Yeah, there's a similar issue from the other side (at least in my country) - Men will usually apply for a job if they don't meet all the requirements, while women won't tend to do so.

Going on a tangent off “The traits that people typically associate with success in leadership, such as assertiveness and strength" (from the article), that almost sounds like something form the 50s - "Look here Johnson, I need those forms, and I need them yesterday, now get moving!". Traits I associate with leadership (at least in high-skill modern work place) are good communication and motivation skills, ability to plan ahead and multi-tasking/ability to prioritize. Sure, once in a while a manager has to bang their fist against the table, but the real skill isn't in banging on the table as hard as you can, it's the ability get what you want without needing to do so in the first place. Point being that, if anything, women are better managers.

Thing is, There are less women in STEM, there are less women in management position etc. Therefor, either women are less interested/worse at these things (which is the conservative view) or society itself treats women differently than men. The rational behind affirmative action and programs geared towards women isn't that women are less skilled and therefore need more help, rather that society makes it harder for a woman achieve the same as a similarly skilled man. By treating women differently we can help level the playing field.

Also, making gender "as unimportant as eye color in most things in life" is a completely unrealistic goal in the near future even in the most liberal countries in the world. We can (and do) strive to reach it, but that's not a viable solution for issues we have right now.

And you know what? Legally changing your gender SHOULD be harder than filling a form. Someone who's transgender should have no problem showing that's what they are. The thing is to make sure the legal process is done respectfully, without making the person feel like they're being interrogated.

I think we're on two different wavelengths.

Put stuff in: Stand next to closed car with no free hands, could use automatically opening doors.

Take stuff out: Open car. Pick up stuff out of the car. Stand next to open car with no free hands, could use automatically closing doors.

Because taking stuff out is like putting stuff in, only in the reverse order.

I know that wasn't the point, but:

Holt as Sisko and Terry as Worf is cool (Holt might work better as Odo, but we'll get to that in a sec).

Rosa should be Kira (Worf looks mean but is a big softy, hence Terry. Kira is the one that will kick your ass if you piss her off), Jina as Quark (obviously), Amy as Odo, Boyle as Rom, Hitchcock and Scully as O'brian and Bashir in their "two buds going to the holosuite to pretend they're WW1 pilots" mode.

Jake works surprisingly well as Jadzia - both like to do silly things, kinda offbeat yet very good at their job.

What do you mean by "comedy impersonation" - parody, or just copying a comedian?

If I were to set up a music show with a Madonna impersonator and slightly changed Madonna songs (or songs in her style), I'll get my pants sued off.

If Al Yankovic does a parody of a Madonna song, he's in the clear (He does ask for permission, but that's a courtesy and isn't legally mandatory).

The legal term is "transformative use". Parody, like where SNL has Alec Baldwin impersonating Trump, is a recognized type of transformative use. Baldwin doesn't straight up impersonate Trump, he does so in a comedic fashion (The impersonation itself is funny, regardless of how funny Trump is). The same logic applied when parodying or impersonating a comedian.

That's a great insight into Israeli society.

The answer to your question is a resounding "yes".

In fact, among the 4 members of war cabinet, at least one other has children in active combat units, and ALL cabinet members served in a combat unit as well as had at least one child in active combat duty.

Most children of Israeli politicians are absolutely conscripted to the army, and the public would look very badly on a "fortunate son" type situation.

Furthermore, there's an unwritten rule the ultra-orthodox parties do not involve themselves or even voice an opinion on military matters because, and this something often said in Israel, "they don't risk their children's life in the army" (the ultra-orthodox are essentially exempt from conscription).

The Israeli Jewish public doesn't see the Israeli combatants as poor or uneducated "others", but as their children, brothers and fathers.

I think that's a more ethical way of looking at it. However, this also helps explain the seeming lack of consideration for Palestinian life. Take a random person and ask him to choose between risking the life of his kid, who is in active service, in a military operation or throwing bombs and risking harming other civilians. Most people will choose to risk others. And among those who'll choose to risk their kid, most would either be lying or didn't really think about the question.

Hi, Israeli here. You didn't really point out any misinformation, the linked article just gives some (IMO wrong and even misleading) context.

The majority of the rest of the names are of boys aged 16-18. However, there are also boys as young as 14 on the list.

The 14 year old kid was charged for hostile sabotage activity, gathering or association, attacking a police officer under serious circumstances, throwing stones, negligence and general recklessness, maliciously or negligently causing damage to property, arson on nationalistic grounds, weapons/ammunition/explosives. Also, it's worth noting his trial was ongoing.

Prisoners have been convicted of crimes including carrying and manufacturing knives and daggers. Other common offenses detailed in Israel’s list include [...]

Ehh... technically true, but very misleading. Usually, there are a few charges, some more serious than others. The 14yo kid could be described as "charged with negligence and general recklessness", but that wouldn't be the whole picture. Here's a link to a list of 300 prisoners due to be released. It's in Hebrew, but copy-pasting into google translate is good enough to understand the charges:

https://www.gov.il/he/departments/dynamiccollectors/is-db?skip=0

In the first page, there are 2 prisoners charged with carrying and manufacturing knives and daggers. Both are also charged with attempted murder (one is 17 years old, btw).

And regarding "associating with hostile/unknown organisations", from what I could tell, this means that the prisoner was charged with being affiliated with Hamas. Hamas is considered a terrorist group in the US, UK, Canada and Australia (Not to mention they massacred more than 1,000 citizens). So this might be my Israeli bias speaking, but... what's unreasonable with throwing them to prison? Would being affiliated with ISIS or Al-Qaeda not carry a prison sentence?

“The main alleged crime for these detentions is stone-throwing, which can carry a 20-year sentence in prison for Palestinian children,” said a report published in July by children’s rights organisation, Save the Children.

Yes, "can carry". A 20 year sentence is only applicable if the rocks were thrown at a moving vehicle with intent to cause harm. without proving intent, the sentence is 10 years. Children are not explicitly mentioned (though the reality is that most rock throwers are minors). In practice, the courts try to avoid sentencing minors who are charged mainly with rock throwing to prison, and even when they are sentenced to prison it's for a few months.

I think the way people talk about themselves vs. the way they talk about others is very telling about their personality. Being positive and humble/making fun of oneself while being positive about others is a huge green flag.

Judaism has two meanings - religious and ethnic. (Nearly) all religious Jews belong to the Jewish ethnicity, but not all ethnic Jews are religious. In Israel, the best indicator if someone supports the occupation in the Palestinian territories is religion. What you call Zionism ("the settler colonialist apartheid") is mainly a religious movement. That's not to say religious Jews = bad. But a huge part of the problem is religious.

I knew a conspiracy theory nut who said that society is about three months away from collapse. As in, on any given date society was due to collapse in a few months.

First society was due to collapse due to cancer caused by COVID vaccines. Then it turned to "COVID vaccines cause sterilization and cancer, which will collapse society in a few years" and complete disregard to the prior time line. Then society was due to collapse due to a global war caused by Putin using nuclear weapons. Which turned to "Putin will invade [my country, which does not border Russia. Or any country that borders Russia, and so on].

The fun part was that each theory didn't over-ride the previous, but they somehow build on top of each other. The atom bomb didn't replace the vaccine cancer, they were both part of the same plan. He believed in many other world-ending conspiracy theories, so I think he, like, gradually added layer. There was a thing with 9/11 that was somehow related to a world ending event (Probably began as a "The US is going to atom bomb the middle east and start a world war") and a weird economic conspiracy theory about countries not having any assets that probably grew from the 2008 financial crisis.

In Hebrew, it's a horseshoe turn.