I don't know what Israeli media you're consuming, but as an Israeli, that is quite far from the truth, maybe with the exception of some specific pro-government propaganda networks.
While I do wish the mainstream media in Israel dedicated more time to the human rights situation in Gaza, their coverage is far from how you presented it.
The supply chain violation was performed by a Hungarian shell company with no links to Israeli tech. Using it as an example of why you would avoid any Israel-based companies is a weird security strategy.
Illegally downloading creative works is most assuredly _not_ theft, according to either the dictionary or the legal definitions, as no possessions are being taken and no one is being deprived of their property. Downloading creative works may or may not constitute copyright infringement; Relabeling it as "theft" is nothing more than a dishonest attempt at re-framing the conversation in a way that maximally benefits corporate interests.
Firstly, that is _not_ what reductio ad Hitlerum means.
More importantly, it's not a fallacy. It's pretty well documented by now that what you get when you have a social network with very little moderation is, almost inevitably, a social network for Nazis:
Just because people like bringing up Nazis a little too often doesn't mean every reference to Nazis is fallacious. Sometimes, it really is about [neo-]Nazis.
Probably because, by the creator's own admission, the articles are heavily cherry-picked to make sure the output is decent, which is probably a lot more human effort than goes into the aforementioned search engine fodder.
No, it's really, really not, and this line of reasoning is getting absurd.
People around the world routinely engage in frequent sexual intercourse without becoming pregnant. If you show me even a fraction of that same number of people who have demonstrated an ability to consume ten cheeseburgers a day for a prolonged period without gaining weight, maybe you'd have a point. Otherwise, this is just a blatant false equivalence.
That is patently absurd. Consent to sexual intercourse is not consent to pregnancy, especially if contraceptives were used and failed.
At the risk of stretching the metaphor to its breaking point, this is you choosing to go out and get drunk while aware that members of an unethical music lovers' organization are skulking about looking for victims to graft sick violinists onto. Sure, they no longer need to actively drug you because you willingly did that yourself, but that doesn't imply your consent to what happens next.
They were technically correct. The lookup time on a binary search tree is O(H), which is equal to O(log2n) if the tree is balanced. Tree data structures invest a lot of complexity into keeping the tree balanced.
Krav Maga minus the parts that are illegal or irrelevant to UFC basically _is_ MMA, which is unsurprising since the whole concept of the method since its inception in the 1940s is to collect effective and intuitive techniques from any martial art you can find. (Sort of a _mix_ of different martial arts, one might say...)
There's at least one successful mixed martial artist with a Krav Maga background (Karolina Kowalkiewicz, UKM Expert level 2), but she's definitely an outlier rather than the rule. Krav Maga tries to be a no-rules self-defense method that can be trained in as little time as possible. If your aim is to be a high-level competitor in a specific sport, and you have the required time and athletic ability to train appropriately, then your best bet is to skip the middleman and train in that sport directly.
You're right- there isn't, and it doesn't. In fact a parcel of air moving over the top of the wing will beat its counterpart moving below it to the trailing edge. This[1] video has a very good demonstration of this. (Relevant part begins around 0:25.)
So saying that air on top of the wing moves faster, creating a pressure differential and thus lift, is absolutely correct. The problem begins when some people try to come up with an intuitive explanation for _why_ the air would need to speed up. "Because this is the lowest energy state that conserves energy, momentum, and mass" isn't a very satisfying answer; neither is "because this system of PDEs say so"; so they came up with the "equal transit time" explanation, which is simple, intuitive, and completely wrong.
Hopefully aeronautical engineers at P&W didn't actually believe that last bit?
The experts weren't _wrong_ in their understanding. Bernoulli (creating lift by way of pressure differential) and Newton (reaction to redirection of the flow downwards) are different ways of describing the same thing; integrating either the pressure or velocity vector of the airflow around the wing will give you the correct results for lift.[1]
Whenever people argue about which interpretation of lift is correct I think back to this (https://xkcd.com/895/) comic about teaching how gravity works in general relativity. Only in the case of lift the explanations are actually _correct_, albeit somewhat circular. ("So the air above the wing sticks to the surface, which redirect it downwards. But _why_ does the air stick to the wing?!")
Also in no way do hummingbirds violate any known laws of physics, although they do have a pretty impressive way of harnessing them.[2]
https://www.mic.com/articles/185045/wolfenstein-ii-nazi-kill...