IDK, I just have never really had this become a serious issue for me. I get what you mean, some actions are a little bit of a pain in the neck because people are often sloppy about typing, but literally the only time I can remember it being an issue at all has been when numpy is involved and so I have to figure out if something is a native Python thing or a numpy-fied custom structure.

I mean there's just not that many types. Generally something is a list, a number, a map, or a string, and it's pretty obvious which. Maybe there are OOP domain things where a lot of variables are objects of some kind of class (sort of more of a C++ type of program structure), and so it starts to become really critical to have strong type tools, I'm just saying I haven't really encountered too much trouble with it. I'm not saying it's imaginary, you may be right in your experience, I'm just saying I've worked on projects way bigger than a few hundred lines and never really had too much of an issue with it in practice in my experience.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons

Look at the chart. You literally pulled "probably in the top 5" completely out of nowhere, and you've now admitted that while saying this stuff you had no real idea in mind how many nuclear-armed states there are in the world.

I have no interest in continuing a back-and-forth with you or opening up new lines of argument to bicker about. You've stated your case, congratulations. Read more. Study.

States tend to get the leaders that they deserve. Plenty of Israelis hate Netanyahu and what he's doing, but also, plenty more of them (a majority) do not.

See also Trump. 😢

The level of the water in the dam has nothing at all to do with the dilution of what goes into the sanitary sewer.

more likely in the top 5

They definitely are not.

I think you don't actually have knowledge about this stuff and are just kind of spinning out theories... I mean, it's fine, I am not particularly expert and am just kind of speculating also according to my lack of knowledge. But some of the stuff you are saying is just objectively immediately visible as not true, and it makes me question your judgement about broader and more subjective conclusions.

Yes, Israel bad, nukes bad, crazy people running countries in the Mideast and getting away with mass murder is bad. We should stop having nukes, at some point; if global warming doesn't get us, something someday is going to be wrong and it's going to be real real bad.

Just to be clear, I haven't used "thermonuclear" in any other of my responses in this post, and was only doing so in this single instance to respond directly to your text here (emphasis mine):

I think that’s true, functionally speaking, of basically any thermonuclear-armed state.

Yeah, because not every nuclear-armed state could effectively end the world if they got in an existential armed conflict. I think every thermonuclear state could (and likely would). That's what I meant by that.

Not much to add to the rest of it, but I said it in the precise way I did for a precise reason.

I believe the difference between Israel and other thermonuclear states

Israel is not a thermonuclear state, unless I missed something very very big.

It seems pretty obvious that the western powers have yet to intervene in any meaningful way.

To me, too, I just don't think that OP's explanation is why.

My preference is that Israel's leadership grows a conscience and stops trying to bomb their neighbors into peace. However, in the absence of this, western powers should intervene. Whether it's through sanctions, embargoes, or other political red lines, steps should be taken

Completely agreed. Didn't OP say that this might result in widespread nuclear annihilation, though? That's part of why I disagree with OP on the thesis of this post.

It seems like we're kind of going in circles. The individual elements of what you're saying generally make quite a lot of sense to me and I agree, I'm just having trouble connecting it to what OP seems like they're saying. Since they don't seem really inclined to come in here and defend what they were on about, IDK how productive it is for you and me to talk about it.

What makes the Samson option different is that Israeli leaders have expressed the intent to take out the entire world if Israel was ever facing total annihilation.

I think that's true, functionally speaking, of basically any thermonuclear-armed state.

I don't believe the OP is at all claiming that if anyone tried to enact sanctions, arms embargoes, ICC warrants against Israel, or otherwise interfere with the genocide, Israel would immediately *nuke the world. It specifically claims Israel would respond in this way "if cornered". In this context, I interpret "cornered" as in backed into a corner with no way out, by an aggressive party who seeks Israels destruction.

Read the second paragraph again. OP is claiming that Western leaders are not sanctioning Israel in the fairly mild ways described because they're afraid of nuclear war.

I do think that without Western military assistance (and more to the point deterrence), Israel with its current course of conduct might be destroyed by its neighbors. But that and "stay the course" aren't the only two options. I actually think that it would be way safer, in terms of global nuclear security, if Western countries forcibly stopped the genocide Israel is conducting. As it is, that scenario where Israel is getting overrun by regional enemies and throwing nukes (at them or at other targets) sounds not too unlikely as years go by and things change, with everyone remembering what they did. And so I interpreted OP as saying that if someone tried for the enforced peace agreement, or the war crimes trials, nukes.

I do think that fear of Israel getting overrun is the source of some of that unwavering military and deterrence assistance that keeps them alive and safe to do whatever they want. I don't think it is what is stopping Western leaders from punishing Israel for their current genocide. I think they just don't want to (or don't have the political will embedded in their systems that it would take to get it done), honestly.

I think most nuclear-armed states would use their nuclear weapons if someone was trying to destroy them completely. That's very different from claiming that if anyone tried to enact sanctions, arms embargoes, ICC warrants against Israel, or otherwise interfere with the genocide, Israel will nuke the world.

Framework laptops have a little physical switch to turn off the camera / mic when you don't want them.

The original SGI webcams, some of the first that ever existed, actually had a physical plastic cover that you could slide over them when you didn't want the camera on. "No, I don't trust your hardware any more than your software. I shouldn't need to. Stop looking at me when I don't want you to, and prove to me that you are not, or else I will be suspicious." Back in those days that was sort of a universal point of view among internet people, I think...