I think trauma and hardship in general isn't additive, rather multiplicative or exponential.

Like, once there's a "core" trauma, small every day issues seems bigger and harder to deal with, and that kinda builds on itself so any new hardship seems bigger and bigger and so on.

Err... did I misunderstood the question, or do (nearly?) all commenters have no idea what they're talking about?

You're asking why Israel doesn't assassinate Hamas's top leaders, right? Or did I misunderstood and you asking Israel doesn't ONLY assassinate Hamas's top leaders? Or are you asking why Israel responded differently to Munich?

To answer the first question, well... they are. Hamas's top leaders according to BBC are:

• Ismail Haniyeh - Killed.
• Mohammed Deif - Probably killed.
• Marwan Issa - Killed.
• Mahmoud Zahar - Alive. is 79 years old and might not be active/influential in the leadership.
• Khaled Meshaal - Alive.
• Yahya Sinwar - Alive.

Also, keep in mind that the response to the Munich massacre took about 2 decades.

As to why Israel dosen't ONLY assassinate Hamas's leadership, the simple answer is that it won't solve anything. It won't bring the hostages home (It will probably have opposite effect as a. it will leave Israel without a centralized entity with whom to negotiate and b. Sinwar might be using hostages as human shields, which also might explain why he's still alive), and it will still leave Israel with a terrorist entity next door. The official Israeli version is that the assassinations, among other things, serve as leverage on Hamas leaders to secure a deal. Obviously, this is only effective if there is some leadership left.

If you're asking why Israel responded differently to Munich, it's because the situation is totally different in numerous ways. But the question itself is also factually wrong - Israel didn't only assassinate the leaders of Black September. Firstly, the goal was to "assassinate individuals they accused of being involved in the 1972 Munich massacre", not just the leaders. Not only that, Israel also responded with raids and bombings (for example: 1973 Israeli raid in Lebanon).

I have two main moral guidelines by which I try to live:

A. Try to leave everything better than it was before, or at least avoid making it worse. It doesn't have to be by much, but if every person makes things just one tiny bit better, the culminating effect will be great. Do your part.

B. The difference between a moral person and an immoral one usually doesn't lie in the ability/inability to know right from wrong, rather in the ability to rationalize their immoral actions. Therefore:

• Doing bad things once in a while does not make you a bad person, it makes you human.
• Avoiding doing bad things 100% of the time will make you a bad person, as you'll inevitably fail and will be forced to rationalize your actions, making it easier to do more bad things.
• What makes you a good person is the ability to know when you're acting wrong.

From there, there are a few rules that help me along the way:

1. Everyone are wrong. Assume you're wrong about some important things/core beliefs, you've just yet to discover which ones. Don't hesitate to act according to what you think is right, but understand you're probably doing something wrong somewhere. Look for signs that show that's the case.

2. Making mistakes is fine and inevitable. Reflect on your mistakes and try not to make the same mistake twice.

3. Use everything as an opportunity to learn. The best way to learn is from other people's mistakes - it provides a visceral lesson without you having to pay the price.

4. People's opinions of you are their business, not yours. Though you should choose to use them to improve yourself when applicable.

5. Admitting being wrong or admitting a mistake will not only improve things, but is a sign of strength. Not doing so is a sign of weakness. This is true both for yourself and for other people.

6. Give people the benefit of the doubt and don't be quick to judge them. Wait until you have enough data and then come to conclusions.

7. No rule is correct in all situations.

8. External rules (and laws) exist for a reason. If you're going to break one of them, first understand why it's there in the first place and why it should be ignored. Do not assume you know better than the people who came up with it.

9. Blanket statements can be correct or incorrect for the most part, but they can't be used to solely justify an action or an opinion.

You can use LLMs to, well, do what they're designed to do - generate text. Need to write a marketing text? Summersie a meeting or make a summery more readable? Rewrite an "about" page to incorporate something new? Just be sure to read through the generated text and make sure it's correct.

I think we're on two different wavelengths.

Put stuff in: Stand next to closed car with no free hands, could use automatically opening doors.

Take stuff out: Open car. Pick up stuff out of the car. Stand next to open car with no free hands, could use automatically closing doors.

Because taking stuff out is like putting stuff in, only in the reverse order.

I know that wasn't the point, but:

Holt as Sisko and Terry as Worf is cool (Holt might work better as Odo, but we'll get to that in a sec).

Rosa should be Kira (Worf looks mean but is a big softy, hence Terry. Kira is the one that will kick your ass if you piss her off), Jina as Quark (obviously), Amy as Odo, Boyle as Rom, Hitchcock and Scully as O'brian and Bashir in their "two buds going to the holosuite to pretend they're WW1 pilots" mode.

Jake works surprisingly well as Jadzia - both like to do silly things, kinda offbeat yet very good at their job.

What do you mean by "comedy impersonation" - parody, or just copying a comedian?

If I were to set up a music show with a Madonna impersonator and slightly changed Madonna songs (or songs in her style), I'll get my pants sued off.

If Al Yankovic does a parody of a Madonna song, he's in the clear (He does ask for permission, but that's a courtesy and isn't legally mandatory).

The legal term is "transformative use". Parody, like where SNL has Alec Baldwin impersonating Trump, is a recognized type of transformative use. Baldwin doesn't straight up impersonate Trump, he does so in a comedic fashion (The impersonation itself is funny, regardless of how funny Trump is). The same logic applied when parodying or impersonating a comedian.

That's a great insight into Israeli society.

The answer to your question is a resounding "yes".

In fact, among the 4 members of war cabinet, at least one other has children in active combat units, and ALL cabinet members served in a combat unit as well as had at least one child in active combat duty.

Most children of Israeli politicians are absolutely conscripted to the army, and the public would look very badly on a "fortunate son" type situation.

Furthermore, there's an unwritten rule the ultra-orthodox parties do not involve themselves or even voice an opinion on military matters because, and this something often said in Israel, "they don't risk their children's life in the army" (the ultra-orthodox are essentially exempt from conscription).

The Israeli Jewish public doesn't see the Israeli combatants as poor or uneducated "others", but as their children, brothers and fathers.

I think that's a more ethical way of looking at it. However, this also helps explain the seeming lack of consideration for Palestinian life. Take a random person and ask him to choose between risking the life of his kid, who is in active service, in a military operation or throwing bombs and risking harming other civilians. Most people will choose to risk others. And among those who'll choose to risk their kid, most would either be lying or didn't really think about the question.

Hi, Israeli here. You didn't really point out any misinformation, the linked article just gives some (IMO wrong and even misleading) context.

The majority of the rest of the names are of boys aged 16-18. However, there are also boys as young as 14 on the list.

The 14 year old kid was charged for hostile sabotage activity, gathering or association, attacking a police officer under serious circumstances, throwing stones, negligence and general recklessness, maliciously or negligently causing damage to property, arson on nationalistic grounds, weapons/ammunition/explosives. Also, it's worth noting his trial was ongoing.

Prisoners have been convicted of crimes including carrying and manufacturing knives and daggers. Other common offenses detailed in Israel’s list include [...]

Ehh... technically true, but very misleading. Usually, there are a few charges, some more serious than others. The 14yo kid could be described as "charged with negligence and general recklessness", but that wouldn't be the whole picture. Here's a link to a list of 300 prisoners due to be released. It's in Hebrew, but copy-pasting into google translate is good enough to understand the charges:

https://www.gov.il/he/departments/dynamiccollectors/is-db?skip=0

In the first page, there are 2 prisoners charged with carrying and manufacturing knives and daggers. Both are also charged with attempted murder (one is 17 years old, btw).

And regarding "associating with hostile/unknown organisations", from what I could tell, this means that the prisoner was charged with being affiliated with Hamas. Hamas is considered a terrorist group in the US, UK, Canada and Australia (Not to mention they massacred more than 1,000 citizens). So this might be my Israeli bias speaking, but... what's unreasonable with throwing them to prison? Would being affiliated with ISIS or Al-Qaeda not carry a prison sentence?

“The main alleged crime for these detentions is stone-throwing, which can carry a 20-year sentence in prison for Palestinian children,” said a report published in July by children’s rights organisation, Save the Children.

Yes, "can carry". A 20 year sentence is only applicable if the rocks were thrown at a moving vehicle with intent to cause harm. without proving intent, the sentence is 10 years. Children are not explicitly mentioned (though the reality is that most rock throwers are minors). In practice, the courts try to avoid sentencing minors who are charged mainly with rock throwing to prison, and even when they are sentenced to prison it's for a few months.

I knew a conspiracy theory nut who said that society is about three months away from collapse. As in, on any given date society was due to collapse in a few months.

First society was due to collapse due to cancer caused by COVID vaccines. Then it turned to "COVID vaccines cause sterilization and cancer, which will collapse society in a few years" and complete disregard to the prior time line. Then society was due to collapse due to a global war caused by Putin using nuclear weapons. Which turned to "Putin will invade [my country, which does not border Russia. Or any country that borders Russia, and so on].

The fun part was that each theory didn't over-ride the previous, but they somehow build on top of each other. The atom bomb didn't replace the vaccine cancer, they were both part of the same plan. He believed in many other world-ending conspiracy theories, so I think he, like, gradually added layer. There was a thing with 9/11 that was somehow related to a world ending event (Probably began as a "The US is going to atom bomb the middle east and start a world war") and a weird economic conspiracy theory about countries not having any assets that probably grew from the 2008 financial crisis.

In Hebrew, it's a horseshoe turn.