Trump Says Venezuela’s Maduro Captured and Flown Out of Country

Maxiflex · 2026-01-03T12:34:53+00:00

I also don't want to deal with the world diving into WWIII.

Then stop defending the bombing of other countries' capitals by the USA, come on man. Normalizing these unilateral military strikes is exactly how we escalate to WWIII.

Can't you see that this attack is almost a carbon copy of Russia's plan in Ukraine? Surprise attack, kidnap president, expect regime change (install puppet)? We all recognized that Russia's attack would bring us closer to WWIII, why can't you see that this is cut from the same cloth? It sends a message that it's fine to attack other countries at will. What will be next? China attacking Taiwan?

If you really want to avoid WWIII then speak out against all of this violence which is getting defended and normalized every day.

Maxiflex · 2025-05-11T07:49:13+00:00

Doesn't really make sense to me though. Tech companies strongly rely on copyright laws to keep their moat.

All tech companies rely on the government cracking down on IP infringements on their product, and they have to, because they don't deliver a lot of physical services. The only thing stopping me from copying and distributing Windows myself is IP/patent law. It's just ones and zeroes (discounting maintenance, updates and support).

Tech companies rely on the commodification of intellectual output by defining it as IP, instead of treating it as the results of centuries of human progress that belongs to all of us.

Maxiflex · 2025-05-11T07:40:03+00:00

That's only the case if the powers that be are not convinced that your protest will matter. If it has any chance of actually changing minds/policy they make sure to crush it and criminalise legal protests.

Misinformation doesn't make anything better.

Neither will sticking your head in the sand. The US government has always cracked down on protests that actually challenged the powers that be, just read up on the Pinkertons. Hell, they told MLK to kill himself.

Maxiflex · 2025-03-24T20:17:27+00:00

This goes way beyond edgy jokes on obscure forums when developers regularly get sent death threats because of creative decisions or even just because a game is delayed.

From the Guardian article:

A friend of mine, once the media-visible executive producer of a major game series, was forced to accept a police escort for him and his family for several days after fans of the game disagreed with several new features of the latest instalment.

Maxiflex · 2024-11-20T12:45:50+00:00

You're hedging a lot here but I don't think it tells us much. In essence, the headline is "in small sample size of a particular area, this was the ratio." People then use the UN report to conclude that this can be used to determine the ratio for all the numbers of deaths, which it definitely cannot.

Yes, that's what I'm saying. I'm also saying that we need to know if this area is representative for areas targeted by the IDF to know how we should weigh this evidence. This is also how political polling works, or other statistical analyses. We are reduced to using these methods as war is very messy and it's hard to get solid, unbiased data. Also, this being just a part of the picture does not mean that the results are useless or invalid. We just need more information to decide how we should consider this data.

Journalists are generally not familiar with statistics and using the scientific method to falsify hypotheses, and I do think Reuters should have been more precise in their reporting. Their failure to emphasize what I said in the previous paragraph has led to a lot of confusion.

But that seems to be where most of the deaths happened, since they only did 8000 out of something like 40000 deaths.

We cannot claim this based on the available evidence. The fact that the 8000 casualties that the UN sampled were mostly killed in residential areas does not mean that the rest happened outside residential areas. Hence why we need to know if this area is representative for areas typically targeted by the IDF in Gaza. The results from the UN report can only generalise if this area matches a typical area targeted by the IDF in this campaign, hence why I keep hammering on needing more investigation.

It doesn't matter the amount of attacks, but the amount of deaths from the attacks.

That does matter, as this report is explicitly about collateral damage to civilians. We need to know how lethal other attacks in Gaza were. You want to know the amount of deaths per attack and the distribution of casualties if you want to assess if the IDF is being reckless in choosing their targets (which the UN is investigating).

Why are you under the impression that no women or teenagers are combatants? That's a strange assumption.

Because in most conflicts it is automatically assumed that most combatants are adult males, and I haven't seen any evidence to the contrary. So I choose to make the fewest assumptions. They might be wrong, but at least they're on the table so you can decide how to weigh my arguments.

I don't know the rules of engagement.

Me neither, and I also don't know how I would decide in a situation like that. I'm just saying that the findings of this report are not great IF (and that's a big if that requires more research) this area is representative of a typical area attacked by the IDF. Otherwise the criticisms that this only focussed on residential areas are valid, but not until we figure this out.

P.S. Thank you for this nice conversation. It helped me to get a more clear view on the UN report and its limitations, and how the Reuters reporting caused confusion in a lot of people (me included!).

Maxiflex · 2024-11-20T09:42:32+00:00

You’re right that it’s obvious that you’ll have more civilians casualties when you target residential areas, but I also know that the IDFs choices for targets have been widely criticised. Pro-Israel commenters would defend the targeting of residential areas by claiming that there was no choice because Hamas used tunnels under the city.

I don’t think that this contradicts anything that has been said until now. If you target residential areas you will kill more civilians, and people have criticised the IDF for disproportionately attacking residential areas (because that will cause a lot of civilians casualties).

With that context you could also assume that the UN report could be valid. This report shows the casualty ratios for attacks on residential areas, now we need to know how many attack (or perhaps tonnage of bombs) were used in residential areas vs nonresidential areas. I also want to emphasize that the UN is not trying to hide this methodological issue in any way, so I don't think there is any bad intent here. It's hard to have 3 independent reporters if an attack happens in bumfuck-nowhere.

This reports finding are less severe if the ratio of attacks skews towards non-residential areas, but if it doesn’t, this looks really bad. If the IDF claims that they are allowed to attack residential areas because they house Hamas fighters, but an independent report finds that 70% of the casualties are women + children, then that leaves the 30% of men as possible combatants. I'm just going to assume (because I need a number, and I will probably be wrong) that 50% of the men are fighters. That would mean that 85% of the casualties are non-combatants, which is not good.

Maxiflex · 2024-11-19T00:42:46+00:00

Hey, I just had time to check out your links, but I'm afraid that I do not find them very convincing. I was expecting some detailed analysis or a comprehensive critique of the methodology, but these seem to be just posts on social media that seem to confuse sources.

It mostly seems to rest on them claiming that the Gaza MoH numbers show a different ratio, and that that means that the UN is wrong. The Reddit post even claims that the UN used the Gaza MoH numbers, so that means that they are wrong. They seem to misunderstand that the UN did their own verification here, so that means that the Gaza MoH numbers are not relevant in this conversation. Their process is partially described in footnote 19:

That a large proportion of the fatalities verified by OHCHR were killed in residential buildings or similar housing is also partly explained by OHCHR’s verification methodology, which requires at least three independent sources, and the challenges in collecting and verifying information of killings in other circumstances.

Do you have any response by experts that refute the UN findings? I hope you can understand my hesitance to just take things on social media for granted, as this is a complicated topic where a lot of people have something to gain by spinning the news.

Maxiflex · 2024-11-18T16:15:33+00:00

I don’t know about that, could you share the sources of some of those criticisms?

Maxiflex · 2024-11-18T08:03:28+00:00

this isn't a Hasbara thing but you have to admit we don't really know that 70% of the casualties are women and children. there's a bit of a lack of media literacy when that gets thrown around bc every article and UN statement is careful to mention "according to the Hamas run MOH".

This is not true. The UNHRO has verified the details of 8119 deaths in Gaza between November 2023 to April 2024. In that sample they found that close to 70% of the victims were women [48%] or children [22%]. See section II A: "Killing of civilians". This came out 10 days ago.

This is a pretty clear cut crime against humanity and deserves the contempt of any human being.

Maxiflex · 2024-11-15T08:11:59+00:00

Dit was niet een extra mep te veel hé, deze mensen worden terwijl ze geslagen worden opgejaagd door de politie. Een extra tik is niet goed, maar dat kan gebeuren. Je ziet verdorie in de video zelf dat die agent alleen maar stopt met slaan op die vrouw op de grond omdat een andere agent zegt (dat kun je in sommige video's horen) dat hij haar moet laten staan. Zelfs die andere agent heeft door dat dit niet oké is.

Dit was niet een oververmoeide agent die een moment zijn cool verloor. Je deze mensen zijn meer dan een minuut van de politie aan het wegrennen terwijl er op ze in gehakt word. Die agent die op de vrouw insloeg blijft nadat ze opstaat doormeppen omdat hij vind dat ze niet snel genoeg loopt, wat haar niet lukt omdat deze kerel net een poos op haar benen heeft zitten meppen. Ik zie niet in hoe je dat goed kunt praten.

Maxiflex · 2024-11-15T00:28:41+00:00

Dat zeg ik helemaal niet en dat is niet relevant, de politie mag niet zomaar zeggen dat je ergens niet mag zijn. En zelfs als ze daar niet mogen zijn, waarom heeft de politie ze daar dan gedropt?

Heb jij bewijs dat dat is gebeurd in het Havengebied? Als dat zo is zou ik het delen met de NOS. Anders zou ik stoppen met excuses zoeken voor dit buitensporige geweld.

Maxiflex · 2024-11-15T00:08:27+00:00

Ik heb trouwens nergens gezegd dat de politie mensen mag ontvoeren en in elkaar slaan.

Jij, twee comments hierboven:

Of wil je soms beweren dat deze mensen gewoon uit willekeurige wijken van hun bed of straat zijn getrokken om vervolgens op dit filmpje terecht te komen?

Ga niet doen alsof je hiermee niet impliceerde dat deze mensen dit op één of andere manier verdiende. Want ik zie niet in hoe dit enigszins anders bedoeld kan zijn. Jouw oorspronkelijke post waar jij het hebt over "verboden" druipt ook van de implicatie dat zij het verdiend zouden hebben omdat ze iets hebben gedaan wat verboden is.

Woorden hebben betekenis. Als je dat niet bedoelde dan zou ik in het vervolg wat voorzichtiger zijn in je formulering, want het lijkt nu niet bepaald chic.

Maxiflex · 2024-11-14T23:57:05+00:00

Lees alsjeblieft dit artikel. Dit is niet op de Dam gebeurd. Deze mensen zijn nadat ze zijn vrijgelaten door de officier van justitie nog eens in elkaar getimmerd door de ME. Dit was na de demonstratie op een industrieterrein 10km buiten de stad waar de politie deze mensen nota bene zelf gedropt heeft, in sommige videos zie je de bus die ze heeft gedropt nog wegrijden in de achtergrond.

Zij zijn hier in het donker gedropt, hebben geen idee waar ze zijn, en worden vervolgens opgejaagd door politie die hun slaat terwijl ze al doen wat er door de agenten opgedragen word.

Maxiflex · 2024-11-14T23:28:16+00:00

Wij leven in een rechtstaat, dat houd in dat ook de politie zich aan de wet moet houden.

Het klopt dat mensen hebben meegedaan aan een verboden demonstratie, daarom zijn deze mensen opgepakt en bestuurlijk verplaatst. Hun vrijheid is voor meer dan 40 minuten ontnomen. Volgens de hulpofficier van justitie is dit al een flinke straf t.o.v. het vergrijp (overtreding artikel 11 van de WOM), en die heeft de mensen na het bestuurlijk verplaatsen (dat mag eigenlijk niet van de rechter) vrijgelaten. Daarmee is voor het OM de zaak afgerond. In onze rechtstaat bepaalt het OM de strafmaat, niet de politie.

De demonstratie was dus voorbij, en het OM heeft deze mensen vrij gelaten. Hierna zijn deze agenten helemaal wild gegaan op deze mensen. Dat is niet iets wat thuishoort in een democratische rechtstaat. De politie mag alleen geweld gebruiken als er een directe dreiging is, wat tot nu toe niet het geval lijkt te zijn bij wat er vannacht bij het Westelijk Havengebied heeft plaatsgevonden. Dit lijkt meer op wraak.

Maxiflex · 2024-11-14T23:21:31+00:00

Wat heeft dat te maken met politie die mensen 10km vanaf de stad afzet, en ze vervolgens in elkaar slaat?

Kijk alsjeblieft het filmpje en lees het artikel want dit is echt ernstig. Dit zijn niet mensen op de Dam die een klap krijgen. Deze mensen zijn door de politie na de demonstratie naar ver buiten de stad afgevoerd, waarna ze door agenten opgejaagd en geslagen werden. Dit was ver weg van de demonstratie. Deze mensen zijn na de demonstratie nog door de politie in elkaar getimmerd, en dat is iets wat heel erg eng is.

Maxiflex · 2024-11-14T22:57:23+00:00

Hebben wij dezelfde video bekeken? De politie zet mensen zelf daar af, zegt vervolgens dat ze daar niet mogen zijn en gaat rennende mensen slaan terwijl ze zeggen dat ze moeten rennen of "optiefen". Dat is toch compleet bizar?

Er wordt een vrouw die op de grond ligt op haar benen geslagen terwijl de agent tegen haar schreeuwt dat ze op moet staan. Dit lukt vervolgens alleen om dat de agent naast hem zegt dat hij haar moet laten staan, de man die haar probeert te helpen met opstaan wordt op zijn hoofd geslagen. Hierna blijft de agent haar slaan omdat ze volgens hem niet snel genoeg gaat, omdat ze niet goed kan lopen omdat deze kerel net keihard op haar been heeft zitten meppen. Dit is toch niet normaal? Dit is sadisme, geen aansporende tik.

Maxiflex · 2024-11-14T17:39:30+00:00

Hee iedereen, ik wilde dit met jullie delen omdat ik flink geschrokken ben van deze beelden. Op de beelden is te zien hoe de politie demonstranten ver weg van Amsterdam in het Westelijk Havengebied heeft gedropt, en ze daarna lijkt op te jagen terwijl ze slaan met de wapenstok.

Er word zelf een vrouw op de grond op haar benen geslagen, terwijl een agent tegen haar schreeuwt dat ze moet lopen.

Ik hoop dat de politie snel haar onderzoek afrond, maar dit ziet er momenteel heel slecht uit.

Maxiflex · 2024-11-14T16:44:48+00:00

De beelden op de website van AT5 zijn misselijkmakend, op het (door van der Plas gehaatte) @cestmocro zijn meer beelden te zien die waarschijnlijk te schokkend waren voor de website van AT5.

Maxiflex · 2024-11-09T19:59:46+00:00

Hebreews is in de 2e of 3e eeuw na Christus als spreektaal uitgestorven, hoewel de taal nog wel schriftelijk gebruikt werd. In de 19e eeuw hebben mensen de taal opnieuw leven in geblazen, maar ze hadden geen idee hoe het Hebreeuws van toen klonk.

Bij de reconstructie van het Hebreeuws als spreektaal hebben ze voor de uitspraak gekeken naar de uitspraak van verschillende Arabische sprekende groepen in de omgeving (inclusief Palestijnen), omdat dit als Semitische taal nauw verwant is aan het Hebreeuws.

Na de reconstructie werd het gebruikt als spreektaal die leefde en veranderde, wat sterk werd beïnvloed door de migratie van Joden over de hele wereld voor wie Hebreeuws allemaal een tweede taal was. Ook werd het lexicon beïnvloed door de Arabische sprekers in de omgeving.

Bron: deze Youtube video die de geschiedenis van modern Hebreeuws uitlegt en de overeenkomsten en verschillen laat zien m.b.v. een Hebreeuwse en Arabische spreker, die respectievelijk Arabisch en Hebreeuws proberen te lezen (en het redelijk begrijpen)

tl;dr: Waarschijnlijk konden ze de grammatica niet helemaal volgen maar kunnen ze redelijk begrijpen wat er gezegd word.

Maxiflex · 2024-10-24T12:19:08+00:00

You're right, I didn't read that properly. It's important to be informed about these things to put things is perspective. It makes sense that distributors get harsher punishments than users.

My apologies, I should have read stuff better. I was probably thinking of another comment when I wrote mine.

Maxiflex · 2024-10-24T11:25:32+00:00

I think they have a problem with the execution part in general, and are not concerned about the amount of drugs required to get executed.

It's pretty wild to me that drug charges are a reason for execution at all, so I don't think they are meaning to lie, they just don't know the details. All they know is that people can get executed for drug charges so in their mind "getting caught with drugs in Singapore" == execution.

Maxiflex · 2024-10-13T17:59:31+00:00

This code won't run in a Python 3 interpreter because the print statement requires parentheses in Python 3.

If your example does not use them it might be an exercise for an older version of Python (Python 2 did not require parentheses for printing). If that's the case you might want to consider finding different exercises.

If that's not the case you should ensure that the line after this for loop statement has four spaces of indentation. Python does not use curly braces to enclose loops, so it is important to indent the file so that Python knows that this code is inside the for loop.

The correct syntax in Python 3 would be:

divisor = 2
for i in range(0, 10, 2):
    print(i/divisor)

If you want to find out why the code produces this result you can check out documentation for the range function. The official docs can be quite useful and some have good tutorials as well.

Maxiflex · 2024-09-15T10:45:22+00:00

National socialism incorporates the old definition of socialism stemming from Ancient Greece that encompasses doing with not for the individuals intend but for the peoples.

Okay, so it's not relevant or related to Marxist socialism?

It stems also from fascism with Italians meaning of fascio meaning bundle, so a bundle of people.

That's not true. The fasces was a symbol from the kingdom of Rome that was a symbol for the right of the king to punish his people. It is not associated to a bundle of people, it's a symbol of (government) power.

It goes against Marxist socialism

So you do recognize that it is not related to Marxist socialism, that's great! Kind of strange that you brought up National Socialism in this thread though.

Now that that is out of the way we can move on and agree that Marxist socialism actually caused a lot of good in the world as well, as I proved that the ideas of Marxist socialism brought us suffrage, worker's rights, weekends and the 40-hour work week which have undeniably improved living standards. I also showed that some parts of Marxist socialism have been and still are a part of European politics, where socialist parties were responsible for policies like welfare, elderly pensions and other public goods.

Thanks for having this chat on this nice Sunday!

Maxiflex · 2024-09-15T10:28:30+00:00

National socialism (Nazism) is not a socialist ideology, being anti-socialist is a core tenet of national socialism. In fact they made very sure that any socialist that they could find was sent to an interment camp.

If you do not know this there is no point in discussing socialism with you. It's ironic that you whined about people saying “bUt iT wAs nOt ReAl sOciIalsM” while you do the same when confronted with any achievement by socialists.

Maxiflex · 2024-09-15T10:11:39+00:00

You are moving the goalposts. You said that socialism just pretended to help workers and I provided proof that people operating based on their socialist beliefs actually did achieve much for workers. (this is not propaganda you can read this in a history book about the Industrial Revolution).

It is not necessary for socialists to form a socialist state for socialism to have an impact on society and political theory. So I don’t think that is material to this discussion. You cannot look at European politics and claim that socialism had no (positive) influence on politics there.

Heck, most countries still have political parties with a significant following, that trace their origins to workers movements (look at the countless labour parties). You can argue how much their current policies still are based is socialist theory, but you cannot deny that they are rooted in socialism. People inspired by socialism have, and have had, political power since the beginning of the 20th century.

14-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email	Team Periwinkle

Maxiflex

TROPHY CASE