Instigate

You could use a semicolon rather than a fullstop as well:

“No, Okta; it was senior management, not an errant employee, that caused you to get hacked.”

That may help elucidate the meaning better while maintaining a single sentence, as is par for the course with headlines.

Voice alone? It might be very difficult to claim you have a unique voice unless you’re Gilbert Gottfried or Bobcat Goldthwait. The issue in this ad was that it showed a real clip of Johansson saying ‘follow me’ before the images cut to something else and the AI-copy Johansson voice continued. The fake voice was heavily insinuated to be Johansson because it picked up where a real clip of Johansson left off.

It would be very hard to prove a person intended to mimic a specific person when creating an AI voice unless it’s accompanied by corroborating imagery.

Do you guys use ‘Preponderance of Evidence’ as the standard of proof for civil cases in the US? In Australia we use ‘On the Balance of Probabilities’. I wonder if there’s a technical difference there.

(Tiny pedantic note but the Burden of Proof is about who has to produce the evidence, not the level of evidence required to make a finding - that’s the Standard of Proof)

(D) All of the above

It reminds me of the segments seen in Monstera Deliciosa fruit, except that's got a long cylindrical shape rather than a spheroid shape that can measure upto 30-40cm long by 10cm wide. Those segments are a pale yellow though, and they taste like banana crossed with pineapple. Kind of looks like a banana x pineapple as well!

Palestinian resistance is the last thing you should critique

Here you’re conflating Hamas with all Palestinians and implying that Hamas’ actions are merely ‘Palestinian resistance’ which is just incorrect. Palestinian civilians should NOT be lumped in with their unelected (in the last 17 years) leaders, much as Jewish people should not be lumped in with Israel/their government. The majority of Palestinian citizens have never had an opportunity to vote for their leaders.

That point aside, the killing of civilians, whether intentional or through reckless disregard, should never be last on the list of condemnation. We can want Palestine to win their freedom and independence while criticising how Hamas is attempting to achieve that. We should be critiquing innocent slaughter wherever it exists and regardless of who is the perpetrator or victim.

We can walk and chew gum. We can critique Hamas AND the Israeli government / IDF. We can accept Israel’s responsibility in pushing the Palestinian people to desperation for survival through apartheid and genocide, and we can condemn Hamas’ killing of civilians. We can call for Israel to immediately ceasefire and we can call for Hamas to immediately ceasefire. We can feel for Palestinian civilians even as we feel for Israeli citizens.

This is not black and white; life rarely is. It’s steeped in nuance. That’s okay to talk about.

Level-headed people are not saying that Palestine shouldn’t fight back against the occupation, they’re just deriding the method they’re using. It’s hard to support a regime that kills civilians and children, even if they’re doing it in response to their civilians and children being killed. Two wrongs usually don’t make a right.

Now the question that I think is still rhetorical and whose answer people can’t agree upon is this: what is the appropriate response to apartheid and genocide? Many would agree that attacking the IDF, government officials etc. would constitute reasonable reactive force, however this is particularly difficult for Palestine due to Israel’s domination of the geography.

What should Hamas do that can expedite the end of apartheid and genocide? I don’t know. It’s a fucked situation. I feel deeply for the Palestinians, especially the almost 50% of them that are under the age of 18, and believe that they need to be liberated. I also feel deeply for Israeli citizens, many of whom didn’t vote for Netanyahu, who have been killed as a result of the Hamas incursion.

This issue is flooded with nuance that’s just going over many people’s heads.

Will the experience of war victims resonate with the victors of that war? Will the victors understand the oppressed and be able to prove their position with adequate psychology? Does the psychology of an occupied people differ from the psychology from the oppressors? Does a person whose culture has been stripped from them require the same counsel as those who believes that illegally occupied territories are their’s?

Many confounding variables exist here that may interact with being militarily oppressed, and therefore comparisons between the two sides are incomparable. I don’t have the answers to these questions. I wish I did, because then I’d be able to secure facts. In this situation the only secure facts are that both sides have committed atrocities and crimes against humanity.

Sure, but someone who lives in Addis Ababa probably doesn’t have the cultural knowledge to give adequate therapy to someone in Pyongyang, despite them both being located in cities.

Could someone in London counsel someone in New York? Probably, because the cultures are quite similar and share a root ethnicity and language. But that Londonian probably won’t have as much luck counselling someone in Ho Chi Minh.

It may be universal, I’m not sure. I’ve not read any information able to establish that. There are indigenous tribes of people who are not integrated into the global world - we can’t know their psychology as we can’t study them.

I don’t know of any publications that clearly state that there are no universal psychological truths across cultures, but I am yet to find any reputable evidence that there are universal psychological truths across cultures. Hence it’s the null hypothesis that hasn’t been disproven. If it can be disproven, I’d gladly change my assertion, but it’s impossible to prove a negative like this because it is the null hypothesis - it can only be disproven.

Nothing can really be properly proved in psychology anyway because of how soft the science is but also because of the changing nature of the influence of culture on psychology. Even within the same nation or peoples, culture also varies over time and so psychology is always playing catch-up. Social media related mental health issues are a great example - a psychologist who’s been plucked from 1970 and dropped into 2023 would have no idea how to counsel someone on that issue because it’s an entirely foreign concept to them.

Psychologists can absolutely learn and become experts in other cultures, but I think it’s beyond the scope of a single human being to become an expert in every single cultural context that exists. They often become experts in the cultures relevant to them - for example, trying to learn the differences between city/regional/rural issues, trying to understand the needs of LGBTQIA+ people, or learning to better understand CALD communities they’re based in/near.