RunawayFixer

Indonesia Hospital is the name and it's named that way because it was sponsored by the Indonesian people.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesia_Hospital

Construction of the hospital began in 2011 on 16,000 square meters of land donated by the government of Gaza.[3][1] The project cost IDR 126 billion and was funded by donations from Indonesian people and organizations such as the Indonesian Red Cross Society and Muhammadiyah, collected through the Indonesian humanitarian organization Medical Emergency Rescue Committee (MER-C).[4][5] Then-Indonesian Vice-president Jusuf Kalla inaugurated the hospital on 9 January 2016.[3]

Every country evolved differently. And even from the law systems that evolved directly from the code Napoleon, there are some (I know of 1 atleast) without any lay jury system: The Netherlands scrapped the lay jury in 1813 already, basically right after Napoleon was kicked out.

I doubt that he would be prosecuted for terrorism in any other western democracies, it seems to be part of the USA prosecution habit of stacking up as many charges as possible, combined with the very broad anti terrorism laws after 2001.

If prosecuted as a murder, a jury trial would happen in a bunch of countries: https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/do-countries-the-jury-trial-system.html Imo you assume wrong in this case.

Most continental European countries have law systems that are based on or are at least heavily influenced by the Napoleonic code. And the Napoleonic code has trial by jury for serious crimes (like murder).

Your 30 seconds search turned up 2 results at the limit of what this family could afford, without including the additional costs such as utilities, parking, ... + all other stuff that the other person mentioned. Which means that those results are significantly outside their budget.

If their budget is 1200 $/month, then they cannot afford an apartment with that list price. My guess would be that they could afford a list price of 800 to 900 $/month, maybe 1000 $/month if a parking spot was included in the rent. But I don't live there, so this is just a bad guess.

And the Palestinian genocide and your other examples aren't "worse" in any metric (yet). The use and misrepresentation of those examples just tells us that you're a tankie who engages in whataboutism and spreads untruths to build a narrative.

I agree with your point but I think the Palestinian genocide is a bad example. Imo better examples from the top of my mind: the Rwandan and Cambodian genocides likely were far worse both in absolute numbers and as a % of the population, and the policies of Maoist China got many more people killed.

That system of vector maps is in popular use atleast since the 1970s, so when Google maps started, they could just collect existing gis (geographic information systems) maps. I wasn't born yet, but I expect that countries/companies started digitizing their old maps in the 1970s and 1980s and that paper prints after that were based on those digital versions. And countries without good maps to start from (too large/remote/administratively weak), probably started their digital mapping projects based on aerial photos. And when Papua New Guinea finally starts with a digital mapping project, they can start straight away from satellite photos :)

Has the NYT ever been progressive? At times they've brought some very good journalism, but I have the impression that they've always been firmly on the side of big business.

A few years ago I had seen a very old (about 1920 I think) NYT article posted on Reddit in which they completely misrepresented what had happened when the powers that be attacked strikers. A straight up hit piece against the strikers & it was not an opinion article. So back then they were firmly on the side of big business, but without any of the journalistic integrity that the paper is now known for.

The only way that I can think of that someone might consider the NYT as a progressive paper, is if factual reporting is considered leftwing/progressive, which is only a relatively recent development in the USA.

Still better than old school linear tv, where you paid to watch things being constantly interrupted by paid commercials.

And I'm not saying that you are. I tried to show with a parable that they do not need to see their machine's actions to know that some of it's actions are illegal. That's what we were disagreeing on: that they know.

I made an automaton. I set the parameters in such a way that there is a large variability of actions that my automaton can take. My parameters do not pre-empt my automaton from taking certain illegal actions. I set my automaton loose. After some time it turns out that my automaton has taken an illegal action against a specific person. Did I know that my automaton was going to commit a illegal action against that specific person? No, I did not. Did I know that my automaton was sooner or later going to commit certain illegal actions? Yes I did, because those actions are within the parameters of the automaton. I know my automaton is capable of doing illegal actions and given enough incidences there is an absolute certainty that it will do those illegal actions. I do not need to interact with my automaton in any way to know that some of it's actions will be illegal.