The nuclear attack on Japan wasn’t intended to defeat them - they were already essentially defeated, just trying to find a more favorable way to lose. The nuclear attack’s purpose was to intimidate the USSR, as a power flex. The reason nuclear weapons are a deterrent isn’t because a couple of nukes hitting your country is a problem - that’s just a minor inconvenience when it comes to war. The reason nuclear weapons are a deterrent is because the countries that do have them have a lot of them, and can destroy not just a couple important cities, but cover your entire country in radioactive waste.

Not only will your “plan” not achieve its goal, but it will also hurt hundreds of thousands, possibly millions of civilians. I know it’s popular to associate a people with a government, and that’s not completely baseless, but - and I can’t believe I have to say this - that’s absolutely no reason to launch a nuclear attack. That’s just genocidal nonsense. There’s a reason countries at war don’t kill civilians, and it’s not “good will”.

this did affect Russia at least because I’ve seen many memes about egg prices (though I don’t eat eggs myself so I have no personal experience to validate that)

First, elimination of Israel is a good thing. Second, please show me the source.

Indeed, “terrorist attacks” have widely been performed by Palestinians and Palestinian liberation groups. Some were aimless, as they were just the spontaneous expression of the hatred of Palestinians towards Zionists. Some were quite purposeful (and it’s not just Palestinians doing that, there were plenty of cases of e.g. terrorist attacks of Ukraine on many people in Russia, the most recent one I remember killed a former Ukraine deputy who defected to Russia, and the blowing up of the Crimea bridge may well be considered one) - with the purpose being anything from assassinations (like the assassination of the minister of tourism by PFLP, and I hope you won’t claim Israel’s government is innocent and shouldn’t be targeted), to raising money, to political demands (the Japanese Red Army Faction hijacked some planes for ransom or to make the Japanese government release prisoners, or to make a point by flying one to DPRK), to perhaps the most objectionable purpose - intimidating Israelis to show that this isn’t “their” land.

“Terrorist attacks” shouldn’t be equated with each other - they should be looked at in the context of who’s leading them, what’s their purpose and means. If you reject “terrorist attacks”, you’re often rejecting the only means of partisan combat for heavily overwhelmed forces. Of course indiscriminate attacks on civilians are bad (though if civilians start shooting at you, you’re forced to fight anyway), but, depending on the organization leading them, most terrorist attacks aren’t that. There’s of course also the wider problem that terrorist attacks can’t be the only means towards an end, and don’t make sense in a lot of cases. Whether Hamas or PFLP perform them is not up to me, I’ll just trust that they know their options better than me. I’m not in a position to teach or moralize them.

Please educate yourself on formal logic.

Support for Hamas does imply support for Palestine.

However, what the original commenter said is that supporting Palestine doesn’t imply supporting Hamas, which is true, but that in turn implies an eclectic worldview in which you support a people against a genocide, but not their only means for resisting said genocide, and ignore facts (for example, by reading the 1988 Hamas charter, which is heavily cited by Western media, instead of the 2017 Hamas charter, which is much harder to find because it’s inconvenient for the West)

the Russia-Ukraine war of course

“80% of the world is against Israel, which is backed by my country, but among them there are countries that are bad and oppose my country for some reason, so I’ll support what my country is backing instead”

Israel is much more successful in massacring people than any of the countries you could think of. And please, don’t talk shit about other countries when you aren’t ready to fight against your country’s ruling class. That never ended well. This is literally the reason some Russian “communists” support the war.

You’re right in thinking law is moral, because morals have a historical character, and a class character, much like laws, and are shaped by the ruling class. However, because you ignore class, you can’t properly analyze what “law is moral” means. For example, copyright is moral in capitalism, because it “protects artists’ rights” and “copying is stealing” and whatnot. Lobbying is moral, because the entire parliamentary system is set up with the goal of letting the rich “invest” into the political “marketplace of ideas”.

However, the fact law is moral under capitalism doesn’t mean the law is “eternally” moral. Capitalism is harming humanity, so it must go, alongside its morals. You are right that in the future, copyright won’t exist. However, for such a change in the political superstructure, according economical changes are required. Until capitalism is gone, there are no reasons for copyright to magically disappear, and a billion reasons for it to keep existing.

it’s good, but older software doesn’t support it

KeepassDX

I never use phone contacts because I remember all the phone numbers I could possibly need (partly because almost nobody uses phone nowadays so I don’t have to remember a lot of them). I never accept calls unless I know the number or expect a call either, but I don’t need contacts for that.

most bridges are appservices, which must be hardcoded in Synapse(/Dendrite/Conduit/…) config