But my claim is that the statement is false, not that they intentionally misled, so even if they were understandably confused, that still seems to be untrue.

But it isn’t inaccurate, that’s the thing. The Twitter post says, “a Photojournalist and Writer/Editor for both Al-Jazeera and the Palestinian Chronicle.” That is factually true…

claiming this some kind of intelligence community…but it’s understandable that they can’t even figure out if this guy works for al Jazeera? You’ll have to help me square this.

The group is a discord channel for people in the intelligence sector, I don’t know what you need squared about that. Take it for what it is, an early alert gossip mill by people who hear things before most other people do.

I have no need to rush to a conclusion on this. I’m just reporting what one of your links said. In your attempt to rush to a conclusion, you already were convinced of a falsehood. Maybe you should slow down too.

I haven’t rushed to any conclusions, I’ve been sharing news articles as they come out.

I can’t help but read your points as attempting to paint al Jazeera as some bad guy in this whole thing.

Whether you pay them or not, posting articles from potential terrorists isn’t a good look. The same can be said about any media group associating with terrorists, the same happened with CNN, NY Times, and Associated Press on October 7th.

How long ago was this tweet that is from some group that you claim is 10 hours ahead of the news? And we’re being critical of al Jazeera for not rushing out an article in that time?

Not sure why you’re asking me when something was posted when I shared the link to it, that’s just lazy. I never criticized Al-Jazeera for not publishing a response, I simply stated that they haven’t, and my response about that was even understanding that not much time has passed?

I think you’re the one rushing to conclusions and should slow down.

Eh, I wouldn’t say it’s false. The description of the guy comes from Al-Jazeera’s website where they say he is a reporter and photojournalist and he did write for Al-Jazeera. If Al-Jazeera is going to post his work and list his information on their website I think it’s understandable that people might think he is employed by them.

As for the attack being unverified, the other link I provided stated that the IDF confirmed that address and house (which is time stamped after the article you are referencing). Additionally, a third party who is identified as a Hamas operative in Europe was referenced as a source for these claims in both articles. I don’t know how much more confirmed you can get unless you’re holding out for Anderson Cooper to be live from the living room?

Finally, I haven’t seen anywhere that Al-Jazeera is denying he was doing anything, the only thing they appear to be denying is that he was employed by them. Even then, Al-Jazeera doesn’t seem to be making any articles about the guy, the whole thing was correspondence with representatives of Al-Jazeera, this stuff happened so recently I wouldn’t be surprised if Al-Jazeera hasn’t had time to post anything yet. For context, this information is <24 hours old, the first US article I see about it was only posted an hour ago.

Ah ok, my apologies. Yeah, there’s not much in the way of mainstream international news picking this story up. Pretty much it was just Israel saying they raided XYZ houses, these are the people they found inside. Individuals made the connection to Al-Jazeera and mainstream Israeli media picked it up, but they’ve backed off a bit once Al-Jazeera clarified.

I’d generally agree with a general dislike of Twitter supporters, but no one has really stepped up to fill in Twitters void (at least that get the same level of traction as Twitter). Paying the Twitter tax still seems to get your information out faster and farther than almost any other alternative. I think the only way Twitter is going to fully fall will be if it no longer is profitable to run, otherwise large groups will continue to use it. One positive is that people seem to be diversifying from Twitter with Lemmy, Mastadon, Reddit, or something else (I guess Discord falls in the something else).

Now if you’re just a regular person and paying for Twitter blue then I agree that you’re probably not trustworthy or at least a bit stupid.

Did you Google the name? Because if you had you’d realize it’s not a news organization and they don’t make news articles. OSINT stands for Open Source Intelligence, it’s basically a discord group of people in the intelligence sector posting things they have heard going on. Looking at their Twitter they seem to cover just about anything and everything, they have stuff about Ukraine, Gaza, France, UAE, Venezuela, etc. Looking for other stories it looks like they beat mainstream media to the story by about 10 hrs.

Looking into the claim itself, it seems that it originated from Israel, but Al-Jazeera’s response isn’t that the guy is innocent but rather that he never worked for them

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/al-jazeera-denies-rumor-that-hostage-was-held-at-employees-home/

https://www.jpost.com/israel-hamas-war/article-805525

Turns out that the guy had written opinion pieces for Al-Jazeera and he mainly worked for the Palestine Chronicle, which is based out of Washington state. It looks like his information was included on Al-JAzeera because he had written opinion pieces, but wasn’t actually employed by them. Take that for what you will, but it doesn’t change the narrative much.

https://x.com/sentdefender/status/1799715089936761144

Purportedly one of the hostages was being held in the house of an Al-Jazeera journalist/writer/editor and several members of his family were killed while trying to prevent the hostage from being rescued.

This is known as a red herring fallacy, the fact that it fused her labia doesn’t change the nature of the situation, nor does it increase the gravity of the situation.

“She placed the coffee cup between her knees and pulled the far side of the lid toward her to remove it. In the process, she spilled the entire cup of coffee on her lap. Liebeck was wearing cotton sweatpants, which absorbed the coffee and held it against her skin, scalding her thighs, buttocks and groin.”

Additionanally:

“According to a 2007 report, McDonald’s had not reduced the temperature of its coffee, serving it at 176–194 °F (80–90 °C), relying on more sternly worded warnings on cups made of rigid foam to avoid future injury and liability (though it continues to face lawsuits over hot coffee). However, in 2013 the New York Times reported that it had lowered its service temperature to 170–180 °F (77–82 °C). The Specialty Coffee Association of America supports improved packaging methods rather than lowering the temperature at which coffee is served. The association has successfully aided the defense of subsequent coffee burn cases. Similarly, as of 2004, Starbucks sells coffee at 175–185 °F (79–85 °C), and the executive director of the Specialty Coffee Association of America reported that the standard serving temperature is 160–185 °F (71–85 °C).”

So not only did it not change the temperature at which most major brands serve coffee, the temperature that was proposed as reasonable by the defense attorneys was also still hot enough to cause third degree burns. I get that she might want them to pay for damages, but she literally dumped it on herself, the reason she was so seriously hurt was because she was 79 years old. If you’re buying hot coffee that’s freshly brewed then it should be obvious it’s hot enough to seriously burn you. If it’s over 150 F then you will get major significant burns.

As to the idea that they had been warned:

“Other documents obtained from McDonald’s showed that from 1982 to 1992 the company had received more than 700 reports of people burned by McDonald’s coffee to varying degrees of severity, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000.”

McDonalds purportedly sells more than 50 million cups of coffee per year, over 10 years that was 500 million cups of coffee. 0.00014% is hardly a “warning.”

You can get third degree burns from touching water which is 150 degree F for around 2 seconds. Most coffee world wide is served between 160 and 180 F.

In that case the water was supposedly served at 190 F while competitors coffees were served at 160 F. The lawyers in that suit claimed that if the coffee had been in the 160 range it would have taken up to 20 seconds to get third degree burns. We now know that even at 160 F she would have gotten the same burns within 5 seconds.

What exactly is your point?

Why do you think a business should be compelled to sell something at any given price? I mean sure, you can burn them in the court of public opinion, but it’s another thing when you say that government regulation should dictate the cost of a coffee beverage. I think that’s where most people are landing in this, they agree it’s stupid for Starbucks to do such a petty thing, but when it comes to lawsuits involving ADA regulations it crosses a line for reasonable response.

It’s almost like the lawsuit for hot coffee where the person argued they didn’t know the coffee was hot

(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald’s_Restaurants#:~:text=McDonald’s Restaurants%2C also known as,against the McDonald’s restaurant chain.&text=Stella Liebeck v.,McDonald’s Restaurants%2C P.T.S.%2C Inc.)

Most farming is subsidized, the debate then is which one is subsidized more. A bit of a specious argument at the end of the day.

Eh, a quick Google search said that Tesla wasn’t profitable for 17 years and survived due to government subsidies and investor funding. After that they’ve been making ~$15 billion per year and sold around 1.3 million cars worldwide per year.

In contrast Toyota sold 10.3 million vehicles and made $61 billion in profit.

As with their 17 years of unprofitable business they are currently more proportionally profitable, but a big portion of that is Musk fanboys and limited supply. If they actually started selling more cars they probably wouldn’t be as proportionally profitable.

Additionally, Tesla is supposedly becoming less profitable due to several factors including not making a new model in 10 years, reports that they fraudulently marketed features (being sneaky with how range is calculated so that the true range is way less than advertised), and Elon’s antics hurting sales. Elon’s antics are a big deal, some people who wanted Teslas before don’t want them anymore because they don’t want to be associated with him (like flying a Gadsden Flag in the mid 2000s vs now).

Elon’s antics don’t stop there, he’s also hurt the investor’s opinion as well. A big reason Tesla’s stock was so high is because people were buying them and not selling them. This caused their price to stay super high, but when Elon bought Twitter he sold a ton of stock. The price was at an all time high over $400 per share, his selling cratered it to ~$115, and is currently around $165. Investors don’t like it when the owner of a company single handedly tanks their investment so the owner can make a bad investment, even more so when the writing on the wall says he’ll sell even more of the stock to fund the bad investment.

Yeah, being able to open the window just slightly from a different angle doesn’t seem like that useful of a feature. Also in the US we mostly have a different style of window (see below).

It’s rare that I want to open a window, but only slightly open it. Normally it’s all the way open and I probably put box fan in the window to pull air through.

You’re correct that many houses these days are built too air tight, but for older houses that were built before AC the house was often designed so that you could open windows on different sides of the house to create a cross breeze. So for example, you could open up windows on the East and West side in the morning and the temperature difference should create a convection breeze through the house.

https://images.thdstatic.com/productImages/b50b163e-4aad-437d-9ffc-9c9c6d58c51f/svn/american-craftsman-double-hung-windows-2438786-64_600.jpg

January 6th occurred, Trump has been relatively unscathed, and Trump is running again. That’s what has changed since 2019.

If Trump had been fully prosecuted, or had decided not to run Biden likely wouldn’t be running.

I just Googled and the 2024 Telluride has an MSRP of ~$55,000 in my area, used 2023 models are about ~$45,000.

Looking at an auto loan calculator, that’s between $700 and $900 per month with a 96 month 9% auto loan.

Point is, if you can afford the car you’re probably not worrying about the subscription except on principle. If you can afford the car and have principle concerns you’d probably buy a different car.

That’s the second room that you can lease out, 50 Sqft for $1200 per month.

Of the responses I have gotten I feel like you have the closest response to the truth. Having good cops comes down to trust. If we had a police force of non-opportunistic saints who will go through anything to do the right thing then we might have something which meets the public’s expectation of the police. Short of that they are people who put their own lives and well being above that of the public. Police aren’t out there to save you, they aren’t really out there to stop crimes. They are out there to charge people with committing crimes. I feel like some understanding should be out there for the public though, police aren’t there to save you, they are there to charge people for having committed a crime. Ideally they will stop a crime as it is occurring or by their presence prevent a crime from occurring, but if you think the Police are there to save you then you’re wrong.

That’s the average scenario. That’s the Uvalde cop looking on as a school shooting occurs. The idea of a cop running into a school shooting is the “BEST” scenario.

Unfortunately the norm for police is far less than that, because the pay doesn’t incentivize better people to want to be police. It comes down to those the factors: pay, work life balance, and danger. Pick 2 of 3, low danger, high wages, or good work life balance.

There is a difference in danger, Construction tends to be one of the most dangerous jobs there is, but getting injured in a construction accident is fundamentally different from getting shot as a cop. Other jobs might be more “dangerous,” but the nature of the danger is pretty important.

Yeah, but that comes back to the same point where pay incentivizes bad cops. It’s not quite that clear cut, but it’s not far from the truth. I don’t begrudge someone working a second job, and assuming we’re talking about good cops not getting kickbacks, police shouldn’t have to work two jobs to make ends meet.

This may not apply everywhere in the US, but my understanding is that most cops aren’t paid terribly well. Perhaps it’s ok if compared to a standard job, but when you account for the danger, required over time, and work schedule it becomes very not worth it.

A buddy of mine is a true believer type, he signed up to be a cop, went through a year of training and another year paired with another cop. PreCovid starting pay was $40k, 12 hr work schedule and every 28 days it flipped (so 28 days day shift followed by 28 days of night shift). One day he gets a call and his boss had switched him to a different district with 3x the commute without any communication. Finally a buddy of his caught a bullet in the head (and lived) from some guy who was on drugs and stole a car. He said he thought about it and for the money it wasn’t worth the emotional cost.

Strangely the problem with underfunding cops is who the fuck wants to be a cop? Yeah, after 25 years and multiple promotions you might make an ok or even good salary, but being a new cop is absolutely shit. In a system where the pay isn’t good, the hours are shit, and the risk to your life is high, who wants to be a cop?

The answer is either self sacrificing good guys or people who get a power trip on carrying a gun and using it. Add to it that this system is perpetuated by the type of people who pursue the job you end up with a whole department full of the type who hire these types.

So while you can defund the police, you can send them through training, you can institute new policy, but if you don’t attract a better quality of person then you’re gonna have the same problem over and over again.

Theoretically you could make the hours better (but that will require hiring more police to cover the same amount), you could reduce the danger (similar to London banning guns so beat cops don’t carry them either), or you can pay them more.

Hey Dude, I doubt anyone is going to have any hard feelings about this and maybe it will prompt Jonah to bring some others on board. Either way I feel like this sort of post (at least at our size) needs some sort of validation and response. Good luck to you and hope to see you around.

Aren’t young Democrats the lowest turnout group in nearly every state in every election? I’ll double check the numbers when I get home, but from memory that was the case.