118 karma · joined May 14, 2023
Just blocking DoH would probably be enough to force clients to fall back to regular DNS. This happens automatically for a captive portal with a whitelist. You could probably take care of clients with a cache by just dropping any connection without a readable SNI. I guess it depends on implementation, but I'd wager most clients would fall back to a non-ECH connection anyway (since it doesn't really add anything - you could just sniff DNS to figure out what domain the client is trying to connect to).
In having to interact with Nepali government websites I've noticed things like endpoints not even doing basic input sanitization, letting your run arbitrary queries on biometric data. Asking around the tech industry on how to report this it seems like this is a common occurrence. Someone even found a vulnerability that was apparently purposefully unpatched to most likely aid in corruption.
You should still be able to notice a spike in CPU usage whenever you force Emacs to redraw the frame by typing into it though.
For XWayland apps Niri just renders at the native resolution (ignoring scaling), meaning a decent workaround is to use the Lucid/non-pgtk version and manually scaling up the UI. Unfortunately I go from scaling at 1.25 on my screen to 1.00 on my external monitors, which means I can't use the non-Wayland versions without messing up the font size on either my desktop and monitor.
[1] https://mail.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnu-emacs/2024-09/msg0...
South Asian religions are in an especially bad position because so many works related to them have never been digitized (and quite frankly, in some cases what's available on the internet is of extremely low quality) [1]. I'd be pretty concerned if someone were to rely on entirely on these models since the probability of hallucinations (or at the very least, erasure of regional/ideological diversity) probably skyrockets because the information was never actually there in the training data to begin with.
[1] I was able to find a few works of Newari Buddhist iconography recently, so it might be changing: https://web.archive.org/web/20240901130203/https://download..... It still has a few mistakes and doesn't compare to what's out there, though.
Diaspora communities are never representative of their home country. This is something I know from my own community, since selection bias leads to a very particular (and privileged) set of people with the means to emigrate, almost universally from a single ethnic group that is less than 11% of the total population. Perhaps you should consider whether the Iranians you know are representative of the Iranian population as a whole.
That is not their most powerful card. Their most powerful card is mining the Strait of Hormuz and taking out all GCC desalination and oil infrastructure. That would result in a global depression, and probably end the Gulf countries as we know them.
Maybe the problem wasn't the timing, but the fact that thousands of people were killed and millions lived in fear for the future for the past month? That's enough to cause most people to stand behind their government, no matter how reviled they might be.
It's meant to get around the great firewall in China, so it has to avoid the GFW's active probers that check to make sure the external website is a (legit) host. However a friend was able to get it to work American's in-flight firewall if the proxy SNI is set to Google Analytics.
The PLO has accepted a two-state solution since 1981, for nearly 44 years. This is what Avner Yaniv called the "peace offensive", and is especially dangerous because it weakens Israeli attempts to deny a Palestinian state. The solution to this is simple: provocation to encourage extremist elements. Of course in 1982 Israel went a bit further and used provocation to set a precedent to invade Lebanon in an attempt to destroy the PLO entirely.
>Which means returning to their original homes (I don't see how you could do that without throwing out the Jewish 'colonists').
This is not what the right to return is. This is what Amnesty has to say about return:
>Where possible, Palestinians should be able to return to their original home or lands. If this is not possible -- because they no longer exist, have been converted to other uses, or because of a valid competing claim -- they should be allowed to return to the vicinity of their original home.
"Valid competing claim" includes the modern-day owner of the home.
>The Israeli company Bright Data developed the TrendTrack system for promoting social intervention in support of Israel, providing tools to identify, report, and respond to posts gaining traction on social media. As a company specializing in global collection of public information from the internet, Bright Data has extensive infrastructure and public data collection capabilities. Based on these, they rapidly created massive databases that form the foundation for the new system, which aims to assist Israeli advocacy efforts during this difficult time.
Interestingly the same company also helps in investigation of state-sponsored influencing campaigns of Western adversaries (China, Russia, and Iran).
This is not true. I am not interested in whatever labels the Israeli or Palestinians might ascribe to their agreements. There has never been an instance where the PLO was offered something that resembles a modern, economically and politically independent nation-state. The closest was in 2001 under Bill Clinton, but Israel refused the conditions set by Clinton while the PLO accepted them.
>Let's also for completeness include that PLO want to eradicate Israel, and are brazen enough to have it in their official charter.
Again, much like the Likud party's own charter, from a realist perspective this is irrelevant. What's relevant is what both parties are realistically capable of doing, and the balance of power clearly favours Israel.
I don't think the evidence favors this conclusion. Their actions immediately following 2006 suggests they definitely had quite a bit of interest - they enforced a ceasefire after 2006 (also punishing other groups that attempted to break it), and according to former President Carter were willing to accept a 2-state solution if the Palestinians democratically approved it. This was all put on hold after Cast Lead, which aligns with the Israeli policy of denying a two-state solution.
The only piece of evidence I can think of that counters this is Hamas' charter, which IIRC calls for the creation of a Palestinian state in all of former Mandatory Palestine which would imply the destruction of Israel. But even then, based on the pragmatism demonstrated above (and the openness to a two-state solution), the Hamas leadership were rational enough to realize this goal could not be achieved.
I think it's good to apply Mearsheimer's realist thinking here, and the intention is obviously clear that Israel does not want peace with Gaza as that would require recognition of a Palestinian state as the PLO had wanted since the 70s, which is a non-starter. Instead, as Israel has recognized, it is in its best interest to ethnically cleanse Gaza, either through outright murder of tens of thousands of civilians or rendering the strip uninhabitable to force the Gazans out. Many Gazans live in tents since their homes were destroyed by the Israeli military, and I doubt Israel will allow for any meaningful reconstruction once the war on Gaza is over, and will probably welcome the remaining Gazans fleeing the inhospitable conditions.
This will probably also open up space for new settlements in Gaza that many politicians have already started proposing.
You have to realize that most Israelis (~75%, and this figure includes Arabs) are in favour of the war, and IIRC half are in favour of expelling the Arabs altogether. I don't think we'd see much objection to this course of events within Israel itself.
>The fact that Jordan and Egypt has not seen a single attack after they stopped attacking Israel is well known.
It is interesting you mention this, because during the Israeli occupation of the Sinai penninsula in 1967, Egypt attempted to resolve the issue diplomatically, mediated by Gunnar Jarring. Their request was simply the Sinai in return for recognition of Israel and cessation of hostilities. Israel refused these conditions. Egypt eventually attacked in October 1973 and (much to Israel's surprise) was able to retake enough of the Sinai to call Israel's military domination into question. I think Rabin said that Egypt was enough of a threat that it needed to be neutralized, which is what the Camp David Accords did. It was literally through attacking Israel that Egypt was able to achieve the diplomatic solution it wanted from the start.
>Israel wanted Gaza to succeed and forcefully removed their own people
The Palestinians materially gained nothing from disengagement (in fact, they were blockaded and bombed during Cast Lead and Pillar of Defense despite the "disengagement"), but the Israelis were able to alleviate enough American pressure for a peace process that could potentially result in Palestinian statehood. Not to mention a costly military occupation could be stopped and Jewish settlements in one of the most densely populated regions of the world (i.e. a disaster waiting to happen) could be dismantled.
I don't think benevolence towards Gazans had any role in the decision for disengagement, considering the overall Israeli indifference towards the suffering of the Gazans.
I've had many people say the same to me about Nepal, ignorant of the high youth unemployment rate, the corrupt politicians, the complete lack of any basic infrastructure (schools, transportation, electricity, etc.) in some areas, or the astronomically high number of people leaving to work as migrant labourers in countries that are the absolute worst in the world when it comes to labour rights.
None of these problems are visible to you as a visitor. This is especially true if you stick to areas that are heavily trafficked by tourists which tend to be rich enough to cater to their needs.