You say this:

interpreting casualty numbers that a militant group releases with clear propaganda intent in a light most favorable to them…

but just said this:

Statistically, half their forces are minors.

Pull the other one. If all you wanted was for people not to interpret casualty numbers “in a light most favourable to Hamas” you’d be acknowledging how high the death toll is while making your point instead of trying to distract from it.

There is no need to “play devil’s advocate” - if you believe something, argue for it. If you don’t believe something but think I’m missing something, you can point it out and make a case for why it’s important without being confusing about what you actually believe.

All evidence I have seen is that Hamas does not systematically use child soldiers. We can see the indiscriminate tactics of the IDF; we can put that together with the high death toll to make a reasonable conclusion that vast numbers of civilians have been killed. You’re trying to cast doubt on this idea but the amount of doubt is akin to flicking water from your fingers onto a housefire.

Most of the death toll is women and children (7k and 10k, respectively). Even if you assume all men killed are Hamas fighters, which is not true, that is very high when compared to the attack which triggered the war.

Tesla is headquartered in an ally of the EU; BYD isn’t. Maybe Tesla’s subsidies are a problem to the EC - I don’t know. But you’re looking at it in a slightly simple way, as if it’s very important that this process needs to be fair.

It doesn’t need to be fair; it needs to be good for the EU. Is it good for the EU to impose tariffs on subsidised Chinese vehicles coming in (if indeed they are subsidised)? Quite possibly. (Quite possibly not: how important is it to have a big car manufacturing industry, versus your population having cheaper cars?) Whether it would also be good to impose tariffs on Tesla vehicles is also a valid question to ask, but those questions don’t have to have the same answer.

The article doesn’t suggest it’s impossible. It’s difficult because you have to build up a competitive business from nothing in addition to the one you’re already building up.

If the US said they were going to stop providing military support and tech it may well stop it…

I don’t understand why you would ban it in a country where it has been consumed traditionally. Is there a public health reason behind this?

Anyone, because even the (temporary) right to remain somewhere doesn’t automatically mean you can leave and come back. In the UK if you are granted temporary leave to stay in the country for less than 6 months, leaving for any length of time will mean you’re not allowed back in.

The detail here is that she applied for settled status, which would have granted her leave to remain in (and hence to enter) the country, but it was refused. Pending her appeal she was temporarily granted the right to work in the UK, but she was not temporarily granted the right to remain, it seems - or at least that’s what the Home Office position implies.

It seems like an oversight to me: the application for settled status allows you to leave for up to 6 months at a time and come back and still qualify; if you can still work while you’re appealing a decision, it would make sense to temporarily allow the person into the country.

Shouldn’t the engineer be a bit more worried if the cable’s been cut?

If UDP drops packets it’s probably nothing. If TCP drops packets it’s because something’s actually wrong.

If you’re using TCP and losing packets you should be panicking though, because something is very wrong…

Unlikely - it’s too cheap to get rid of. It will degrade its effectiveness as it’ll need to deploy, fire very few rounds, then leave, unlike traditionally where a battery might fire loads of rounds before moving off.

The counter-battery radar doesn’t prevent artillery from working; it makes it dangerous for them. Theoretically the units that took this out could already be destroyed after having had their coordinates calculated and counter-battery fire immediately called down on them.

In practice it was just setting up, having been tracked to its location, and possibly wasn’t working yet. Also the GMLRS rockets fired by HIMARS are not ballistic - they execute a counter-battery-confounding turn. And the salvo is fired quickly after which the vehicle immediately leaves - it can park, get ready and fire a full salvo in under a minute. When the first rocket is detected a couple of minutes later, the launcher will already have driven off and counter-battery coordinates will not be that useful/

Nice shot!

And I thought getting banned from big subreddits was annoying…

Evergreen… Houthi rebels… Turns out this was all a long play by the Brits - revenge for 1956!

Isn’t it quite hard to hit ships with ballistic missiles?!

To firebomb Palestinians living on Lebanese farms? OK dude but you have to prove it.

So the relevance to this article, I take it, is that you suspect this attack was not a use of white phosphorous for smoke or signalling, because in the past, when having been accused of using white phosphorous in a city, the IDF initially denied it but then admitted it may have been used improperly, and you are therefore skeptical of their good faith this time around?

Perfectly reasonable.

Does not justify labelling this a definite war crime which is what you and Amnesty have done.

Terrible analogy. There is a mental component to the crime of murder, but without the mental component, the crime is manslaughter.

It’s more like the difference between “possession of a firearm” (legal, under some circumstances) and “possession of a firearm with intent to cause harm” (illegal, in the UK for example)