deleted by creator

Not familiar enough with this particular project to know, but a quick glance at the commit log shows some overlap in commit authors, so I guess there is at least some level of sharing happening, probably just not through merges.

But being familiar with this kind of project in general, the branches will probably never be fully merged even in the future, just doesn’t make much sense because they are server software targeting very different versions of a game client. There are also two other branches, but they “only” diverged by like one or two thousand commits so far.

Meh, essentially it’s just writing “Telecommunicationsourcesurveillance” as a single word without the spaces to indicate it’s a singular thing being referred to (in this case the concept of directly listening on the source device before encryption happens). Might seem weird I guess, but you get used to it pretty quickly.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telekommunikationsüberwachung#Quellen-Telekommunikationsüberwachung

It means “telecommunication source surveillance”.

Well now you lost me entirely. All I wanted to say was that the Geneva Convention is (part of) international law.

Or in other words: Geneva Convention ⊊ International Law.

Hence my confusion about your confusion.

Here’s a big UN document about what Israel can and cannot do under international law…

TL;DR.

Again, I wasn’t agreeing with OP above, I was just pointing out that GC I Article 21 is applicable in Gaza since Israel is a signatory and thus Israel has to follow it (at least de jure if not de facto). This is the case even when Palestine isn’t a signatory to GC I because of Article 2.

I don’t quite follow, the Geneva Convention is international law. All international law is essentially just contracts between nation states, and the GC is one of those.

Wrong again, this is Protocol I which Israel isn’t a signatory to. What I linked is Convention I which Israel is a signatory to.

And this also has nothing to do with the claim you made even if they were, you claimed the Convention doesn’t apply to occupying forces when it explicitly states that it does apply.

Also note that I’m not saying Israel did abide by it (doubt it honestly) just that they are subject to it.

This section of the Geneva Convention does not apply to a belligerent occupying force.

Wrong, see Article 2.

The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.

Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations.

I see you there random Krita user! Shill baby, shill!

Video Source on Bluesky

As the link in the post body explains you may direct your complaints to https://old.reddit.com/user/HEPS_08 of the r/stalker subreddit, although I’m sure they have heard about it in these past four years.

Are they serious, like showing images of Musk doing this is unlawful?

Potentially, which I guess might have been the entire point. The ZPS is no stranger to provoking law suites, and since Musk did this in the US this might be their attempt at baiting the German jurisdiction to take a stance on it.

That said the article you linked says the police talks about having an “Anfangsverdacht” (initial suspicion), which basically means “we have heard about it and will look into it”.

Can’t speak to historic usage, but today “am” (an dem) means “on” or “near”, and “im” (in dem) means “in”.

So the literal translation would be “lick me in the arse”.

Once saw a (German) documentary about this building. They have drop-off places on the ground floor where delivery drivers leave their goods in locked boxes. Payment and and locking/unlocking of the box is done digitally through phone.

P.S.: This one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgVXPEORuA0

There is a blue van in the right lane,

*car in front of a blue road sign

at 270 km/h (168 MPH), he’s going to be right behind it in a second.

The bollards on the right side of the road are at a distance of 50m from each other, by which we can estimate that the other car is at least 250 to 300 meters away. 270km/h equals 75m/s so they are about 4 seconds behind (if the other car was stationary).

Therefore the lane is not – in fact – free.

To answer this question it is much more important to know what is on the right lane next to or behind the car, which we do not see in this image anyway.

(not actually everything, but I get your hyperbole)

How is it hyperbole? All artificial neural networks have “hallucinations”, no matter their size. What’s your magic way of knowing when that happens?

I think you’re probably saying that’s what an Opinion article is for.

Correct.

But a news article that doesn’t state its biases is not unbiased. And I haven’t seen any news articles where bias is stated.

True, no human produced piece of writing can ever be truly free of bias.

That said:

Normal news article: Best effort of not applying your biases and just reporting raw facts.
Opinion news article: Intentionally applying bias to contextualise the raw facts.

That’s all there is in this distinction, but that’s nonetheless important I would say.

I don’t know what ‘an environmentalist’ is - as discussed, the news made it up. But as one, would you please define it and explain your bias, y’know, like a news reporter would?

As per: http://dict.org/bin/Dict?Form=Dict2&Database=*&Query=environmentalist

1 definition found for environmentalist

From WordNet ® 3.0 (2006) :

environmentalist
n 1: someone who works to protect the environment from destruction or pollution [syn: environmentalist, conservationist]

My bias is that I have been hearing from reputable sources that we are destroying or at the very least damaging the ecosystems that supports our species for all of my conscious life. Literally all of it. Doing so seems like a bad idea.

By the way, today I learned there is apparently an older application of this term in the nature-vs-nurture debate amongst anthropologists for people who favour the nurture side of the argument (n2): https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/environmentalist

Anyway, people make up new words when they need them, I still don’t understand the confusion…

Mmmnnoo, they didn’t say. You’re suggesting they would? Or that that is normally done?

No, I’m saying they wouldn’t self-identify as such unless it’s an opinion piece, because that would be introducing bias into their articles instead of reporting on the facts.

So the “as possible” part of the statement is really a kind of magic

Not really, it’s just a reminder that every human has inherent biases and writing an entirely neutral article is thus virtually impossible. That doesn’t mean journalists should go around and give into these biases without clearly stating that, and making this effort despite knowing you will fail in it is one of many indicators which can help separate serious news sources from propaganda and advertisement outlets.

Who’s not an environmentalist?

Fossil fuel companies?

It was envisioned as a “neutral” term - as factual as possible - but it said on the face of it, “environmentalists said …” meaning not us.

I don’t know, I see it as media needing a term to apply to a (back then) relatively new societal movement, and environmentalist seems sufficiently descriptive and neutral to me to fulfil that role.

Are you an environmentalist? You know - one of them?

Yes. Are you? I don’t see the problem here.

Maybe the journalist is one themselves. They didn’t say? That’s the point.

This is an Opinion article, not a news article. In particular, the NYT likes to hide behind these

Well that’s very much by design though. News articles are supposed to be as neutral and factual as possible, so with early newspapers a convention arose to mark any article that delivers an interpretation alongside the pure facts as an opinion piece. That doesn’t mean it’s not a news article and I actually think it’s commendable when a news source still tries to follow this convention. Many don’t anymore or never even tried to begin with.