Nope its definitely accurate!
Indycar does not have a constructors championship, and the format encourages each car to operate as its own team, and since all the teams (except McLaren) are owned by one random guy, that encourages them to make each car they field to have more sponsors. And the brand appeal of like, one guy, isn't as powerful as something like McLaren, a famous car company with the color Orange.
Anyone heard of Penske? RLL? Meyer Shank? Dale Coyn? No. Aside from Penske, those other names are only big names within Indycars history, just like Hendricks is only big inside Nascar history.
IndyCar is pretty popular, but because of the company split in the 90s, there was no one to compete with Nascar throughout the 90s and 00s in terms of US popularity. So essentially the entire series is really behind and hasnt built up financial appeal to sponsors.
Thus, in order to keep staying in business, the teams sell ad space on the cars anytime they can, leading to teams running special liveries for one race, a driver bringing a big sponsor so the team changes the car to accomodate, and all the cars look different.
Different enough to warrant a spotters guide for a few races.
IndyCar could change that by enforcing a team liverie, but I bet the teams wouldn't like that.
For an average race, the teams don't really do team orders. It's VERY rare. And teams usually allow their own drivers to fight hard all the time. Since teams as a whole don't affect the race, you don't focus on that much.
Team owners only care if one of their drivers causes another to crash, and they don't care who wins because each driver they field is another chance at a win.
Nah it's because they decided to use cameras instead of LiDAR and then try to make it autonomous instead of driver aid.
AI is at its best when it's opening up productivity and freedom to think critically or leisurely, the same way sticky notes help someone study.
I don't know if you're referring to Gaza or Israel on October 7th, but here's a press conference about the burned bodies.
You understand what you're saying right.
This was a big media press conference, and the presenter. The presenter, was Dr. Chen Kugel. This was a slide on his own presentation. Do you understand?
Boom:
https://youtu.be/SoTItPHa6mw?si=zPYvRhDoj1D-nwSB
Video of the actual press conference.
Please relent, it's giving me a headache.
He does address all the scans, the metal wire in the photo, right there, direct quotes from him too I should have led with this. Around minute 6 is when the images posted come up.
Please watch the video, please please I feel like I'm going insane. I should have led with it but I didn't know there was video of the whole press conference.
Well look.
If this were any other country in Europe or the US, no one would be questioning the doctors, the first responders, and news outlets who report their claims. Because ultimately, that's what's going on here.
If you acknowledge that this is an unconventional response to such overwhelming proof, I will reserve my pure bewilderment.
And if you're still questioning the Metal wire, yes, it's in the Media Line report. Check the scanned image. It's literally right there, bottom right of the scan you can see the metal loop, and follow it around the bodies.
Do you want the Telegram archive? I have access to 2. One that shows live killings, as corroborated by the BBC, NYT, who were shown the same footage at a screening in Israel, and one that shows images and CCTV uploaded by first responders.
Actually, it's not embellished at all, in fact, if you've seen the archives, most reports under-sell the atrocities. You have to wonder why both The Media Line and The Guardian were at the same press conference, yet The Media Line chose to show the picture with the metal wire.
It's because The Media Line clearly has an agenda to garner an emotional response from its audience?
That can certainly be true.
Another point of view is that sources like The Guardian are irresponsible for not showing the images when many people are accusing Israel of embellishment.
Yes there is a picture and there is a metal wire there and there are more, multitudes more.
There are trucks filled with burnt bodies, there's images of a burnt child running and falling. There's videos of smoke still rising from the bodies as first responders reach the scenes.
But you know, if you want more, here you go.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67165128
https://www.haaretz.com/0000018b-3313-dff1-a5eb-ffffee6f0000
Now you have BBC who corroborates the metal wire, and Haaretz that describes the beheaded babies as accurate, both well known and trusted sources.
If you actually want the archive with the first responder telegram that corroborates all this too I can PM it also.
Here's the corroborating Guardian article.
The allegation of victims tied together and set on fire is absolutely true. I saw the images, and here is an article with it.
This article is corroborated by The Guardian, who was at the same press conference, but chose not to post that picture, but a couple other ones.
I saw another image of this mother and child as seen at the scene of the crime too in an archive curated by first responders at the scene.
Many, many of the victims were burned alive.
Edit: Haaretz was probably at the press conference too.
Here's a PBS video https://youtu.be/jRccpmfQrEE?si=lv3pfejLk1n9E7sg
It's probably a lot more than 40 in various states of intentional or indirect dismemberment, burnings, decapitations, or complete disintegration to the point where only teeth remain.
There are also various archives with have images and videos corroborated by this report and other news outlets, like Haaretz, NYT, the Guardian, and others.
EDIT: Ah this was about Palestinian burned bodies not Israeli, my apologies.
They have an official app LOL. You have to get it from their telegram. (I wouldn't do it tbh)
Some of the sources I wanted to sub to but could never afford it are TIME magazine and The Atlantic.
WSJ I don't believe gives all it's articles to Apple. Could be wrong.
I wish the NYT was still in there, but they pulled out a while back.
I think The Guardian is in there though.
Let it be noted that this is an opinion article.
Editorials and Opinion pieces do contribute to social discourse regarding news, and may be correct, but unlike their normal news, they can say whatever they want about the news from the authors they hire.
Opinion pieces allow news sources to use sensationalist and inflammatory articles to drive engagement without harming their credibility, because of that giant OPINION label.
NYT and WSJ's editorials and opinion pieces tend to be quite left and quite right leaning respectfully, to an almost satirical level. In my opinion, the WSJ's comment section under its editorials are much worse.
I'm not disparaging the article in any way, just saying for those that may not already know.
A PBS poll recently showed that the divide on Israel-Palestine is 60-ish% in favor, but for the youth its split 48% for Israel and 52% for Palestine. That is quite the even split.
This has got to be one of the most divisive issues among people my age, which is ages 18-25.
Holy shit, that's a big stamp of the foot. That's the first country to ban Pro-Palestinian demonstrations isn't it?
"Not-for-profit" usually makes them more trustworthy, plus they were the first to report what the Gaza Health Ministry said about the hospital, prematurely too.
The most credible sources report truth and update stories if they are incorrect.
Yeah there is a thread put out by Geoconfirmed on Twitter, he only geographically locates where footage is, so he's pretty unbiased.
By basically confirming where and when footage is, putting all the videos of this event together paints a pretty clear picture on its own, even without considering the other evidence.
I can give you other sources, like the Al Jazeera stream, and the analysis provided by Geoconfirmed.
This is publicly available information.
The reason I chose the AP is because they were the first to report what the Gaza Health Ministry said, and reported it as "Israel strikes Hospital, killing 500".
They do in fact pursue truth and update stories accordingly, to my relief.
I would like to explain some more context in the comments before people say things like "I'm denying war crimes"
This was reported a day ago, but open source intelligence had confirmed these reports 8 hours after the attack. All which has been covered in this article, even the Al Jazeera stream that caught the whole thing on camera. (Interestingly, Al Jazeera still reported that it was still caused by Israel I believe based on the same evidence.)
AP was one of the first to report the Gaza Health Ministry said, with the article titled, "Israel strikes hospital, killing 500." Over the next hours, they edited the article title 3 times, and had to emphasize that it was just a statement by the Gaza Health Ministry.
By then, it had been reported across the media landscape as an Israeli airstrike. Now, considering the past actions of Israel, like that reporter they shot a year or so ago, it's quite easy to assume that Israel bombed it and tried to cover it up. But, news organizations are not supposed to assume. Instead, we learned that the Gaza Health Ministry, an organization controlled by Hamas, should be taken with a large grain of salt.
Casualties turn out to be far less than 500, more like 50-100. I am in no way minimizing the loss of life. But from a journalistic standpoint, this is a 90% error, a total disaster in reporting.
The NYTimes put out this Editorial reflecting on the error of the Gaza Hospital, comparing it to the error in the 2002 Jenin massacre.
The rush to judgment on Tuesday night will continue to haunt us all.
I'm inclined to agree, especially upon being banned from worldnews on the lemmy.ml instance for "denying war crimes and genocide" by posting this article FROM THE NYTIMES which was reported about a day after the incident.
I'm not trying to report "Pro-Israel" Propoganda, but this should make everyone take a seat back and be very careful when reading news. This conflict is extremely divisive and it's challenging the status quo in journalism and global politics.
Additionally, news media can get it wrong, but credibility can be gained just as it can be lost, so they should be given a second chance, especially if they admit it, like the AP or the NYTimes did.
An Associated Press analysis of more than a dozen videos found that the deadly explosion at a Gaza hospital Tuesday was likely caused by a rocket fired from inside Palestinian territory that veered off course and broke up in the air before crashing back to the ground.
Al Jazeera had been live streaming and live reporting the entire thing, and there are multiple angles and phone videos from them and other sources that show the entire incident, from the rocket barrage, to the booster failure, to the hospital explosion.
Alot of the videos in there were confirmed 8 hours after the incident, this is the first mainstream media outlet that put it all together.
The AP was one of the first to report what the Gaza Health Ministry said, "Israel strikes hospital, killing 500", then edited their article 3 times in 1 hour, with new titles and recharacterizing the report as "they said" to try and cover the increasing uncertainty of the situation. Along with the casualty number dropping. Now some might say "But any death at all is bad, 50 or 500!". That's true, it's still really tragic, but it's also a 90% error, which is a disaster for journalism.
The article covers the JDAM theories, the Israel warned them, the Hamas announcing their launching rockets a little after the incident. All things that would make the situation more murky.
I admit I do sound like I'm defending Israel with this. This particular event is a flashpoint for me personally since I'm heavily invested in the state of journalism in an age where the flood of information can overwhelm news and lead to innaccuracies.
The rocket turning around video is a different video from last year.
Unfortunately I got banned from World News on lemmy.ml because posting this was "War Crime Denial" apparently.
And that's why you would never be put on a jury Mr. "Hunt the predators and rapists down and kill them violently".
If I were in your position, I might be getting equally angry at the meer suggestion that privacy is important, but I would be wrong for being angry at the wrong topic.
Anyway, this fight against encryption is going to lose, for the sake if journalists who report in hostile countries without freedom of speech, for the sake of kids with parents who'd kill them if they came out as trans, and for people in the intelligence industry.
Israel had considered Hamas a terrorist organization but one that could play a useful role for Israel in the Gaza Strip, which the group controls. Now, senior Israeli officials say, Hamas must be crushed.
> Since its founding, Hamas has declared that Israel has no right to exist, that there are no Israeli civilians and that every Israeli citizen is a soldier of the state, and thus a legitimate target.
> Still, if Western nations considered Hamas a terrorist organization, they also thought that it was preoccupied with governing Palestinians crammed into Gaza. Hamas provided social services. It was even thought of as a restraint on what were considered even more radical groups.
> In Israel, successive governments cut quiet deals with Hamas, hoping to keep a form of stability in the Gaza Strip, which the group controls, especially after the Israelis withdrew unilaterally from the territory in 2005.
> But the assault launched by Hamas this weekend, with more than 900 Israelis listed as killed so far and more than 150 believed taken as hostages and human shields into Gaza, has now stripped away any remaining illusions about the group or its intentions. The attack by Hamas into Israel proper is notable for its terror, targeting not only uniformed soldiers, but also civilians, including women and children.
> Senior Israeli officials now say Hamas must be crushed, both to restore stability in Gaza and credibility for Israel as an ineradicable part of the Middle East.
> “We must admit that the conception was wrong, we can’t hide behind it,” said Tamir Hayman, a retired major general and managing director of Israel’s Institute for National Security Studies.
> There is much the same disillusionment in the West, especially among Europeans who have provided significant aid to Gaza, some of which has always been siphoned off by Hamas. The horrors of the weekend now cast Hamas in a new light, one which is likely to have a major effect on events going forward.
> The European Union, like the United States, has labeled Hamas a terrorist organization and officially boycotts it, but many Europeans see the group as freedom fighters struggling against an Israel that is slowly making a Palestinian state impossible.
> For many in the West, especially the young and those on the left, “Gaza is a one-word argument for Israel’s brutality toward a blockaded enclave living in miserable conditions,” said Natan Sachs, director of the Center for Middle East Policy of the Brookings Institution.
> Hamas, for them, was “fundamentally a nationalist resistance movement in the context of Gaza.” That view was shattered “for some, if not all, on Saturday,” he said.
> In Europe, there have been uniform official condemnations of the attacks and of support for Israel. But tellingly on Monday there was confusion in Brussels, when an E.U. official, Oliver Varhelyi, announced that 691 million euros, or about $730 million, in aid to the Palestinians would be put under review, an announcement quickly softened to say that humanitarian aid would continue.
> In Israel, the military had few illusions about Hamas, considering it among the most extreme of the Palestinian armed groups and recognizing that it would never accept any form of recognition of Israel, unlike Fatah, the heart of the Palestinian Authority, Mr. Hayman said in an interview.
> The Authority, set up after the Oslo accords of the 1990s, controls the West Bank, and Israel has tried to strengthen it while working with the Authority to weaken Hamas in the West Bank.
> Yet for Israeli leaders, Hamas was useful, too. It was someone in control of Gaza to talk to, Mr. Hayman said, that could help keep stability, which is why Israel had refrained from a full-scale assault in Gaza, he said. “This conception has failed.”
> Yaakov Amidror, a retired major general who served as national security adviser to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in an earlier government, agreed.
> “It’s a huge mistake that I did, believing that a terror organization can change its DNA,” he said. “I thought that Hamas, because of its responsibility and because it’s not only a terror organization, but also an organization with ideas about the future, a small branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, is more responsible, and I learned in the hard way that it is not so, that a terror organization is a terror organization.”
> Mr. Amidror, now a senior fellow at the Jerusalem Institute for Strategic Studies, said bluntly: “We don’t want to make the same mistake again.” Hamas, he said, “should be killed and destroyed.”
> Mr. Hayman also foresees a strong, prolonged Israeli response. “The context right now is after a brutal, unyielding terror activity of a kind Israel has never seen, worse than the atrocities of ISIS, with the slaughtering of people, the torturing of women and abducting children and old people,” he said. “This is a kind of madness which we never imagined.”
> The Israeli military has launched a number of retaliatory strikes into Gaza since Saturday morning. Already, more than 680 Palestinians in Gaza have been killed in Israeli strikes, Gazan officials say.
> Israel did not see “the strategic meaning of the rhetoric of Hamas,” said Shlomo Avineri, a former Israeli official and a political scientist. “It was dismissed as rhetoric, without considering how vulnerable Israel is, with all the kibbutzim near Gaza.”
> When Hamas said that “every civilian is a soldier, this was not rhetoric but identifying the vulnerability of the Israeli communities inside Israel,” he said. Instead, he said, the army was focused on individual terrorism in the West Bank, and the government on its controversial efforts at judicial reform.
> For many Palestinians, Hamas was a military organization using the only means it had to resist a far superior Israeli military and Israeli occupation, including terrorist acts, suicide bombings and rocket attacks.
> For Israelis, Hamas’s brutality was clear from the suicide bombing campaign of the 1990s and early 2000s, and “Gaza is a one-word argument for the danger of unilateral withdrawal and trusting in Palestinian rule,” Mr. Sachs said.
> Much will now depend on how the international community reacts to the inevitable deaths of civilians in Gaza, a tightly packed space where Hamas has had time to prepare its defenses.
> Much will also depend on whether Hezbollah joins the fight from Lebanon, as it did in 2006. After Israel’s cautious effort to hurt Hezbollah then, few expect many limits this time on either side. With Hezbollah’s leader, Hassan Nasrallah, reportedly regretting his attack on Israel in 2006, but also equipped by Iran with far more sophisticated rockets, mutual deterrence may yet win out.
> But if Mr. Amidror is correct, Israel will pursue its war against Hamas with little regard for Western opinion and criticism. “It is the last time that we can allow Hamas to be strong enough to attack Israel,” he said.
> If Israel succeeds in destroying Hamas, he said, “it will show that when there is a real test, Israel is ready to pay the price, ready to fight and ready to make the difference. I think that we will be more appreciated by everyone in the Mideast, not just the Saudis. If the reaction of Israel will not be strong enough, we might lose some support in the Middle East.”
Does anyone use both an iPhone and a Pixel with GrapheneOS?
I'm looking to buy an iPhone 15 when it comes out. For those that also have a Pixel, what are some things that each phone does completely better than the other?
I was thinking of using the iPhone as a phone first, and having the Pixel as just a Personal Smart Device that I can use to do sideloading, emulation, file organizing, and other productivity and entertainment stuff, maybe even social media like having Mastadon and Lemmy there, maybe Signal too.
Whereas I'll have the iPhone for calling, texting, streaming, CarPlay, News, and Apple Watch stuff.
What are some other things I can segment?
(There's a lot of content and apps available on both, but I'm wanting to know if there's anything that's visibly or marginally better on either device that you've noticed)
Compartmentalization and Segmentation of services to different devices.
What's the efficacy of compartmentalizing proprietary services to different devices?
Some streaming apps are most efficient and fluid on Apple devices. I would say it would be a wise thing to use the apps on the Apple devices like Apple TV or iPad rather than put the apps on your Pixel running a FOSS operating system, where it can possibly collect more information about you.
I'd like some more thoughts on this idea.