Just don't take it too seriously, I would say. Not every news piece from the same source is going to be of the same quality or bias.
Trump is not relevant to this story because 1) he's not currently in government, 2) is not being asked to stop the war by many voters in his base, and 3) clearly doesn't give a tinker's fig about the lives of Palestinians anyway.
With each passing week, there are more and more parallels to the aftermath of 9-11. Israel has now even had its own equivalent to the leaked photos of prisoners (held without trial) being degraded, tortured, and sexually assaulted at Abu Grahib.
It's depressing watching history repeat itself within your own lifetime, even despite the far greater visibility of Israel's war crimes thanks to the internet.
They've pinned their hopes on her, because who else can they turn to? If your priority is campaigning for an end to the genocide, then of course you'd say that.
Sadly, her national security advisor just tweeted this today, so I'd say those of us who predicted Harris would just take Biden's policy and give it a more sympathetic face are already looking to be proven correct:
Her national security advisor tweeted this today:
Translation: "We're going to continue Biden's ineffectual policy of begging Israel to please be nice as they're dropping the bombs we keep sending them."
Ah, that was the explanation that I was looking for. Much obliged.
Thanks, I'm aware, but that wasn't my question.
This new extension doesn't seem to add support for app indicators.. so what is it for?
I'm confused
Will GNOME’s new Status Icons ad-on support all of the same tray icon that Ubuntu’s kStatus/AppIndicator extension does?
I haven’t been able to test it to find out for sure, but it doesn’t appear to support App Indicators, which is the most commonly-used tray icon spec on Linux…
So ... If this new extension doesn't add tray icons/menus for apps like Zoom, what's the point of it? What features does it add over stock Gnome?
When I was on in Reddit I used to do it all the time, but writing everything out, organizing it and including citations etc. can be rather time-intensive.
These days, I'll leave a quick comment on a post if I have enough time, but nothing major.
I used to be a fan of it, but in the past couple of years I've seen MBFC rate sources as "highly credible" that are anything but, particularly on issues involving geopolitics. That, plus the inherent unreliability of attempting to fix an entire news outlet to a single point on a simple Left <-> Right spectrum, has rendered it pretty useless, in my opinion.
There days I'm much more of the opinion that it's best to read a variety of sources, both mainstream and independent, and consider factors like
- is this information well-sourced?
- is there any obvious missing context?
- is this information up to date?
- what are the likely ideological biases of this writer or publication?
- What is the quality of the evidence provided to support the claims made in the article?
And so on. It's much better this way than outsourcing your critical thinking to a third party who may be using a flawed methodology.
Same.
I've seen the photos of the aftermath of this airstrike -- the bodies of men, women, and children so obliterated that there is no hope of identifying them. The poor souls having to clear the area today have to sort the lumps of human remains into trash bags and hope all the parts belong to the same person.
There's no justification that anyone can give that would ever justify it, and yet it will just be brushed under the rug by the US State Department, just like the last time.