Wow, I just got and used a whetstone for the first time yesterday!

I’ll tell you what I did, with the understanding that I’m less knowledgeable than others in this post, but can probably better relate to your situation.

I’d also be happy to hear feedback from others.

I bought a dual King whetstone of 1000/6000 grit for a basic German knife that lost its edge after a few months of daily use. The 6000 side is probably overkill (King is made for Japanese knifes, which do require 6000 grit. 2000-4000 would do for a German knife), but the whetstone was at the correct balance of price, apparent quality and known brand.

I mainly used these two videos as guides:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkzG4giI8To

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tahaaHxhbsA

Using a marker to see if I’m holding the knife at the correct angle helped, thought I mostly used it to get my bearings. I didn’t bother with the whole 10, 8, 6 etc. stropping process, rather went a few times on each side, and tested it until the knife was able to cut through paper easily. Overall, I’d say it took me less than 10 passes on each side.

The main issue for me was forcing myself to hold the knife correctly and move my other hand to apply pressure at the right point (I was able to do it correctly, it just took a bit of work). I also had a hard time keeping the angle of the knife constant.

The whole process start to finish took me about half an hour, I’d say about 5-10 minutes were due to me being a noob.

When inspecting the edge, I noticed it was convex, which makes sense as the angle wasn’t uniform. From what I understand, this might actually be better than a straight V edge (the most common type), so… yay for me, I guess?

After finishing the knife easily passed the paper test, and cutting through a tomato was more a matter of placing the knife on top of the tomato and sliding it back and forth, allowing the edge to drop down and slice it. The knife is at least as sharp as when it was new, if not sharper. There is one spot where I think the edge isn’t as good, but I only noticed it because I was looking for issues and it isn’t noticeable with regular use. Overall I’m very happy with the results.

Err… Yes?

I mean, if the cops can’t actually come into your city, having them waiting outside the city limits with signs saying “if you’ll come out we’ll arrest you!” probably isn’t the best course of action for you.

No, what I’m saying is:

a. The immediate goal shouldn’t be to punish Netanyahu for war crimes, rather solve (at least improve) the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

b. Arrest warrants against Netanyahu will not help improve the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, if anything they’ll make the situation worse (There are already calls from far-right members of Knesset to stop all humanitarian aid to Gaza as a response).

Therefor, this is uplifting news for anyone who hates Netanyahu/Israel more than they want to help Palestinians.

No, this is not uplifting for anyone (except maybe people who hate Netanyahu and/or Israel and don’t really care about Palestinians).

Right now there is some humanitarian aid going into Gaza, despite objections from the far-far-right Israeli coalition parties. The excuse Netanyahu used to get their (semi-)cooperation is by saying “Well, this is the bare minimum so Israel won’t get hit by sanctions”. The warrants, if granted, will create motivation for Netanyahu to give in and reduce humanitarian aid (he cares much more about personal sanctions than sanctions against the country).

Also, Netanyahu will use the warrants and Israel’s isolation to strengthen his own position in the government, fortify his position and lower the chances for his government to implode.

If that’s the reason behind the arrest warrens for Hamas, doesn’t it make the ICC’s chief request in bad faith? Like “I really want to issue warrants only for Netanyahu, but I know this will be unfair, so I’ll issue warrants for both sides, so I’ll seem balanced”?

“Conservatives” is a misnomer here. “Conservative” isn’t right and “Progressive” isn’t left.

Conservatives are those who want as little change as possible so as to “not rock the boat” and “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. Progressives are those who want to try out new policies.

From what I gather, a large portion of today’s Republicans aren’t actually conservatives rather regressive. That’s almost literally what “make America great again” means. That’s also the meaning of, for example, the Roe v. Wade overruling - going back to an earlier state.

Also, in the long run the human condition generally changes for the better (Or at least that’s what we perceive as our values and habits are usually aligned with what we have now and not what we had before). As the status quo changes, the things conservatives (and progressives) value change accordingly.

Saying “Conservatives were the people who defended King George.” as if that has anything to do with conservative today is like someone saying “Progressives on the 18th century were for women’s suffrage, they have no business talking about equality”.

Maybe that’s my bias, but that seems to be a very… specific way of sorting sides. Mind if I rephrase that?

• Pro Israeli side, which includes people who care that the hostages be saved. Some also want a 2 state solutions implemented.
• Pro Israeli control of Palestinians side: people that believe any Palestinian autonomy will result in a repeat of the Oct. 7th massacre, partly because of the, well, Oct. 7th massacre.
• Pro Palestinian side, which includes people who believe Israel should be destroyed and Jews killed, as well as people who maybe don’t want want Jews killed but care that Israel is defeated and/or Palestinians are not bombed.

I’d say both phrasings are about equally accurate and objective.

The wrong assumption you’re making is that Israel is blowing up hospitals.

You’re probably thinking about the blast in Al-Ahli Hospital in October, that was ruled by both the US and most news agencies as a failed Islamic Jihad launch.

I think there are a few things that should be taken into account:

1. Hamas stated time and time again that their goal is to take over all of the land that is currently Israel and, to put it extremely mildly, make nearly all the Jewish population not be there.
2. The Oct. 7th attack has shown that Hamas is willing to commit indiscriminate murder, kidnapping and rape to achieve this goal. Some of the the kidnapped civilians are currently held in Gaza.

Israel had no real choice but to launch an attack against Hamas in order to return the kidnapped citizens and neutralize Hamas as a threat. You could say “Yes, that’s because Because of the aforementioned illegal occupation”, but just like the citizens in Gaza have a right to be protected against bombings regardless of what their government did, Israeli citizens have the right to be protected from being murdered, raped or kidnapped.

So, any true solution has to take both these considerations into account. Right now, the Israeli stance is that once Hamas will no longer control Gaza, the war could end (citizens on both sides will be protected). The Hamas stance is that Israel should cease hostilities so they can work on murdering, raping or kidnapping more Israeli citizens. That isn’t to say Israel is just, rather that Israel is willing to accept a solution that stops the killing of both citizen populations, while Hamas is not. The just solution is for the international community to put pressure on both parties to stop hostilities. The problem is that the parts of the world who would like to see a just solution (Eurpoe, the US etc.) are able to put pressure on Israel, while the parts who don’t hold humane values (Iran, Qatar etc.) support Hamas.

Now, regarding the massive civilian casualties in Gaza:

3. Hamas has spent many years integrating their military capabilities into civilian infrastructure. This was done as a strategy, specifically to make it harder for Israel to harm Hamas militants without harming civilians.

I’m not trying to say that all civilians killing in Gaza are justified, rather that it’s extremely hard to isolate military targets. Most international law regarding warfare states that warring parties should avoid harming civilians as much as possible. Just saying “Israel is killing TWICE as many innocent civilians as Hamas, therefore they’re attacking Palestinian people as a whole” doesn’t take this into account what’s possible under in the current situation.

Because while “what we can mostly all agree” to that, Biden does not think that Israel is engaged in genocide.

Just because a group of people perceive something to be the absolute truth, doesn’t mean everyone interpret reality the same way.

The visuals were great, and the film has a hypnotic fever dream feel to it. Not sure it can be called a"good" film, but it’s extremy entertaining.

The new film has more gravitas and is much more loyal to the book, but it also doesn’t add anything to the book and is just less interesting to watch (for me it was down right boring). I think it over-corrected the Lynch version.

What do you mean by “comedy impersonation” - parody, or just copying a comedian?

If I were to set up a music show with a Madonna impersonator and slightly changed Madonna songs (or songs in her style), I’ll get my pants sued off.

If Al Yankovic does a parody of a Madonna song, he’s in the clear (He does ask for permission, but that’s a courtesy and isn’t legally mandatory).

The legal term is “transformative use”. Parody, like where SNL has Alec Baldwin impersonating Trump, is a recognized type of transformative use. Baldwin doesn’t straight up impersonate Trump, he does so in a comedic fashion (The impersonation itself is funny, regardless of how funny Trump is). The same logic applied when parodying or impersonating a comedian.

Andromeda really picks up in season 2. Not a amazing, but it’s very good.

Didn’t see Sorry About the Demon, but “campy horror movies that typically have 5 or below on IMDb” makes my brain scream Dark Angel: The Ascent and Modern Vampires.

The IDF once traded 1000 prisoners for 1 IDF soldier, what makes you think they will not kill 10000 children if it means it saves 1 soldier?

Because… the moral considerations in both cases are completely different…? How is this even a question?

That’s like saying “He once bought a car for $50,000, what makes you think he won’t steal $500,000 if it meant getting a Tesla?”

No, he’s not.

Also, he’s barred from being a minister as per Israeli’s supreme court ruling (exactly because he’s been convicted with fraud multiple times), so I highly doubt he could be appointed to the war cabinet even in theory.

One could argue that the ultra orthodox parties are active behind the scenes, but there’s no indication of that anywhere. Israel has free press, so this type of thing would probably come out as rumors at the very least (By contrast, there were reports he was the de-facto minister of social services after the supreme court ruling).

Not to diminish the political power they hold, but in this specific case there isn’t any indication they exert said power.

No, I take offense to comparing Israel to Apartheid South Africa because it’s dumb. Not even saying it’s wrong, it’s just a dumb comparison.

Read again what the person you replied to said - it’s basically “I don’t have any information about Israel that’s relevant to the question, but I’ll just go ahead and assume Israel and Apartheid South Africa are the same thing and reply based on that. This will show Israel and Apartheid South Africa have a lot in common”.

That’s a great insight into Israeli society.

The answer to your question is a resounding “yes”.

In fact, among the 4 members of war cabinet, at least one other has children in active combat units, and ALL cabinet members served in a combat unit as well as had at least one child in active combat duty.

Most children of Israeli politicians are absolutely conscripted to the army, and the public would look very badly on a “fortunate son” type situation.

Furthermore, there’s an unwritten rule the ultra-orthodox parties do not involve themselves or even voice an opinion on military matters because, and this something often said in Israel, “they don’t risk their children’s life in the army” (the ultra-orthodox are essentially exempt from conscription).

The Israeli Jewish public doesn’t see the Israeli combatants as poor or uneducated “others”, but as their children, brothers and fathers.

I think that’s a more ethical way of looking at it. However, this also helps explain the seeming lack of consideration for Palestinian life. Take a random person and ask him to choose between risking the life of his kid, who is in active service, in a military operation or throwing bombs and risking harming other civilians. Most people will choose to risk others. And among those who’ll choose to risk their kid, most would either be lying or didn’t really think about the question.

So about that Amnesty report…?

Anyway, after calling me a “cartoon villain Nazi” I don’t really think this discussion can go anywhere. so I’ll go a bit off-topic and say something other readers might find interesting:

About a month ago, I spoke with a Palestinian work-buddy (yes, Palestinian Israelis work with Israeli Jews. In the the same jobs and with the same pay. Apartheid).

I asked him how he’s doing, as he’s not only living in Israel (and therefor a missile can hit his family as well as mine. Yet another area where Palestinian-Israelis and Jewish-Israelis are no different), he has the added bonus of fearing some psycho Jewish supremacist attacking him. He mentioned that the police are monitoring social media, and summoning for investigation Israeli-Palestinian influences who show support for Hamas, threaten them with charges and release them. Me, a cartoon villain Nazi bleeding heart liberal: “wow, I don’t think anyone in their right mind should support Hamas, but summoning people and releasing them without charges just to threaten them… yeah, that’s rough”.

He replied “No, you don’t understand, that wasn’t a criticism. I’m saying that’s a good thing. If that’ll help stop a replay of two years ago [social networks played a large part in encouraging Palestinians to riot. The riots caused a surge in anti-Palestinian violence among Jews], I’m all for it” . I’m still not sure how I feel about that.

Not saying every Palestinian is like him and every Jew is like me. Just… yeah, it’s complicated.

On what basis?

Again, I didn’t see any Israeli source referring to them as “combatants”.