hckrnws

I know this isn't very on the topic, but these articles make me cringe physically.

> “You should compete,” I suggested.

> He smirked. “I always compete.”

Feels like a vocal jerk-off. Just tell me the details, idc how tuff the interview was.

This is a style of writing called "narrative journalism" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narrative_journalism

I find it pretty distracting too.

These pieces are usually just advertising with more words. They want to frame Replit and their hero founder as being rebels who don't follow the rules or fear goliath.

This is fantasy fiction for VCs, founders, AI bros, and anyone else who isn't actually looking for information.

I don't know what it is but I don't think that it's an ad. Otherwise I guess they wouldn't have that snarky pro-israel undertone towards him.

I did not even notice that, yikes.

Are you accusing the SF Standard of running a paid promotion without disclosing it as such?

This is similar to a political campaign not telling you to vote on X, but still talking greatly about X. It's completely legal

Here's the ethics policy for the SF Standard: https://sfstandard.com/ethics-standards/

> He smirked. "Yes, I am."

Know Amjad from years ago. We're on the opposite sides of ideological barricades, but he's no terrorist sympathizer. Just a man who loves his people. He seemed extremely pragmatic too-- if he ran Gaza it'd be an economic paradise by now.

He doesn't seem pragmatic because everything I read about him or any time I hear from him it's about this geopolitical issue. Doesn't he have a company to run? What's the point of making this front and center part of your personality. His thoughts on the war in Gaza is literally the only thing I know about him. That and him firing an intern about a weekend project. It's all just exhausting.

How is that pragmatic? If you want to do good things, build a business and donate money or whatever. Getting into Twitter wars with internet strangers and spending on PR to tell everyone what you think about geopolitics strikes me as anything but pragmatic.

Eh people get consumed by these things. It's very hard to resist when you have a platform and your own people are at war. Very very difficult to get past abstractions and just work to help in minute particulars.

Plus social media is a uniquely deranging technology. Persona on twitter is rarely who the person is in real life.

replit is actually quite popular among teenagers and basically third world youngsters trying to spin off a service or a "product" of their own.

- i mean yes u cannot make money out of teenagers but damn replit's Vibe coding tool is fucking good. Better than Lovable or Bolt any day.

just to give u a perspective from a 20year old kid from a 3rd world county

I think this is exactly it. Replit is a cheap and easy way to get an MVP off the ground ASAP. However, their audience is inherently hackathon attendees, not real businesses. Whether these can turn into real businesses (en masse to justify low churn and consistent SaaS ARR) or not is the real question.

thanks for sharing, that's an interesting perspective actually. It's easy for us "pro devs" to kind of ignore platforms like Replit as "training wheels." I look at it and think "why would I use that, I have all my own stuff set up the way I like it locally".

But us older guys (i'm not that old, 34, but still) can easily forget how valuable and exciting it is to have tools that make the publication / deploy easy. It's cool to hear what the younger, less experienced crowd gravitates towards in the modern dev tool landscape. Thanks for sharing!

How long do those customers stay customers?

Are their customers making money?

Will they be able to build retention?

I've got this question of every platform like this - Lovable, etc.

Cursor and IDE tools and models cater to a smaller audience, but they're sticky, repeat customers, big spenders.

I'm not sure why you're getting downvoted. These are valid criticisms of platforms like Lovable, Bolt, Replit, etc. that cater to "fast MVP" type customers. I'm not sure how you sustain the valuations if the churn inherent to those type of "hobbyist" or "solopreneur" type customers isn't solved.

Excellent point. With that being said, I think there is market potential for replit, specifically in the middle ground between 'not knowing any code' and 'full on developer using an IDE/Cursor'.

And they can grow into the latter if they believe that's the opportunity.

Why don't you just use Claude?

I don't get all these vibe coding tools when Claude is better than any of them

A friend used Replit to prove out a startup (it worked) and what worked for him is that Replit has a whole platform integrated with their coding assistant that include hosting and backend runtimes. So his cycle time of vibe-deploy-test was very short and very simple for someone non-technical.

No need to think about how/where to deploy, cloud platforms (AWS, GCP, Azure), etc. Just vibe and deploy.

(He did end up moving off the platform once he had enough validation)

I think experienced programmers underestimate how tricky it is to sort the deploying to cloud platforms bit for beginners.

Yeah. I'd say about 1/4 of my time on my new app has been spent on deployment-related stuff, rather than the app itself. And I'm not inexperienced with servers and cloud. It's a pretty big deal to integrate that stuff.

I have a habit now of getting that out of the way first just so I don't have to think about it. Get a basic functioning prototype and then figure out my infra and deployment as early as possible.

Well, I got it out of the way early, but I keep discovering changes need to be made...

Depending on my projects, I tend to keep it pretty simple.

For personal projects, usually Firebase (+ occasional Cloud Run mixed in) which makes it relatively easy.

For professional projects, it's pretty easy now on AWS with their (unfortunately named) Copilot CLI [0] (highly, highly recommended).

But mostly, I keep my infra simple and bias towards modular monoliths [1] which ends up being the majority of my infra work (container packaging and deployment of the initial runtime infra).

[0] https://aws.github.io/copilot-cli/

[1] https://chrlschn.dev/blog/2024/01/a-practical-guide-to-modul...

I've really shortened the loop on deploying my side projects with Claude Code. I run it with `--dangerously-skip-permissions` on a prompt I've written and it adapts it for the project in hand with a "safe" set of defaults, and I've got a basic verification script to ensure it's not unsafe (e.g. can't access postgres from the web, firewall blocking all non-required ports). The rest - which can vary from project to project, like creating VMs, configuring rules, whether it's a rust project or a docker compose file - Claude knows how to handle pretty well. Super super simple now.

Most experienced programmers have no experience deploying apps (or their experience is from earlier in their career). Especially engineers at big companies where there are whole teams dedicated to infra/devops.

The percentage of programmers with side projects they deploy themselves is very small. I’d guess less than 10% have a side project deployed somewhere. (And these days

> Most experienced programmers have no experience deploying apps (or their experience is from earlier in their career)

Most experienced programmers in my circles have evening/weekend projects. We are notorious for hoarding unused domains for the "brilliant side project" that gets a burst of commits right after domain-renewal time

I'm an experienced programmer and deploying is a clusterfuck these days. It's by far the worst part of making software

I use a mix of Firebase and AWS Copilot CLI (https://aws.github.io/copilot-cli/) depending on which platform I'm on.

Both make it pretty dead simple to deploy. AWS Copilot being the "more powerful" of the two, but still dead simple to use compared to CDK, Cloud Formation, or writing Terraform or Pulumi scripts.

> (He did end up moving off the platform once he had enough validation)

I'm really curious what this looks like in practice? Like can you just download the whole codebase, throw it against a Supabase Postgres DB, and you're off running? What about any backing services or microservices? Is it tied to any thing like lambdas etc.

Because i can do it on the phone.

claude is just too expensive and u need to atleast a bit technical expertise in it.

replit has made it like, even a 11 year old can make something out of thin air and acutally publish it to get a link to share

Third world country could be region blocked.

Not sure why this is controversial. I know it’s an issue with Cursor as they have to limit availability of models based on region. OpenAI specifically blocks India and Pakistan for example, among a long list of other countries.

Why would anyone region-block a country which gives them a ton of users? OpenAI actually has India-specific plans alongside their regular ones, and I use Claude Code every day with zero problems.

i'm not aware of any service geo-blocked by OpenAI to either pakistan or india

Could u share a link or something?

P.s. found nothing on a google search

which country are you from?

Going by the username, I'm guessing India or perhaps Bangadesh

India it is

Replit with vercel starter templates and supabase is amazing. I even have it do all my migrations and RLS policies. Also playwright automated testing in github action CI/CD.

I have it originated from a master prompt project I have architected with shadcn suggestions and how I like my app router setup.

I'm hooking this up to comet to be fully agentic with Linear tasks and human-in-the-loop approvals with up to 5 UI versions per feature. And ts contract request/responses for my nextJS api endpoints.

I also host a "LangChain" similar like tool in Azure C# minimal API in a shared replit secret. It's so nice to be able to re-use secrets for Radar, etc across all my apps.

In the immortal words of Peter Stormare in the VW ad, "what does this do??"

Well, at some point in time, his workflow produces a landing page where you can express interest in funding his projects

I remember learning to code with replit, the people from the course recommended replit because there was no setup to do

I used to teach with it - at classroom-scale it was really good. Unfortunately they shut all that down a little while back, and there wasn't really a good replacement. Which was a shame.

Seems to have worked out for them, mind!

Such a shame, it was really good for that

Some criticize that approach, suggesting that you're not learning important skills, but I applaud that approach. Anyone who's ever been in a workshop at a conference, where you have limited time to learn a topic, knows how much time is wasted doing initial setup.

I remember that was like workshop, something like learn to code in 20 minutes, and after learning the concepts and realizing you can control all those devices that power the world, just with code was magical.

I think that it had a big potential for that.

yes this is such a good point, the OG replit could've been the perfect conferencing / classroom tool

Running an IDE in a browser like that is not something I'd ever want to work with long time or experimenting on my "own" computer - maybe it's just me being weird but running the code on the metal I'm holding is much more satisfying.

I'm not sure what features / tools replit had in this regard, but I could easily see it dominating CS education and conferences as the go-to IDE. (then making the real money by monetising the students in the future, i.e. other tools you can sell - even something like replit as a cloud provider), by having features like

  - templates you could share (i.e. one per lesson)
  - live sessions (where the professor could log into many students replit instance and demonstrate)
  - videos built into the editor / streaming / conferencing
  - "homework had-in" features, automated test sharing, etc.

It's fascinating to read how Hacker News helped make Replit successful. I hope everyone will try this tool! I wonder if Masad still scrolls here nowadays.

So success buys you ideological latitude

Do you know how many politicians switch sides once they have lost their power? (well, not many have been in that situation, but still!)

As a powerful figure, you become a literal puppet in front of the public. Your opinions don't matter

What's the minimum threshold for that, I wonder?

Having "Fuck You" money[1] means you don't have to listen to anyone (but you still can be shunned, as described in the article). You'll substantially greater wealth that FU money to make people listen to what you have to say and be "uncancellable", like owning a media outlet, hiring a PR firm, or buying a pet politician or seat in government. Amjad seems to have crossed from the former to the latter by economic power: not only can a deal with him now could potentially generate lots of wealth, but it may not be a good thing to be on his shit-list later when he is the bigger fish.

1. A subjective amount that depends entirely on the lifestyle, burn rate and life expectancy.

Well, for the sake of being an aspiring contrarian, more power to him. Last thing I want is billionaires all being unified around one opinion.

Billionaires wouldn't run their mouths, if that wasn't the case.

Effect weakly linked to Affect

I absolutely love the idea of Replit and I think it's an awesome platform and idea.

I do wonder how sustainable it is as a business though. I expect Replit is sending the majority of that money to the big AI labs through API costs

As soon as anything becomes serious you're going to try and take it off Replit and use something like Claude Code and AWS etc

The title is a non-sequitur.

“Terrorist sympathizer” and “successful businessperson” (or “rich person”) are completely orthogonal. Building a successful business does not necessarily change your terrorist sympathisation status. You can be a rich terrorist sympathiser.

Your comment fails to mention that the accusations of sympathy for terrorism are lies.

I am not equipped to give an opinion on that either way. I’m just saying that building a successful business is independent of the accuracy of your ideology.

I think this is partly true. Raising the necessary funds, hiring enough of the right people and become sufficiently visible to get "mindshare" are all important factors in building a successful business. It is a lot harder to do these things if your ideology is out of step with what is considered mainstream.

Fair comment. They are two different things.

I think it's taking things too literally and pointedly ignoring the subtext while unintended or not having subtext of their own.

feels like sophistry

the article connects the two, so they are not orthonogonal either:

> But even as things got noisy in public, Masad met eerie silence professionally. “My calendar was suddenly empty, because I was talking about Palestine,” he said. “Replit was not a hot company anymore. We did a layoff. And at the same time, a lot of my friends were no longer my friends. I was no longer invited to parties.”

> Potential partnerships dried up. Masad became a frequent topic in pro-Israel tech groupchats, a source said, where some investors accused him of being antisemitic.

> A Replit investor who requested anonymity to speak candidly told me Masad’s public persona has been “really challenging,” and he’s had to defend the founder in investor circles. I asked if Masad had lost business because of his views. “I’m sure the answer is yes,” the investor said.

[flagged]

Amen.

No it did/is not.

It was kind of the focus of the article though - how his pro Palestinian politics interacted with being a SV founder.

It also fitted with some @paulg twitter stuff. He wrote a fair bit about both Gaza and Replit.

> It also fitted with some @paulg twitter stuff.

TIL. Big fair-play to him, and I'm very sincere about it, he must of have left a lot of potential money on the table from possible investors as a result of his view on the genocide in Gaza. Again, fair play to him, we need a lot more people like him in our (pretty sad) industry from this point of view.

As far as I can tell, nowhere does the article argue that being "terrorist symphathizer" and being a successful business person are mutually exculsive, so you seem to be arguing against a point no one made.

What is obvious is that people should be outraged if a successful businessperson is actually a "terrorist sympathizer", because most people, whatever their ideology, would simply consider it to be an outrageous and ridiculous state of affairs if a successful businessperson was allowed to function unimpeded in western society and its business world if they themselves considered the businessperson to be an unapologetic "terrorist sympathizer".

The title is clearly an enagement ploy by the editor because it forces the reader to decide whether they themselves believe the founder is actually a terrorist sympathizer or not. If they don't think so, then it's outrageous that he's been libelled in a such a manner. If they think he is a terrorist sympathizer then it would be outrageous to them that he is allowed to operate unimpeded in western society and its economic realm.

That's why this comment sounds disingenously pedantic and your follow-up comment's detached tone doesn't feel sincere frankly. The article does list specific reasons why he was called a "terrorist sympathizer" and forces the reader to decide whether they themselves would consider the founder a "terrorist sympathizer" given the context in order to come to a conclusion about him in general.

Just look at Tal Broda for one example.

It's ridiculous to frame an opinion that's extremely common and popular as some kind of expression of rebellion against "the man". What a puff-piece.

Two people got black bagged by the federal government less than a year ago for expressing this opinion

And the FBI has a wrongthink list for this opinion filed under anti semitism / domestic terrorism now.

exe.dev is already miles better already than what replit is attempting to do with it's AI things

well, it's not a high bar – these days anyone who says "I support Palestine Action" or "she was murdered by ICE" is called a terrorist sympathizer

> these days anyone who says "I support Palestine Action"

They have a video of people from this group attacking police with sledgehammers. It is strange how much of this 'direction action' is harming Ukraine support and not Israel. If people wanted to support Palestine they can do it without attacking their own countries' military - which is not operating in Israel at all.

> "she was murdered by ICE"

They have a video of her being shot, pretty much needlessly. I'd say that should be manslaughter at a minimum.

"They have a video of people from this group attacking police with sledgehammers"

Do you have the name or names of the person accused of 'attacking police with sledgehammers'?

I've heard a lot about this, but it's difficult to get to actual sources about exactly what is alleged.

Even if this did happen as you say. attachking police with sledgehammers is assault, potentially even attempted murder. There's plenty of laws for that.

It's not terrorism.

> Do you have the name or names of the person accused of 'attacking police with sledgehammers'?

You should be less flippant.

The accused's name is Samuel Corner. He and his friends are still on trial for their actions.

Here's the bodycam footage where you see Samuel Corner attack police seargent Kate Evans with a sledgehammer while she was on the ground, fracturing her spine. Watch from 3m05s to 3m10s:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6P7p_5D4hw

The police seargent is now disabled:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g54g1r15eo

> It's not terrorism.

The group's stated aim is to stop the UK or any UK companies giving Israel any military support. They target companies who they think supply Israel. They break in and smash them, and as you've hopefully just seen with your own eyes, they are not afraid to attack people with sledgehammers. They use violence to achieve their political aim. They are terrorists and belong in prison.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1dzq41n4l9o

> Samuel Corner, 23, [...] Oxford University graduate from Devon [...] when asked why he struck Sgt Evans with the sledgehammer, he replied: "It was me not really knowing what I was doing

Thanks Samuel. That Oxford degree really shows, doesn't it?

It feels to me like there's a distinction between "on one occasion, one person in group X did Y" and "group X does Y", and it's the second of those that (for some choices of Y, including "attacking police with sledgehammers") could justify calling group X a terrorist group.

Obviously "on one occasion, a person in group X did Y" is evidence for "group X does Y". If Samuel Corner attacked a police sergeant with a sledgehammer during one Palestine Action, er, action, then that's the sort of thing we expect to see more often if PA is generally in favour of attacking police with sledgehammers. (Either as a matter of explicit open policy, or as a nudge-nudge-wink-wink thing where everyone in PA knows that if they start smashing up police as well as property then their PA comrades will think better of them rather than worse.)

But it falls way short of proof. Maybe Samuel Corner sledgehammered a cop because Palestine Action is a terrorist organization after all; but maybe Samuel Corner sledgehammered a cop because Samuel Corner is a thug or an idiot or was drunk or whatever. Or maybe Samuel Corner sledgehammered a cop because the cops were already being violent with the Palestine Action folks and he was doing his (ill-advised) best to protect the others from the police. (This, as I understand it, is his account of things.)

(An Oxford University graduate attacked a police officer with a sledgehammer. I take it you would not say that that makes the University of Oxford a terrorist organization, and you wouldn't say that even if he'd done it while attending, say, a university social function rather than while smashing up alleged military hardware. It matters how typical the action is of the organization, what the group's leadership thinks of the action, etc.)

I took a look at the video. It's not easy to tell what's going on, but it looks to me as follows. One of the PA people is on the ground, being forcibly restrained and tasered by a police officer, complaining loudly about what the police officer is doing. (It isn't obvious to me whether or not her complaints are justified[1].) There is another police officer, whom I take to be Kate Evans, nearby, kneeling on the ground and helping to restrain this PA person. Samuel Corner approaches with his sledgehammer and attacks that second police officer. I can't tell from the video exactly what he's trying to do (e.g., whether he's being as violent as possible and hoping to kill or maim, or whether he's trying to get the police officer off the other person with minimal force but all he's got is a sledgehammer).

[1] I get the impression that she feels she has the right not to suffer any pain while being forcibly restrained by police, which seems like a rather naive view of things. But I also get the impression that the police were being pretty free with their tasering. But it's hard to tell exactly what's going on, and I imagine it was even harder in real time, and I am inclined to cut both her and the police some slack on those grounds.

It's highly misleading, even though not technically false, to say that Corner attacked Kate Evans "while she was on the ground"; she certainly was on the ground in the sense that she was supported by the floor, and even in the sense that she wasn't standing up -- I think she was crouching -- but it's not like she was lying on the ground injured or inactive; she was fighting one of the other PA people, and she was "on the ground" because that PA person was (in a stronger sense) "on the ground" too.

For the avoidance of doubt, I do not approve of attacking police officers with sledgehammers just because they are restraining someone you would prefer them not to be restraining, even if you think they're doing it more violently than necessary. And I have a lot of sympathy with police officers not being super-gentle when the people they're dealing with are armed with sledgehammers.

But the story here looks to me more like "there were a bunch of PA people, who had sledgehammers because they were planning to smash up military hardware; the cops arrived and wrestled and tasered them, and one of the PA people lost his temper and went for one of the cops to try to defend his friend whom he thought was being mistreated, and unfortunately he was wielding a sledgehammer at the time" than like "PA is in the business of attacking cops with sledgehammers".

None of that makes Kate Evans any less injured. But I think those two possibilities say very different things about Palestine Action. Carrying sledgehammers because you want to smash equipment is different from carrying sledgehammers because you want to smash people. Attacking police because they are a symbol of the state is different from attacking police because they are attacking your friend. One person doing something bad in the heat of the moment because he thinks his friend is being mistreated is different from an organization setting out to do that bad thing.

There are plenty of documented cases of police being violent (sometimes with deadly effect) with members of the public. Sometimes they have good justification for it, sometimes not so much. Most of us don't on those grounds call the police a terrorist organization. Those who do say things along those lines do so because they think that actually the police are systematically violent and brutal.

I think the same applies to organizations like Palestine Action. So far as I can tell, they aren't systematically violent and brutal. Mostly they smash up hardware that they think would otherwise be used to oppress Palestinians. (I am making no judgement as to whether they're right about that, which is relevant to whether they're a Good Thing or a Bad Thing but not to whether they're terrorists.) Sometimes that leads to skirmishes with the police. On one occasion so far, one of them badly injured a police officer. It's very bad that that happened, but this all seems well short of what it would take to justify calling the organization a terrorist one.

> The group's stated aim is to stop the UK or any UK companies giving Israel any military support. They target companies who they think supply Israel. They break in and smash them, and as you've hopefully just seen with your own eyes, they are not afraid to attack people with sledgehammers. They use violence to achieve their political aim. They are terrorists and belong in prison.

Yet none of them are being prosecuted under the terrorism act, or on any charge related to terrorism.

That's a good point.

I think they meet the definition of "terrorists" by their stated goals and acts. But it seems there's reticence by the CPS to break out the Terrorism Act.

Palestine Action is already a proscribed group because of spraypainting RAF planes. I would say this raid seems more terroristic than base invasion, but what do I know? I'm not the Home Secretary.

It raises questions, because while the Terrorism Act is heavily criticised for being overbroad and making a number of otherwise innocuous things crimes, the CPS haven't used it against this group of people, who'd face prison just for being a member, or claiming to be a member of Palestine Action. Maybe the CPS can't reliably prove they are?

The quote from the article continues. You cut it off.

"It was me not really knowing what I was doing, I was trying to protect Leona, or Zoe. I couldn't tell who was screaming."

"My friends were in danger and they [the police] were getting quite hands-on.

"I remember just feeling like I had to help somehow. I would never think to do that to someone, I was just trying to help," he said.

I don't have any opinion on this but I think its important to have the full quote

> "My friends were in danger and they [the police] were getting quite hands-on.

They were petulantly resisting arrest (it looks on camera to scream instead of just complying calmly) while committing destructive/violent crimes. The police were very restrained here. There was no danger from the police, at all.

Now a police officer doing their job has a spinal injury. Palestine Action says they will not stop doing 'direct action' (sabotage, property destruction, violence). They deserve the proscription.

Imagine if they were dealing with the US police...

> The quote from the article continues. You cut it off.

I quoted three separate snippets from the article that I wanted to draw attention to, and gave you the URL to read the rest yourself.

I'm of the opinion that, someone who sledgehammers an unaware opponent and claims in their defense "I was just trying to help", they are being disingenuous. Especially as one of Britain's most elite and privileged youngsters.

If you'd like to quote more of the article:

> When asked by his barrister Tom Wainwright whether he was willing to injure a person or use violence during the break-in, he replied: "No, not at all".

Read that back to yourself while watching the attack footage again. Is this credible testimony?

Wow, thanks. It was really shameful for amiga386 to intentionally hide that critical context. They even omitted the comma showing that there was additional context (and replaced it with inappropriate snark).

Congratulations, you've reached the level of "terrorist well-wisher"

Is there something you disagree with? My opinions were pretty neutral.

The internet is where every issue is a binary, nuance is scorned, and moderate views are weakness. You should know this already.

It's like Hamlet. "To upvote, or to downvote".

"centrist dad" is apparently an insult

I just felt you didn't quite reach the criteria for "terrorist sympathizer" outlined above. I don't make the rules!

UK military is operating in Palestine (very frequent military flights from their post-colonial base in Cyprus), and is operating in Israel (when they were shooting down drones, etc.), and is supplying Israel with weapons (directly by soldier training and indirectly by allowing to use their military bases), and joined in international coverup (they have detailed intelligence on what Israel was doing in Gaza, which they never released publicly any part of).

Pretty solid basis for direct action.

If they provided this level of support for Russia, they'd be a new Belarus.

Equating surveillance flights off the coast with "operating in the country" is tenuous at best. If that's the threshold, Russian military is already operating in Britain (see Yantar's adventures).

The mental effort a lot of people has made to pretend they aren't entirely powerless and irrelevant for stopping Israel's crimes is deeply impressive. The reality is that there's nothing the UK can do to stop Israel as long as the US is supporting them (short of going to war with both the US and Israel), but this reality is at odds with the desire to do something, so people invent and inflate leverage where there isn't any. Moreover, most of the time the very same people oppose creating more leverage for the future, as your added qualifier of "post-colonial" implies. It's depressing.

> They have a video of her being shot

Why was her vehicle in gear, engine running?

Not that your comment is relevant, but why is there a narrative of obstruction when you can visibly see Renee Good wave another truck by moments before she was killed?

https://www.reddit.com/r/law/comments/1q7cg7o/minneapolis_ic...

See for yourself: https://nypost.com/2026/01/09/us-news/dramatic-footage-from-...

> It is strange how much of this 'direction action' is harming Ukraine support

How is direct action on Palestine impacting Ukraine support? (We are also not intervening in Ukraine)

> (We are also not intervening in Ukraine)

Not direct intervention; but we fly sorties, provide intelligence, ship military equipment, build systems for... None of which we provide Israel for their current war.

It's just odd to me that Israel draws so much Ire when the UK deals with all sorts. There are many worse things happening that doesn't get a second of airtime.

> We are also not intervening in Ukraine

Hahhahaha. Hahaha. Ha.

The cost of this non-intervention is now at almost $200B, is it not? I guess this money went to elves?

The UK military is and has been operating in Gaza, the UK government is just lying about it. Public flight tracking data makes it obvious.

That's a big statement to make - do you have any credible sources on that?

At a minimum the RAF has operated hundreds of surveillance flights over Gaza.

Multiple sources linked on Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_and_the_Gaza_wa...

If I recall correctly this was in direct response to British citizens being kidnapped and held hostage inside Gaza. These were intelligence sorties with the express aim to help locate UK citizens.

Literally hilarious.

So UK citizens were not kidnapped? Or are you implying the UK were not doing intelligence flights, but were attacking Gaza directly, or had boots on the ground directly? Because I have seen absolutely zero reporting to infer that.

Like all defenders of the indefensible, you will shift the goalposts incessantly to suit the narrative you wish to defend.

First it was, "The British military isn't doing anything in Gaza, anyone who says otherwise is lying."

Now it is, "The British military might be doing something in Gaza, but they're justified in doing so, and it's limited to protecting British citizens anyways."

What will it be now?

"While the Ministry of Defence (MoD) claims these flights are solely for locating Israeli hostages held by Hamas, AOAV found that the RAF conducted 24 flights in the two weeks leading up to and including the day of Israel’s deadly attack on the Nuseirat Refugee Camp on 8 June 2024, which killed 274 Palestinians and injured over 700."

https://aoav.org.uk/2025/britain-sent-over-500-spy-flights-t...

"On October 19, 2024, four days after it had been at RAF Brize Norton, the “Re’em” aircraft with registration 272 appeared directly over Gaza at 7:32 p.m. local time, less than 5km away from Beit Lahiya, a city in north Gaza. Three hours later, at 11:20 p.m., the IAF bombed a residential complex in Beit Lahiya killing at least 73 people.

On October 24, 2024, nine days after traveling to the UK, the same 272 aircraft was located at 9:30 p.m. less than 5 miles from Jabalia camp. An hour later, at 10:40 p.m., airstrikes were recorded destroying apartment blocks in Jabalia. The aircraft remained airborne patrolling the airspace near Gaza until it was recorded at 10:36 p.m. near Ashdod, a coastal city near Tel Aviv, flying towards Hatzor Airbase."

https://www.dropsitenews.com/p/revealed-uk-labour-israeli-mi...

"Robot boots 30,000 feet above the ground" doesn't have quite the same ring to it.

I guess those Russian drones in Ukraine aren’t military combatants then?

Well the Russian drones are munitions, so that's not comparable. Is the UK dropping bombs on Gaza? I have seen zero reporting to say they have.

The UK might be flying spy planes outside it's airspace when it's citizens were kidnapped. That's not a "combatant". Was the UK a combatant when flying spy planes near the Ukraine border?

I think you are way off the mark based on reporting, I'm not even sure how you are coming to these stated opinions.

No, they're not dropping munitions, they're simply coordinating with the Israeli military to facilitate the dropping of munitions, doing everything possible save putting boots on the ground (that we know of). So you're right, in that case Britain is more like China in this situation, perfectly blameless.

> these days anyone who says "I support Palestine Action"

You mean the group that sneaked in and damaged a bunch of UK Military’s planes on a military base? Was this the action that put them into the terrorist category?

Not quite in the same league as IS, Al-Qaeda etc etc. Used to be a organisation had to murder and terrorise an entire population, or fly planes into city centres.

Apparently our standards have dropped so low that spray painting a couple of planes and embarrassing the UK military now puts you on par with those other organisations.

Yes supporting the Islamists puts you in the same league as the Islamists.

"Damaged a bunch of UK Military's planes" == spray painted two planes

Spray painting a jet engine causes millions in damages, but it's a cute sleight of hand to insinuate it's just some graffiti on a wall or something.

Yes. They're a bunch of violent criminals. But that's not the point.

There are lots of violent criminals who harm businesses and injure, or even kill people. They should be prosecuted and imprisoned. It's not illegal to say "I support <name of criminal or criminal gang>", even if people strongly disagree with you.

However, by showing they could break into an RAF base and spraypaint the planes - that says to me that the RAF are completely shit at their job, how can they protect their base from Russians if they can't even keep out local criminals - embarrassed the Government, and the government retaliated by making it illegal to say you support them.

Say it out loud? Criminal. Wear a t-shirt? Criminal. Hold a placard? Criminal.

Might as well just hold up blank sheets of paper and wait for the police to arrest you because they know what you want to write on them, like they do in Russia.

To me, that's a free speech issue. What an affront to free speech it is. Saying you support criminal scumbags should not be a crime. You should be able to say you support a bunch of violent yahoos, to whoever will listen to you, and I should be able to laugh at you and call you a simpleton for your idiot beliefs.

I'm not sure they've been shown to be violent (unless you consider damage to property as violence- I know some do, but personally my "things are just things" stance limits violence to actions which impact people, who matter.

Broadly speaking though, I agree. What they did was criminal damage, undoubtedly, I have no problem arresting and prosecuting people for that. But I don't believe that it's terrorism, nor that it would have been so unpopular had it not been bloody embarrassing for the armed forces. Honestly, bolt cutters and some paint should not be grounding some of your air defence.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1dzq41n4l9o

> Giving evidence earlier, he said the group's only intention was to "break in, cause as much damage to the factory as possible, destroy weapons and prevent the factory from reopening".

I count "causing as much damage as possible" to be violent.

While I think graffiti taggers "damage property" but are non-violent. But in many places, rival gangs blow up/set alight/demolish their rivals' homes/businesses/vehicles, etc. That counts as pretty strong violence to me, even if no people are injured.

Anyway, talking of people being injured, watch a member of Palestine Action (Samuel Corner, 23, Oxford University graduate) drive a sledgehammer into a police seargent while she's trying to arrest his comrade:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g54g1r15eo

Full video, sledgehammer attack at 3m05s to 3m10s: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6P7p_5D4hw

I'd designate them as a terrorist group for destroying factories, not so much for spraypainting planes. But I'd still support your right to say you support them, even though I'd disagree.

> I count "causing as much damage as possible" to be violent.

That is just not what the word violent means (unless used figuratively but I don't think that's what you mean). It means hurting, or attempting to hurt, a person (or maybe an animal). Setting fire or blowing up a home which might have people still in it is certainly violent, but destroying property for the sake or property destruction is not.

Of course, deliberately attacking someone with a sledgehammer certainly is.

I don't really understand the distinction here. Are you saying that it's not possible to harm someone by damaging their property?

Sure I destroyed their car and they weren't able to go to work and got fired, but I didn't physically attack them so no harm done.

There are a lot of definitions for violence, but most would include "destruction" along with "harm", "pain", "suffering" and so on.

If I intentionally wreck your home, like I properly ransack the place, smash it all up, I'd say I had been violent to you. Wouldn't you? You wouldn't walk in to find your home and your life ruined and say "oh it's just property damage", would you?

If my nation was at war with yours, and we dropped a bomb on your weapons factory, would you count that as violent, or non-violent?

FWIW, if you did that to my house I'd be upset and angry and not much inclined to use the word "just" about it, but no, I wouldn't say you'd been violent to me.

(I would say you'd been violent to me if you'd slapped me in the face. I would rather be slapped in the face than have my house ransacked and smashed up. Some not-violent things are worse than some violent things.)

If you dropped a bomb on a weapons factory that had, or plausibly could have had, people in it then that would unquestionably be an act of violence. If you somehow knew that there was nothing there but hardware then I wouldn't call it an act of violence.

(In practice, I'm pretty sure that when you drop a bomb you scarcely ever know that you're not going to injure or kill anyone.)

I'm not claiming that this is the only way, or the only proper way, to use the word "violence". But, so far as I can tell from introspection, it is how I would use it.

There are contexts in which I would use the word "violence" to include destruction that only affects things and not people. But they'd be contexts that already make it clear that it's things and not people being affected. E.g., "We smashed up that misbehaving printer with great violence, and very satisfying it was too".

> If I intentionally wreck your home, like I properly ransack the place, smash it all up, I'd say I had been violent to you. Wouldn't you? You wouldn't walk in to find your home and your life ruined and say "oh it's just property damage", would you?

There's certainly implied violence. Like, if you done that once, maybe you'll be back tomorrow when I happen to be in, and actually be violent to me. And even if that weren't the case, I'd still obviously be very distressed about the situation.

But, having said all that, no I wouldn't say you had been violent, if you hadn't actually tried to hurt anyone.

If you dropped a bomb on an abandoned or fully automated factory, that you could be 100% sure doesn't have any people in it - then I still wouldn't count that as "violent" (except maybe figuratively), no matter how destructive.

One member did very violently attack a police officer:

> A police sergeant was left unable to drive, shower or dress herself after a Palestine Action activist allegedly hit her with a sledgehammer during a break-in at an Israeli defence firm's UK site, a trial has heard.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g54g1r15eo

Of course, one violent member does not make an organisation into a terrorist organisation. But, just as a matter of fact, there has been some actual violence against a person.

If your standard for designating someone a terrorist is "they did something quite naughty" - go at it.

Damaging military equipment is the farthest thing from terrorism. That's literally the one thing that can never be terrorism.

Why are you surprised that people who sympathize with terrorists are called terrorists sympathizers?

Roughly 75% of Palestinians support terrorism (the number changes with every survey but it's consistently over 50%).

The lady in Minneapolis was using her car as a weapon to impede law enforcement operations. That's not really terrorism; insurrection would be a more accurate description. But she certainly wasn't a good person deserving of any sympathy.

> The lady in Minneapolis was using her car as a weapon to impede law enforcement operations.

A hysterical take like this isn't really credible. "Obstruction", sure, but calling a stopped vehicle a "weapon" because it's slightly in the way defies the English language to the point where you damage your own credibility.

It would be equivalent to call this comment a "weapon" I'm using to impede you announcing your opinion unopposed.

She's absolutely deserving of sympathy; she was killed unjustly. We don't have a law on the books allowing capital punishment for parking a vehicle somewhere law enforcement finds it inconvenient. Just because you happen not to agree with her actions at the time, illegal or no, doesn't imply "and therefore she deserved death". I suggest you consider the consequences to your own self of people applying your own logic to you, and how long you would last if this was the general state of affairs.

I'll do you one better: Palestine Action is bankrolled by notorious pro-Russia tankie Fergie Chambers, who supports Vladimir Putin's genocidal campaign in Ukraine. So please add genocide sympathizer to your list.

[1] https://lamag.com/news/cox-family-heir-james-fergie-chambers...

"Palestine Action" is terrorism.

Spray painting a bunch of airplanes is terrorism. Got it.

Oh, and don’t come crying when the same authoritarian laws put in place for Palestine Action are used to label your cause as terrorism to quash dissent.

Guess you didn't see the footage of them attacking the police with sledgehammers?

https://news.sky.com/story/bodycam-footage-of-alleged-sledge...

Even if I hadn’t, I surely would have by now given the amount of “gotchas” in this thread using this crime as some kind of smoking gun justification for proscription.

But it is good to know that criminal assault is now equivalent to terrorism.

Whatever. I suggest you take some time to reflect on your biases. What if a group used similar tactics to try and shut down e.g. gay friendly spaces?

1) Uh.. not terrorism? Hate crime perhaps, but that should be decided by a jury, not unilaterally determined by the gov.

2) So arms manufacturers participating in a war (at best!) are now equivalent to.. gay establishments? I suggest thinking through your examples before sharing them :)

Ha, fair points. But i still think you're wrong. Any group going around hitting people with slegehammers shouldn't be tolerated.

What kind of dumbass title is this? 99.99% of the world is not afraid of silicon valley.

You can be a controversial figure politically and still build a generation defining product. The market rewards utility, not ideological purity.

The headline frames this as a paradox, as if these two things are incompatible. But they aren't mutually exclusive, he can be both.

Replit seems to be another company that doesn't justify it's valuation in this bubble

Replit has been around for years, has real users, and now reportedly real revenue

My bet is they sold lots if data for llm training

I think they are just hitting the consumer market hard. I have friends who have never coded & are using Replit. That said, not a single one of them has launched.

I can second this. I'm an online coding instructor and within our company Replit was the website/environment we were told to use with our students. I really didn't like it due to all the AI features (I believe that when you're learning to code you shouldn't use LLMs) but the collaboration features were really good.

Unfortunately they added a limit to the number of collaborators per account and we had to stop using it.

Are we still doing these kinds of lionizing puff pieces after SBF, Holmes, Musk and all the others? By now, I consider being featured in one a negative signal.

Model Y and Falcon 9 are fakes?

You've got to admit Holmes is an interesting character though.

I really don't.

Fair doos. I find con artists and hoaxers fascinating.

Seriously? She was a fake in every sense of the word, copying everything down to Steve Jobs' mannerisms, photo-ops, and black turtleneck sweater.

The only interesting bit is how so many investors were unable to see through the obvious act and also failed to do the due diligence which is the One Job of VC firms (i.e., if I'm an investor, I'm trusting the VC to do real due diligence, otherwise why wouldn't I just invest directly in the companies).

I find her interesting because she is such a fake. More than Steve Jobs in some ways. I'm always fascinated about how people can be taken in.

Touché — worth looking more into that aspect!

Reading through this piece and all I can think of is how he's just the other side of the same coin. Simply a different color of the same elitism that our world is moving into as money concentrates and starts to meddle more and more with our political spheres while accountability slowly errodes to zero.

I found the piece rambling and incoherent, but I don't really see how this follows. This is an individual Jordanian founder who made a political statement. That's not really the same thing as the deep integration between the Israeli state, Zionist organizations, and big tech.

The coin is wealthy people. They're different sides of that coin. Hence why the commenter above is sensing some malice from both sides.

Both sides of...what? I'm confused. Is the idea "all these people have a lot more money than I think they'll ever need and it makes me mad"? Me too. Just don't see how it's relevant.

The idea is that as money gets so concentrated, so does real political power. And with that concentration of political power comes extreme disregard for the opinions of the masses. I think it's a fair argument that the world has always catered to the will of rich people, but the difference now is that rich people are so unfathomably rich, and so much wealth is concentrated in so few.

I see, thank you.

More plainly on my part, though I'm worried sounds like berating when the comments are viewed consecutively: what does that have to do with the article we are discussing?

> “There was an aspect of, like, ‘Fuck the system,’” Masad said. “‘We need to remake civilization.’”

No matter what the political views, running into "real" money radicalizes most people and gives them the impression that they reached a superior evolutionary stage that uniquely entitles them... no, demands from them that they bend society and human civilization to their will, reshape it in their image, make it better because they are better. A sort of messianic complex.

This is the famous horseshoe paradox that says extremes are closer to each other than to the center. They might look completely different in their views but in reality they're back to back in the same place. 2 sides of the same coin. Different imprint, same value.

> but the difference now is that rich people are so unfathomably rich...

Compared to when? How many times in history has wealth been less concentrated?

As far as I'm aware, for almost all of history post-agriculture, wealth was highly concentrated while the average person lived in abject poverty (think: kings vs peasants). The mid-20th century was an era of mass prosperity in the US and parts of Europe, but it was an anomalous few decades, not the norm.

"The mid-20th century was an era of mass prosperity in the US and parts of Europe, but it was an anomalous few decades, not the norm."

But to those living and remembering that era - it was the norm that they (we) compare with, so it is the reference that matters.

Thank you

In the past you could find rich people on the battlefield. The last time America tried that was in Vietnam.

That is what has changed.

> How many times in history has wealth been less concentrated?

Mostly all of them! There have been periods where inequality dropped, but mostly it's been rising since at least the 1300s. I'm on mobile and can't link research, but there are a few papers that investigate this.

> As far as I'm aware, for almost all of history post-agriculture, wealth was highly concentrated while the average person lived in abject poverty (think: kings vs peasants).

And yet it was less unequal than now, an era where we've managed to use technology to concentrate wealth at an unprecedented scale. No longer is the richest person you know the king who collects your taxes next door, now it's a SV trillionaire on the other side of the world.

Last I checked the Koch Brothers weren’t Israeli. Do read up on them. Oversimplified narratives are bullshit.

The only difference being that he wants to replace those with himself and his.

As the article mentions, Saudi Arabia is aiming to build its own deep integration with big tech, which Masad is enthusiastically participating in despite the Saudi government's own human rights issues. (He argues, quite conveniently if true, that the Replit tools he sells to the Saudi government won't be used for any of the bad stuff.)

This clarifies things, thank you. I've gotten the impression that Masad doesn't have a very coherent worldview so I doubt he has given this contradiction much thought.

What gives you that impression?

Reading the article? The only thing resembling an ideology in there is a vague libertarianism of the like a lot of founders express.

His own incoherent worldview

What does "Zionist" mean to you? I honestly don't understand what it means when Israel has existed as a Jewish state for 76 years and seems likely to continue doing so for the foreseeable future.

Zionist has become the OK word used to bash Jewish people. You ask 10 people what the word means you'll get 11 answers.

Is 'Zionism' the expansion of Israel into other territories?

Is 'Zionism' the belief that Israel and the majority of the world's Jews shouldn't be exterminated?

I thought it meant the first, lately I think people are meaning the second.

Well put. It really does seem to be a k-word substitute in a lot of cases. I like the third definition.

Zionism is a political movement that perpetrates atrocities with the aim of removing jewish populations from other parts of the world and settling them in Palestine.

It consists mainly of christians. If you assemble ten random zionists most or all of them will be christians, not jews.

This is a very bizarre conspiracy theory definition.

Cristian evangelicals would be a much better term.

[flagged]

That's just the truth

[flagged]

Ideally

Zionism is older than the state of Israel. It is a political movement consisting mainly of christians.

If you want to learn more you could do worse than follow Zachary Foster's lectures for the Rutgers Center:

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=zachary+foster+...

The podcast The Empire Never Ended has recently finished a rather good series on Meir Kahane, one of the most important influences on contemporary zionism:

https://www.patreon.com/tenepod

Although Palestinian nationalism does predate modern Zionism as it was originally directed at the Ottoman Rulers.

Kahane, notably a terrorist and racial supremacist.

[dead]

[flagged]

> is how he's just the other side of the same coin.

Yes. And one side of the coin supports and justifies colonialism, apartheid and even genocide; the other side fights against it.

Is it apartheid that a jewish person cannot buy land in Palestinian controlled areas?

No. This question shows that you have no idea of what the word "apartheid" even means (or maybe you just hope that other readers don't), and that nonetheless you are ready to use it as a retort hoping to score some kind of cheap point. Not that I haven't seen precisely this behaviour a million times on this topic, but still: pathetic.

Hmmm...

apartheid /ə-pärt′hīt″, -hāt″/ noun

- An official policy of racial segregation formerly practiced in the Republic of South Africa, involving political, legal, and economic discrimination against nonwhites.

- A policy or practice of separating or segregating groups.

- The condition of being separated from others; segregation

Explain to me how this does not fit bullet point 2 and 3.

From The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition[1].

[1] https://www.wordnik.com/words/apartheid

No point explaining you something so simple. Go read something deeper about apartheid and its definition in some better source than the dictionary.

You can just admit you were wrong. It's okay.

I'm not a fan of a guy who builds a brand around politics. It will come around.

Like it has to other business guys who have built a brand around politics?

I think it has negatively affected Elon yes.

GPT wrapper.

Of all the tools I try and review, replit remains to be simply the worst in my opinion. I struggle to do anything useful with it except trivial hello world type of stuff. The bubble is real.

replit worked really well as a way to play with code ideas. Going from 0 to running code on their site is very handy. I can try something out in python without much setup, as someone who rarely uses the language.

I tried their AI coding feature a few months back, and it was quite bad, but it was interesting to watch it iterate.

[flagged]

It is not political; I did not know the owner had political opinions. I started using Replit before it had AI, had some ideas and they gave me a free year of AI last year when I complained it is so far behind the rest. And imho, it still is.

Like the other comment here: I just have much better outcomes with the same prompts with other tools. That is all I meant to say.

Cheers

Personally speaking, I get much better outcome from Lovable than Replit using same prompts.

Public opinion on Amjad shifted quite a bit in 2021 when he threatened to sue a former intern for his open-source project.

https://intuitiveexplanations.com/tech/replit/

Definitely was the end of Replit for me. I have that open source project (Riju) bookmarked though and use it from time to time.

My opinion on him shifted because along with Paul Graham, they're the only tech leaders who have stood up for Palestinians. I don't agree with Graham on everything either, but I've gained a lot of respect for him speaking out against Zionism. They're rich, but it still is difficult to go against the entire venture capital industry to do the right thing.

Completely agree with you on this. It will be an unfortunate exercise for future historians to look back on this time, crunch through the enormous amount of data with their quantum computers, and end up realizing just how many people were willing to condone the slaughter of innocent civilians.

You say this as if the side you're advocating for didn't start the war by killing over a thousand civilians.

Just in general, asserting that everyone will agree with your side in the future is such a bizarre rhetorical tactic. Do you honestly think this convinces anybody to reconsider their position?

My point equally applies to everyone who condones violence to achieve some end goal. Jeanette Rankin was vilified for her lone dissenting vote against war, yet decades later she is among the few of her contemporaries to have a statue in the Capitol to honor her dedication to pacifism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeannette_Rankin

All the violence in the region stems from the Zionist invasion, land theft and genocide.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakba

Only one side stormed through civilian areas killing everyone they met, and it wasn't the Israelis.

In my reply above, I evoked the memory of Jeanette Rankin, who was the lone dissenting vote against the Pacific War after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor (somewhat analogous to the October 7th attack).

It is a natural human tendency to desire that the people who inflict pain upon others to also feel pain inflicted upon them. This has been the human condition since ancient times, and yet the most revered figures in human history have been the pacifists who consistently advocate against violence (e.g. Gautama Buddha, Jesus Christ, Lao Tzu, Gandhi, MLK, etc).

Yes, it actually was and is the Israelis:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakba

Palestinians have every right to resist occupation.

Incredible that they have a term for a war they initiated and subsequently lost. Is whats happening now in Gaza also a Nakba?

Genuinely curious what you think would have happened if all the Islamic countries would not have attacked Israel. Would there be a peaceful Palestinian country? Guess we'll never know....

But that's all history. Your "occupation resistors" decided to rampage through towns and a music festival and massacre everyone they met. And somehow you seem okay with that.

Zionists committed the ethnic cleansing and invasion of Palestine. I invite anyone to click the link and read for themselves.

Yes, the Nakba is ongoing.

This was the first thing I remembered about Amjad. I have never thought highly of him since.

This guy isn't a mold-breaking radical, he's just a garden variety sociopath https://intuitiveexplanations.com/tech/replit/

Yup.

> Masad, 38, has felt obliged to speak out about Gaza ever since, calling out those in tech who, in his view, have supported Israel’s “genocide” of the Palestinian people.

This sentence would be better without the scare quotes. Something like "calling out those in tech who support what he views as a genocide."

I agree with you that it’s a genocide, but that is not universally accepted, so I think the scare quotes are OK. This article isn’t seeking to litigate the genocide in Gaza.

Scare quotes don’t mean that it’s not true.

The phrasing in the article shows very strong bias towards Israel in general

[flagged]

As it happens, genocide scholars disagree with you, and in any case, Gaza's population has not increased.

It's at least plausible that the population did increase. Estimates of births during the war are larger than the casualty count that Hamas claims.

It'd be nice if Israel would let UN fact-finding missionaries or other independent research teams into Gaza to find out (in addition to not barring and/or killing humanitarian aid workers)

Or even international media outside of proctored propaganda trips. They obviously have learned their lesson since the 1982 invasion.

It’s perfectly normal for militaries to have press restrictions in conflict zones, for opsec among other good reasons. No one bats an eye when Ukraine does it for example.

Bad analogy, for two reasons:

1. Ukraine’s media restrictions are virtually non-existent when compared to those enforced by the Israelis in Gaza, including the intentional bombing of media offices. Keep in mind that Hamas has repeatedly called upon Israel to allow foreign press and NGOs to visit and see what’s happening on the ground.

2. The Ukraine war is a conventional war between sovereign nations with standing militaries with equivalent capabilities (air force, anti-air defenses, armored vehicles, bomb shelters, etc). The Gaza genocide is an onslaught by a sovereign nation with a well equipped military against a militant group in a dense urban area. Leveling entire city blocks when fighting against an opponent that has no air force or anti-air capabilities is not only unimpressive, but also breaks the principle of proportionality.

1. It's pretty much the same - no press in dangerous areas unless invited and escorted by the military. The only major difference is that Ukraine is >1000x larger, and has safe areas far from any fighting where such press restrictions aren't needed.

2. You're making a bunch of separate accusations without connecting them to the topic at hand, which was press restrictions.

No, they’re not the same, and (2) is very relevant.

Let me reiterate: Ukraine is a sovereign nation with a sovereign military that has the ability to enforce restrictions within its own territory.

To bring your bad analogy more in line with reality on the ground, imagine if Ukraine was still part of/occupied by the USSR/Russia, and Russia enforced press restrictions across all of Ukrainian territory during a Ukrainian insurgency. However, in this theoretical USSR, Ukrainians did not get Soviet citizenship, and were under a total blockade.

> The only major difference is that Ukraine is >1000x larger, and has safe areas far from any fighting where such press restrictions aren't needed.

But Israel never allowed press into the strip, even during “ceasefire” periods - like right now! This implies that Israel is not somehow paternalistically concerned for press safety; it simply wants a media blackout.

So no, this “major difference” is irrelevant when comparing restrictions between the two conflicts.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Universally, modern militaries don't like journalists wandering around near their assets.

> and Russia enforced press restrictions across all of Ukrainian territory

Your analogy isn't very different from reality. Russia does enforce press restrictions near military assets, including in occupied parts of Ukraine.

> However, in this theoretical USSR, Ukrainians did not get Soviet citizenship, and were under a total blockade.

That would seem very unfair, if Russia did it just because they're mean and not because this hypothetical Ukraine had launched tens of thousands of rockets at them. But I'm not sure what it has to do with press restrictions.

> even during “ceasefire” periods

The ceasefire was pretty much dead once Hamas attacked IDF soldiers in Rafah. Now it's just a lower-intensity conflict. Still not a great idea to have random journalists waltzing around and tweeting photos of military assets.

> it simply wants a media blackout

This is a funny explanation because there are millions of cameras in Gaza anyway, and this is the second most covered conflict (by metrics like article count) in all of human history. Not much of a "blackout" at all.

Alright, your good faith arguments have convinced me! To summarize:

On one side, two sovereign nations setting press restrictions in areas they control. Standard stuff.

On the other side, a genocidal state blockading a tiny strip of land for 20 years waging a campaign that has killed & maimed so many children that we have lost count unilaterally enforcing a total international media blackout. Also standard stuff.

Silly me, how could I even argue about this? It’s just so damn obvious! Sometimes, arguing with random anons on HN pays off :)

You're just changing the topic with unrelated accusations. How nice or mean you think a military is irrelevant to the fact that they don't like random journalists tweeting photos of their military assets.

Next time, if you really want to have a serious discussion, cut the snark and try not to hide behind a throwaway. This is not Reddit.

Gaza population September 2023: 2.3 million. Gaza population September 2025: 2.1 million.

Hamas casualties make up only a portion of palestinian casualties; palestinian casualties make up only a portion of excess deaths; excess deaths make up only a portion of total deaths.

The next census will be in 2027. No one knows the population until then.

It’s not clear that Hamas limits their counts to excess deaths. Even if they intended to, a lot of it is based on a web form, with not much validation besides basic checks that the person exists etc.

As with pretty much any conflict, there's a ton of uncertainly, and people shouldn't be recklessly speculating based on things like WhatsApp chats. Responsible casualty estimates would look more like Ukraine, where for example Zelenskyy said "tens of thousands" (one significant digit) were killed in Mariupol.

Estimates of birth that rely on the mid-2023 figure and deliberately ignore Israel's systematic dismantling of the health and food systems in Gaza and the drop in fertility levels.

>the casualty count that Hamas claims

The Gaza Health Ministry's count is widely regarded as an underestimate, but mostly by people who don't refer to it with a dogwhistling caveat.

> The Gaza Health Ministry's count is widely regarded as an underestimate

You mean Hamas’ estimate? Why do you think Hamas would underestimate their death toll?

Because the infrastructure required to document the deaths systematically was bombed to hell.

4000 deliveries in march of 2025. 50000 pregnant woman [1]

50,000 births by july of 2024 (starting with october 7th 2023) [2]

you can sum and extrapolate the numbers. you can probably find more numbers about births

[1] https://www.savethechildren.net/news/about-130-children-born...

[2] https://www.savethechildren.net/news/women-self-inducing-lab...

I wasn’t going to reply but since you’ve been rescued from the flags: which “genocide scholars” think that in increase in population is possible during a genocide?

And yes, it has.

I figured it may have been because you decided to get informed about how genocides are identified by intent and not population deltas. But since you think a projection is the same thing as a census, that obviously isn't the case.

Regarding intent: if Israel intended to kill everyone in Palestine they’d nuke them, and not risk the lives of their children trying to ensure noncombatants are out of harms way in operations against Hamas.

interesting hearing his justification for working w Saudi but not Israel: He says he would never work with Israel now. “I think it’s an illegitimate and criminal government,” he told me during our gun safety training. “I mean, [Benjamin] Netanyahu is a war criminal.”

When I pointed out that Saudi Arabia has its own abysmal human rights record, Masad drew a contrast.

“I just think about how Replit is going to be used. Like, Israel is actively committing genocide and ethnic cleansing, and if you sell to the government there, it’s possible that they’re going to use it for that,” he said, pointing to the country’s use of Microsoft cloud services to track Palestinians’ phone calls. (After an investigation by The Guardian, Microsoft said it disabled the services that made the tracking possible in September."

Seems like a silly excuse. If his concern is that Israel could use Replit for military purposes, then SA is perfectly capable of doing the same. And SA has - directly or indirectly - killed more people in Yemen than Israel has in Gaza.

I mean, if he was really consistent, he'd also not be operating a business in America, given America is responsible for the deaths of millions of innocent civilians (more than Israel and SA combined) in recent history.

I'd love to hear an argument for this being true that doesn't involve counting all of the deaths caused by Sunni-Shia sectarian violence in Iraq, suicide bombings in civilian markets, ISIS etc. as caused by America.

Well there's Vietnam, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, Libya etc which would tally ~300k civilian deaths alone. Given the blatantly false pretences that America invaded Iraq under, and the sectarian violence that significantly flared post-Saddam, I don't see why you'd not want to involve Iraq in the stats?

I accept US responsibility for a great many of the civilian deaths caused in Vietnam. I don't accept US responsibility for Islamists of different varieties blowing up each other's markets and places of worship with weapons provided by Iran and Syria.

So you don't accept the fact that a lot of this sectarian violence flared after the toppling of Saddam, which was because of the US? And how many of the deaths do you attribute to the sectarian violence, as opposed to the direct actions of the US in the region?

The VAST majority of the deaths were from sectarian violence.

That was caused by a power vacuum and US's intentional act to oust the Ba'ath Party, remove all control from a country and it will fall to chaos especially when blood feuds are involved .

This response seems to remove all agency from the actual people killing each other.

This seems to be a theme of people with certain political inclinations. "It's really America's fault they're blowing themselves up in crowded markets because...."

After toppling Saddam Hussein the US took political control in the country and decided who got to decide what. The slaughter that followed was a direct and rather predictable result of this.

Hey, get with the times. Whitewashing jihadis is in vogue these days.

Do you believe the violence would have happened without the US invasion?

Probably not the same violence. But Saddam would have kept genociding the Kurds if he stayed in power. And maybe launched another war against Iran.

[flagged]

What is your preferred term for individuals and groups whose stated goal is to create a non-pluralistic religious state advantaging specifically their own religious sect, and whose means involves committing public mass killing of civilians along sectarian religious lines?

Religious zelots. There is nothing specifically Islamic in that description.

Yes but the context was a discussion specifically about Iraq.

Republicans?

(come on, it's just a joke. we're still allowed to laugh at jokes, right?)

[flagged]

"responsible" is a weasel word. By that logic China is also "responsible" for Cambodia genocide 1975-1979, and who are responsible for Sudan famine?

[dead]

Am I in some weird alternative universe where Israel did not just engage in a genocidal campaign against a population of Palestinians that are descendants of refugees from their prior genocidal campaign? Israel just finished killing probably over a hundred thousand civilians. The displaced the majority of Gaza. They destroyed the vast majority of its hospitals and universities and public infrastructure. They killed foreign aid workers even after those foreign aid workers cleared their routes with Israelis. Israeli soldiers raped Palestinians on camera. Then those solders were celebrated on public Israeli television and by the Israeli government. Attempts to prosecute those solders resulted in punishment for the prosecutors.

Is Saudi Arabia a human rights violator? Yeah and so is a bunch of western governments. But no modern government comes close to the abuses of the Israeli government and Israeli military. This is the view of the free people of this world.

> from their prior genocidal campaign

Not only there is not a good argument for considering 1948 war a genocide on Palestinians but there is a much stronger argument Arabs have tried to genocide Jews (especially to those who think who think there was a genocide in Gaza because of starvation as a weapon of war + intent):

1. In 1948 Arab forces besieged Jerusalem and they were starting to run out of food.

2. Azzam Pasha, General Secretary of the Arab League, famously threatened "a war of extermination and a momentous massacre", Fawzi al-Qawuqji, commander of the Arab Liberation Army said that "we will have to initiate total war. We will murder, wreck and ruin everything standing in our way, be it English, American or Jewish.". Hell, several have even extended the threats to not just the Jews of Mandatory Palestine, but to Jews of the Arab world as a whole, such as Iraqi prime minister Nuri al-Said("if a satisfactory solution of the Palestine case was not reached, severe measures should be taken against all Jews in Arab countries.") or the head of the Egyptian delegation to the General Assembly, Muhammad Hussein Heykal("the lives of 1,000,000 Jews in Muslim countries would be jeopardized by the establishment of a Jewish state." ). As Matiel Mughannam, head of the Arab Women's Organization in Palestine put it in an interview with Nadia Lourie in January 1948, "The UN decision has united all Arabs, as they have never been united before, not even against the Crusaders.... [A Jewish state] has no chance to survive now that the `holy war' has been declared. All the Jews will eventually be massacred. " (See Benny Morris' 1948 for sources on all of these)

Please. There is literally documentaries with retirement age Israelis laughing about the horrible things they did to ethnically cleanse Jaffa and Haifa and various parts of historic Palestine. You accepting real war crimes that have happened repeatedly — from before Israel to now — at the hands of blood thirsty European Zionist settlers against Palestinians because of some rhetoric of Arab leaders? The way Zionists can act like victims when their victims get angry and fight back. It’s like that famous quote by that Ukrainian settler of Palestine that was a prime minister “we will never forgive the Arabs for making us kill their children” or something like that. Psychopaths.

Typical hasbara whataboutism, equating a statement by one guy that may or may not have been said 70 years ago to a livestream slaughter we just witnessed, where more than 50% of Israelis say "not enough force was used", not just offhanded remarks by radical leaders, which there are literal gigabytes of from Israelis of all walks of life. Just open up any popular political figure's Twitter and you'll see the most horrific statements, and not just statements, but action.

It isn't whataboutism to point out a wrong claim. Which statement is "a statement by one guy that may or may not have been said 70 years ago"? I gave four. I have made no claims about the current situation (and there was also plenty of action in 1948).

It is when your trying to deflect. Your source is Benny Morris lmao, that's one unreliable source for all "four statements"

These are famous quotes. Are you arguing that somehow Benny Morris made them up and tricked everyone to think they are real?

More than 70000 including 20000 children? Wow thats a lot.

You say that like it's unrealistic. The accepted death toll for the conflict in Yemen is nearly 400,000 people.

If your primary cause is Palestine then it's pretty internally consistent?

Pecunia non olet.

[money doesn't stink]

It truly does though. Any significant pile of it stinks of exploitation and death.

[flagged]

> blowing up kids

not to refute the difference in extent but this is somewhat notable https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dahyan_airstrike

The Saudi war against Houthis was more brutal than the Gaza war. 70,000 dead from only starvation for starters. But not only is it not genocide it doesn't even enter conscious awareness as a thing that happened. I wonder why.

Because Americans mostly don’t care about world events unless they involve us directly.

Gaza is a welcome aberration.

So I got excited and used Replit because I heard about it in a Diary of a Ceo podcast. Spent days working on my project, it was working in their unique tech stack and when I did local git commits it locked some files and conflicted with their replit agent also doing git operations and got stuck in a loop where the fix was to do a git reset --hard and reset the state.

Unfortunately their tooling locks me out from doing that and I wouldn't get help from their team after asking twice and getting moved to several different support members of their team. They just ghosted me and so I left and took my business elsewhere. Doesn't seem like it was made for advanced users.

Unfortunate.

Unsurprising, the Diary of a CEO guy is a snake oil salesman. Awful interviewer, but very good at self promotion.

The idea of "advanced users" of vibe coding is interesting.

"one being so good that anyone can become a software engineer".

Of course, smartphones' cameras are so good and accessible, but not anyone who became a professional photographer?

And of course, isn't software engineering far beyond than simply writing code in any form - whether in English or in symbols?

Yes but smartphones decimated photography jobs, especially on the low end.

Pareto principle in action - smartphones are good enough for 80% of use cases. And so is AI for a lot of junior-level work.

The problem is, when there are no trainee and junior positions (and, increasingly, intermediate) being filled any more... there is no way for people to rise to senior levels. And that is going to screw up many industries hard.

Many industries have hit this without AI. One example is surveying: it used to be that you’d have a crew of survey techs moving around equipment and measuring reference points, a crew chief, and a licensed surveyor directing and signing off on them. Those techs and crew chief were the future surveyors, as licensed surveyor requires x years working under supervision.

Now there’s one or two guys out there with a total station and/or drone. You’ve gone from 10 techs/junior positions per surveyor to 1. The average surveyor is something like 60 years old and has no successor lined up.

They still teach surveyors how to throw chains in schools.

It's kinda valuable to know the fundamentals and how to work even when technology fails.

Smartphone cameras didn't turn everyone into a professional photographer, but they did radically expand who can take usable photos, experiment, and occasionally produce something valuable without years of training

Programming is mostly a craft. Engineering would be more like designing algorithms.

That's research. Engineering would be programming, but well. Taking into account future maintenance concerns and so on. Seems like the software world doesn't do a lot of it.

craft: downloading an 8088 emulator and using it

engineering: implementing an 8088 emulator

science: discovering a way to make an 8088 emulator using quantum computing

> Engineering would be programming, but well.

Software engineering is systems and measurement.

Capacity planning, growth rates, algorithmic complexity (typically not to the point of designing new fundamental algorithms), durability, DR, eventual consistency, race conditions, schema design, systems architecture, instrumentation, statistics, sampling, more measurement, tech debt maintenance and pragmatism, online migrations, designing for five nines uptime ...

Programming is turning requirements into code with or without respect to these higher level criteria. The implementation detail.

"Engineering would be programming, but well" fits :)

Just like word processing software and LLMs meant anyone can become a journalist. /s

"was called" - who was behind that?

Weasel words, basically. All too common in journalism. It's also common on Wikipedia but Wikipedia acknowledges it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word

that quotes attributed to "investors," according to Masad. but some of the most heinous stuff people said to him is public: https://x.com/rabois/status/1943804360863232513 "your friends should have not raped murdered and killed kids."

It's Twitter - that's how a lot of people (or bots) say hi.

[flagged]

“Masad insists he speaks up even when it hurts his business. In that regard, ‘I’m probably the only contrarian in Silicon Valley.’”

The only contrarian, just like everyone else.

He and Paul Graham, truly are the only people speaking out against Zionism though. The rest of the VC industry is either staunchly pro-Israel or silent on the matter.

> He and Paul Graham, truly are the only people speaking out against Zionism

Not sure what about this is contrarian.

Going against everyone in your industry is contrarian. There are countless threads where Masad is attacked by mainstream venture capitalists and called "antisemitic" or "terrorist". Same with paulg.

That kinda depends on what questions the industry revolves around, doesn't it? For example, if I was once of the only vegetarian at YC, I don't think it would make me a contrarian. And it especially wouldn't if my background was of a Vegetarian-based religion.

Being against genocide and land theft is the correct side obviously.

[flagged]

Yes, the apartheid genoicdal terrorist state currently blocking aid should cease to exist in it's current form, that's a basic humanitarian position right now, hope that helps

What an interesting tile. Is the value of his AI company expected to overcome the 'terrorist sympathizer' allegation? Is this how it works always or just when the person is inside the present Overton Window?

Let's try Elon Musk then: "He was called a 'fascist'. Now, his tech company is valued $1.5T"

This is the way, right?

“Terrorist sympathiser” doesn’t mean much these days. People call Ms. Rachel a “terrorist sympathiser” and “antisemite of the year” for not wanting kids to die or become amputees

> “Terrorist sympathiser” doesn’t mean much these days.

I guess it means almost as little as "fascist" then.

> I guess it means almost as little as "fascist" then.

Which I guess means almost as little as "antisemite" then.

All these things are so amusing. Amjad Masad dislikes Israel and is fine with Saudi Arabia. Palmer Luckey will spend his life doing rainman calculations on the angle of the car in Minneapolis. One is a “terrorist”, other is a “fascist”.

But you can tell it’s all motivated reasoning. Standing with your tribe. It’s not much of a matter of honour. It’s just flashing your banners.

In the end, they are wealthy, but they are just people. And they have all these things and why do I really care what Ja Rule has to say about the new cyclone.

Excellent reference at the end, thanks for making me feel old. :)

I respect him for standing up for his people. It’s honorable, in my opinion. It would be dishonorable (and easy) to be a mercenary, profit-seeking individual with loyalty to no one but himself.

Everyone stands up for their people. Tribalism is the most primitive form of society. Standing for principle is harder because sometimes you have to speak against your tribe.

Yes, it would be dishonorable to be mercenary, but being a tribalist is merely the default position. We’re all so at some scale.

> Palestinian man is ok working with the Saudis At least it isn't the UAE but... really? Still happy for him though.

[flagged]

I'd say SBF takes that title, followed by holmes and the wework clown

[flagged]

[flagged]

[flagged]

Please do remind people more because they sure as hell need it.

No. Jews have the right to live in their own homeland and anyone who thinks otherwise is a racist.

I suspect most people that spend their time online ranting out 'zionists' (meaning 98% of Jews) haven't bothered to read any Herzl.

Trying to frame the violent expulsion of Palestinians from their homeland as just "Jews trying to live in their own homeland".. isn't working in 2026 and nobody needs to read the thoughts of a man who saw Cecil Rhodes as a kindred spirit.

Forgetting the part where Arabs tried to violently expel the Jews from Palestine? And the part where Jews were expelled from several Arab countries?

Anyone would resist occupation and ethnic cleansing.

Remember when Germany lost the second world war, lost a third of its territory, had millions ethnically cleansed from said territory and then proceeded to not maintain a goal to wipe Poland off the map (again)?

Zionists are the Nazis in this scenario, and yes we will ultimately defeat them.

How is Arab conquest of Palestine "resistance"? Palestine was at the time controlled by the Byzantine Empire: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Muslim_conquest_of_Jerus...

Yarmuk 636 is one of the most depressing events in history.

Whenever I read about that or the disasters that ensued in the following centuries I always spend a day depressed.

Grim.

Jews were not only expelled from Arab counties, catholic too.

Jews left Arab stats on their own accord because of rise of Zionism.

Arab were the only folks who accepted Jews in the first place as they sought refuge from Nazi Europe

I don't know where you got this narrative from, but it doesn't align with historical accounts at all.

No. Speak to Persian and Iraqi Jews about their expulsion.

You can also look up arab violence and laws against Jews at any time you like. When the belief system mentions fighting Jews at the end of time when the trees will reveal them (except the evil Jew loving tree, yes really) you tend to act on those beliefs.

You mean the well-documented terrorist operations by Israel against Jews in the Arab disaspora? The terrorist state started with terrorism and sustained through it.

I actually think he is referring to these events, both happening before the establishment of Israel: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farhud https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shiraz_pogrom

The focus on a particular location is a religious one (in the scriptures there was a Jewish homeland before Israel or Egypt, and Israel is singled out because God told them to go), but it's also a selective one that ignores all the times God arranged for Israel not to be there; and crucially does not stop and wait for His opinion about the present. It is the most dangerous kind of religious opinion: one invented by us.

Herzl makes no religious argument, he is fairly close to an atheist. That’s why I mentioned people should read the book or a summary before commenting on the matter.

I don't think the "homeland" idea could have come from anywhere but religion. For one thing, there's a three (?) thousand year precedence.

Of course there could be, and Hertzel writes about it explicitly - the idea that Jews need a homeland because antisemitism makes it impossible for them to live within another people.

In regard to religion itself, like the other post said, he couldn't really care less and even advocated for Jews to convert to Christianity at a time, seeing it as another solution to the discrimination they're facing: "I see myself as an average modern Jew and I'm not afraid from the idea of a formal conversion to Christianity. I have a son, and I'd prefer converting today and not tomorrow so that his membership will start earlier and I can save him from the troubles and discrimination he'll face as a Jew".

Look, there's no way the coordinates this guy triangulated lined up with the religious site by chance. That would be similar to the odds that a flawed calculation of the age of the earth would turn out to be 6,000 years. If he had said anywhere else that argument might be right, but not of all places the temple mount, the one place in the world nobody would need any explanation for. If you're saying he was writing from a pragmatic standpoint, perhaps he argued that it would be convenient and more conducive to organizing power to follow along with what others believed: but that's still based on the religious thought.

Of course it did not happen by coincidence, but Hertzel himself was considering other places too. There were real discussions around the best location, and finally it was agreed that Mandatory Palestine is the place most Jews would unite around - due to history, religion, culture, existing population etc.

My point is that the idea that Jews need a homeland was prior to the idea of the exact location it should take place in. If you bundle history, culture, belief and a like into the word "religion", then sure, we can say that the later decision of the exact location was based on religion. For us non-religious Jews that sounds awkward: we feel connected to the place because of our culture, not because of our non-existing religious feelings - but that's just semantics.

I guess we have just been talking semantics. I am only saying that the cultural view came from the religious view originally. I don't think that is something many people would disagree about.

There are other groups that could claim the same: Romany/Gypsies would be a big one but no one seems to want to claim a North Indian homeland for them; Sikhs might be another.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but if there are other groups who are being discriminated against, and have a strong connection to a specific place on earth - be it Romany, Palestinians or whoever - I definitely wouldn't be the one objecting their right for self-determination. The way I studied Zionism as a child was clear: through our (Jews') right to a land we can understand the right to land of others.

Roma do have a supposed homeland in India and have been badly persecuted. There is an exceptionalism about Zionism. Many features can be found elsewhere. When I've seen Haredi in Israel, they look like Eastern Europeans to me in their mannerisms, dress (inappropriate for the heat) and even language. I personally think European Jews succeed better in the USA than Israel. Israel is under siege all the time. I have spent a few months in Israel. I left with a very different opinion.

"I don't believe in god but he promised me this land 3000 years ago" sums up Zionism pretty well, or "Jews aren't safe anywhere so let's create a state by wiping out and expelling the native population and make enemies of all our neighbors". It's such a laughably self-contradicting ideology

The effect you're describing is often created when people with very distinct views agree on one thing and argue in favor of it along conflicting axiomatic lines.

Except none of these statements are part of the Zionist agenda. You putting them in quotes does not make them a quote.

I already explained why your first "quote" is false: Hertzel didn't think Jews should move to Israel because it was promised to them.

The second one is also completely wrong: He never called for expelling the native population, and he actually advocated for close and good contacts with them and the surrounding countries.

Damn those racist Haredi Jews, right?

Don't get too excited about their views - they very much believe that the land belongs to Jews, they just think they should wait for the Messiah to give us the signal before going there.

It's funny how people associate their views with humanism: they are simply extremely religious and on this specific question, the current result of their extreme beliefs happen to align with yours.

I recommend _Culture in Nazi Germany_ by Michael K Kater. [0]

The push for a Zionist state started and accelerated in the 1920s to the end of the 1930s. Most of the Jews that moved from Europe to Palestine, which was part of modern day Israel, were by the Zionists. Reason is because the only jobs at the time were farming so people would have to give up their current triad.

Number of these individuals actually supported fascism. Even after WWII the mind set was not that fascism was bad but poorly implemented. That mind set was shared by a number of Germans and Jews that moved to Palestine before Israel became a state.

It was not until the late 1960s that younger culture started to shift that mind set to fascism is bad.

If you think I am wrong about the summation of the book ... read it.

[0] https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300253375/culture-in-naz...

As mentioned, I recommend going directly to the source. The clearest indication of what Zionism is the father of modern Zionism and Israel: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/25282/25282-h/25282-h.htm

It's a hundred pages. If someone hasn't read it, or even a summary, they have little knowledge of Zionism. WW2 was far after the modern return of Jews to Israel.

I grew up in a very left leaning, pro terrorism household. I was absolutely wrong about what Zionism was - not a 'God promised me this because I'm special" as I was told but rather "racism means we need a homeland let's all go back to Israel".

You sound like you’re trying to collapse the term into a single definition based on one guy, which just doesn’t match the variety of people and motivations using it today. Christian white nationalists in the US are not calling themselves Zionist because “we need a homeland, let’s all go back to Israel”.

You might as well say that Republicans are the party that fought the Confederates and freed the slaves. It is not true today.

How does having a religious base state prevent bigotry and discrimination? Both are mutually exclusive.

In the world, Jews discriminate against Jews, Christians discriminate against Christians, Muslims discriminate Muslims, ... A religious state can only have one variant of religion that is deemed the right variation even though multiple variations exist.

The closest thing to a non bigot and discriminating state is one that is not built on religion but accepts other people and allows them to exercise their variation of religion.

Earth is the home land of humans not a politically divided territory.

> How does having a religious base state prevent bigotry and discrimination?

Jews are an ethnoreligious group. You can be an atheist and return to Israel if you want. 20% of the population is Arab, with more rights than most Arab countries, for example Arabs in Israel vote for Arab politicians that argue with other Arab politicians in the Knesset, in Arabic.

Likewise Druze are more protected in Israel than they are in the rest of the middle East.

> prevent bigotry and discrimination

Israeli Arabs have the same rights as Jews, Asians and Europeans.

"More rights than most Arab countries" lmao sure, just cause you keep repeating a slogan doesn't make it true, that's called propaganda, there's very systematic and well-documented racism towards anyone who's not a Jew

Arabs in Israel are certainly much better off then Jews in Muslim countries.

When it comes to their most basic democratic rights - the right to vote and the right to be elected - they're also better than most Arabs in Arab countries.

[flagged]

> Jewish homeland is Poland, Russia, Germany

Jews have been in the Levant longer than they’ve been in Germany. (And in both for less time than they’ve been in America.)

The problem is with the notion of a homeland. Whose ancestors had what claim to something shouldn’t have bearing on how people are treated today.

Ashkenazis are Europeans.

Less than half of Israelis are Askenazi, and unless your solution is to "ethnically cleanse" by sending people back to the countries their grandparents fled, it hardly matters.

Americans and Europeans have the false notion that Israeli Jews are predominantly European. They are not.

Returning land to the people it was brutally taken from is not “ethic cleansing”. The right of return is still valid.

While I agree that the land has been taken by force, unfortunately returning the land is no longer an acceptable option.

The land of Israel has been developed in such a way that it has become completely different from what it was one century ago, and there is no doubt that its previous owners could have never succeeded to do a similar development, due to a combination of lacking both the financial means and the skilled labor capabilities.

While I believe that returning the land would be unjust at this time, I also believe that the never-ending war between Israelis and their neighbors can be stopped in only 2 ways, one of which is not acceptable in the modern world and which would bring eternal shame on Israel if they would ever succeed to realize it.

The second option is for Israel to do the same that Israel has demanded and has obtained from states like Germany. This means that Israel should admit that they have occupied the land by force and they should repair this by paying a just compensation to the remaining descendants of the former inhabitants, exactly like Israel has received from countries responsible for the oppression against Jews during WWII.

You need to take into account that Zionists are aging out of the population. The younger generations in the West absolutely support military action against Israel. If it was taken by force, it can be returned by force. I would definitely support US military action against Israel to defeat Zionism.

Do you not understand the irony of what you are saying?

I’m speaking historically, not ironically.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakba

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irgun

At some point, all land has been taken either by direct force, or by the threat of force.

All land, everywhere. It is NOT a natural right that anyone owns any land, nor that any countries exist. That is something everyone's ancestors fought each other for and created as a system of human society.

Of course that's written in the past tense. Facing reality rather than the fantasy presented in history books and documentaries; not only did our ancestors do that, it hasn't stopped. The bloodshed still happens today in so many places. Those we might hear about in the news, and others forgotten even in the news because it is considered normal and thus ignored.

We are not yet a species of plenty. Scarcity still exists, at the very least in the real form of land where people want to be.

> At some point, all land has been taken either by direct force, or by the threat of force

You're broadly correct. But there is land that was settled within the historical record.

The Levant, obviously, is not that. It was settled prior to the historical record. It is the coast closest to our cradle of civilisation. Every human with ancestry outside Africa has some sort of claim to lineage to that land.

Seems overstated and contrived to use 'all land'.

  Antarctica is Earth's southernmost and least-populated continent.

  Situated almost entirely south of the Antarctic Circle and surrounded by the Southern Ocean [ and ] is the fifth-largest continent, being about 40% larger than Europe, and has an area of 14,200,000 km2 (5,500,000 sq mi).

There was no one to "take it from" and when it was divided up by "Great powers" that was more by competition (race to open routes) and some notion of good sport:

  Antarctica was claimed by several states since the 16th century, culminating in a territorial competition in the first half of the 20th century when its interior was explored and the first Antarctic camps and bases were set up.

Then there are the more remote parts of Australia, nominally "taken" by the English (despite not being reached for some time) and later returned (post Mabo) to the descendants of what seems likely to be first settlers some tens of thousands of years past (the multiple waves of settlement arguments and other aspects of the History Wars in the Black Armband / Quadrant circles are looking thin in these days of genetic markers).

But that one's a complex can of worms that takes some time to unpack.

Do 850K middle eastern Jews have the right to return to Arab counties? Or will they be killed?

No land was stolen. All land was purchased before the war. All land taken after wars was taken after wars started by the Arabs.

That's always been the case with nations who lost wars. Germany lost the war and lost land because of it. Should Germany take back land that was "brutally taken from them"?

Or should they maybe just accept that they shouldn't have started the war? The Germans certainly have accepted that.

If a war has finished, should the victor still be able to keep taking land off the loser? What’s the duration of that right?

> If a war has finished, should the victor still be able to keep taking land off the loser? What’s the duration of that right?

Practically? In 2026? As long as you can keep it. We're back to deciding borders through force versus treaty. Which, based on the rhetoric around Gaza, is ambiguously worse.

> Ashkenazis are Europeans

Okay? So are most American Jews.

Most humans can legitimately claim ancestry to the Levant. It's the coast closest to the cradle of civilization.

There is absolutely evil happening in Gaza. But pretending this is black-and-white, from an ocean away, is just alienating. It turns what should be a broad political discussion into a niche issue.

Most people on the planet view this as a black and white issue. Zionists are the modern day Nazis and I don't see a lot of sympathy for them.

Do you have an example? I've studied quite a bit of Hertzel and what I mainly remember repeated to us is "We shall never discriminate between one man and another; We shall never ask 'what is your religion?' nor 'what is your race?'. For us it is enough that he is a human being." and "My will to the People of Israel: create your country in such a way, that the non-Jew will feel good to be your neighbour".

Sure:

In a diary entry from June 12, 1895, Herzl detailed his plan: "We shall try to spirit the penniless [Palestinian] population across the border by denying it any employment in our own country... Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly".

The Arab homeland is in Arabia, not Palestine. Palestine is a Roman creation after the destruction of Judea. It was named after a group of European invaders who conquered a small part of Israel 3000+ years ago.

Arabs aren't native to Palestine. Jews are. They were present in Palestine before the name Palestine was ever used.

Palestinians are native to Palestine. Judea and Arabia do not exist.

[flagged]

Exactly. It's usually the Zionist sources themselves that are unabashedly genocidal and supportive of ethnic cleansing.

More recent example is Bari Weiss, who wrote in 2021:

"The results of this mess, as always, are especially bad for the Palestinians who live under Hamas rule. Casualty reports are hard to verify because Hamas controls the media (even the international press) inside the Gaza Strip, but it appears that more than 50 Palestinians have been killed. Some of these people are entirely innocent non-combatants, including children. This is an unspeakable tragedy. It is also one of the unavoidable burdens of political power, of Zionism's dream turned into the reality of self-determination."

So according to Bari Weiss, the mass slaughter of children is one of Zionism's political responsibilities of power.

[flagged]

Yes I'm sure if the settlers who forced Amjad Masad's people into refugee camps were a different religion he'd be fine with it.

[flagged]

It's really not and I don't think it's worth arguing with you but.. Zionism is the establishment of a Jewish majority state.. which requires the expulsion of much of the existing non-Jewish population. That not the same as other countries acknowledging the borders of Palestine.

[flagged]

Palestinians are the indigenous people to the land who were ethnically cleansed via Nakba. It's not "nationalism" to allow people to return to the land that was stolen from them.

The crux of the problem is that there are multiple peoples with reasonably legitimate claims to the same indigeneity.

I don’t agree that Europeans have a legitimate claim to Palestinian land. I could convert to Judaism and “birthright” my way into occupied Palestine. That’s not legitimate.

No there aren't. Where is the legitimacy if Jewish claims to the land? That it says so in their religious texts? Ffs.

Maybe because most of them were born there and also their parents and grandparents?

That is called birthright and the way I see it, it applies to both groups. And the conflict will never be solved (without large scale genocide), if both groups largely negate the other groups rights.

You're right, expelling Israelis from Palestine would be a crime exactly as it's been a crime expelling Palestinians. While I believe that Jews had no right in the first place to immigrate there, this doesn't change the status of their descendants who are born there and whose families are born there.

But let's be clear on this: Jews that are not currently in Israel have no right to immigrate there. Jews that are in Israel have no right on any part of the land that isn't already part of Israel proper; and finally, Jews (exactly as much as Palestinians do) have a right to life, property and safety but not necessarily to their own political entity.

But what about Palestinians who were born elsewhere? Do they have a right to go back to their ancestors land?

To me it seems close to the arguments of the jewish who see themself as native, "just" on a larger timescale. There is no easy solution that I can see. (except letting go of fanatism)

In the case of Palestinians, "their ancestors" means their fathers or grandfathers. They still have the keys of their homes. In the case of Jews, it means some mythical ancestor of 2 thousand years ago or more.

But yes, the question of the "right of return" of Palestinian refugees is a tough one; but I think it's a distraction. The very minimum the international community should force Israel to, is to withdraw within the 1967 border and cease any interference with the territory and sovereignty of Palestinians. It won't happen because the goal of Israelis and Zionists everywhere is to conquer as much land as they can, and a constant state of attrition is the excuse they need to keep settling more ethnically-cleansed land.

Connecting these two concepts like Netanyahu et. al. are constantly (insincerely) doing, is actually breeding real antisemitism. I wish more people realized this.

I wish people didn’t justify and excuse racism.

Explanations aren't justifications, nor excuses. Most things happen for reasons.

The reason is because they are racist.

Saying “individuals of that race are the reason racists hate all of them” is a circular explanation for racism.

Why are they racist? I assume you're not saying that some people are born racist, and other people are born anti-racist.

We know that racists exist.

Blaming individuals within the victim race for the racism is itself racist but also illogical. Someone who wasn’t already a racist wouldn’t start hating the whole group because of individuals.

Someone with a tendency towards racist generalisations might start disliking a particular group due to the zeitgeist identifying "disliking the behaviour of a political entity" with "disliking all members of an ethnic group", though. If they previously didn't hold any such views, then they would go from "not racist" to "racist". (If you disagree with my category boundaries, you can construct your own similar example for your preferred category boundaries.)

Just because something's wrong, that doesn't mean it's illogical. A logical conclusion from flawed premises is still logical.

It’s illogical even if you think racism is good.

Your reason for them becoming a racist depends on them already being a racist.

Anyway, we’re going in circles here. Some people are racists because they are assholes. Many people are racist because they are trained in a culture that encourages racism against certain groups.

All racists point to the actions of individuals as “evidence” or “justification” or “cause” of their racism.

The difference being that racists who do so are factually incorrect, when they blame the victims. You've just pointed to the actions of individuals (those who trained the racist in the racist culture) as a potential cause, and I'm inclined to agree with you: does that make us racists? I think not.

I don't think we should treat extremely powerful men as powerless victims of antisemitism who've done nothing to stoke the flames, a priori. Maybe they haven't: I certainly don't blame George Soros for the George Soros conspiracy theories (even though he partly does: I think he's wrong to blame himself any amount, since a non-Jew doing Black Wednesday or philanthropy wouldn't have emboldened the antisemites). But people in charge of states and militaries, who've been accused of war crimes by rather a lot of international justice bodies, who rarely let a chance to say "if you hate our decisions, you hate all members of this group" pass them by? They might be contributing to the bigotry. If a racist said something like that, we'd rightly condemn it as stoking the flames of hatred: why should it be any different, if someone else says it?

Ridiculous. Most of the world has a negative view of Zionism, as they should, and ethnosupremacy in general.

Most of the world has a positive view of self-determination for every other group; Ukrainians, Palestinians, the Irish, etc.

Those groups are indigenous to the land they live on and didn't create their "state" 75 years ago by ethnically cleansing other people's homeland.

There are 2 million Arabs in Israel. There are 0 Jews in areas under full Palestinian control.

Yes, they have successfully resisted Zionist invasion.

> Those groups are indigenous to the land they live on

Homo Sapiens is only indigenous to South Africa, pedantically speaking.

And think about how absurd it would be for anyone on the planet to go murder Africans and steal their land under the guise of it being our “homeland”. Sadly that has happened, but they didn’t bother to use that excuse.

There's nothing supremacist about Zionism, it's just the support of Jewish self-determination. Efforts to twist it into something nefarious are just propaganda with no etymological basis.

Think about what you're saying. Zionism the idea that a particular ethnic group (the Jews) will have the authority to determine what happens in their country (Israel). That is a textbook case of ethnic supremacism. And that's not even mentioning the violent expulsion of the Arabs that this de facto entailed.

Most Zionists have a goal of preserving a Jewish majority for pragmatic reasons - history has shown that it's the only way to ensure the safety of Jews. That's not a supremacist ideology at all.

Moreover, no country is perfect, and we shouldn't have double standards just for Israel. Can you identify any other Middle Eastern country that compares favorably, in terms of diversity and tolerance of all religions and ethnicities?

If I were to say:

'I believe whites need to hold all authority in the United States, and must have a permanent demographic majority (for practical reasons, of course)'

then you might call me a white supremacist. I might reply:

'I'm not a supremacist, we must secure self-determination in order to secure the future of our people.'

You would gently remind me that this is exactly what a supremacist is.

So yes, please, no double standards. Also, the rest of the Middle East is just as bad, no arguments there, but it's beside the point.

Zionists aren't indigenous to Palestine and have no right to that land.

Zionism is a political view; a Zionist can be from anywhere just as a socialist can. Jews are indigenous to Judea though.

Others have a right to live in the region too, hence proposals to share the land, such as the partition plan or the 2000 Camp David offer.

Judaism is a religion. Jews are from all over the place. Almost none from Palestine.

"Judaism" sometimes refers to the religion, but many Jews are not religious. Jews are a group of people from Judea, hence its historical name. Some dispersion to other regions doesn't change where a group of people is from.

Judea does not exist. If you’re talking about Palestine, very few Jews are from there pre-dating Zionist invasion.

That doesn't make sense. Zionism depends on antisemitism, so true antisemites are by definition pro-Zionist.

There are a couple problems with this view:

- You could say that antisemites are a cause of Zionism, but that doesn't mean they intentionally support it. Not all antisemites are of the "go back to Palestine" type.

- Just as "antisemitism" doesn't actually mean hate of Semetic people, "antizionism" doesn't actually mean opposition to Zionism. Instead it developed into a rather separate hate movement. Many antizionism ostensibly support a 2SS, which would mean they actually support rather than oppose Zionism, but are nonetheless part of the antizionism movement.

Citation needed.

Sure, check Amjad Masad's X account.

[flagged]

[flagged]

[flagged]

[flagged]

[flagged]

[flagged]

It's in consensus, even by Hamas themselves.

[flagged]

What are you even talking about? My family is Argentine and 100% assimilated, speak English, love and embrace American culture and values. No one has ever treated us any differently in any context both in middle America and on the coasts.

It’s not a racial issue either, because my friends who are first generation Asian, Indian, etc, would all share the same sentiment. America is the most welcoming place on Earth for immigrants who are willing to put up even the smallest effort to assimilate into the culture.

So racism has been (more or less) eradicated in the US? Just trying to understand your comment before I respond more substantively because that’s a very striking claim and I want to be sure that’s actually what you mean.

Not OP, but I don’t think it’s accurate to say racism is “more or less eradicated” in the US. People’s experiences vary a lot by region, by urban vs rural areas, and even by neighbourhood and institution within the same city. Some places are clearly more inclusive than others, and disparities still show up in things like housing, policing, and employment within the city. So it’s hard to generalize.

Totally agree with you. My question is if they think it is largely not a problem in the US anymore, because their comment heavily suggests otherwise.

This will shock people, but America is not all that racist by world standards. Talk to someone from Asia for starters.

I’m not aware of anywhere with no racism. Humans are tribal and broad stereotypes are intellectually lazy but easy.

> This will shock people, but America is not all that racist by world standards. Talk to someone from Asia for starters.

I’m not shocked. I also don’t believe that “not as bad as…” is the same as “not a real problem.”

Getting stabbed twice in the side missing a major organ/artery isn’t as bad as getting shot twice in the heart, but both are very serious and painful.

I'm not making a normative judgement here, it's just my observation as the child of immigrants myself. There are of course exceptions to the rule. I'm making an argument in the context of political economy, please don't take it personally.

No, you’re not making an argument in the context of political economy. You’re making an argument based on nothing: no data, no studies, just anecdote and personal opinion.

I don’t take seriously your attempt to hide it behind a supposed “observed factual reality.” This is similar to how eugenicists made up their own fake science to try to justify racism.

People are well within their rights to take xenophobic hate personally.

[dead]

I don't understand this comment. Are you saying that Masad is not assimilated into the US because he doesn't support Israel's genocide against his people? Israel is not the US and supporting it is an increasingly unpopular position in the US. If anything he's more assimilated due to his position.

The majority of Americans are of British ancestry and the polarization between Dems and Reps is pretty high. You think that a coastal elite immigrant British descendant and Asian-American are farther apart than the same chap and a similar counterpart in Appalachia? I doubt it.

> The majority of Americans are of British ancestry

No they aren't. Even if you narrow it down just to white Americans, British ancestry is almost even with German and does not hold a majority once you include Irish, Italian, etc. [1]

I don't blame you for thinking they are tough, as Anglo culture and language has been unusually dominant, probably because the original 13 colonies were very Anglo and the whites that trickled in later largely assimilated. "Albion's seed" is an interesting book on this topic.

[1]: https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2023/10/2020-census-d...

Edit: British doesn't usually denote an ethnic group so I took it to mean Anglo, but if you take it to mean Anglo+Celtic then it would indeed make a majority of whites in the US due to the very large Irish population.

Sorry, yeah, I meant the majority of Whites and I should have said British Isles. Thank you for correcting what I said, which was indeed wildly inaccurate. I do think British ancestry is underreported because of an exoticism bias but we can ignore that.

> I do think British ancestry is underreported because of an exoticism bias but we can ignore that.

That's fair but I'll also point out that pan-Germanic (including Nordic) ancestry is actually the majority in many Midwest and West coast states, while the northeast is obviously very Anglo. So you can get a very different impression depending where you spend your time.

That’s a fair point - as demonstrated by Amjad’s high regard for libertarian values.

People are multifaceted. We’re complex and sometimes irrational. I can also believe that you can share certain views yet still not be fully embraced or respected for them.

As a crude example, a Caucasian man who was born and raised in Japan thought of himself to be Japanese ideologically. Yet to the Japanese he was always an outsider - as a result, he has never felt truly at home anywhere.

> The majority of Americans are of British ancestry

Wildly inaccurate

I will remind you that most of the world and many Americans consider what is happening in Gaza a genocide: the intent to destroy a group in whole or in part. Israel intends ethnic cleansing by genocidal means and continues to attack civilians despite a "ceasefire". Just today I got a terrified text message from a teacher as they airstriked in her camp while she lives in a partly destroyed house that cannot be repaired. They previously bombed the ppl in tents outside who had run from the north with nothing.

I hope there is some humanity left in this country.

He seems assimilated as fuck. What are you talking about?

A very good, albeit involuntary, reminder that in Silicon Valley your good or bad opinions and beliefs don’t matter as long as you’re a good vessel to multiply investment and add value to a billionaire’s already obscene wealth.

The article clearly states that he lost business and risked bankruptcy.

Considering circumstances all over the West, pretty soon everyone will be “terrorist sympathizers” or a sympathizer of whatever the next enemy boogeyman du jour is of the abusive ruling class. And it’s not your favorite political sport team that is good and never does that, while the other team always does it and is evil. It’s being done in the US and it is being done in the EU as well as in the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand; not even to mention Israel, but that can’t be considered the West.

It's funny how when talking about Israël's wrongdoings, everything is just "allegedly". Facts already confirms genocide, but hey, they don't want to land in hot water.

[flagged]

Likud government and charter explicitly calls for all land between the river and the sea to be for Jews.

That is a territorial/sovereignty claim (i.e., rejecting Palestinian sovereignty/statehood in that space). It is not an explicit call to kill, expel, or physically destroy Palestinians, nor does it literally say “for Jews only.”

Under the Genocide Convention, genocide requires specific intent (“intent to destroy, in whole or in part”) a protected group, plus one of the listed genocidal acts (killing; causing serious harm; inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about physical destruction; preventing births; forcibly transferring children).

The Hamas charter indicates that they would accept a two-state solution with 1967 borders.

This is not something the state of Israel will accept and is quite blatant in declaring that they would prefer to keep up the genocide.

In the 2017 Charter, Hamas states its claims, such as making Jerusalem its capital. However, nowhere in the charter does Hamas state that it will recognise Israel. In fact the document explicitly rejects recognition of Israel and aims for “liberation of all of Palestine”

Note also that Hamas never repealed their 1988 charter that called for the annihilation of Israel and contains openly antisemitic language.

For a two-state solution to work, Hamas will need to recognise Israel's right to co-exist alongside a Palestine state. And Hamas will need to stop killing innocent Israeli citizens.

> The Hamas Charter explicitly called for the “annihilation” of the Jewish state.

See, this is what grinds my effing gears. On one hand you have a party "calling" for the "annihilation" of Israel. On the other hand, you have a part who is calling for the annihilation of palestinians AND they are ACTIVELY doing it. But no, you have to draw an equivalence somehow ...

> you have a part who is calling for the annihilation of palestinians

No you don't.

You have a democratically elected government aiming for the dismantling of Hamas.

Hamas is the proscribed terror organisation that is currently leading Gaza.

Israel is not calling for the annihilation of Palestinians.

The death of Palestinians is entirely the fault of Hamas, whose blatent and attrocious terrorism led Israel with no choice other than to respond with force and defend Israeli citizens from the further attrocities that Hamas have promised.

Stopped reading after "shooting range".

Please don't comment like this. It's not a substantive contribution to the discussion to tell us that you stopped reading the article, and it's generally fulmination or curmudgeonliness or a shallow dismissal or something else that's against the guidelines. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

> “Should I wear a keffiyeh to the shooting range?”

I'll give the writer this -- they conveyed a lot of information in just one short first sentence. I read a bit farther, but it didn't tell me anything I couldn't already guess from that sentence.

I don't understand why the word genocide is quoted, as if it was an odd opinion of the person they are writing the profile about.

Replay will implode once the AI mania cools off

Who in this current political climate hasn't been called a 'terrorist sympathizer'? Feels like 80% of the population qualify

Well, he still is a terrorist symphatizer, just rich now.