Anyone in the world who has one race can freely move there. People of other races cannot. Rights are awarded based on race. Nothing to do with citizenship.
So the photos of flattened buildings are all "hamas"? You came in, blew up everything, and now you are saying "they did it to themselves, that wasn't us". Their dead kids - oh they did that? The occupation? Oh, that's their fault! If only they would start being nice, so we can stop killing them and give them a city! Ah let me build a settlement in their land - but it's THEIR fault!
The leaders of Israel have not just spoken about it, they have actually destroyed the Palestinian State in the last few months. They have killed tens of thousands of kids.
It is race based because if there was a jewish person living in Palestine, they could apply for and get the right to vote. A muslim person cannot.
The Israeli PM has said: There will never be a Palestinian state. If you plan to eternally occupy and dominate a people, what is the difference to Apartheid?
An eternal military occupation, where the GOVERNMENT says - you will NEVER get a country, and you will NEVER be part of our country IS apartheid.
These are direct, unambiguous statements from the Prime Minister and all members of the cabinet. They have said that the Palestinians will NEVER get a state.
So what are you saying then about Israel wanting a two state solution? They have said there will be no state, and they have said they will not give civil rights.
So eternal apartheid? That's what will make the Palestinians happy? When the Tamil Tigers were defeated, they were able to vote in their country. The separatists in Spain get to vote in Spain. The kurds get to vote in Turkey.
Israel is the only country that says: do not separate and create your own state, but at the same time if you stay here, we will NOT give you civil rights.
Here is a variant that requires logic: "David is a teenager who can drink in the US, and is eligible to join the army, and has started college. He has a lot of experience riding bicycles. The minimum age to be allowed to drive a car is 18. Is David allowed to drive a car?"
GPT-4 gets the answer right: "Yes, David is allowed to drive a car. Since he is a teenager who can drink in the US (minimum age 21), is eligible to join the army (minimum age 18), and has started college, he is at least 18 years old, which meets the minimum age requirement to drive a car."
GPT-3 does not get it right.
Another similar one: "David was in a bar partying and drinking with his father's cop buddies. Would David be legally allowed to drive home?"
Answer: "It depends on David's age, the legal drinking age in his location, and his level of intoxication. If David is underage or intoxicated above the legal limit for driving, it would be illegal for him to drive home. If David is of legal drinking age and not intoxicated, then he may be legally allowed to drive home. However, it is always best to make safe decisions and use a designated driver, taxi, or rideshare service if there is any doubt about one's ability to drive safely after consuming alcohol."
GPT-4 seems to be missing a clue here, even though the answer is right.
My thinking (some of these may take a year or two more)
- we start understanding more about how powerful neural networks can be in storing abstractions of information. More and more breakthroughs come here. A company will come that will do magical things - this company will not be Open AI or one of the big FAANG
- Maybe not this year, but soon: new advances started in robotics based on generative AI. Robots start moving in far more realistic ways
- we enter an extended stock market downturn and it does not recover till end of year. Companies trade at low multiples of revenue
- German car companies aggressively catch up with Tesla in terms of design
- Europe closes up more to migrants
- There is a Russia/Ukraine settlement, with Ukraine getting a fast track entry to the EU.
- African countries start de-facto redrawing their boarders. Ethiopia, Cameroun, maybe Nigeria
- China invades Taiwan with the largest invasion force ever seen
- The drone becomes the primary weapon of war. Every other weapon becomes secondary. New wars start based on drone
- The value of Tesla drops down to 30% of where it currently is
- The USD weakens significantly.
- More mRNA treatments start being used. Sickle cell and other genetic diseases are first target
I don't look down on these people. I dislike them.
And my view on books is that it's open. There are no constraints, so I don't see my viewpoint as narrow. A book is what you make of it.
I grew up on books and nothing else. No TV, no Radio. I read books at random, without a system, and I judge them by if I like them or not. And not by if others tell me I should like them or not.
Humility is not really something that can be explained easily, but when you finally become humble about the books you read, you will know it.
I don't. I really dislike people who think that reading is in some way something special or unusual. People who think that reading is all about literature. That's like saying movies are all about French Films with 15 minute stretches of silence.
There are many types of books, and there are many types of reading. Books are just like talking, but written down. Talking does not fit neatly into your 3 categories. When Jay Leno does a monologue, do you criticize him for not imparting ancient wisdoms? No. But people have nothing against criticizing a writer of popular sci-fi for not doing the same.
Crichton was not a bad writer at all. In his genre, he was excellent. His purpose was never to create some long lasting work, it was simply to entertain. And succeed he did.
Books are not some mystical source of magical knowledge like so many pseudo-intellectuals seem to think. It's just someone telling you something, but in a written form. You may not like what a person says, but if millions like it, then he is doing it well.
Of course, I can make this argument as long as I want, but I'll never be able to make these people understand that having Dostoevsky on your bookshelf does not mean you understood it. When you read it and then all you get from it is the same as what one could get from Wikipedia, then you have failed in your attempt to access literature that is not for you to understand.
Some of the most ridiculous dialog I have observed is usually between two people talking about books that are noted in popular culture as being intellectual. What most readers can do is talk about the books, but they don't understand what the guy who wrote the words was trying to tell them. They see the surface, they analyse the tricks, but the fail to understand the meaning. Ridiculous!
It's often those same people who will criticize "lesser" books and "popular" authors. I really dislike this pseudo-intellectualism.
One has to achieve humility in interacting with other minds.