Subdued by having your organization dismantled and effectively disappears, becoming a political party, this did not even happen to the Fatah which is the terror organization behind the Palestinian Authority, the moderate faction among the Palestinians
In Israel 40 years passed before he was elected as prime minister, by the way
You do not "subdue" a movement by absorbing its members into your army and then electing its terrorist commander as your Prime Minister. Menachem Begin was not defeated, he was promoted. The state didn't end the Irgun's terrorism, it nationalized it, making the Irgun's tactics and goals the official policy of the "state".
If in the 70 years that passed there was no longer Lehi or Etzel, then these organizations disappeared.
If they became part of a nation army, divided across the different units, and most of their men discharged after the war, then these organizations disappeared
Had the IDF adopted the Etzel tactics of bombing the British as you suggest that would probably cause immense issues in the next desert tank war fought in 1956
You are deliberately playing a semantic game with the word "disappear" because you know the truth is damning.
The Irgun didn't "vanish." Its violent, expansionist and terrorist ideology succeeded. It then took over the "state", making the old brand name redundant. Why would Menachem Begin need a private terrorist gang when he could one day command the entire military to achieve his goals?
And your argument about tactics is a pathetic diversion. The state adopted the Irgun's core ethos, a readiness to use extreme, disproportionate violence and terrorism for political ends. This is the "state" whose military ruthlessly attacked[0] its own "greatest Ally", an American naval intelligence ship, the USS Liberty including its crew, and later formalized its terrorist strategy of collective punishment into an explicit military policy, the Dahiya Doctrine[1]. The violence wasn't abandoned. It was industrialized. Instead of a terrorist bombing a hotel, Prime Minister Begin used the full force of the air force to carpet-bomb Lebanon and Gaza.
The Irgun didn't disappear. It just took over the "state" and evolved its terrorism by trading its primitive zionist bombs for high-tech fighter jets.
You seem to somehow say I am misconstruing the word disappear, but everyone that was part of the Etzel/Lehi is either dead or dying. The organization itself does not exist for so many decades in no meaningful way, that I really feel I am repeating myself.
Your arguments have been reduced to changing the Irgun to some metaphor or what you don't like about Israel actions.
This doesn't change the fact that Israel had handled it terrorist problem in the transition to a state, while the Palestinians never succeeded in doing so, which had led them to be controlled by such an entity, culminating in that entity taking them on a national suicide in 2023
You are missing the point on purpose because the reality is indefensible. You talk about dead bodies because you can't talk about the ideology that outlived them.
That's not a "metaphor", but a direct and documented political bloodline. The Irgun's violent, expansionist and terrorist ideology was channeled directly into the Herut party[0], which became the Likud party, which put the Irgun's commander, Menachem Begin, in the Prime Minister's office. The Dahiya Doctrine isn't a metaphor, but Irgun's philosophy of collective punishment aka terrorism written down as official state policy.
And let's put down this already debunked lie you keep repeating. Israel did not "handle" its terrorist problem. It institutionalized it. It promoted it. It didn't have a version of Altalena to crush its extremists. It had an Altalena to consolidate power, and then it put the terrorist leader of the Altalena in charge of the entire "state". You didn't solve your terrorism problem. You made terrorism your state policy, which now manifested itself in the inevitable conclusion of Genocide.
[0] The same Herut party btw about whom Einstein said: "a political party closely akin in its organization, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties." - https://www.haaretz.com/jewish/2014-12-04/ty-article/.premiu...
You call his analysis "shallow," but you are the one cherry-picking isolated facts from a deep and bloody history of Zionist terrorism. Let's look at the supposedly "complex" reality you're trying to whitewash.
You mention Begin's peace with Egypt. That was not about "peace" but a cynical, strategic move that took the biggest Arab army off the board so Zionists could invade Lebanon and accelerate the violent colonization of the West Bank.
Then you mention the Likud removing settlements from Gaza. That was Ariel Sharon's unilateral plan to turn Gaza into an open-air prison and, in the documented words of his own top advisor, "freeze the peace process indefinitely."[0]
These are not rejections of the Irgun's ideology. They are its most cunning applications.
And your claim that the Dahiya Doctrine is "anachronistic" is nonsense, even Biden had the honesty to admit it when he recognized it.[1] It is the modern, state-sanctioned culmination of the Irgun's terrorist philosophy of collective punishment. Their ideology didn't vanish, it just became Israeli state policy. The only complexity in that is your attempt to whitewash it. It's a straight line, and you are deliberately trying to obscure it.
Reading your post and other posts, and similarly other posters here, it seems that getting to a shared truth, or even new understanding is hardly the goal.
Rather it is only trying to put everything in a childish context of good vs bad. Where the "evil" was predetermined. I don't subscribe to the evil vs good analysis of the world events, which in my opinion is a bit childish.
I therefore let you and the three other users keep copy pasting "Dahiya Doctrine" which I would never ever think of connecting to the Irgun, and I still struggle to see the connection. So although I am intrigued how you all got to this shared deeply anachronistic idea, I'll let that curiosity pass this time
After having your cherry-picked "facts" dismantled, your last resort is to feign intellectual superiority and pretend to be above the conversation. It's not a "childish" story of good versus evil. It's an analysis of cause and effect, which you are desperately trying to whitewash.
You claim you "struggle to see the connection" between the Irgun and the Dahiya Doctrine[1]. Let me make it simple for you, since you find reality so "complex." The Irgun's philosophy was to use terrorism against a civilian population to achieve a political goal. The Dahiya Doctrine is the state-sanctioned military policy of using disproportionate force against a civilian population to achieve a political goal.
It's the same ideology. It just evolved from primitive bombs to a state-funded air force. Your refusal to see this direct, documented line is not a sign of intellectual curiosity, but a Zionist's attempt at upholding an impossible cognitive dissonance.
That's an interesting claim to make three years ago, but because we saw the actual Dahiya doctrine play out in the Dahiya, this is a bit of a reach.
The end result was not some massive terror bombing, but warnings before bombing which gave enough time for civilian evacuations and the targets themselves were indeed civilian buildings, but those that either stored massive amount of munitions, as can clearly be seen in secondary explosion videos or bunkers of Hezbollah leaders such as Nasrallah, as confirmed by Hezbollah confirmation of casualties.
All of these make the above valid military targets, and makes your claim the primary reason was to cause terror as a bit dubious.
Actually the reverse had happened, as weapons that were used against Israeli civilian population as terror weapons (non-precise artillery rockets) were destroyed
In any case you still haven't shown how the IDF planners behind these were all part of the Irgun Forever secret society, so in any case the connection is a huge logical leap
The “no transaction cost” claim is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. Cash may feel free to the person handing over a coin, but only because the costs are hidden upstream. Someone has to produce those notes and coins, swap out designs to keep ahead of counterfeiters, move them around in armored vans, count and recount them in tills, reconcile them at the bank, and insure against theft along the way. None of that is costless.
In fact, many retailers will tell you that cash is more expensive to handle than card, because every deposit requires staff time and often explicit bank fees. Society also pays indirectly through tax evasion and black-market activity, which cash enables far more easily than digital systems.
You’re right that cash is robust in a blackout, and there’s something elegant about a technology that works offline, peer-to-peer, and without needing servers to stay up. But the idea that it has no transaction costs is not realistic.
Most of the cost of currency is up-front in it's production and initial distribution. The cost of handling it is also mostly up front (purchasing a wallet to hold it, buying a cash register with a drawer for the bills and coins). The transactional costs are things like taking it to the bank for depositing. But if you have cash to deposit - your business is probably doing things right and this is negligible.
> The transactional costs are things like taking it to the bank for depositing. But if you have cash to deposit - your business is probably doing things right and this is negligible.
It's not neglible to the point that some sellers where it's legal don't take cash because credit cars fees there cost less than cash handling.
For them, the risk of keeping cash on the premises is probably paramount. Of robbery, employee theft, of employees not being able to make change correctly (or getting taken advantage of by a quick-change artist).
How is providing factual information (e.g., "The full court ruling is available at https://court.rulings/case_123456.pdf", or at least "The case is number 123456.") not part of the reporter's job? No need to link to it, just provide the fact.
At least the OP excerpt focuses only on Ford’s efficiency engine: precision machining, interchangeable parts, and the moving assembly line combined with extreme production volumes to make the Model T nearly impossible to compete with on cost and reliability. But there’s a deeper lesson than just “Ford was rigid, GM was flexible.”
The real dynamic was that efficiency and scale compound improvements but also compound lock-in. The more Ford optimized his system around one product, the higher the switching cost to change anything fundamental. Every special-purpose machine tool, every supplier contract, every material flow was tuned to one car. At small scale, that’s agility. At massive scale, it’s a straitjacket.
Tesla faces a version of this trap. Its efficiency engine is vertical integration and battery/powertrain mastery. But the stronger that engine gets, the more risk that its identity collapses into “this is what we make, as efficiently as possible,” rather than “this is what the market wants, however we must adapt.” GM in the 1920s wasn’t just adding variety for fun, it was creating a systematic upgrade ladder (“a car for every purse and purpose” as Sloan said at the time) that turned consumer churn into a growth engine (allowing customers to start with basic models like Chevrolet and progressively upgrade to more luxurious brands such as Oldsmobile, Buick, or Cadillac). I agree that Tesla hasn’t yet built an equivalent mechanism to capture customers once they’ve “had enough of the Model T.”
The irony is that efficiency-driven firms almost never stumble because they stop improving; they stumble because all their improvements are local optimizations. Ford’s engineers in 1925 were still making operations faster, parts cheaper, and tolerances tighter, but all within the cage of the Model T. Tesla today is in danger of repeating this exact logic trap: world-class at batteries and drivetrains, but perhaps blind to the fact that consumer perception, design novelty, and product line evolution can erode even the strongest cost advantage.
Tesla would have a massive advantage compared to conventional car makers if they decided to broaden their product line. That advantage is their dealer-light model. They could decide that they'll do a batch of purple cars once a quarter. If you select purple in their configurator, your delivery date gets pushed out by up to 3 months appropriately. No dealer would ever stock a purple car. So Tesla could get a lock on the small number of people who want purple cars.
(Yes, I know about wraps, substitute "purple" for whatever feature or body style or quirk it is you have trouble finding on modern cars)
Maybe Rivian will fill this niche if Tesla doesn't.
Honestly, I think a "MUSK SUCKS" limited edition paint job would sell amazingly well. He is the kind of CEO who would find that joke funny, too (the irony that somebody bought his product in an anti-him version, thus still supporting what they actively advertise that they dislike... it's perfect).
You're right to point out that English pronunciation varies widely across regions, but that doesn't fully negate the value of a systematic orthography. What germandiago is referring to is the relationship between graphemes (letters) and phonemes (sounds). Spanish has a highly phonemic orthography, meaning the rules for converting letters to sounds (and vice versa) are consistent and predictable. Yes, there are accentual and dialectal variations within Spanish (e.g. seseo in Latin America vs. ceceo in parts of Andalusia) but these are largely phonological shifts applied systematically, not random deviations from spelling norms.
In contrast, English has a deep orthography, where historical layers (e.g. Norman French, Old Norse, Latin borrowings) and sound changes (like the Great Vowel Shift) have led to a chaotic mapping between spelling and pronunciation. A consistent system wouldn't eliminate dialectal variation, but it could reduce ambiguity and aid literacy, as evidenced by languages like Finnish or Korean.
I don't know if Korean is ultimately that good. Hangeul are a monstrous improvement over the old mixed script (which itself is better than the Japanese iteration because the Koreans only used Chinese characters for Chinese loans), but it still has a lot of sound change rules and can be a bit of a pain to read because of how letters flow to the next syllable. It's not in the same league with Finnish or Spanish, at any rate.
What of those two options did Finland choose? In reality Russia shares a land border with 14 countries, 6 of which are already NATO members (of the others the second largest border is with China). And the countries they have only a maritime border with are Japan and the USA.
These penalties are essential to counterbalance the financial trade-off companies often make by deprioritising accessibility. Without serious consequences, it’s rational for executives to cut costs at the expense of inclusion. This ensures accountability at the level where those decisions are made.
> These penalties are essential to counterbalance the financial trade-off companies often make by deprioritising accessibility. Without serious consequences, it’s rational for executives to cut costs at the expense of inclusion. This ensures accountability at the level where those decisions are made.
You can impose arbitrarily high financial penalties, or even shut down the business, and that's plenty enough for the incentives to tilt in the correct direction. But prison? How the heck is that necessary for this?
This is exactly why the EU's Digital Markets Act exists. And why it needs teeth. Google disabling Nextcloud's all-files access on Android, while quietly letting its own apps and big corporate players keep it, isn't about "security". It's about control. Nextcloud is a European, privacy-first alternative built on open standards and that can be fully aligned with GDPR requirements. Blocking its core functionality while favouring your own services is a textbook abuse of platform power. Android was supposed to be open, but moves like this show it (at least the Play Services verison) is just another walled garden. If the EU is serious about digital sovereignty and fair competition, this is the kind of behaviour that must be stopped. Otherwise, no European tech, no matter how compliant, open, or user-friendly, stands a chance.
What apps in Google's ecosystem have the "all files" permission? Google Drive certainly doesn't. The "upload" button on GDrive prompts you to select a file just like NextCloud does.
The "sync just one folder" functionality exists in SAF without any high-risk permissions. Migration of existing profiles may be a pain (as the user would need to grant permission on the folder when switching to the new API).
Synchronisation of the entire virtual storage, the download folder, or any extra folders vendors like Samsung might've added to the blacklist, isn't possible with the new API, but it's also not possible with Google's own services. The DMA only requires Google not to be put in a special position; as long as they don't offer such a feature, they don't need to offer it to NextCloud.
> What apps in Google's ecosystem have the "all files" permission?
The system itself[0] has capabililities that aren't provided to app developers. iOS is similar. Contrast this with Windows and GNU/Linux where AFAIK you can do pretty much everything the OS can given the proper permissions. Not sure about macOS.
Waiting for the nitpicker crowd "you can install AOSP and/or sideload APKs easily, so there is no incumbent abuse here!", just like we had them for IE (you can install another browser) and iPhone (you can buy another brand).
Edit: oh we already have them in the other submission
Maybe something else instead. e/os famously leaves the bootloader gaping open after the installation (looks like relocking is only supported on Fairphones), is very late to release anything (their most recent ROM is still based on AOSP 14!), inc.securty updates.
i'd rather have secure, stable and slow. i don't know about locking the bootloader (do you have a reference to that? i'd like to read up on it). but i don't care that their rom is always the most recent one.
what matters is that e/OS is the only rom i am aware of that combines usability with security. graphene OS doesn't count because it is only available on pixel phones and therefore very limited in applicability. others i don't know.
Mobile is a second class operating system platform. A browser or OS you use on a desktop can easily be configured to block/filter things. Mobile users are exposed to popups/malware/DNS hijacking daily. If they didn't, mobile would not be the gravy train of clicks for advertisers.
Punishing Google for preventing apps from reading all your private data at a whim is quite a take to involve EU for.
Without this enforcement, malware games and apps like Facebook were just uploading your photos and scanning their EXIF locations under the guise of "needing all access".
And as we found out in existing topic, the better privacy preserving APIs exist, Nextcloud just doesn't want to use them.
Maybe there's a middle ground between "apps can't do this" and "uploading all your data to the developers without a permissions dialog or a popup"? Could we maybe design a system where this permission requires opt in consent like every other feature on Android? Third party apps access to the feature is the issue here.
The old API works this way. Random games requested the "access all files" permission. This was bad and the rest is history.
The better middle ground is the new (9 years old) SAF API. The SAF API simply presents a directory picker to the user. The user can give the app access to any directories he likes.
But, I want that. With all the responsibilities that come with that.
Why can't I grant an app that permission? If Google discovers that an app with that permission is abusing what they are doing with that permission, then revoke their developer account! Delete the app from existing phones and inform the users that the developers could not be trusted! App store death penalty!
It's difficult to understand why there is any other reason other than maintaining their privleged position on the device to deny users this ability. Put a persistent notification in the status tray: "These apps have full access:", etc.
Because you'd scream your head off like other HNers when a news article "100 million users private photos uploaded to Facebook and Genshin Impact!!!!" appears and would demand Google policing.
You can keep all your functionality, Nextcloud just needs to migrate to an API that gives YOU AS A USER control over what it can read instead of demanding blanket permission for everything.
I promise you I would not. I do not want my technology baby-sat by a third party, I want my technology to do exactly what I want.
I also promise I wouldn't run a game or anything that demanded full access to everything that made no sense to have that permission, because what the heck? Outlook wanted "Device administrator" permission on my personal phone when I wanted to connect my office email to it. I politely declined, and stopped using it. (I mean, I understand WHY Outlook needs that, for secure wipe of data, but that's a pretty wide permission for that one reason)
I cringe as I watch one of my kids authorize elevated permissions when they launch Genshin. (For the anti-cheat) And I promise them I will never run it on my machines :-/
But rather than get lost in the details, what I REALLY want, is a piece of software that will backup and restore the entire contents of the phone to a server of my choice, preferably self-hosted. Right now, this "full system access" option gets the job done, but it's a thermonuclear footgun for the unsuspecting.
How could we convince google to create a new a "Full backup of the device" permission? Because then Google could simply deny the permission labeled "full backup" to the latest hot new gacha game, while allowing legit backup apps the power they need?
At the moment, you can do that, but not with an app hosted on the Play Store. I use a git client to sync my notes between my computers and my phone. But I had to get the app from FDroid, because it required the read all files permission to track changes.
I met her briefly in 2014 through common friends in Berlin, and then saw her live in some early (before midnight) session in a semi empty small club in Kreuzberg. Some other friend and I then tried our luck at Berghain. We didn't make it. The San Francisco group did. Fun times nonetheless.
Oh gosh reading this I thought we waited in line together.
My experience, from 2015, was that we left Vögelchen in Kreuzberg, went back to her spot where she played records for a bit, then at 5am folks decided to go to go to Berghain. She waited in line with the rest of us commoners.
