas might vary.

If that were the case then they would have written that into their constitution 70 years ago. And they wouldn’t have assasinated their own prime minister 30 years ago.

Heck, the current minister of national security Ben-Gvir was rejecting from mandatory constriction by the IDF, and convicted in an Israeli court of supporting (Jewish) terrorism after being indicted by an Israeli prosecutor.

These are not things that happen in a country that is unified in its goals.

The Israeli government has no idea what it is doing. Literally. The current government was a barely held together coalition prior to October 7. In the direct aftermath, they formed a unity government and war cabinet that collapsed last week.

Their prime minister has been indicated on corruption and bribertmy charges, which are currently on hold for obvious reasons. By most indications his primary motivation in this matter is to stay in power himself, with Israel’s national interests being secondary.

Individual members of IDF leadership have called Israel’s stated objectives “unachievable”.

Israel simultaneously wants to live in peace as a liberal Jewish state without commiting any form of ethnic clensing; and achieve its manifest destiny of establishing a Jewish theocracy across Judea and Samaria.

These are deep questions that get to the core of what Israel is and stands for. Questions that are to be answered by the Israeli constitution in the 50s. That never happened because Israel was never able to agree on a constitution [0].

Right now, Israel is just reacting, without any long term strategic vision. Various factions are trying to use that chaos to advance their own long term vision.

[0] Which led to the big judicial reform constitutional crisis that was a giant political crisis before October.

Blaise Pascal is famous for 2 things:

1. Pascal’s triangle. This describes how to expand expresions of the form (a+b)^n as well as to compute how many ways there are to pick k objects out of a set of n (ignoring order.

This triangle is computed by starting with 1 at the tip, then having each element be the some of its 2 parents (except the diagonal edges with only one parent, which remains as 1)

2. Pascal’s wager. This is a theological argument for a belief in god that goes “if you believe and god doesn’t exist, nothing happens. If you don’t believe and he does exist, you suffer for eternity. The logical choice is therefore to believe”

The natural conclusion is therefore to believe in all gods. If procelatizing happens in just the right way, and no one realizes people are talking about the same god, you end up with a triangle of polytheists, where the number of gods they believe in is given by Pascal’s triangle.

Edit: gid -> god

Only anti-semite would acuse Bibi of lying.

Just ask the Israeli attorney general who, in 2019, indicted him on bribery and fraud charges.

And Israel obviously has the most moral military in the world. Just ask their minister of national security: convicted criminal Itamar Ben-Gvir. Specifically, he has been convicted of supporting a terrorist organization. He also never served in the IDF, because the IDF thought he was too extreme.

None of which are called terrorists by the BBC.

The BBC has a long standing policy against calling people/organizations terrorists.

Their position in this case says nothing about how they view Hamas. The position of those complaining about it says a lot about how they view the role news organizations.

And Israel has been attacking Hezbollah and Hamas.

Iran has been surprisingly restrained in not getting directly involved. However, directly attacking an Iranian embassy forces their hand in a way that retaliating against their proxies does not.

This is not some abstract notion about ethics. It is simply a basic strategic observation. The fact that Iran is attacking Israel directly, is a direct and predictably consequence of an strategic decision that Israel made.

That’s illegally discriminatory.

Under what law? I’m not familiar with Australia, but here the the US, transfolk are just piggybacking off of legal protections against gender discrimination; which were never actually intended to protect trans people.

In most cases, that actually works out fine. If you discriminate against a transwomen, it’s because you think they are a man presenting as a women. However, you have no problem with a women presenting as a women, so you are running afoul of gender discrimination laws. Legally speaking, your problem was discriminating against her for being a man.

In instances like this though, that argument doesn’t apply. Once you get to the “you are discriminating against her for being a man” stage of the analysis, the response is simply “yes, and I’m allowed to discriminate against men”.

It seems like Australia would need to have a law that specifically protects trans people for her to prevail here.