But my claim is that the statement is false, not that they intentionally misled, so even if they were understandably confused, that still seems to be untrue.

But it isn’t inaccurate, that’s the thing. The Twitter post says, “a Photojournalist and Writer/Editor for both Al-Jazeera and the Palestinian Chronicle.” That is factually true…

claiming this some kind of intelligence community…but it’s understandable that they can’t even figure out if this guy works for al Jazeera? You’ll have to help me square this.

The group is a discord channel for people in the intelligence sector, I don’t know what you need squared about that. Take it for what it is, an early alert gossip mill by people who hear things before most other people do.

I have no need to rush to a conclusion on this. I’m just reporting what one of your links said. In your attempt to rush to a conclusion, you already were convinced of a falsehood. Maybe you should slow down too.

I haven’t rushed to any conclusions, I’ve been sharing news articles as they come out.

I can’t help but read your points as attempting to paint al Jazeera as some bad guy in this whole thing.

Whether you pay them or not, posting articles from potential terrorists isn’t a good look. The same can be said about any media group associating with terrorists, the same happened with CNN, NY Times, and Associated Press on October 7th.

How long ago was this tweet that is from some group that you claim is 10 hours ahead of the news? And we’re being critical of al Jazeera for not rushing out an article in that time?

Not sure why you’re asking me when something was posted when I shared the link to it, that’s just lazy. I never criticized Al-Jazeera for not publishing a response, I simply stated that they haven’t, and my response about that was even understanding that not much time has passed?

I think you’re the one rushing to conclusions and should slow down.

Eh, I wouldn’t say it’s false. The description of the guy comes from Al-Jazeera’s website where they say he is a reporter and photojournalist and he did write for Al-Jazeera. If Al-Jazeera is going to post his work and list his information on their website I think it’s understandable that people might think he is employed by them.

As for the attack being unverified, the other link I provided stated that the IDF confirmed that address and house (which is time stamped after the article you are referencing). Additionally, a third party who is identified as a Hamas operative in Europe was referenced as a source for these claims in both articles. I don’t know how much more confirmed you can get unless you’re holding out for Anderson Cooper to be live from the living room?

Finally, I haven’t seen anywhere that Al-Jazeera is denying he was doing anything, the only thing they appear to be denying is that he was employed by them. Even then, Al-Jazeera doesn’t seem to be making any articles about the guy, the whole thing was correspondence with representatives of Al-Jazeera, this stuff happened so recently I wouldn’t be surprised if Al-Jazeera hasn’t had time to post anything yet. For context, this information is <24 hours old, the first US article I see about it was only posted an hour ago.

Ah ok, my apologies. Yeah, there’s not much in the way of mainstream international news picking this story up. Pretty much it was just Israel saying they raided XYZ houses, these are the people they found inside. Individuals made the connection to Al-Jazeera and mainstream Israeli media picked it up, but they’ve backed off a bit once Al-Jazeera clarified.

I’d generally agree with a general dislike of Twitter supporters, but no one has really stepped up to fill in Twitters void (at least that get the same level of traction as Twitter). Paying the Twitter tax still seems to get your information out faster and farther than almost any other alternative. I think the only way Twitter is going to fully fall will be if it no longer is profitable to run, otherwise large groups will continue to use it. One positive is that people seem to be diversifying from Twitter with Lemmy, Mastadon, Reddit, or something else (I guess Discord falls in the something else).

Now if you’re just a regular person and paying for Twitter blue then I agree that you’re probably not trustworthy or at least a bit stupid.

Did you Google the name? Because if you had you’d realize it’s not a news organization and they don’t make news articles. OSINT stands for Open Source Intelligence, it’s basically a discord group of people in the intelligence sector posting things they have heard going on. Looking at their Twitter they seem to cover just about anything and everything, they have stuff about Ukraine, Gaza, France, UAE, Venezuela, etc. Looking for other stories it looks like they beat mainstream media to the story by about 10 hrs.

Looking into the claim itself, it seems that it originated from Israel, but Al-Jazeera’s response isn’t that the guy is innocent but rather that he never worked for them

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/al-jazeera-denies-rumor-that-hostage-was-held-at-employees-home/

https://www.jpost.com/israel-hamas-war/article-805525

Turns out that the guy had written opinion pieces for Al-Jazeera and he mainly worked for the Palestine Chronicle, which is based out of Washington state. It looks like his information was included on Al-JAzeera because he had written opinion pieces, but wasn’t actually employed by them. Take that for what you will, but it doesn’t change the narrative much.

https://x.com/sentdefender/status/1799715089936761144

Purportedly one of the hostages was being held in the house of an Al-Jazeera journalist/writer/editor and several members of his family were killed while trying to prevent the hostage from being rescued.

EDIT: Turns out he wasn’t an employee of Al-Jazeera, but he wrote opinion pieces for them.

EDIT 2: New article https://www.yahoo.com/news/al-jazeera-denies-connection-journalist-194749492.html - It seems that the female hostage was not the one being held at this location, but rather the three men were. The location is an apartment building and the hostages were being held on the 3rd floor while the journalist was living on the first floor. The claim that the journalist and his family were killed comes from a European based Hamas affiliate.

EDIT 3: Another article - https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/idf-confirms-abdallah-aljamal-was-holding-3-hostages-in-his-home-in-nuseirat-alongside-his-family/ - I don’t read Hebrew, but it looks like IDF is confirming that the journalist and his family were the ones holding the hostages, not just someone in the same building.

EDIT 4: Looks like the US media has gotten hold of the story finally, but it’s mostly NY Post and Fox news. Looks like they’re behind the times because they’re just running the Al-Jazeera angle.

This is known as a red herring fallacy, the fact that it fused her labia doesn’t change the nature of the situation, nor does it increase the gravity of the situation.

“She placed the coffee cup between her knees and pulled the far side of the lid toward her to remove it. In the process, she spilled the entire cup of coffee on her lap. Liebeck was wearing cotton sweatpants, which absorbed the coffee and held it against her skin, scalding her thighs, buttocks and groin.”

Additionanally:

“According to a 2007 report, McDonald’s had not reduced the temperature of its coffee, serving it at 176–194 °F (80–90 °C), relying on more sternly worded warnings on cups made of rigid foam to avoid future injury and liability (though it continues to face lawsuits over hot coffee). However, in 2013 the New York Times reported that it had lowered its service temperature to 170–180 °F (77–82 °C). The Specialty Coffee Association of America supports improved packaging methods rather than lowering the temperature at which coffee is served. The association has successfully aided the defense of subsequent coffee burn cases. Similarly, as of 2004, Starbucks sells coffee at 175–185 °F (79–85 °C), and the executive director of the Specialty Coffee Association of America reported that the standard serving temperature is 160–185 °F (71–85 °C).”

So not only did it not change the temperature at which most major brands serve coffee, the temperature that was proposed as reasonable by the defense attorneys was also still hot enough to cause third degree burns. I get that she might want them to pay for damages, but she literally dumped it on herself, the reason she was so seriously hurt was because she was 79 years old. If you’re buying hot coffee that’s freshly brewed then it should be obvious it’s hot enough to seriously burn you. If it’s over 150 F then you will get major significant burns.

As to the idea that they had been warned:

“Other documents obtained from McDonald’s showed that from 1982 to 1992 the company had received more than 700 reports of people burned by McDonald’s coffee to varying degrees of severity, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000.”

McDonalds purportedly sells more than 50 million cups of coffee per year, over 10 years that was 500 million cups of coffee. 0.00014% is hardly a “warning.”

You can get third degree burns from touching water which is 150 degree F for around 2 seconds. Most coffee world wide is served between 160 and 180 F.

In that case the water was supposedly served at 190 F while competitors coffees were served at 160 F. The lawyers in that suit claimed that if the coffee had been in the 160 range it would have taken up to 20 seconds to get third degree burns. We now know that even at 160 F she would have gotten the same burns within 5 seconds.

What exactly is your point?

Why do you think a business should be compelled to sell something at any given price? I mean sure, you can burn them in the court of public opinion, but it’s another thing when you say that government regulation should dictate the cost of a coffee beverage. I think that’s where most people are landing in this, they agree it’s stupid for Starbucks to do such a petty thing, but when it comes to lawsuits involving ADA regulations it crosses a line for reasonable response.

It’s almost like the lawsuit for hot coffee where the person argued they didn’t know the coffee was hot

(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald’s_Restaurants#:~:text=McDonald’s Restaurants%2C also known as,against the McDonald’s restaurant chain.&text=Stella Liebeck v.,McDonald’s Restaurants%2C P.T.S.%2C Inc.)

Most farming is subsidized, the debate then is which one is subsidized more. A bit of a specious argument at the end of the day.

Eh, a quick Google search said that Tesla wasn’t profitable for 17 years and survived due to government subsidies and investor funding. After that they’ve been making ~$15 billion per year and sold around 1.3 million cars worldwide per year.

In contrast Toyota sold 10.3 million vehicles and made $61 billion in profit.

As with their 17 years of unprofitable business they are currently more proportionally profitable, but a big portion of that is Musk fanboys and limited supply. If they actually started selling more cars they probably wouldn’t be as proportionally profitable.

Additionally, Tesla is supposedly becoming less profitable due to several factors including not making a new model in 10 years, reports that they fraudulently marketed features (being sneaky with how range is calculated so that the true range is way less than advertised), and Elon’s antics hurting sales. Elon’s antics are a big deal, some people who wanted Teslas before don’t want them anymore because they don’t want to be associated with him (like flying a Gadsden Flag in the mid 2000s vs now).

Elon’s antics don’t stop there, he’s also hurt the investor’s opinion as well. A big reason Tesla’s stock was so high is because people were buying them and not selling them. This caused their price to stay super high, but when Elon bought Twitter he sold a ton of stock. The price was at an all time high over $400 per share, his selling cratered it to ~$115, and is currently around $165. Investors don’t like it when the owner of a company single handedly tanks their investment so the owner can make a bad investment, even more so when the writing on the wall says he’ll sell even more of the stock to fund the bad investment.

January 6th occurred, Trump has been relatively unscathed, and Trump is running again. That’s what has changed since 2019.

If Trump had been fully prosecuted, or had decided not to run Biden likely wouldn’t be running.

The example is the Telluride though? That’s the whole point. Of course any sane person would pick a cheaper car. For that matter why would you ever buy a brand new car?

I definitely agree, but I went with the option which would have the lowest monthly payment. On the other end local rates have a 36 month loan at 6.75%, but that’s $1,800 per month.

I just Googled and the 2024 Telluride has an MSRP of ~$55,000 in my area, used 2023 models are about ~$45,000.

Looking at an auto loan calculator, that’s between $700 and $900 per month with a 96 month 9% auto loan.

Point is, if you can afford the car you’re probably not worrying about the subscription except on principle. If you can afford the car and have principle concerns you’d probably buy a different car.

If you’re on desktop and open several videos at once (such as getting home from work/school and opening all the new videos on your subscriptions tab) you really don’t notice.

What I do notice are the ads at the beginning, quarters, middle, and end of a video

when better candidates are clearly available for both demopublican parties has to some other reasoning

You’re absolutely right, but if it comes down to Biden vs Trump at the general election, who are you going to vote for?

People seem to forget that the way Henry Ford was so successful was that he paid more than double the normal rate of that time. He of course didn’t do it out of the goodness of his black heart, but it’s undoubtedly one of the reasons for his success.

I have Windows 10, so things may be different for 11 or whatever version you’re on, but can’t you just uninstall OneDrive without specifically closing it? I feel like that’s what I did when it was default installed.

Weird, you’d think that Google would give them more options than that and allow them to tailor their ads to their audience. I guess this is how google puts forth the minimum effort for the maximum profit. Thanks for the insight.

I’d really like to know what the level of input creators have over the ads that appear in their videos is. It feels like some videos are just whatever Google throws out there while some videos seem to have no ads and finally some seem to have very limited ads.

Is there some sort of dial that the creator has behind the scenes that determines how shitty the ads for their video are?

Ads on YouTube used to not be so bad, a 5 second ad that was so unintrusive that I’d just let it play, a 15 second with a 3 second skip, and it also didn’t feel like the same quantity of ads.

Before an ad would roll at the beginning of the video and I’d likely quickly skip it. If the video was fairly long there might be an extra ad in the middle. Sometimes the creator might also have an embedded ad, but I generally don’t mind those.

Now it’s a double 15 second ad at the beginning, only the first one is skippable. Then there is another double ad every 15 minutes, plus the embedded creator ad, and if you make it to the end of the video there is an end of video double ad before it auto plays to the start of the next video and next set of double ads.

Make the ads short and unintrusive or make them long, skippable, but rare. I hate having to constantly tab out to go click the skip button every few minutes.

When the YouTube ad blocker ban started I was on chrome with uBlock and it seemed to be refreshing the block even with uBlock. I thought to myself, “Hey let’s try it with the ads, I’ll whitelist YouTube and support the content creators.” After about 3 days I said fuck it, dropped Chrome and updated uBlock again; I haven’t seen an ad since.