There is another question on a micro level. How many people who are not about to kill you can you kill in self-defence to save how many people?

While in theory, every human life is as important and valued as another we do often in practice allow some movement morally.

The third question is immediacy. Are you allowed to kill someone in self-defence if you know they will kill you tomorrow? Is it just current action, and how far current stretches.

But while those are simplified questions on the philosophy of ethics in these situations they don't entirely apply to Israel and Palestine. That is because they ignore the power imbalance.

I didn't say it is worse than it ever was. Just saying it is not the best it ever was either.

My perspective comes from the fact that I am an aid worker and human rights activist. This has nothing to do with online discourse. My perspective is also not only found in online echo chambers. It is common among my colleagues. I am not referring to Twitter dying. I don't care about that. And yes, activism is at least in my field of activism pretty damn ineffective. That doesn't mean we should stop trying.

They played too much WoW.

No, but seriously, calling people whatever they like is OK. As another Millenial, at least in my corner, we all had some kind of nicks and they came to real life. I have a lot of friends who still go by their nicknames from decades ago. I also changed my own name a little and am currently almost exclusively known by that name. I don't go around telling people why but my name is connected to trauma quite strongly. I can even go further in my family history to have an example of how people have been doing that always. My grandma was called by two names. She moved to the city and decided to go by another name. I was a little bit confused as a kid when my great-aunt called and asked her by a name I had never heard before. I might understand not calling someone something offensive, but Kalcifer is quite mild. In the end, it doesn't hurt anyone and is a tool for building your identity.

Especially given this context: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibmsdJ5R0b0

To be fair to America, I don't think there are any sane countries left. Finland had an actual neo-Nazi as minister and while it didn't last longer than Truss or even half of it, the party that is ministerial party is still there with similar ideas. They just had forethought to not write 14/88 in an old electoral ad. We are tied for first place still in the least corrupt countries and 5th in most democratic countries.

As mentioned self-hosted Nextcloud is an option but as my ability to keep things from breaking is really limited which is a big reason why I use the cloud, I am moving on Sync. Other cloud services people often recommend are NordLocker and Tresorit.

While I mostly agree with you I don't think country-owned companies or even monopolies are always bad. There needs to be a huge amount of real separation between politicians and those companies but it can work. In mine, both gambling and alcohol spirits stores are monopolies and owned by a country. Profits from gambling are distributed to grants for health and social welfare nonprofits. The question is if my country with very little corruption is the exemption that confirms the rule or if, if you do it right, it can work.

I also do not believe communism without very solid safeguards can work and those would need to be applied almost at the start. I am also pessimistic about human nature these days and am not sure if there can ever be enough safeguards to protect that model from misuse. I am what you could call a democratic socialist. I believe in mix and match where public and private companies can work in the same economy. Although I do oppose land resources being sold, especially as they are usually sold with a pittance for companies to profit. And I am not talking about private persons selling their land's resources but government land resources. Selling them really doesn't often make economic sense unless extraction would require a really high investment. Ecologic considerations should also be taken a lot more into account.

It is because radicalization is more than a cognitive process. It is as much social and psychological. Intelligence alone is a pretty bad predictor of a lot of things we like to think only depend on intelligence. While there is some causation, it is not a vacuum or often even the biggest predictor of many things.

Radicalization is the thing that makes you believe in things that can't be real. Making people believe a lot of things is surprisingly easy. Look into religions. While I don't believe and you might not, a lot of intelligent people throughout world history have. There might be a correlation between intelligence and atheism these days, but the effect is far from linear.

We have actual FB groups in many cities in my country where people tell others where there are skips usually accompanied with image. Even my own apartment building allows people to leave things they don't need for other people to take. My rocking chair, hallway table, and a lot of other stuff were found in one of these ways. I think I have bought maybe 5 furniture pieces in my life, the rest are someone's cast-offs although some could be classed as antiques. My dining table was my great grandma's. People don't really leave stuff at the curb here though.

If they were from backgrounds like you they would be you. Your decisions didn't come from vacuum. We are complex mix of our genetics and enviroment. You really also have no idea how they will deal with things in future. There are concepts like peaked in high school and previous gifted chidren and youth that ended up not doing a lot with their lifes later.

Also, is inveting something or founding a succesful startup is not necessarily succeeding in life. There are scores of people who got rich and/or famous and are miserable. While money is important up to a point, external success doesn't really mean you are living life worth living. It can help but comes with its own cost.

I think you are focusing on external things instead of internal. You are also comparing yourself to people whose heads you have never been in.

Why do you think those decisions were so much better? You focusing on academics and enjoying yourself are pretty much what I think you should have been doing. Being child and teenager are exactly the time where you should be figuring out yourself and what you like so you can not wake up at thirty and be in profession you hate.

Wast majority of people don't end up inventing something. Are they wasting their lives?

Why did you make the switch? Just wondering if I have gotten behind with technology on this one.