And maybe this answer is kinda what I was thinking of. The justification your are supplying about the diminished influence of record labels makes sense and logically I can see that probably means the sound of the decades I listed was less organic and more manufactured. I also feel that there is probably less air for experimental genres to establish and become dominant like in the past.
Thank you but if the discussion does start going toxic, please do take it down.
P.s. I updated the title to make it clearer that I do not wish to conflate the two
I did not mean to imply that supporting Israel’s right to exist as a state means you must support their actions or vice versa. It is not intended to be a loaded question.
Does one side disregarding the Geneva convention mean the other is free to do so?
I would argue that the Geneva convention is as much about protecting the humanity of adherants as it is about protecting the lives of the innocent.
If you sign up to it, you should not be considering the actions of your enemy in deciding whether to adhere to it or not. Yes the realities of war blur the lines, but as someone else said, if you become a monster to defeat the monster, you still lost.
This is the kind of response I was looking for.
I’m not seeking to pile on the anti Israel sentiment but to genuinely understand what the basis for the Israeli position and supporters of it might be.
No I’m genuinely interested in how people rationalise the actions of Israel against the articles of the Geneva convention. There have been some thoughtful answers already which I appreciate.
Just because you don’t like her music doesn’t mean it’s mediocre or that you are somehow more evolved. When it comes to personal taste, how do you decide who’s opinion is the right one - like you have taken it upon yourself to do and gate keep ‘good’ music. Her music is undeniably popular and all of those people who like it would disagree with you about it being mediocre. So what makes you right and them wrong? There is no objectivity when it comes to things like music, only subjectivity.
Before you jump on me and label be a Taylor Swift fan, the big reveal is, I’m not. I have no problem with you saying “I think her music is mediocre” but that is different to saying " her music is mediocre" the former is an opinion, the latter is trying to paint an opinion as a fact.
This comment will probably not be received well simply because so many people seem to dislike Taylor Swift on here and will miss my point. Taylor Swift is irrelevant to my point, sub in any band or artist if you need to understand that.
He did a follow up study in 1998 co-authored by some people he met at a bus stop which confirmed these results. hoo cha
Reading the headline I was about to post how ridiculous it is that AI is taking over everything. Then I read that it is being used to give someone the chance to say their own words in their own voice.
This was not motivated out of using AI to replace an actress. It was motivated out of respecting the wishes and dignity of a dying person. It’s there a better use of AI than this?
I’m sure not knowing if you’ll eat today, not knowing if you’ll stay dry at night is not at all stressful.
From the article, looks like this thing can time travel too.
“This is a vital step towards our ambition to remove all diesel and new trains from the UK rail network by 2014."
I really hope they can get rid of all those new trains too . Rail travel just isn’t the same without the dank smells
The article covered that. This is designed to be cheaper apparently…
Seems like a manufacturer problem. I’ve have the same LED bulbs in my house for 5 years plus with no replacements. Various makes too .Some of them came with me from my old house. No idea how old they are. With incandescent bulbs, I used to have to replace at least 1 a year. I used to keep a stock in the back of a cupboard.
As a non American, where I am from, we call them toasties. Cheese toasties, cheese and tomato toasties, etc.
I don’t know of any puritans who argue about what a true toastie is, but I may have lived a sheltered life. People will argue about anything.
Agree that if an incident happens in a particular jurisdiction, the local court should handle it. That makes sense, no argument here. But here they get to choose the set of laws because there was no physical location? That just feels wrong somehow. Anyway there is a physical location and if anything, the incident was ‘perpetrated’ by a person who was physically located somewhere at the time. It should be handled by the court local to them at the time. In the case of organisations, I guess this would mean where the defendant company operates from. Or if we accept it is virtual and everywhere then, it should be governed by federal laws not state laws.
Why is it OK for an American company to headquarter in one state then cherry pick another in which to file a lawsuit? Surely a company should be governed by the laws of the state in which they are based. It seems weird to choose the set of laws you want to be judged by when the defendant cannot do the same.
I don’t know if I’m a millennial or generation x