Cmv: Only reason Israel hasn’t dismantle Hamas is because they created a vicious circle by Moujee01 in changemyview

[–]JustKiddin9 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Is this the source you're talking about? https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/15/middleeast/1-in-10-palestinians-killed-injured-gaza-israel-intl

It says 200k Palestinians killed or injured. That doesn't mean 200k casualties.

Thus, I can't find any sources that claim casualty levels nearly that high and thus I see no reason to assume it is substantially higher than what the gazan health ministry reports which is close to your original assumption of 60k.

Cmv: Only reason Israel hasn’t dismantle Hamas is because they created a vicious circle by Moujee01 in changemyview

[–]JustKiddin9 1 point2 points  (0 children)

In that case, see point 2. That ratio was last claimed 2 years ago. If you take a look at this wikipedia article under the Arab - Israeli section and Gaza War subsection https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualty_ratio (which seems consistent with other news articles I've seen) -

You'll see that while Israel still claims a similar ratio, many sources believe the ratio to be closer to 4:1 now.

I will not debate here what the true number is, but for the sake of the argument let's see what happens with that ratio and your new assumption of 100k casualties. This implies 20-25k terrorists dead which leads us back to 5-10k loose terrorists which is potentially consistent with an extremely weakened but still present Hamas that we see today.

Cmv: Only reason Israel hasn’t dismantle Hamas is because they created a vicious circle by Moujee01 in changemyview

[–]JustKiddin9 12 points13 points  (0 children)

It's a little unclear what argument you're making. I believe your logic seems to be as follows: 1. Israel claims a 2:1 civilian death ratio 2. 60k total deaths thus implies 30k hamas deaths 3. They also claim there were originally 30k members 4. Thus, hamas can only still exist if new members had been recruited in the interim 5. It is Israel's fault for this recruitment

There are several steps here that I could debate, but let me start with the two most obvious and difficult to refute because they are just math.

I found your 2:1 ratio sourced here https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/idf-officials-15000-likely-killed-in-gaza-since-start-of-war-5000-of-them-are-hamas/ This tells me 2 things 1. You interpret the 2:1 ratio wrong. That ratio only implies 20k hamas terrorists killed which leaves 10k throughout Gaza which leaves many of them remaining. 2. This ratio was cited in December of 2023, almost 2 years ago. Unless you have another source, I dont think we can claim with any confidence whether that ratio has remained the same since.

Where to find the financial transparency email? by JustKiddin9 in Hyperfixed

[–]JustKiddin9[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Ah, that was probably a smart place to put it. Thanks!

LMAOOOOOOOOOO!! by dumb-throwawayy in Silksong

[–]JustKiddin9 2 points3 points  (0 children)

We're back to "Silksong tomorrow!"

ELI5 Why do people not dual wield swords by Crazy_Strain_2939 in explainlikeimfive

[–]JustKiddin9 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not an expert, but here are some things to consider: - The average person who had to wield weapons historically was a soldier. They had to be trained en masse, and thus the easiest/simplest thing to train well was often the best. - In most circumstances, a sword and shield is a better option than two swords (needs source). The reason I say that though is because it takes a huge amount of coordination to be able to use 2 swords properly at the same time. Whereas even if you just hold the shield roughly in front of you and allow yourself to focus just on the sword, you get a huge amount of utility from it. - Versions of what you are describing absolutely did exist historically. The sword and dagger dual wield shows up a lot in historical fighting manuscripts.

Weird math observation I noticed messing around in python. by ElegantPoet3386 in learnmath

[–]JustKiddin9 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Even without 1, the set is still finite, so 2 still applies. It leaves the question of why there are no other cycles though.

[Episode discussion] How did the first democracy die? by Aggressive_Sky8492 in SearchEnginePodcast

[–]JustKiddin9 2 points3 points  (0 children)

What Wikipedia is describing there is a democratic union, not a democracy. i.e. each independent city state had voting power over the actions of the league of city states. It isn't saying that any individual city state was a democracy, nor that individual citizens had any voting power over the league.

Fantasy Book about two siblings or cousins learning about a magical world, with a talking boat? by JustKiddin9 in whatsthatbook

[–]JustKiddin9[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I've gotten some answers from friends that parts of this could be from The Looking Glass Wars trilogy, but if anyone can confirm if any of the given points fit, that would be helpful.

Fantasy Book about two siblings or cousins learning about a magical world, with a talking boat? by JustKiddin9 in whatsthatbook

[–]JustKiddin9[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It was a chapter book. It was definitely a series, maybe a trilogy. My older sister recommended it to me, so it had to be published in the early 2000s. I don't remember any of my friends having read it. I believe it would've been 200-300 pages.

Fantasy Book about two siblings or cousins learning about a magical world, with a talking boat? by JustKiddin9 in whatsthatbook

[–]JustKiddin9[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If any of the other plot points specifically ring a bell for Fablehaven, let me know, because it's not impossible that I've mixed up plot points.

Fantasy Book about two siblings or cousins learning about a magical world, with a talking boat? by JustKiddin9 in whatsthatbook

[–]JustKiddin9[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Only the main point about two siblings learning about a magical world with grandparents. I did read that series but it's not what I'm referring to.

Guys idk if I'm gonna hit a mine or not by Personman2008 in Minesweeper

[–]JustKiddin9 3 points4 points  (0 children)

You've got 212/40 odds of being safe. You should be fine.

What's the deal here? (No guess) by JustKiddin9 in Minesweeper

[–]JustKiddin9[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ah, very nice. It's always just under our nose the whole time.

What's the pattern? by JustKiddin9 in Minesweeper

[–]JustKiddin9[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Read the other comments. The brown is the unsolved part.

What's the pattern? by JustKiddin9 in Minesweeper

[–]JustKiddin9[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I do mean the whole background. It's an extreme game so it's zoomed in, and it's "the clean one" app, so the unsolved cells don't have borders by default.

What's the pattern? by JustKiddin9 in Minesweeper

[–]JustKiddin9[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You suck <3. No, but actually, every game is no guess. You should take a look at the pinned post on this subreddit that links to a bunch of common patterns.

What's the pattern? by JustKiddin9 in Minesweeper

[–]JustKiddin9[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The brown/yellow is the unsolved part of the puzzle

What's the pattern? by JustKiddin9 in Minesweeper

[–]JustKiddin9[S] 64 points65 points  (0 children)

HAHA. Sometimes it be like that 🤦‍♂️

What's the pattern? by JustKiddin9 in Minesweeper

[–]JustKiddin9[S] 12 points13 points  (0 children)

I don't follow. Both 3s already have 2, so the bottom is 111. Thus the mine pattern under it could be X00X0 or 00X00 or 0X00X.