nsguy

Anecdotally we used to see them all the time around here (Vancouver, BC area) in ponds and sloughs but I haven't seen one in a while.

In pre-historic times I (EDIT: designed and) built a battery powered heart rate data logger for livestock. I used an instrumentation amplifier IC and some very simple electrodes and was able to use auto-correlation to detect the heart rate pretty reliably. For humans today I'd pick something like a Garmin chest strap which works with Bluetooth or ANT+. I've no direct experience with ANT or ANT+ but I imagine it's not hard to interface with ;)

That's more or less what I was gonna say...

I clicked to say something about Instrumentation Amplifiers or interfacing with chest straps ;)

You might want to use a different service for monitoring your stack just to make sure you have some redundancy there. Seems like you got an answer for how to do this with Signoz but if that is down then you won't know.

Gaza was definitely not a colony of Israel by any stretch of that word. The West bank is frozen in the midst of a peace process that fell apart but the word colony is not an accurate description either. Open air prison is also not a thing.

The oppressor in Gaza is Hamas. An oppressor in the west bank is the PA. Israel is also in that mix, yes. It is putting extreme restrictions on a population inside an occupied territory that is using violence against it.

The narrative does not fit. In terms of international law, Israel has occupied the territory of Jordan in the west bank. If the residents of that territory e.g. conduct suicide bombings against Israelis then Israel is allowed to take measures against that. It is in fact allowed to take significantly more severe measures than it has (e.g. including a death penalty).

I would say in some sense you're right an the Palestinians are oppressed. I would also say the restrictions on them are in place mostly for security reasons. If there was no violence against Israelis there would be no restrictions (and that in fact was pretty much the case before the first intifada when violence levels were much lower restrictions and "oppression" was also significantly lower). There is also the problem of settlements in the west bank and Israeli ideologies of "the full land of Israel" (strangely enough aligned with your idea of the Palestinians being disenfranchised Israelis). The wall that was built around the west bank, which is called by some "the apartheid wall" was built for security reasons and as a direct response to wave of terrorist attacks in Israel. No attacks - no wall.

Is this all insane? Sure. Is it just a story of "Oppression" or "Apartheid"? It's not. The primary mechanism at play here is a violent struggle between Israel, Arab countries, and the Palestinians. Nationalism and religion.

The Palestinians in the West Bank or Gaza, by the way and as far as I know, have no desire to be Israelis and anyways there is no legal framework or agreement in place that will facilitate land taken from Jordan or Egypt to become part of Israel (I think that's illegal under international law and I'm sure the world would not recognize the annexation of those territories). The peace agreements between Israel and Jordan don't allow for that either. It doesn't address the demands of the Palestinians either.

I agree they are victimized by Hamas. That's fair. I think putting the blame on Israel is a trickier point. What exactly did you want Israel to do? Re-occupy Gaza after Hamas took over? Not let any money into Gaza? I don't see any good options here. As I said it's fair to say there was an element of complicity from Israel but I wouldn't call Israel a Hamas supporter by any stretch of that word. We also need to consider the conduct of the Palestinian Authority throughout this period.

If you say that Israel handing over Gaza to the PA and withdrawal from the Gaza strip ended up being a big mistake I can agree with that in retrospect. At the time I personally thought there's a chance for peace. But that sort of brings us way back to the question of how is this conflict going to be resolved when all paths lead to bad outcomes.

Hamas was a death cult way before 2017.

The relationship between Palestinians in Gaza and Hamas is also more complicated then "victimized". I mean you're right but there are nuances there.

Hamas isn't oppressing people in the west bank. What explains the polls showing strong support for Hamas there?

EDIT: another random btw, I think your comments regarding the conflict are generally well informed and with good intentions. I appreciate that. It's sorely missing from online conduct on this topic.

I'm not sure what specifically you're objecting to. I've also made other arguments and corrections.

Also what are you wanting me to say? That we can't tell the result of elections we haven't had? Or are you pointing to other reasons why the Palestinians haven't had elections?

I don't think taking this back reduces the strength of my argument. If you want me to delete that comment from the protocol I'm happy to. EDIT: I made some amendments to my commentary there and put in some more references.

EDIT2: since you're calling me out I want to circle back to your comment that triggered my response: "A supermajority of Gazans are simply not old enough ever to have voted, since Hamas slaughtered PA members to "win" the 2006 election"

as I said Hamas didn't slaughter the PA members to win. It won and then it slaughtered the Fatah people in Gaza.

Hamas won the 2006 elections: "The Central Elections Commission released the final results on Sunday, 29 January 2006, and announced that Change and Reform (Hamas) had won 74 of the 132 seats, while Fatah trailed with 45". The popular vote is not the factor here (though it also got more votes than Fatah).

I'm not sure why the point about the majority of Gazans today haven't voted in 2006 matters. It's a factual piece of data but I'm not sure it's relevant. Do we have any evidence to support those people are more likely to be in favour of peaceful coexistence with Israel and/or be opposed to Hamas? Is there an "opposition" in Gaza? It's clearly not a free or functioning democracy, I'll grant that. So if your point is that Gazans are oppressed by Hamas and don't enjoy democracy or other freedoms that's fair.

The slaughter and takeover in Gaza came after Hamas won the elections.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Gaza_(2007)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Palestinian_legislative_e...

We haven't had an election since mostly because Hamas would win it. [EDIT: Clearly opinionated, we can/should look at polls since 2006 till today to get a sense of where Palestinians are leaning]

"In light of the Fatah movement’s fragmentation, Hamas holds a clear advantage in potential legislative elections, as shown by public opinion polls indicating a likely landslide victory." - https://carnegieendowment.org/sada/84509

As we know from other countries, not all elections are decided by a super-majority, Hamas won by the rules of their "democracy", it would have won in any other elections, and it and its actions enjoy broad support.

[EDIT: I guess we can't tell for sure what results we would get in an election that didn't happen but here is some more colour on the elections of 2021 that were cancelled by the PA:

https://www.npr.org/2021/04/29/992065009/palestinian-authori...

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/4/30/palestinians-polls-...

https://www.timesofisrael.com/abbas-officially-delays-palest...]

"Despite the devastation, 57% of respondents in Gaza and 82% in the West Bank believe Hamas was correct in launching the October attack, the poll indicated. A large majority believed Hamas’ claims that it acted to defend a major Islamic shrine in Jerusalem against Jewish extremists and win the release of Palestinian prisoners. Only 10% said they believed Hamas has committed war crimes, with a large majority saying they did not see videos showing the militants committing atrocities." - https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-palestinians-opinion...

Where I will agree with you is that the Israeli government has chosen a strategy of divide and conquer and were happy to see the internal battle between Palestinians and use that as an excuse/weapon. But again, you're giving the Palestinians too much of a pass here. Also it's inaccurate to say that Israel funded Hamas (something another comment said). Israel allowed Qatar to pass money into Gaza to pay for government officials salaries.

https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN1NE1ET/

Many countries funded Hamas because every penny sent to Gaza goes to Hamas. Gaza received billions of dollars from many countries.

https://apnews.com/article/business-middle-east-israel-forei...

I don't think the alternative definitions are any more supportive or contradict what I've said.

This is still a fabricated story.

Israel does not "segregate" inside territories it controls. Israel is taking security measures in territories it has occupied to protect its citizens and military. When the US occupied Afghanistan or Iraq or Germany or Japan did those Afghans, or Irqais, or Germans, or Japanese require a permit to travel to the US or could they travel freely to the US? When Afghanistan and Iraq were under US occupation could Afghans and Irqais travel freely between those countries without permits or Visas?

The west bank was occupied from Jordan in 1967. Gaza was occupied from Egypt. Gazans could not travel freely to the west bank before 1967 and so Israel has no obligation to facilitate such travel without requiring permits.

The different legal system is a consequence of military occupation. e.g. "jurisdiction could pass, for example, to military courts of the occupying power if the local courts are not able to function properly." - https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/assets/files/other/law9_final.pd...

As far as I know Jordanian and Egyptian courts are not functioning in the west bank or in Gaza respectively.

Anyways, it's not "Apartheid". We may not like it. We may not like the length of time that has elapsed (since 1967). We can challenge the legality of specific actions by the different sides. But Apartheid it is not with all due respect to South Africa's political manoeuvring and other political bodies and story tellers.

I agree that radical Islamists are on the extreme right. I'm not sure I agree with your analysis of the left. You see protests against the Israeli government in Israel a lot more than you see them out of Israel. It's basically got a 20% approval rating in Israel at the moment. I have not seen those protests you're talking about where people aren't waving Palestinian flags, or chanting "free free Palestine", or "from the river to the sea". I don't consider that to be a left-wing peaceful protest against Israeli government and in support of freedom and human rights. You realize that "Free Palestine" is not going to be a safe place for gay people or anyone else. To me that's a front for militant nationalism. I think what we see on the (extreme?) left is some sort of neo-socialism that is anti-freedom or at least has a different priority order where freedom and human rights are below other items they consider more important. It's like left becomes right when you push hard enough which isn't a surprise. It's no longer liberal-democratic.

The speaker of the Knesset, from the ruling party, is openly gay ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amir_Ohana ). And sure, Israel has its share of "backwards" people and we need to work on that.

Gaza's lock-in after Sharon's withdrawal has more to do with the Palestinians than it does with the Israel. Many Israelis had hopes that the Palestinians would take that as an opportunity to get somewhere better. I think the blame on Israel for Gaza is misplaced, the situation there is totally the Palestinians own doing. There story there is also more nuanced. Gaza was first handed over to the PA as part of the Oslo Accords (well, actually predating Oslo in the 1994 Cairo agreement: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza%E2%80%93Jericho_Agreement ). That then formed a base for attacks on the IDF and Israeli civilians which eventually caused Sharon to unilaterally disconnect from Gaza ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_disengagement_from_Gaz... ). I think there was good will from the Israeli side and also from what I've heard Sharon intended to use this as a blueprint for withdrawal from the west bank. Either way, the blockade on Gaza is a response to the policies of Gaza, not an issue of discrimination, segregation, racial or ethnic. If Gaza was not at war with Israel there'd be no blockade.

The gradual annexation/settlement of the west bank is a different story. I am opposed to that. But just like there are two sides to the story in Gaza there are two sides in the west bank. The west bank isn't a story of peaceful people that are being abused, it's a story of a violent struggle between two groups (well, more than two groups if we include the surrounding countries). The Israeli settlement activity is a side story in this conflict, not the root of it by any means. You're letting the Palestinian side off too easily here, when the peace process was in full swing they could have gotten complete control of most of the west bank and dismantlement of most of the settlements. What was their response? Suicide bombings. You are removing agency from the Palestinians when you say the distinction doesn't matter. They as a people made choices the led them to the current situation.

The Palestinians want to dismantle Israel by force. Israel is opposed to that. What we're seeing broadly is the meeting of those two objectives. I think it's wrong of Israel to build settlements in occupied territory of undecided status and it's not helping a possible future resolution but the reality on the ground would look pretty much the same if there were no settlements at all given the irreconcilable differences between the parties here.

I built my first electric guitar with wood from a construction site junk pile and hand tools. I've built my work bench from wood that came from heavy-weight pallets (some random hardish wood from China) that were given away by someone on Craigslist. I have piles of wood sitting in my driveway that are from trunks of a tree cut down that were cut into slabs using a chainsaw.

Tools-wise I bought a used bandsaw for cheap. Added a riser block and made it a pretty awesome tool. I bought a jointer from someone down the street, again for cheap, replaced the knives and it's pretty good. You can get started for reasonably cheap.

Jews, Blacks, LGBT, and other minorities should naturally align together to protect values of freedom. I agree we see anti-Palestinian-ism from the right wing that is coupled with other toxic behaviour. What I see in the anti-Israeli left-wing camp is departure from the values they claim to support.

And come on now, you're not blaming the Jews for anti-LGBTQ+ sentiments. The Jewish people have moved on from what's happened 3000 years ago while in Iraq and Iran today (e.g.) those are criminals. In Tel-Aviv and Jersualem there are yearly gay parades and in the Arab countries they jail and kill gays.

The crazy thing is that I as a Jewish person need to contemplate voting for right wing politicians because I feel the left wing is assaulting my people.

There are plenty of fabricated stories around this time. Blood libels, like conspiracy theories, need to have some element that can resonate. If they are obvious complete fabrications then they're not going to work. Around the times where people were telling stories of Jews using the blood of children for Seder there was a culture and atmosphere where people believed that.

The dictionary says of Apartheid "(in South Africa) a policy or system of segregation or discrimination on grounds of race. segregation on grounds other than race."

Israel does not segregate based on race or anything else. There is no such observable reality. Palestinians or Arabs (if that's even a race or an ethnic group) serve in the IDF, they work in tech, they are judges in courts, they are members of Parliament. Many of them are advocates for Israel. Your "observable" reality doesn't exist.

Israel does not treat Palestinians living in the occupied territories the same as Israeli citizens. That is the observable reality. That is also not Apartheid at all. The use of this word is absolutely a fabricated story. The story of the occupied territories can't be summed out in one sentence but is not a racial (or ethnic or any other) segregation story at all. A Palestinian from the west bank who is legally in Israel isn't "segregated" from any activity or location (e.g.). Blacks in the USA are arguably treated worse than Arabs in Israel. Palestinians aren't even segregated in the west bank or Gaza. There is no accepted definition of the word Apartheid that fits the fabrication. The restrictions on local population that is under occupation has never been called Apartheid in history.

I don't think you really know the ultra-orthodox Jewish communities. Some of them are anti-Zionists and are marching and camping with Palestinians. Some of them live in their own world of Torah studies and couldn't care less about current events. And yes, some of them participate in Israel politics (and society btw, not necessarily as isolated as you suggest) and are part of the government to help their constituents not serve in the IDF and get funded by the state. The attacks against ultra-orthodox relate to them being visibly Jewish, that's about it. That's just pure antisemitism and trying to paint them as "extremists" is to be honest also antisemitism. It's like saying the Amish are extremists (I think those guys do get some hate as well).

EDIT: To expand on the Apartheid thing. The word conjures some very specific images to those that hear it and are familiar with things like South Africa or the segregation against blacks in the US. None of those images apply to Israel. There's no "blacks sit in the back of the bus", "blacks can't be members of this club", "black can't stay in this hotel", "blacks live in their own neighbourhoods". None of that. The situation in Israel is quite unique. OTOH there are many countries with actual racial/ethnic discrimination (like China/Tibetians or Russia/Chechens or Qatar) where nobody cares.

Israel basically has two or three options with respect to the occupied territories. It can annex them and give everyone equal rights. A move that the international community will likely not accept (e.g. see the Golan heights). The Palestinians will also not accept that since they demand the right of return for refugees living outside the region and they have no wish to become Israeli citizens. E.g. many Palestinians in East Jerusalem who have the option to become Israeli citizens refuse to do so. The Israelis are also afraid they will lose the Jewish majority in the resulting "democracy" (though some Israelis consider this a workable solution). It can withdraw from them unilaterally. Another move the international community or the Palestinians will not accept (e.g. see Gaza). Or it can try to reach some sort of settlement (e.g. see the failed Oslo Accords). Most Palestinians demand that Israel cease to exist and Israelis "Go back to Europe" (which is a cute story but also disconnected from any reality).

So basically no options but to perpetuate the current situation. The current reality of wars, violence, right wing government, religion etc. is simply overlaid on top of this problem with no solution. Even if you didn't have a right wing government in Israel and you didn't have a war in Gaza there's still no solution (and we've been there before) and there's still violence.

Not me personally but I have had to change my behaviour because I feel less safe and people and businesses have been attacked based on their Jewishness. This is real, it's not just in my head. I have valid reasons to feel threatened because of the rhetoric and organizations that are involved in some of the protests and the intimidation tactics use. I also think this is something the organizers could actively negate and choose not to.

It is more nuanced than this. Netanyahu did take a divide and conquer strategy with Hamas and the PA. That much is true. But the Palestinians have agency here and we shouldn't take that away from them. I don't think saying "actively worked to bolster" is that accurate. It was along the lines of better the devil we know . Like many things in this story, it doesn't yield itself to simplistic observations. I don't have a lot of love for Netanyahu but he's certainly not a supporter of Hamas terrorism.

We're going to agree to disagree. I see the usage of the term Apartheid is potentially antisemitic. This is because I consider it to be not true and therefore I consider it equivalent to other blood libels spread against Jews. To me this is masked antisemitism. I think there is more correct/factual terminology that can properly convey the problems on the ground (and there are many) without hyperbole and distortion and so when people choose to not do that I'm going to make assumptions about their motives.

Gaza is not starving is also I think the objective truth right now. There is a lot of food going into Gaza. The markets are full of food and the prices have gone down significantly. That can't ensure that everyone can get it, especially if it's stolen by armed gangs or resold for profit. But yes otherwise, life in Gaza right now is terrible. I don't see the protests showing us a path forward here.

Rafah is definitely a problem. It's a problem with two sides though. We have Hamas and Israel. What are the protests asking Hamas to do here?

It's a fine line. I support the right of people to express their opinion. But taking over public spaces and making threats is not that. Also hateful speech is not that. I can't control what people think but when that thinking is expressed in public on signs and in speeches that's not ok.

If anti LGBTQ+ groups took over part of a university and had offensive signs and chants would you support their right for free speech? Is that sort of the analogy we're looking for here? Did that happen or did I miss it? This is not about policing people's minds. Breaking into a hall in Columbia e.g. is not free speech.

I agree there should be zero police brutality against lawful protests and when laws are broken police should still pursue the least violent methods to ensure law and order.

I would have no problem with protests that clearly decouple themselves from the militant groups and clearly call for peace for everyone (ideally with some idea of how we actually get there). I would join those. My problem is I'm not seeing the decoupling and I'm not seeing calls for peace. I'm seeing calls to punish Israelis (from burn down Tel Aviv to divestment and boycott) which in my opinion does not help peace at all and definitely a militant tone associated with that.

I briefly scanned through the links but they conflate "damaged", "crater near hospital close enough for fragments to hit hospital" and other unknowns.

the WHO link which we can maybe take as authoritative does not refer to any bombed hospital. We all know there was a huge battle in Al Shifa where the IDF killed an arrested hundreds of Hamas operatives (and has published videos from their interrogations and videos from the battles going on inside the hospital).

"A field hospital in the embattled Gaza Strip run by neighboring Jordan reportedly can no longer provide health care due to Israeli attacks and the disruption of access roads.

The hospital in Gaza is out of service due to damage inflicted by Israeli attacks, as well as Israeli bombing of surrounding areas and the disruption of access roads, as reported on Jordan's official television channel on Saturday."

from one of the articles does not mention the actual hospital was bombed. it says "damage due to attacks" (unclear) and "bombing of the surrounding areas" (which is not bombing a hospital).

The intensity of the war in Gaza has declined. There is no real urgency. There is also no real solution the protesters are presenting about how we can get a ceasefire (which requires two sides to cease their fire), get the hostage situation resolved, and get Hamas ousted in Gaza. With Hamas officials stance of committing Oct 7th attacks over and over again I'm not sure where the protesters actually stand. Seemingly on the side of supporting violence against Israeli civilians while voicing concern for Palestinian civilians.

Let's say the protesters get their way and their university "divests" from Israel. This is not going to help Palestinian civilians in any way. There's even a chance it results in more Palestinian suffering and death. The protesters aren't looking for a solution, they're looking to punish Israeli civilians for the war Israel started in Gaza after being attacked. That makes zero sense. If their argument is that civilians shouldn't pay the price for actions of their government then why are they so intent of exacting a price from Israeli civilians while at the same time doing zero to actually help Palestinian civilians? Not only is there no solution offered but some of the messaging calls for the destruction of Israel (i.e. the killing of Israelis which is deemed "ok").

Given it makes no sense, and given there is an overflow of hate, I think there's reasonable grounds to be worried about the hate having real world impact (and it certainly has).

The reason the Palestinians don't have elections is that Hamas would get voted for again. It enjoys popular support. This 18 year ago and half the population thing is bullshit. Half the population doesn't get to vote anyways when half the population is under 18. That's how democracy works.

On the Israeli side the reason Netanyahu and most Israelis object to a Palestinian state is that it's clearly just going to become a base for launching attacks on Israel, just like Gaza. Palestinians don't want a two state solution, they want to destroy Israel. They say it explicitly in every survey. Go watch videos on YouTube of Palestinians in the west bank interviewed about this question prior to Oct 7th.

Hamas today is exactly the same Hamas that was voted in. If elections were to happen again, Hamas would still get voted in, that's why they haven't happened.

That's the reality which anti-Israelis are determined to ignore.

% of the popular vote doesn't matter. US presidents also get voted with less than 50% of the popular vote.

Their platform isn't and never was peace within the 1967 borders. Again that's the reality anti-Israelis are determined to ignore.

As someone else who is ethnically Jewish I feel there is definitely an element of antisemitism in these protests. Antisemitism isn't limited to physical attacks on Jewish people (which have been on the rise and are definitely correlated to the overall atmosphere). What do you think antisemitism is and do you really feel 100% of the protests and the protesters clearly hold no antisemitic views? I would say antisemitic views are rampant in many middle eastern communities and some subsection of the protesters and their stated views reflect that. Either way, Jewish people feel threatened (including myself).

UN officials don't say it's genocide and anyways they're not the arbiters of that claim. Changing the subject to Hamas is not bad faith. Hamas is the ruler of Gaza, was voted into power, and enjoys support of most Palestinians. It's impossible for Israel to "separate" its war on Hamas from the population within it resides. The ignoring of Hamas by the anti-Israel crowd is what's bad faith.

Do you separate the Russians from Putin? Should we boycott Ukraine from attacking Russians and not fighting directly with Putin? Do you have any other realistic examples that support your idea that somehow we can ignore the topic of Hamas here? Are the anti-Israel protesters being clear about their stance on Hamas and terrorism?

Just one example:

"Eby’s remarks on the encampment came after he and other politicians denounced an earlier demonstration in Vancouver where protesters chanted “long live Oct. 7,” praising that day’s attacks by Hamas on Israel."

https://www.cheknews.ca/eby-deplores-most-hateful-speech-pra...

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/group-banned-in-germany-get...

I think Israel's PR machine is very ineffective. It's swamped by anti-Israeli PR. E.g. where do you get "bombing of hospitals"? How many hospitals in Gaza were bombed? Which hospitals specifically are they, what were the circumstances, what damage did they sustain?

They were general purpose computers. You could do BASIC or machine language and run other software on them. Lots of software developers grew up on those.

Sure. Until the flood of Taiwanese clones brought the price down the cost of a "proper" IBM-PC was high. I thought we were talking "personal computers" more broadly here though. The IBM-PC was released mid 1981...

DOS had nothing to do with graphics and sound. All that was at the application level. DOS provided the command line (your shell), the filesystem, and a few basic abstractions. Generally speaking applications didn't boot the OS out since they still used it to access files etc.

Sinclair ZX-80 was $625 in today's prices when it was released in 1980. Not too crazy.

EDIT: You could get an assembler/dis-assembler for the ZX-81 for $20 (1982). Also at the time a lot of software was "shared" between enthusiasts.

Different in every country.