Sure, I definitely see that they're biased towards Pro-Israeli and their founder was Chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. I'm not going to stop looking until I find something conclusive, because of how repulsive these reported actions are. There's a lot of propaganda out there, though.

How normalized does hatred have to be for anyone to think that this defense isn't inherently despicable:

...falsity of the Israeli army's claim that the Palestinian civilians subjected to torture in the presence of Israeli civilians were fighters involved in the October 7 attack

Hamas prisoners or not this is pure, unfettered zealotry and it's embarrassing that these soldiers thought this would be a credible justification.

Edit: welp I did some digging and I don't know what to believe now:

https://unwatch.org/un-human-rights-office-amplifies-blood-libel-by-terrorist-sympathizers/

Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor’s leadership routinely posts antisemitic and pro-Hamas content online.

The chairman of Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor’s Board is none other than Richard Falk—the former UN Special Rapporteur on Palestine who has hailed Hamas’ “spirit of resistance,” justified Palestinian violence, and claimed that Hamas aims for “long-term peaceful co-existence.” While he was Special Rapporteur, Falk was at the center of multiple controversies that led to continuous calls for his resignation by the U.S., UK, Canada, Australia, and others. According to the U.S. State Department, this was because of his “despicable and deeply offensive comments, particularly his anti-Semitic blog postings, his endorsement of 9/11 conspiracy theories, and his deplorable statements with regard to the terrorist attacks in Boston.” Falk had first called the Boston bombing a false flag and then justified it as a form of “resistance” that was “bound” to result from U.S. “military undertakings.” Even Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon had to come out several times to publicly denounce Falk’s statements. Falk’s antisemitism has even gotten him fired from a Human Rights Watch committee.

Just from a reading of 4 of your comments as a sample size, it is obvious you are an Anti-Israel propagandist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera_controversies_and_criticism

Allegations of antisemitism and anti-Israel sentiment

An article by Sherry Ricchiardi in the American Journalism Review (AJR) noted that critics of Al Jazeera have "assailed what they see as anti-Semitic, anti-American bias in the channel's news content."[4] Ricchiardi had earlier criticized an Al Jazeera report that Jewish employees of 9/11 targets were informed of the attacks beforehand, a report which was also criticized in an October 2001 New York Times editorial. She cited the former Al Jazeera weekly show Sharia and Life, hosted by Yusuf Qaradawi (an Egyptian cleric who "argues clearly and consistently that hatred of Israel and Jews is Islamically sanctioned").[5] The organization held a 2008 on-air birthday party for Samir Kuntar, a Lebanese terrorist convicted of killing four Israelis who was released in July of that year, later admitting that its coverage of Kuntar's release violated its code of ethics.[6] The organization's Beirut bureau chief said, "Brother Samir, we wish to celebrate your birthday with you" and called him a "pan-Arab hero."[7][8]

Former Fox News conservative commentator Bill O'Reilly has called Al Jazeera "anti-Semitic" and "anti-American."[9] Dave Marash who resigned from his position saying his exit was due in part to an anti-American bias at the network that is little seen in the US. Marash said he felt that attitude more from British administrators than Arabs. He said there were other reasons for his exit and was proud of the network's coverage of issues south of the equator, but that he ultimately felt that it was not the right place for him.[10] He appeared on The O'Reilly Factor to challenge conservative host Bill O'Reilly's lambasting of Al Jazeera and said: "They certainly aren't anti-Semitic, but they are anti-Netanyahu and anti-Lieberman and anti-Israeli, right."[4][11] Marash had also described Al Jazeera as “the best news channel on Earth.”[12]

On May 30, 2017, Al Jazeera's English-language account retweeted an Anti-Semitic meme.[13][14][unreliable source?] The network tweeted an apology after the incident, calling it a "mistake."[15][unreliable source?]

In May 2019, AJ+ produced a video denying and minimizing the Holocaust. Al Jazeera said it had "swiftly deleted" the video, stating that it had "violated the editorial standards of the network". The video stated that "[the] number [of Jews murdered in the Holocaust] had been exaggerated and 'adopted by the Zionist movement', and that Israel is the 'biggest winner' from the genocide."[16]

Weird, your sources seem to be missing the events in late 1947 that led up to the formulation and execution of Plan Dalet. All cases of the Arab League threatening mass genocide of Jews and conclusive evidence of the Arab League having deep ties to Nazi Germany also seem to be mysteriously absent. 🤔

https://www.hoover.org/research/mufti-and-holocaust

Weird, your sources seem to be missing the events in late 1947 that led up to the formulation and execution of Plan Dalet. All cases of the Arab League threatening mass genocide of Jews and conclusive evidence of the Arab League having deep ties to Nazi Germany also seem to be mysteriously absent. 🤔

https://www.hoover.org/research/mufti-and-holocaust

BTW I just wanted to share some quotes and information with you since you seem to think Plan Dalet was expansionist and not precipitated. Not to mention those villages were either actively or imminently hostile.

"This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades." Azzam Pasha, Secretary General of the Arab League. October 11, 1947 report on the pan-Arab summit

"The Arabs have taken into their own hands the final solution of the Jewish problem. The problem will be solved only in blood and fire. The Jews will soon be driven out." Arab Higher Committee circular. 1947

"The surviving Jews would be helped to return to their native countries, but my estimation is that none will survive" Ahmed Shuqeiri (later PLO chief) quoted in Churchill and Churchill, p. 52

"There are over one million Jews in the Arab Lands. Their lives will be forfeit as well when we conquer the Jews.” Azzam Pasha, the Arab League General Secretary, May 1948.

You're the one living in lala land where the British didn't over promise after the collapse of an empire and you'll only condemn one side of alleged genocide. It was just those filthy colonizers.

I don't believe it, I know it. The sources are very clear. And I can find many more examples of Jews being treated like second class citizens by Arabs, not just Europeans. How preposterous for you to even refute. Ever heard of a dhimmi? You want to talk about apartheid then let's talk about that instead of you making baseless claim after baseless claim.

What? Palestine has had Jews ever since the Arab conquest.

And? Babylonian, Greek, Roman, and Byzantine conquests? Crusades? Ottomans deporting them from Tel Aviv and Gaffa? We just went over this, keep up.

Uh… There had been numerous massacres before Arab involvement in the war. Remember Dier Yassin?

Remember the Hebron massacre in 1929 and 1936-1939 Arab revolt in Palestine that I mentioned? Remember the Hebron massacre of 1834? 1921 Jaffa riots? Stop playing games.

In early April 1948, the Israelis launched Plan Dalet, a large-scale offensive to capture land and empty it of Palestinian Arabs.

"According to the Israeli Yehoshafat Harkabi, Plan Dalet called for the conquest of Arab towns and villages inside and along the borders of the area allocated to the proposed Jewish State in the UN Partition Plan.[4] In case of resistance, the population of conquered villages was to be expelled outside the borders of the Jewish state. If no resistance was met, the residents could stay put, under military rule.[qt 1][5][6][7]"

Nonviolent occupation under UN sanctions. Really spooky stuff.

Uh… What? Israel definitely didn’t return that land because they wanted to. Just look at the Golan Heights.

You're going to have to provide sources for this. You're genuinely coming across as extremely predisposed to pardon any attempt of complete, violent obliteration by Israel's neighbors. It's fascinating to watch though.

It's a hard problem to solve. Every time Jews had established themselves in the area they got conquered or kicked out, who's to say it wouldn't have just happened again? And it doesn't help that 5 Arab nations initiated a war of extermination before Zionists had the chance to expose these alleged intentions of ethnic-cleansing. In fact, Israel's actions of returning land they had captured whenever Arabs went to war with them seemed to be in direct contradiction of the allegations.

When I examine the entire chain of events, I see two sides that had unrelenting ideologies. Not one.

Completely baseless. Take it up with the British Mandate authority and the League of Nations that wanted them to be able to stand on their own.

I'm not even sure what these have to do with modern Israel, which is ideologically a late 19th/early 20th endeavor.

You don't think that the established Jewish territory prior to and during the 20th century has anything to do with modern Israel? You think that the revitalization of a Jewish homeland was unique to Zionist ideology when their occupation of both Galilee and Jerusalem was sanctioned by the Ottomans in 1534-1742?

You can't have a Jewish majority state in Palestine without kicking Palestinians out of their home; it's just not physically possible.

Of course you can, you just need more than one state. This had been the plan instituted by the British, but the British Mandatory authorities strayed from the plan as I already stated.

You mean in 1534 when they were permitted by Ottomans to establish a Jewish City-State?

Or maybe you mean in 1821 when the Jewish adviser and finance minister to the rulers of the Galilee, Haim Farkhi, was murdered and the Ottomans allowed their army to conquer Galilee?

Or maybe you mean in the late 19th century when they bought land from the Ottomans and peacefully settled?

Or maybe you mean in 1917 when the Ottomans deported them from Tel Aviv and Gaffa because the Ottomans were at war with the lands they immigrated from?

Or maybe you mean after 1917 when the obscure instructions of the British Mandate radicalized all of their Arab neighbors against them and galvanized the call to the violent eradication of Israel?

Or maybe you mean in 1921 and 1929 when Arab mobs violently attacked Jewish population centers?

Or maybe you mean in 1936-1939 when Arabs launched widespread attacks on both the British and the Jews?

Is it blatantly obvious how ridiculous your claim is yet, or do I need to keep going?

steal Palestine

Again, this is misinformation. It's particularly concerning that you are accusing me of not being nuanced when your uncharitable interpretation of the conflict seems to suggest that Israel never had a right to be there in the first place.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_Palestine

"After an Arab uprising against the Ottoman Empire arose during the First World War in 1916, British forces drove Ottoman forces out of the Levant.[3] The United Kingdom had agreed in the McMahon–Hussein Correspondence that it would honour Arab independence in case of a revolt, but in the end, the United Kingdom and France divided what had been what had been Ottoman Syria under the Sykes–Picot Agreement—an act of betrayal in the eyes of the Arabs."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration

"The intended boundaries of Palestine were not specified, and the British government later confirmed that the words "in Palestine" meant that the Jewish national home was not intended to cover all of Palestine. The second half of the declaration was added to satisfy opponents of the policy, who had claimed that it would otherwise prejudice the position of the local population of Palestine and encourage antisemitism worldwide by "stamping the Jews as strangers in their native lands"."

Your ire should be directed at the British protectorate for the ambiguity that enabled both sides to feel justified in their believed independence. This initial blunder seems to me to have fostered mutual extremism.

Your comment is not true whatsoever. Anyone that reads the history of the conflict will easily see that israel has been the key instigator of war every single time.

This is why I'm attempting to remain impartial and critical of both sides, to avoid spreading complete misinformation as you have done here.

https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/arab-israeli-war

"The United Nations resolution sparked conflict between Jewish and Arab groups within Palestine. Fighting began with attacks by irregular bands of Palestinian Arabs attached to local units of the Arab Liberation Army composed of volunteers from Palestine and neighboring Arab countries. These groups launched their attacks against Jewish cities, settlements, and armed forces."

"After Israel declared its independence on May 14, 1948, the fighting intensified with other Arab forces joining the Palestinian Arabs in attacking territory in the former Palestinian mandate. On the eve of May 14, the Arabs launched an air attack on Tel Aviv, which the Israelis resisted. This action was followed by the invasion of the former Palestinian mandate by Arab armies from Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Egypt."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calls_for_the_destruction_of_Israel

"The history of calls for the destruction of Israel is rooted in the prelude to its establishment. Leaders such as Azzam Pasha of the Arab League threatened a "war of extermination" in the event that a Jewish state was established. Prior to the 1967 Six Day War, there was a nearly unanimous consensus among Arab nations aimed at the obliteration of Israel.[7] Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser reiterated calls for the annulment of Israel's existence in the lead-up to the war. Contemporary discourse from political figures in Iran, including leaders like Ali Khamenei and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, continues to advocate for Israel's destruction, accompanied by antisemitic rhetoric and Holocaust denial.[8] Islamist Palestinian organizations like Hamas[9] and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad[9] consistently promote the goal of Israel's elimination, as evidenced by their charters, statements, and actions, such as the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel."

I have many, many more examples if you wish to continue spreading misinformation.

The current situation is incredibly ugly any way you look at it, but this conflict's history spans all the way back to the early 20th century. When I went back and looked at all the times in the past that the Arabs in the region were committed to the complete eradication of Israel and how frustrating it would be more recently for the Palestinians that just wanted normal lives to keep having to watch what little territory they had to themselves be reduced further by people that were never asked to be there, I at least got a better understanding about why peace is being treated as such a distant option.

There is so much tension between Israel and their Arab neighbors/refugees that I am acutely aware of how unqualified I am to prescribe some kind of equitable solution without thousand more hours of research, if even then. I would only advocate that people continue to be critical of both sides and keep in mind that mutual extremism has disrupted every preceding chance of peace.

You're not doing anything wrong, the playlist function is just half-baked. My guess is they put just enough work into it to intend for it to be used in small chunks, such as a single evening.

Edit: I've just seen your clarifying statement, and although Plex playlist is relatively non functional I've never seen that specific behavior. Try hitting play on an item in the playlist instead, that works for me.

Don't forget that Bethesda allocated memory incorrectly for page size and used ExecuteIndirect, instead of the proper call for DX12, which causes Starfield to play a game of telephone with Nvidia GPUs. It's not just the outdated engine lol

Instead of minutia, I'm just going to mention the few reasons that really sold me on containers.

• Security: Being able to host external services that only have access to the folders I map to it.

• Compartmentalization: I can specify exactly what resources I want to limit/control for each individual service. I.E. stacking a VPN on top of services for a 100% guaranteed Killswitch.

• Automation: Docker is an incredible tool for automatically restarting services whenever they hit a snag and keeping your services up to date with the latest version.

I think you're forgetting that the supernatural is but another theory, put forth by humans, to explain our existence. It doesn't earn bonus points for being unobservable. I've seen 0 evidence supporting it, contrary to how many questions particle physics has solved.

I've simply stated that we can't draw statistics about things for which we have no evidence - which you now seem to be agreeing with.

I've posited quite the opposite of this. If there are two opposing theories, with one substantiated and one not, then the substantiated one is more likely. For example: you wouldn't say that a chicken's offspring being implanted in an egg by cosmic rays is just as likely as the egg being fertilized before it was laid because the latter is substantiated while the former has yet to have any observable truth.

I'd say 99% is a completely fair probability as the ratio of something to nothing approaches infinity.

we don't yet have evidence pertaining to any hypothesis for how it was created

I just gave you some? I don't know about you, but humans being able to replicate the exact particle that originated matter is a profound bit of evidence towards the universe not being a product of some higher power to me.

They aren't immeasurable. The reason you think I'm making a different argument to your point is that you're asking for every negative proof. This is never going to provide an answer, as it would be a competition to dispel the imagination.

Hypotheses and positive proofs are slowly answering the question of why we're here. We know that evolution is likely, DNA is irrefutable evidence. We know that it's likely our known universe began with a singularity because of the background microwave radiation accelerating away from a point of origin. We know the field and corresponding particle that gave matter its properties from the particle acceleration tests by CERN.

It becomes a much different question when one is not only seeking answers that fit their beliefs.