I’d be happier if they push for lighter devices personally. Glass feels nice, but their Pro models can be obnoxiously heavy.

Would Proton Bridge fit your needs?

If you’re referring to APrime, he did release an updated statement on Twitter/X.

Last year, I made the decision to leave LMG influenced by a series of negative emotions that clouded my judgement. So over the past few months, I’ve taken the time to apologize privately to Linus, Yvonne, and others on the team because my actions and words were unfair to them.

Throughout my five years of employment there, they’ve shown nothing but kindness and forgiveness. We’ve had our differences, but none of them justified the comments I made or the disturbances I caused after my departure.

My decision to leave was unfortunately precipitated by a challenging period in my personal life, which I felt was affecting my work. The “drama” unfolded while I was on vacation, a time when I was hoping to recharge. Instead, I returned feeling more frustrated & immediately quit.

Since then, I’ve continued with therapy, which I had started in the Spring under the company health plan, and this eventually led to a diagnosis of certain mental health conditions. I’m grateful for the support I received, as it helped me understand and address these issues.

I genuinely miss the people at LMG (though the feeling may not be mutual) & feel my motives for leaving were misguided.

However, I’ve been fortunate to work with some incredibly talented and wonderful people since, & I’m excited about the prospect having more in the future. :)

Have you ever looked at the DeArrow extension?

Ironically, the claims weren’t even against him, but rather someone else (unnamed) at his company (Linus Media Group).

The video is on Floatplane (paid service)

Can you articulate why you don’t trust Proton? From everything I know, they have a stellar reputation and have been around since 2013 with no end in sight.

They do, but there is precisely zero enforcement.

If it’s not too traumatic for you, I’d recommend watching the body cam footage from the fork incident. It’s is pretty informative, and gives some context for what happened.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=r6XXO13UEec

I see.

So you think it is unfair to question the numbers, and that we should blindly accept the Gaza health ministry numbers as authoritative and exact?

This despite the fact that the organization reporting these numbers is led by people appointed by one of the participants/instigators of the conflict? Not to mention the fact that there has been a shift in methodology for counting, and that this conflict is happening on a drastically different scale.

Honestly, I originally pulled the “Israeli aggression” quote from this AP article. It was also included in the NPR article I linked, but it is a widely reported fact.

The Health Ministry doesn’t report how Palestinians were killed, whether from Israeli airstrikes and artillery barrages or other means, like errant Palestinian rocket fire. It describes all casualties as victims of “Israeli aggression.”

We also have documented instances where deaths clearly include gunfire, which would not be considered “bombardments,” so it’s fair to assume a translation error resulting from a language barrier.

To clarify, the reason I said “It’s a factual and neutral statement,” is that Reuters prides itself on that being free of bias as much as possible. Whether or not they achieve that is up for debate, but it’s included in their Standards & Values..

Firstly, the evidence is not vague. Unless Israel started deliberately targeting women and children, while ignoring men, there is something wrong in their data. I wouldn’t personally ascribe a specific reason without more information.

Secondly, the scale of this conflict has far surpassed any other since the founding of the Palestinian Ministry of Health in 1993 (which split to become the Gaza Ministry of Heath in 2008). Accurately recording ~30,000 deaths vs 1,440, 2,310, or 260 is exceedingly challenging.

Hamas has at the very least accidentally killed civilians, but I don’t think we’ll come to an understanding on this.

Of course aid should be a top priority. But even if supposedly Hamas did everything you said (which they didn’t as the BBC wrote an article detailing the fire came from israel), the aid one is one you cannot possibly attribute to Hamas.

Uh, did I miss something?

When in my comment did I say what Hamas did?

Pulling from this NPR Article

The Hamas-run Gaza heath ministry has used “reliable media sources” for 13,000 of the 30,000 reported deaths. According to the “reliable media sources” 86% of those killed are women and children. However, hospital staff report that 58% of the 17,000 deaths they have recorded are women and children. That’s a pretty significant deviation.

The only complexity is caused by the specters of doubt you’ve invented to justify your own biases.

K.

You’ve given one example of a single potentially misreported demographic statistic that is tangentially related at best to the death toll number we’re discussing and that somehow represents a shift from decades of established methodology that has consistently reported accurately literally every single time this exact same shit has happened.

Look, the specific numbers have been off since they started relying on media sources. It’s not just “a single potentially misreported demographic statistic,” it’s a series of misreported incidents causing a dramatic demographic skew. That doesn’t mean the overall number of deaths is that far off. It could potentially be a case of the media ignoring the deaths of adult men.

Israel themselves trust the numbers out of Gaza!

To a point, maybe. Israeli officials constantly disputes the numbers in public.

If you thought it was a translation issue why did you cite it as evidence for your argument rather than discarding the whole thing as an unreliable source? You seem have no issue doing that when it comes to the information from the Hamas-run Gaza health ministry.

You keep jumping to extremes and putting words in my mouth. I’ve never said we should “disregard the whole thing as an unreliable source” when it comes to the Gaza health ministry. Their data is a valuable resource, even if they are not a neutral third party.

I keep repeating neutral facts to try and drive home how fucking absurd that phrase is. It’s tautological; facts are all neutral: they are descriptions of reality. How you present facts and frame them determines bias, not the facts themselves. Do you think people are manipulated and propagandized with only lies?

Ah, so you were just being redundant by saying “neutral facts,” got it.

In response to the rest of that, I would say that the best lies are blended together with truth.

2 points.

1. I don’t see any issues with the information presented in the Wikipedia section you linked.

2. Leadership in the Gaza Health Ministry has definitely changed since Hamas took control, I doubt all the workers are the same either. That isn’t super important though, except in understanding that they aren’t a neutral party.

Their numbers have repeatedly been independently confirmed and shown to be largely accurate in the past. They have never given any cause to doubt them and calling into question their methodology now is disingenuous at best, and malicious at worst.

Or maybe there are significant deviations from their previous methodology, that skews their numbers to make it look like Israel is intentionally targeting women and children? It may or may not be malicious, but the bias in their counting is clear as day.

I’m glad, at least, that we seem to have agreed that the addition of “hamas-run” is purely meant to cast doubt on the numbers but you seem to think this is justified despite all evidence to the contrary.

Cast doubt? No. Provide context and showcase potential bias? Yes. I suspect the overall numbers are roughly correct (potentially even undercounted), but their updated methodology shows significant deviation from the past in terms of who they say is being killed. All that to say, I would not blindly trust their data.

the death toll only includes people killed by the “occupation bombardment,” Boyza says. The health ministry describes its casualty figures as those resulting from “Israeli aggression.”

Yes. I did read that and I suspect there is a translation issue. Clearly when people die in incidents like February 29th, their deaths are added to the count. It’s not merely "occupation bombardment.”

I guess you didn’t need this lesson on how to lie by omission with “neutral facts”; you already knew what you were doing.

I’m not lying or omitting facts. You keep repeating the term “neutral facts,” but I have never once expressed that is what I want. I’m ok with bias as long as it is factual. Reading multiple perspectives is helpful in understanding complex topics.

Providing context is accurately identifying your source of information. When the IDF gives a statement, that is cited as well, often mentioning the Netanyahu government in-tandem.

For some up-to-date reporting on this subject, I’d like to share this recent NPR piece.

The Gaza health ministry has relied entirely on “reliable media sources” for ~13,000 of the ~30,000 reported deaths so far. ~17,000 of the deaths were input electronically from a hospital.

In addition, “Gaza’s health ministry says 70% of those killed in the territory are women and children. Its most recent breakdown of casualties recorded in hospitals shows women and children make up 58% of those deaths. Al-Qudra could not explain the discrepancy.”

So according to the Hamas-run Gaza heath ministry, “reliable media sources” report that 86% of those killed are women and children, but hospital staff report that only 58% are women and children. This discrepancy is significant and it’s clear that the non-hospital sources skew the data overall.

In addition, they intentionally assign all deaths to “Israeli aggression,” and do not differentiate between combatants and non-combatants.

All that to say, I think it is a perfect valid approach to specify that Hamas runs the health ministry when their numbers cannot be independently confirmed and appear to have significant distortions.

The author likely made the choice to include “Hamas-run” for factual accuracy and neutrality. Merely writing “Gaza health ministry”, would imply a neutral 3rd party. Any official in Gaza is appointed by Hamas and cannot be neutral. As such, it is fair to question the accuracy of the numbers provided.

That said, while their numbers are not something I would take at face value, their death count is still the best one we have.