This is obvious weasel wording. during the writing of the resolution it was made clear that it meant all the territories.

This is how it was phrased:

>(i) Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

any native enlgish speaker can read the declaration and see from the contest that it clear that all territories taken during the war are meant.

The Israelis came up with this facetious excuse to try to encroach on more land.

indeed, when one says "Dogs must be kept on the lead near ponds in the park."

it does not mean, for any sane person that some dogs shouldn't be kept on the lead near ponds in the park.

Also:

"it is an accepted rule that the various language versions must be considered together, with the ambiguities of one version elucidated by the other"

Plus, the reason that Israel must give back the territory is the prohibition of acquiring land by force.

If you can't acquire land by force. you can't acquire any land by force. it's illogical for the rule to only apply on some but not all land taken by force.

I used to watch a lot of lectures at a high speed. But I've came to realize that the faster I watch something, the faster I forget it.

It is like the infromation doesn't have the time to settle in my memory, despite me understanding it.

It's maybe because when things are slow, I can use the dead time to think about the implication/corner cases of what's being said.

If you really want to understand it, I would encourage you to write down notes about it by hand.

For some reason I do not yet understand, the motion of physically putting pen(cil) to paper helps ingrain that information into your brain, in a way that typing it into a computer does not.

Some people say writing is better because typing is "unnatural", but from an evolutionary standpoint both are extremely, equally unnatural activities. There's no reason moving a cylinder of graphite with one hand should be inherently better matched to the brain than moving squares of plastic with two.

My personal guess is that, with fast typing speeds, it's too easy to just copy things word for word. With writing, you have to at least rephrase it and reorganize it to fit the notes reasonably on the page, which forces some processing to occur. I take notes solely by typing, but I only have retention if I do it slowly and reflectively.

I have a pet theory that our brains are hard-wired to store information "better" if it bears some kind of personal/individual imprint.

In other words, we can "store" knowledge more efficiently when written in our own handwriting than when typed into a neutral/generic text editor.

Hmm... then perhaps it's good that I'm extremely particular about how I type my LaTeX, down to microadjustments to the kerning to make it look nicer.

There is a difference: people have been using small handheld objects to create images on flat surfaces for tens of thousands of years. Moving squares of plastic to remotely and invisibly trigger a change in the patterns of light emitted by an electronic display is somewhat different. This could explain some of the studies that have found differences in retention of typed and handwritten notes, but there are many confounding factors.

While writing is ancient, in almost all cultures the ability to write hasn't been widespread until a few centuries ago. It just isn't that useful in agriculture when books cost a fortune, and historically almost everybody was a farmer. I doubt an ability possessed by a small portion of the population over a few thousand years had a large evolutionary impact.

IMHO it's primarily because you have to process and comprehend the information in order to make a decision about what's important enough to jot down.

Although, anecdotally, I find that writing notes by hand is better for recall than typing.

I'm not sure if this is because writing activates different parts of the brain, or simply because writing is slower and forces me to therefore think harder and comprehend better because I need to be 2x as selective about what makes it into my notes.

My money's on the latter, but who knows?

I think this is likely it. In my opinion, it reminds me of autoencoders. Having to compress the information means understanding the content enough to discard unnecessary bits.

I can roughly keep up in real time with speaking on the keyboard. Even though speaking is a bit faster than my max rate around 90 wpm, by dropping filler words and gaps I can mostly avoid summarizing and quote verbatim. When transposing at full speed like that, I feel like a conduit at times, very little sticks deeply in memory.

Contrast with writing notes, where I'll only write down things I find particularly important. Most of the time I'm just trying to actively listen.

Purely anecdotally, I feel like when I am typing and summarizing to the same compression ratio as writing, my retention with typing is better, because I can do it without looking, it's faster, and I can tune back in to the speaker.

On the other other hand, with a laptop open, I'm much more likely to get distracted with emails/tasks.

Bottom line, I think we need to study more axes of this problem, if only because it gives neat insights into cognition.

Here's a paper on the topic which presents some ideas: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/09567976145245...

Also, I was amazed at how listening twice to a history lecture really helped my retention. I'd listen while walking to my next campus class.

This post was far more controversial than i thought it was. I keeps gettin voted up and down. Anyone explain why?

In the same way it was never confirmed that Israel has nuclear weapons?

for example the mobile version of facebook, doesn't let you see messages. The desktop one does and works fine.

I've been able to see/send messages from the mobile site recently actually.

I might finally be able to remove the Messenger app from my phone as well.

Me too. I think I was using fb with the mbasic.facebook.com URL.

> If Brin lived in Russia, spoke Russian, and wrote books in Russian we wouldn't call him American just because he wrote a few books in English too.

But if he spoke Enlgish, had an English name, lived his professional life in America. and most of his major works were in Enlgish.

I'd supposed you'd call him an "Anglophone" academic, which is the sense that Arab is used in.

>the individuals that I named were Persian speakers, who lived in a region that is called the Greater Iran today, and wrote most of their work in Persian

And yet they are called Arab mathematicians.

you named al khawarizmi, which is the only one that I'm really familiar with.

he spoke arabic. Most of his major works were in arabic, in Baghdad. and he has an arabic name.

> In the same way, that North africans refer to themselves as Arabs although genetically they are less than 50% Arab.

Not sure where you got this from, here in Morocco, calling a Berber an Arab is a pretty sure way to piss him/her off.

Tunisia, Lybia. 99% of Tunisians self identify as Arabs

A whopping ~2% of Iranians have Arabic as their native language. That means, if you're going based on language, you're mislabeling 98% of the population.