Israel is a terrorist regime that commits genocide against Palestinians. What use is it if the ones fighting it are terrorists as well? In your hypothetical world where Iran is the strongest regional power, what does that accomplish? The Palestinians trade Israeli and Hamas's oppression for being a protectorate of the Islamic Republic of Iran? I never really understood this line of thinking.
Interesting idea. I've definitely felt this pain on several occasions. Somewhat ironic, but I think the hardest part of pulling this off is getting a founder to stay focused/continuously reach for such a tool (e.g. know when to ask for help).
My hunch is the same. Some fraction of founders want to do this because they love the autonomy. So a tool that keeps them on the right track might feel like a nagging parent vs. a true copilot. Will see how I can better qualify this idea and if it is even worth working on. Let me know if you're open for a 15-30 minute call so I can pick your brain about this pain.
Discussion about Trump winning had like 2k comments. There was also that Supreme Court ruling from earlier in the year about how presidents can't be held liable for criminal conduct or whatever.
HN is almost certainly not the place for it.
HN is a much better place than most of the Internet to discuss politics, this I know.
AIPAC is dwarfed in comparison to some other countries in terms of wielding influence. Just look at how much Qatar has spent trying to influence the top universities in the world.
Could very well just be about Slootman retiring. He is considered one of the most savvy and aggressive tech ceos out there and is arguably impossible to truly replace.
> He is considered one of the most savvy and aggressive tech ceos out there
By whom? I used to work at Snowflake, and from what I remember people on the inside were far more excited about the founders than they were about the CEO.
I got the impression that he was meeting expectations for the CEO job, but no more. Though that's a pretty high bar, given position of the company and the industry.
While that's technically true, they were elected in 2006 and since then no elections have been held. Not only that, members of the Hamas murdered Fatah rivals in the years that followed. Not to mention that most of the population today in Gaza are so young that they didn't even vote Hamas in.
So while they have majority support, it's not like they've had any real alternative.
It doesn't matter. Hamas is not a member of the ICJ. The state of palestine is a member but hamas aren't recognized as the representive of the state of palestine.
Additionally, the state of palestine is not a party to this case.
So no, the icj cannot tell hamas to do anything. The only people it can give orders to in this case are israel and south africa.
Hamas is the elected body of Gaza. It also has over 75% support according to several polls post 10/7. By all means it represents the interest of Gaza’s people whether anyone wants to admit that or not.
Not entirely true. Yes, they were elected in 2007 but they have not allowed the Fatah after that. The last election may have been 2012. So considering the amount of time elapsed I wouldn’t consider them legitimately elected.
You only have to believe what you want to believe. I'm just answering the GP's question in the most direct possible way, by referencing the answer of a primary party.
There have been a few attempts to keep up with the Cambrian explosion new AI products – most are littered with dead landing pages, fake reviews, and excessive ads.
My team and I have spent a lot of time curating a product list of tools that actually work, are still live, and worth using.
Our goal is to become a trusted review site where reviews are heavily moderated to reduce spam/fakes.
In the coming weeks/months we will be launching an RSS feed of top research papers and open source to cover the true bleeding edge of what is changing.
One thing I see being discussed is how high rates will reduce competition for homes (therefore lower prices). This isn't necessarily true for 2 reasons: 1) High rates mean higher finance rates for development/redevelopment projects, forcing new inventory to be priced higher to be viable 2) Owners with locked in rates (most homeowners) have little incentive to trade up, and more likely to trade down (increased competition for starter/smaller homes). Variable rate mortgages are a fraction of the mortgage market they used to be - this isn't 2008.
The only real solutions here are to radically rethink zoning at a city level, and potentially incentivize construction of affordable homes at a federal level through new lending programs.
Owners with locked-in rates have little incentive to trade to anything else. You can't take the mortgage with you, so selling and then even buying a smaller house is going to lead to a higher payment in most cases.
What you will see is a lot more rental houses. When a lot of people move, they will just keep the old house and rent it out, because a huge portion of the value in the house is the mortgage itself.
One wonders perhaps, why is that exactly? Why can't you trade one bit of collateral for another similar bit of collateral?
You owe $300k backed by a $700k house and you want to swap that for a $500k house, why should the note holder be able to call in the loan when you do that?
Doesn’t the bank have the right to refuse to grant a mortgage in the first place, depending on the asset? It’s not like you tell them you’re buying a house worth x and they give you a mortgage for 0.8x, right?
