If the UN sent in peacekeepers the IDF would use them for target practice. It would be a total bloodbath.
Leaving aside the horror of the thought, the only way to stop Israel's assault on Gaza with a military force is to summon one more powerful than the IDF. There are only a few nations in the world that have a military that could take on the IDF - the US, Russia, China, I'm not sure who else. None of those countries are even remotely likely to invade Israel to stop the IDF from massacring the Palestinians. Why would they? What would be in it for them?
Even in WWII, Germany was not invaded to save the Jews from the Holocaust. That was a fortunate and welcome side-effect. But if the Nazis hadn't also invaded all their neighbours, and the Soviet Union, they could have well gone on and exterminated all the Jews in Europe unimpeded.
It seems unlikely that the IDF will do anything to an international peace force operating in Gaza (not Israel) under a combined lead of France and the UK.
Anyway, it would exactly only take one country - the US - to stop shipping weapons (to credibly threaten to stop) to bring this to an end so fast that you can‘t even finish breakfast.
> It seems unlikely that the IDF will do anything to an international peace force operating in Gaza (not Israel) under a combined lead of France and the UK.
Almost certainly true but it would be political suicide for either country to actually deploy troops to the area. Troops would be attacked either by Hamas or one of the other dozen terrorist organisations present in the area, some of which are allegedly backed by Israel. Any goodwill obtained internationally would evaporate as soon as the troops are forced to defend themselves and any goodwill obtained domestically would evaporate as soon as any troops died or were injured.
The reason why they do that is because they know they have complete impunity. If Israeli attacks on the UN were followed by sanctions by major economies, the Israelis would think twice next time.
IIRC one of the third party partition plans involves a coalition of local governments staffing a neutral zone between Palestine and Israel. The issue for that plan is one of support (Israel doesnt like it, natch) and funding.
High PPI screens have been around for 10 years or so, and they still cost about twice as much as a standard PPI screen the same size.
Put yourself in the shoes of the average computer purchaser: Would you rather buy a high PPI monitor, or two standard PPI monitors? To me this is a no-brainer.
You have your timeline confused. When Microsoft bought Mojang, the only version of Minecraft on PC was Java Edition. It wasn't under the next year that they released the Windows 10 Edition (which is what became Bedrock on PC).
I don't think that was a confusion of mine? Microsoft may well have bought Mojang to develop Windows 10 Edition and then once Bedrock Edition became sooo cross-platform they just. Happened to miss macOS. By total mistake. (A port even exists as part of Education Edition and they're not selling it as part of Bedrock Edition.)
The pattern you're talking about in [2] isn't by choice, it's a result of blue states paying more federal tax. The decisions about who pays federal tax and how much are made by Congress.
> it's a result of blue states paying more federal tax. The decisions about who pays federal tax and how much are made by Congress
It's presently unclear who decides what is spent and by whom. Withholding funds seems like a valid Constitutional crisis to provoke. At some point, a Democrat will be President. Cutting transfer payments to red states is precedented by Trump.
Between robotics, industry and WMDs, the unfortunate reality is that cities have force projection far outclassing the previously impossible-to-hold country. I suppose it's inevitable that eventually asserts itself.
