- Welcome to Languish.org.
Recent posts
#41
Gaming HQ / Re: Humankind - the Civ killer...
Last post by Syt - Today at 01:47:25 AMSo I gave this one a spin over the weekend, playing two games on "normal" (Metropolis) difficulty, and now in the middle of one on "Nation" (the next difficulty up).
I have all add ons etc., because I'm just that kind of guy. They also still seem to be patching the game, including one just before I picked it up again (which I hadn't noticed), so they keep tinkering on it, I guess, even though Endless Legend II early access has started.
I find it a bit hard to compare to Civ 6 or 7, because the game flow is a bit different, and I feel overall it leans less into the war side of 4X games.
The two big differentiators (IMO) to Civ and similar are:
1. The map is divided into territories.
So instead of expanding hex by hex, you claim a territory by building an outpost and later turning it into a city or attaching it to a city. The game is very harsh on limiting your number of cities (I had a limit of 8 at most in end game), though penalties for going over are fairly mild for one or two cities.
Building outposts, attaching territories etc. costs "Influence", and the costs ramp up quickly. Also, the more territories you attach to a city, the harder it will be to maintain stability in the city (late game offers much better tools to mitigate this than early or mid game).
However, cities are much more malleable. You can transfer territories from one city to another (which is a bit clunky - you need to detach it from city A, then attach it to city B ... more than once I accidentally re-attached it to city A because I hadn't selected city B yet in the UI).
Also, you can have one city absorb another. So you may have some smaller cities at the start, but once you expand out you may merge some of your older cities to free up capacities for new cities overseas or in conquered lands.
City development is similar to Civ 6 or 7 (or, more accurately, the developers' previous title Endless Legend who did it before both Civs). You have two types of buildings: districts (which exist on map) and infrastructure (which exist off map in the city - something to keep in mind if you intend to merge cities: do you want to build infrastructure in a city you want to absorb shortly?). Districts have the usual flavor: science, commerce, farming, production, pluse a few like "commons" (generally to improve stability), "garrison" (fortresses that can also be set as spawn points for units), and some districts that are "one per territory": usually your current culture's "emblematic" district, or harbors. Additionally, you build resource extractors on the map on luxury and strategic resources.
2. I mentioned "current culture". That's because you can change your culture when you enter each age. I know it's a major turn off for many, but I actually like the additional layer of strategy it adds. In the neolithic age you roam as a nomadic people. You explore the map, gather food/hunt animals to grow your tribe, seek "curiosities" that boost your knowledge, and found an outpost or two. Once you have 15 points of those you can choose to move to the ancient era (you can elect to delay progress to a new era) and pick your first culture. In subsequent ages you need 7 "era stars" (out of 24 max) to advance to the next era. They're earned by fighting wars, gaining diplomatic leverage, building stuff, expanding your territory or people, research etc. A reason to stay in an age can be to increase your score in that age (collecting more stars) - regardless of how the game ends, score is the final decider as to who wins.
Each culture has a main focus - expansion, warfare, diplomacy, influence, science, building, agriculture, commerce - that gives them a special ability every ten turns. Expansion allows you to take enemy outposts/territories by parking an army on them for 5 turns. Building lets you have a city covert all their commerce and science output to production for ten turns. Commerce lets you "invest" in a resource in your or foreign territory for an instant gold boost. Etc. Additionally, each culture comes with a special boost - cheaper troop production, better agriculture, bonus gold income or something along those lines. These boosts persist for the rest of the game, even when you switch cultures. Additionally, the culture will have one "emblematic district" that you can build once per territory. Usually a powerful booster to resource incomes on those tiles or adjacent districts. Those bonuses stay on the tile as long as the building is there. E.g. in my current game I am Ghana in the middle ages and the luxury markets boost my income a lot. And each culture has a special unit that is either stronger than others in the same category or have some special ability.
The transition from one culture to another can be jarring (e.g. Aborigines => Greece => Teutonic Knights => Spain => Maori => Singapore is absolutely possible), but you also have more tools to react to how the game plays out, or plan your progression (going all in on one resource, or mixing/matching abilities and bonuses to max them out).
And unlike Civ 7 there's no "reset" for era transitions - you can be in age 5 and an AI can still be on age 3. Though stars do become easier to earn in lower tiers once a faction has ranked up.
I am not sure how I feel about diplomacy. There's the usual stuff - open borders, non-aggression treaties, trade etc. - but it seems a lot less rigid somehow? You can of course go to war as usual, but there's additional levers there. The game has the concept of "grievances". Culture spreads out automatically (as does religion, no religious on map units). If a territory is culture or religion converted, the owner of the culture or religion gets a grievance against the owner of the territory. You then have two options - press your demand, or let it go. Letting go gives you some leverage over the other player and some goodwill. Pressing your demand will either have them yield the territory to you (if they like you a lot or are afraid of you) or refuse your demand. You can then hold onto the demand (maybe getting more), press this in a war (or bring it in front of the World Congress once it's been established), or choose to let it go. On lower difficulties I found the AI way too willing to yield territory this way, so I could blob easily and quickly outpace them in the early game. However, one difficulty up I found myself quickly boxed in by more powerful factions, so I guess I'm trying to build tall now?
Alliances are also more malleable. If you're allied with a player and they're at war you're not automatically getting called in. However, if you don't join, it will give your ally a grievance. But it doesn't immediately invalidate the alliance. In my current game I'm struggling but I'm allied to King Midas - his AI is forgiving, so he keeps forgiving my grievances (not joining his wars, my country being dominated by his culture/religion).
Wars are a bit "meh". Not sure the AI is good at them - on Normal difficulty they were too much of a cakewalk. Have yet to fight them on higher difficulty. Armies are stacks of 4 (later more units as you unlock techs), and battles can be fought in little tactical battles on the map (or auto-resolved). What I don't like is that if you take all enemy cities in a peace deal, then faction will hang around till all units are dead.
There's a few more things - "civics" which is usually a binary decision that costs (a scaling amount of) influence. Do you want to punish or rehabilitate criminals? How is your chief legitimized etc. Though through "osmosis" (e.g. strong influence by neighbors) some of those decisions can be triggered for you and you can accept them (free civic) or reject them (at a cost - might be worth it especially if you already had the opposite choice selected).
Trade, esp. of luxuries, is very important. The first instance of each luxury in your empire gives +5 stability to every city, and every additional one gives either a flat bonus to production/science/money/food or a 1% boost. This can really stack up. Trade creates trade nodes in neutral territory (by end game this will be oceans only) that you can pilfer from/destroy if desired.
Independents can rise and fall in neutral territories. You can befriend them by bribing them with money/influence and trade with them, and make them your vassals or assimilate them. Rebelling territories can also become independent (in one game I took an AI's main cities, and their other territories turned to revolt, going independent and eliminating them from the game).
Religion is just based on how much faith you produce. The more you produce, the stronger your religion. You can level up your religion and choose a tenet each time, but afaict those are not cummulative, so you override your old tenet with a new one. Not sure I like this. I'd rather nerf the tenets and have them accumulate. But in the final ages you will move to secularism/atheism anyways, so ...
The game has some narrative events based on game triggers, some with multiple options to react. Nothing huge, but still fine, I think.
There's World Wonders, of course, 7 per age. You can use influence to claim one. Until you have built it you can't claim another, but also no one else can try building it. As a mechanic it's fine, I guess. Once you have built an embassy you can have a "monument contractor" agreement with other factions. It lets you use your cities to help build their wonders (and vice versa), at the end of which you get a paycheck of gold or influence.
Overall, I think the game is much better than at launch. I think it is a bit linear? Also, while I like that it leans into a more diplomatic overall gamestyle (you can even activate peaceful world
), it also means there's less to do in terms of moving things around on the map. A lot of the time I found myself just building stuff, managing trade/diplomacy and moving to next turn. So it can feel like not much is happening turn to turn, at least the way I mostly play it (i.e. defensively).
There's ways to accelerate things, of course. The game on default is built around 300 turns per game, but this can be brought down to 75 or ramped up to 600. You can tweak the size of territories - making them larger or smaller; I imagine making them smaller means more action as it will take longer to claim the map. I wish there was a setting that required you to occupy enemy lands territory by territory. As it stands, once you take the city, you occupy its entire area, including all attached territories.
The interface overall feels a bit clunky at times. It's too easy IMO to accidentally move/split an army (select an army, select a unit you want to upgrade, right-click to move ... realize that you only moved the one unit you had selected, then move the rest of the stack).
So yeah. Overall enjoying my time with it, but three games in I feel the progression is a bit inflexible? And I haven't looked into mods yet; I first want to get a feel for the vanilla experience.
I find it hard to recommend, though, as some of its idiosyncracies (culture swapping, territories, the diplomacy system) will turn some people off, I guess.
P.S.: For what it's worth, it's sitting at "Very Positive" in recent Steam reviews (same as Ara- History Untold following its 2.0 patch), though I assume it's also a bit of a fallout from the Civ7 reception.
I have all add ons etc., because I'm just that kind of guy. They also still seem to be patching the game, including one just before I picked it up again (which I hadn't noticed), so they keep tinkering on it, I guess, even though Endless Legend II early access has started.
I find it a bit hard to compare to Civ 6 or 7, because the game flow is a bit different, and I feel overall it leans less into the war side of 4X games.
The two big differentiators (IMO) to Civ and similar are:
1. The map is divided into territories.
So instead of expanding hex by hex, you claim a territory by building an outpost and later turning it into a city or attaching it to a city. The game is very harsh on limiting your number of cities (I had a limit of 8 at most in end game), though penalties for going over are fairly mild for one or two cities.
Building outposts, attaching territories etc. costs "Influence", and the costs ramp up quickly. Also, the more territories you attach to a city, the harder it will be to maintain stability in the city (late game offers much better tools to mitigate this than early or mid game).
However, cities are much more malleable. You can transfer territories from one city to another (which is a bit clunky - you need to detach it from city A, then attach it to city B ... more than once I accidentally re-attached it to city A because I hadn't selected city B yet in the UI).
Also, you can have one city absorb another. So you may have some smaller cities at the start, but once you expand out you may merge some of your older cities to free up capacities for new cities overseas or in conquered lands.
City development is similar to Civ 6 or 7 (or, more accurately, the developers' previous title Endless Legend who did it before both Civs). You have two types of buildings: districts (which exist on map) and infrastructure (which exist off map in the city - something to keep in mind if you intend to merge cities: do you want to build infrastructure in a city you want to absorb shortly?). Districts have the usual flavor: science, commerce, farming, production, pluse a few like "commons" (generally to improve stability), "garrison" (fortresses that can also be set as spawn points for units), and some districts that are "one per territory": usually your current culture's "emblematic" district, or harbors. Additionally, you build resource extractors on the map on luxury and strategic resources.
2. I mentioned "current culture". That's because you can change your culture when you enter each age. I know it's a major turn off for many, but I actually like the additional layer of strategy it adds. In the neolithic age you roam as a nomadic people. You explore the map, gather food/hunt animals to grow your tribe, seek "curiosities" that boost your knowledge, and found an outpost or two. Once you have 15 points of those you can choose to move to the ancient era (you can elect to delay progress to a new era) and pick your first culture. In subsequent ages you need 7 "era stars" (out of 24 max) to advance to the next era. They're earned by fighting wars, gaining diplomatic leverage, building stuff, expanding your territory or people, research etc. A reason to stay in an age can be to increase your score in that age (collecting more stars) - regardless of how the game ends, score is the final decider as to who wins.
Each culture has a main focus - expansion, warfare, diplomacy, influence, science, building, agriculture, commerce - that gives them a special ability every ten turns. Expansion allows you to take enemy outposts/territories by parking an army on them for 5 turns. Building lets you have a city covert all their commerce and science output to production for ten turns. Commerce lets you "invest" in a resource in your or foreign territory for an instant gold boost. Etc. Additionally, each culture comes with a special boost - cheaper troop production, better agriculture, bonus gold income or something along those lines. These boosts persist for the rest of the game, even when you switch cultures. Additionally, the culture will have one "emblematic district" that you can build once per territory. Usually a powerful booster to resource incomes on those tiles or adjacent districts. Those bonuses stay on the tile as long as the building is there. E.g. in my current game I am Ghana in the middle ages and the luxury markets boost my income a lot. And each culture has a special unit that is either stronger than others in the same category or have some special ability.
The transition from one culture to another can be jarring (e.g. Aborigines => Greece => Teutonic Knights => Spain => Maori => Singapore is absolutely possible), but you also have more tools to react to how the game plays out, or plan your progression (going all in on one resource, or mixing/matching abilities and bonuses to max them out).
And unlike Civ 7 there's no "reset" for era transitions - you can be in age 5 and an AI can still be on age 3. Though stars do become easier to earn in lower tiers once a faction has ranked up.
I am not sure how I feel about diplomacy. There's the usual stuff - open borders, non-aggression treaties, trade etc. - but it seems a lot less rigid somehow? You can of course go to war as usual, but there's additional levers there. The game has the concept of "grievances". Culture spreads out automatically (as does religion, no religious on map units). If a territory is culture or religion converted, the owner of the culture or religion gets a grievance against the owner of the territory. You then have two options - press your demand, or let it go. Letting go gives you some leverage over the other player and some goodwill. Pressing your demand will either have them yield the territory to you (if they like you a lot or are afraid of you) or refuse your demand. You can then hold onto the demand (maybe getting more), press this in a war (or bring it in front of the World Congress once it's been established), or choose to let it go. On lower difficulties I found the AI way too willing to yield territory this way, so I could blob easily and quickly outpace them in the early game. However, one difficulty up I found myself quickly boxed in by more powerful factions, so I guess I'm trying to build tall now?
Alliances are also more malleable. If you're allied with a player and they're at war you're not automatically getting called in. However, if you don't join, it will give your ally a grievance. But it doesn't immediately invalidate the alliance. In my current game I'm struggling but I'm allied to King Midas - his AI is forgiving, so he keeps forgiving my grievances (not joining his wars, my country being dominated by his culture/religion).
Wars are a bit "meh". Not sure the AI is good at them - on Normal difficulty they were too much of a cakewalk. Have yet to fight them on higher difficulty. Armies are stacks of 4 (later more units as you unlock techs), and battles can be fought in little tactical battles on the map (or auto-resolved). What I don't like is that if you take all enemy cities in a peace deal, then faction will hang around till all units are dead.
There's a few more things - "civics" which is usually a binary decision that costs (a scaling amount of) influence. Do you want to punish or rehabilitate criminals? How is your chief legitimized etc. Though through "osmosis" (e.g. strong influence by neighbors) some of those decisions can be triggered for you and you can accept them (free civic) or reject them (at a cost - might be worth it especially if you already had the opposite choice selected).
Trade, esp. of luxuries, is very important. The first instance of each luxury in your empire gives +5 stability to every city, and every additional one gives either a flat bonus to production/science/money/food or a 1% boost. This can really stack up. Trade creates trade nodes in neutral territory (by end game this will be oceans only) that you can pilfer from/destroy if desired.
Independents can rise and fall in neutral territories. You can befriend them by bribing them with money/influence and trade with them, and make them your vassals or assimilate them. Rebelling territories can also become independent (in one game I took an AI's main cities, and their other territories turned to revolt, going independent and eliminating them from the game).
Religion is just based on how much faith you produce. The more you produce, the stronger your religion. You can level up your religion and choose a tenet each time, but afaict those are not cummulative, so you override your old tenet with a new one. Not sure I like this. I'd rather nerf the tenets and have them accumulate. But in the final ages you will move to secularism/atheism anyways, so ...
The game has some narrative events based on game triggers, some with multiple options to react. Nothing huge, but still fine, I think.
There's World Wonders, of course, 7 per age. You can use influence to claim one. Until you have built it you can't claim another, but also no one else can try building it. As a mechanic it's fine, I guess. Once you have built an embassy you can have a "monument contractor" agreement with other factions. It lets you use your cities to help build their wonders (and vice versa), at the end of which you get a paycheck of gold or influence.
Overall, I think the game is much better than at launch. I think it is a bit linear? Also, while I like that it leans into a more diplomatic overall gamestyle (you can even activate peaceful world
), it also means there's less to do in terms of moving things around on the map. A lot of the time I found myself just building stuff, managing trade/diplomacy and moving to next turn. So it can feel like not much is happening turn to turn, at least the way I mostly play it (i.e. defensively). There's ways to accelerate things, of course. The game on default is built around 300 turns per game, but this can be brought down to 75 or ramped up to 600. You can tweak the size of territories - making them larger or smaller; I imagine making them smaller means more action as it will take longer to claim the map. I wish there was a setting that required you to occupy enemy lands territory by territory. As it stands, once you take the city, you occupy its entire area, including all attached territories.
The interface overall feels a bit clunky at times. It's too easy IMO to accidentally move/split an army (select an army, select a unit you want to upgrade, right-click to move ... realize that you only moved the one unit you had selected, then move the rest of the stack).
So yeah. Overall enjoying my time with it, but three games in I feel the progression is a bit inflexible? And I haven't looked into mods yet; I first want to get a feel for the vanilla experience.
I find it hard to recommend, though, as some of its idiosyncracies (culture swapping, territories, the diplomacy system) will turn some people off, I guess.P.S.: For what it's worth, it's sitting at "Very Positive" in recent Steam reviews (same as Ara- History Untold following its 2.0 patch), though I assume it's also a bit of a fallout from the Civ7 reception.
#42
Off the Record / Re: The AI dooooooom thread
Last post by Syt - Today at 12:43:17 AMSomething to look out for if you're using OneDrive (or other cloud storage, because let's face it, others will probably want to do it, too ):
https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/25/10/11/0238213/microsofts-onedrive-begins-testing-face-recognizing-ai-for-photos-for-some-preview-users
(To our UK users - they host their screenshot image on imgur, you may need to use a VPN to view )
):https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/25/10/11/0238213/microsofts-onedrive-begins-testing-face-recognizing-ai-for-photos-for-some-preview-users
QuoteMicrosoft's OneDrive Begins Testing Face-Recognizing AI for Photos (for Some Preview Users)
I uploaded a photo on my phone to Microsoft's "OneDrive" file-hosting app — and there was a surprise waiting under Privacy and Permissions. "OneDrive uses AI to recognize faces in your photos..."
And...
"You can only turn off this setting 3 times a year."
If I moved the slidebar for that setting to the left (for "No"), it moved back to the right, and said "Something went wrong while updating this setting." (Apparently it's not one of those three times of the year.)
The feature is already rolling out to a limited number of users in a preview, a Microsoft publicist confirmed to Slashdot. (For the record, I don't remember signing up for this face-recognizing "preview".) But there's a link at the bottom of the screen for a "Microsoft Privacy Statement" that leads to a Microsoft support page, which says instead that "This feature is coming soon and is yet to be released." And in the next sentence it's been saying "Stay tuned for more updates" for almost two years...
A Microsoft publicist agreed to answer Slashdot's questions...
Slashdot: What's the reason OneDrive tells users this setting can only be turned off 3 times a year? (And are those any three times — or does that mean three specific days, like Christmas, New Year's Day, etc.)
[Microsoft's publicist chose not to answer this question.]
Slashdot: If I move the slidebar to the left (for "No"), it moves back to the right, and says "Something went wrong while updating this setting." So is it correct to say that there's no way for users to select "No" now?
Microsoft: We haven't heard about the experience you are having with toggling, but our Microsoft contacts would like to investigate why this is happening for you. Can you share what type of device you are using, so we can put you in touch with the right team?
Slashdot: Is this feature really still "coming soon"? Can you give me more specific details on when "soon" will be?
Microsoft: This feature is currently rolling out to limited users in a preview so we can learn and improve. We have nothing more to share at this time.
Slashdot: I want to confirm something about how this feature is "yet to be released." Does this mean that currently OneDrive is not (and has never) used AI to "recognize" faces in photos?
Microsoft: Privacy is built into all Microsoft OneDrive experiences. Microsoft OneDrive services adhere to the Microsoft Privacy Statement and follow Microsoft's compliance with General Data Protection Regulation and the Microsoft EU Data Boundary.
Slashdot: Some privacy advocates prefer "opt-in" features, but it looks like here OneDrive is planning a (limited) opt-out feature. What is the reasoning for going with opt-out rather than opt-in?
Microsoft: Microsoft OneDrive inherits privacy features and settings from Microsoft 365 and SharePoint, where applicable.
Slashdot also spoke to EFF security/privacy activist Thorin Klosowski, who expressed concerns. "Any feature related to privacy really should be opt-in and companies should provide clear documentation so its users can understand the risks and benefits to make that choice for themselves."
Microsoft's "three times a year" policy also seemed limiting to Klosowski. "People should also be able to change those settings at-will whenever possible because we all encounter circumstances were we need to re-evaluate and possibly change our privacy settings."
(To our UK users - they host their screenshot image on imgur, you may need to use a VPN to view
) #43
Off the Record / Re: Israel-Hamas War 2023
Last post by Zoupa - Today at 12:06:24 AMI dunno. Are you organizing any marches for them?
#44
Gaming HQ / Re: The everything miniatures ...
Last post by Jacob - October 13, 2025, 10:35:22 PMLove to see it.
These days my current minis projects are:
1) Working on my GW High Elf army to maybe just maybe get it into fighting trim. I discovered there's a club nearby that has semi regular Warhammer the Old World nights, and I'd rather like to go play some time.
2) I'm scheming to do a solo-campaign using the Privateer rules from Yaktribe. It's an adaption of the Necromunda rules for running a small group of ne'er-do-wells with their own spaceship in the 40K universe(sort of in the Han Solo / Firefly conceptual space).
The reality is that I'm not nearly as productive as the Brain, what with children and all the other projects that catch my fancy and so on... but I do get great joy out of thinking about working on those projects as well, so I'm pretty content.
These days my current minis projects are:
1) Working on my GW High Elf army to maybe just maybe get it into fighting trim. I discovered there's a club nearby that has semi regular Warhammer the Old World nights, and I'd rather like to go play some time.
2) I'm scheming to do a solo-campaign using the Privateer rules from Yaktribe. It's an adaption of the Necromunda rules for running a small group of ne'er-do-wells with their own spaceship in the 40K universe(sort of in the Han Solo / Firefly conceptual space).
The reality is that I'm not nearly as productive as the Brain, what with children and all the other projects that catch my fancy and so on... but I do get great joy out of thinking about working on those projects as well, so I'm pretty content.
#45
Off the Record / Re: What does a TRUMP presiden...
Last post by DGuller - October 13, 2025, 10:31:28 PMQuote from: Jacob on October 13, 2025, 10:22:50 PMAnother related thought on the whole "keys" thing:I think AI has much more potential for disruption than devastating the white collar class. AI makes surveillance state far more efficient. A mature AI solution would be able to listen to everyone, process everything it listens to, and connect all the dots, because AI can essentially function as one spy with infinite time and attention span.
If AI lives up to a significant amount of its billing, it could render a significant number of the educated middle class surplus in various ways. This means that they'll become less economically relevant and/ or unnecessary to administer the apparatuses of the state and the economy; which in turn means it's unnecessary to cater to them.
In the US, it means that those who've long nursed a hatred for the "liberal coastal elites" might get to see some joy in watching that group getting short shrift (along with the institutions of democracy that are typically required to keep the broader middle classes in line).
On the flip side, as I understand it a disenfranchised middle class is historically fertile grounds for revolutions and coups.
Of course it remains to be seen if AI delivers on the promise (or threat, depending on your perspective).
The most depressing part of it is that this surveillance capability will not be used to protect democracy from its enemies, but the moment anti-democrats wedge themselves into power, it will definitely be used to keep pro-democrats from wedging themselves back in.
#46
Off the Record / Re: Israel-Hamas War 2023
Last post by Razgovory - October 13, 2025, 10:31:17 PMQuoteBy Nidal al-Mughrabi
CAIRO (Reuters) -A greatly weakened Hamas has sought to reassert itself in Gaza since a ceasefire took hold, killing at least 33 people in a crackdown on groups that have tested its grip and appearing to get a U.S. nod to temporarily police the shattered enclave.
Pummelled by Israel during the war ignited by the October 7, 2023 attacks, Hamas has gradually sent its men back into the streets of Gaza since the ceasefire began on Friday, moving cautiously in case it suddenly collapses, according to two security sources in the territory.
On Monday, Hamas deployed members of its Qassam Brigades military wing as it freed the last living hostages seized from Israel two years ago. It was a reminder of one of the major challenges facing U.S. President Donald Trump's effort to secure a lasting deal for Gaza, as the U.S., Israel and many other nations demand Hamas disarm.
Reuters footage showed dozens of Hamas fighters lined up at a hospital in southern Gaza, one wearing a shoulder patch identifying him as a member of the elite "Shadow Unit" that Hamas sources say was tasked with guarding hostages.
One of the Gaza sources, a security official, said that since the ceasefire, Hamas forces had killed 32 members of "a gang affiliated with a family in Gaza City", while six of its personnel had also been killed.
Later on Monday, a video circulating on social media appeared to show several masked gunmen, some of them wearing green headbands resembling ones worn by Hamas, shooting with machine guns at least seven men after forcing them to kneel in the street. Posts identified the video as filmed in Gaza on Monday. Civilian spectators cheered "Allah Akbar," or God is Great, and called those killed "collaborators."
Reuters could not immediately verify the events of the video, its date or location. There was no immediate response from Hamas.
Last month, Hamas-led authorities said they executed three men accused of collaborating with Israel. The video of the public killing was shared on social media.
TEMPORARY POLICING ROLE?
Trump's plan foresees Hamas out of power in a demilitarised Gaza run by a Palestinian committee under international supervision. It calls for the deployment of an international stabilisation mission that will train and support a Palestinian police force.
But Trump, speaking on his way to the Middle East, suggested Hamas had been given a temporary green light to police Gaza.
"They do want to stop the problems, and they've been open about it, and we gave them approval for a period of time," he said, responding to a journalist's question about reports that Hamas was shooting rivals and instituting itself as a police force.
After the ceasefire took effect, Ismail Al-Thawabta, head of Hamas' Gaza government media office, told Reuters the group would not allow a security vacuum and that it would maintain public safety and property.
Hamas has ruled out any discussion of its arsenal, saying it would be ready to surrender its arms to a future Palestinian state. The group has said it seeks no role in Gaza's future governing body, but that this should be agreed upon by Palestinians with no foreign control.
INTERNAL CONFLICT WITH CLANS
As the war dragged on, a diminished Hamas faced growing internal challenges to its control of Gaza from groups with which it has long been at odds, often affiliated with clans.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said earlier this year that Israel had been arming clans that oppose Hamas, without identifying them.
In Gaza City, Hamas has mostly battled the Doghmosh clan, residents and Hamas sources said.
The security official did not identify the "gang" who had been targeted in Gaza City, nor say whether it had been suspected of receiving support from Israel.
The most prominent anti-Hamas clan leader is Yasser Abu Shabab, who is based in the Rafah area - an area from which Israel has yet to withdraw.
Offering attractive salaries, his group has recruited hundreds of fighters, a source close to Abu Shabab told Reuters earlier this year. Hamas calls him a collaborator with Israel, which he denies.
The Gaza security official said that separately to the clashes in Gaza City, Hamas security forces had killed Abu Shabab's "right-hand man" and efforts were underway to kill Abu Shabab himself.
Abu Shabab did not immediately respond to questions on the official's comments. Reuters could not immediately verify the claim that his aide had been killed.
Hussam al-Astal, another anti-Hamas figure based in Khan Younis in areas controlled by Israel, taunted the group in a video message on Sunday, saying that once it hands over the hostages, its role and rule in Gaza would be over.
Palestinian analyst Reham Owda said Hamas actions aimed to deter groups that had collaborated with Israel and contributed to insecurity during the war. Hamas also aimed to show that its security officers should be part of a new government, though this would be rejected by Israel, she said.
(Reporting by Nidal al-Mughrabi; Writing by Tom Perry; Editing by Ros Russell, Aidan Lewis and Rosalba O'Brien)
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/hamas-carries-out-wave-of-gaza-killings-citing-crime-and-security-concerns/ar-AA1Oorhb?ocid=winp2fptaskbar&cvid=4504e27380f44378dbeaff3133c664d3&ei=9
Who will march for these Palestinians? Will there be a flotilla for them?
#47
Off the Record / Re: What does a TRUMP presiden...
Last post by Jacob - October 13, 2025, 10:26:02 PMAlso #2 - the whole "keys to power" lens seems pretty apt for explaining the overall arcs of both Putin and Xi, though that's probably not for the Trump thread
#48
Off the Record / Re: What does a TRUMP presiden...
Last post by Jacob - October 13, 2025, 10:22:50 PMAnother related thought on the whole "keys" thing:
If AI lives up to a significant amount of its billing, it could render a significant number of the educated middle class surplus in various ways. This means that they'll become less economically relevant and/ or unnecessary to administer the apparatuses of the state and the economy; which in turn means it's unnecessary to cater to them.
In the US, it means that those who've long nursed a hatred for the "liberal coastal elites" might get to see some joy in watching that group getting short shrift (along with the institutions of democracy that are typically required to keep the broader middle classes in line).
On the flip side, as I understand it a disenfranchised middle class is historically fertile grounds for revolutions and coups.
Of course it remains to be seen if AI delivers on the promise (or threat, depending on your perspective).
If AI lives up to a significant amount of its billing, it could render a significant number of the educated middle class surplus in various ways. This means that they'll become less economically relevant and/ or unnecessary to administer the apparatuses of the state and the economy; which in turn means it's unnecessary to cater to them.
In the US, it means that those who've long nursed a hatred for the "liberal coastal elites" might get to see some joy in watching that group getting short shrift (along with the institutions of democracy that are typically required to keep the broader middle classes in line).
On the flip side, as I understand it a disenfranchised middle class is historically fertile grounds for revolutions and coups.
Of course it remains to be seen if AI delivers on the promise (or threat, depending on your perspective).
#49
Off the Record / Re: What does a TRUMP presiden...
Last post by Jacob - October 13, 2025, 10:06:14 PMA few thoughts in the "keys to power" analysis and American politics:
1: From what I've read, there's a growing percentage of the US population that has become basically economically irrelevant. They neither generate any amount of money, nor does their consumption matter much. This undermines the structural necessity of democracy per the "keys to power" lens.
2: Perhaps the shift to the virtual economy - as championed by Silicon Valley - has radically changed how wealth is generated and how it is distributed. Therefore a rearranging of the political order is basically inevitable.
3: Perhaps similarly the advent of social media has radically changed the nature of some of the keys. Influencers (in aggregate) matter. Controlling "the algorithm" is supremely important (I've been seeing rumors that Barron Trump is going to have a controlling role in American TikTok for example).
4: It is very interesting to me how - as grumbler points out - the armed forces don't seem to be given much shrift by the Trump clique. There are a few possible interpretations that jump to mind, but that's a longer (and IMO interesting) conversation. It comes down to if, when, and how the armed forces' reluctance to interfere with domestic politics breaks down. There's the problem (at least for me) of identifying who actually holds the keys to control the armed forces.
5: From a pure schadenfreude point of view I look forward to seeing some of the key holders required for taking power get eliminated when they become unnecessary to hold power. I expect that might include some oligarchs, the Supreme Court (as a player, not as a title), and any number of GOP "people of consequence."
6: The undermining of public goods (the CDC, education etc etc) makes a lot of sense if the goal is to undermine stable democracy and turn the US into a place more susceptible to a coup or revolution.
1: From what I've read, there's a growing percentage of the US population that has become basically economically irrelevant. They neither generate any amount of money, nor does their consumption matter much. This undermines the structural necessity of democracy per the "keys to power" lens.
2: Perhaps the shift to the virtual economy - as championed by Silicon Valley - has radically changed how wealth is generated and how it is distributed. Therefore a rearranging of the political order is basically inevitable.
3: Perhaps similarly the advent of social media has radically changed the nature of some of the keys. Influencers (in aggregate) matter. Controlling "the algorithm" is supremely important (I've been seeing rumors that Barron Trump is going to have a controlling role in American TikTok for example).
4: It is very interesting to me how - as grumbler points out - the armed forces don't seem to be given much shrift by the Trump clique. There are a few possible interpretations that jump to mind, but that's a longer (and IMO interesting) conversation. It comes down to if, when, and how the armed forces' reluctance to interfere with domestic politics breaks down. There's the problem (at least for me) of identifying who actually holds the keys to control the armed forces.
5: From a pure schadenfreude point of view I look forward to seeing some of the key holders required for taking power get eliminated when they become unnecessary to hold power. I expect that might include some oligarchs, the Supreme Court (as a player, not as a title), and any number of GOP "people of consequence."
6: The undermining of public goods (the CDC, education etc etc) makes a lot of sense if the goal is to undermine stable democracy and turn the US into a place more susceptible to a coup or revolution.
#50
Off the Record / Re: Baseball
Last post by HVC - October 13, 2025, 08:50:26 PMGuess the jays really are a Toronto team 