silicon_reverie

Yes, but "unlawful or contrary to the public interest" is the language the 2025 drafters have used in the past to argue that people involved in a literal violent insurrection should not be prosecuted. In this case we're not talking about forming a more equitable justice system, we're talking about celebrating the attempted overthrow of the government.

There are a lot of comments here about which launchers are "close enough" to the Nova feature set, but very few people are talking about specific features and the alternatives that support them. I really just use two, and everything else is a cherry on top that I can do without if push comes to shove.

1. Icons that open a folder if you swipe them, but launch the first app in the folder if you tap them. That way my apps all pull double-duty as both the one-tap app AND the list of alternatives I use less often.
2. Google Now integration that swipes in from the left.

Action Launcher used to be my go-to, and it's still the best implementation of #1 because of the little indicators it adds to let you know if something is a "cover" (folder when you swipe) or "shutter" (widget when you swipe). Sadly it's gotten rather bloated over the years and spends more time force-closing from one glitch or another than it does actually running properly. Nova was my backup because it added "covers" a few years ago and I remembered enjoying the app about a decade ago. Now what?

My guess is that it has something to do with my YouTube Premium subscription never triggering Google's anti-adblock software, which means the app was never flagged for a soft lock.

I use Vanced for the SponsorBlock, increased default play speed, background payback, and other assorted tweaks rather than for the ad blocking, but blocking ads will definitely jump to the top of my list if my "Google Play Family" ever stops paying for premium. At which point I guess I'll migrate to GrayJay?

Hell, I'm still using the original Vanced. No clue how it's managed to escape death for all of these months, but I'm not complaining

Yes, which is why turning a hospital or refugee camp into a command post is a war crime. But it also means that attacking a hospital or refugee camp, whether they're being used as shields for military targets or not, should also not be done lightly. Iron-clad case made beforehand that it is a military target, rigorous scrutiny of the claim evaluated by an independent body after the fact, and the military action against the target has to prioritize the civilians as much as possible. They're people. Men, women, and children who have nothing to do with the conflict and are simply caught in the crossfire. One side showing a disregard for the life of innocents does not justify the other side doubling down on the same.

Holy whataboutism, Batman, no one is arguing that Hamas is in the right here. What are you even trying to say with this? "Hamas 'fucks civilians' which makes them evil... so Israel might as well join in and 'fuck civilians' too"?

Can't we all just agree that no one should be "fucking civilians" for any reason, because you know, they're civilians?

They’ll still be fucked but they’ll at least stop worrying about this particular enemy.

The difference is that "in for a penny, in for a pound" implies all options are equal as long as the objective is achieved. "Surgical strike that kills 24 civilians? Nuclear strike that kills 2,400,000? Something in between? Why bother weighing the pros and cons because we're fucked on the world stage either way. Might as well go big." It's an argument designed to sidestep the very real debate over "acceptable loss" calculations and the duty to safeguard human life. No one is saying that Israel shouldn't retaliate. No one is saying that Hamas is playing fair. What they are saying is that 10,000 dead refugees might look like Israel doesn't care that they're dead. Especially when Israel says they targeted refugee camps and ambulances on purpose. And when you chime in saying "fuck it, just kill 'em" to a simple plea of "maybe count the kids before killing 'em all."

The IDF is in an impossible situation, but the answer isn't to shut down debate, it's to actually talk about where the line should be drawn and try to minimize civilian harm. Allow foreign aid to reach the starving children. Allow civilians to leave the city. Listen to why there's an outcry against indiscriminate bombings. Palestinians aren't "meat shields." Hamas might be hiding behind them, but that doesn't mean you have to aim straight at the "shields" and pull the trigger. They're people, and deserve more consideration than a simple "fuck it, what's a little genocide if the bad guy's dead?"

I completely understand, hence making a joke about Google's pedantic argument by referencing a satirical cartoon bureaucrat who cares more about technicalities than lived experiences.

Google argues that functionally, "blocking ads" means no ads are displayed, and functionally, paying Google's ransom also means no ads are displayed, therefore the two are interchangeable. Whereas the rest of us can plainly see this is a debate over principles rather than outcomes, and the way something is accomplished does matter. Especially when the article we're talking about is intentionally designed as click-bait and doesn't list the one thing they imply will be in it: ad-subverting plugins that don't pay Google.

Did they mean "without further ado"?

They're technically correct. The best kind of correct. /s

edit: wow, y'all hate Futurama memes almost as much as ads 😂

I agree that intent is an important consideration. In war, combatants are obligated to be intentional with who they target. That intentionality is even codified into international law. It's why we say that civilian casualties must be minimized whenever possible. By law, commanders must attempt to discriminate between military and civilian targets, applying force appropriately to target only those who are part of the conflict. By law, retaliation is governed by the principal of minimum force, meaning only so much force as is required to remove the threat, and no more.

When those of us outside the conflict zone are confronted with dead children on the front page, that's the standard of "intent" we're weighing our reactions against. For many, it's hard to see how attacks on refugee camps were intended to spare refugees. How attacks on aid convoys and ambulances intended to spare the sick and wounded. How refusing to allow food, water, and the gasoline that hospitals need in order to operate is intended to safeguard the welfare of civilians who have been forced to drink sea water just to stay alive. Even if Hamas is using the population as human shields, it doesn't change that the intent should be to spare those civilians in spite of Hamas' actions. They're fellow human beings. They deserve that bare minimum of thought. Sure, dropping an atomic bomb on Gaza City would wipe out the terrorists, but I think we'd all agree that'd be a war crime since it would also murder millions. The same logic applies here on the smaller scale (though 10,000 residents - half of them children - isn't exactly "small scale"). That's why it's hard to see intention in those headlines. At least aside from the intention to do exactly what you'd expect bombing a refugee camp to do - murder refugees. The indiscriminate leveling of a region isn't targeted, but it sure as hell looks intentional.

I desperately want to be wrong here, and like I said, I'm an outside observer from America just like you. But that's the train of logic that I see dominating calls for a humanitarian pause over here, and it's rather compelling.

It's a good way to frame things. As an outsider, the subjectivity of the IDF's target is why I wonder if people are choosing one term for the war over another. Some see the intentional bombing of refugee camps, ambulances, and aid convoys as targeting the civilians of Gaza in what amounts to a systematic extermination of Palestinians. The casualty numbers seem to heavily favor that interpretation. So could this be one reason for some news outlets to frame the conflict as Israel vs Gaza itself? Or is the word choice more nuanced than that, given how it seems as though the two names are being used interchangeably on both sides of the line?