Iran letting ships through for too small price means that oil price will fall and their only leverage over USA goes away.

I think Israeli position is what a security researcher states in this FT article: https://www.ft.com/content/dd070ee7-7021-4f90-86ec-690fe6aa3...

> Summarising the Israeli government’s position, Citrinowicz said: “If we can have a coup, great. If we can have people on the streets, great. If we can have a civil war, great. Israel couldn’t care less about the future . . . [or] the stability of Iran. > > “That is a point of difference between us and the US. I think [Washington is] more concerned about nation-building and threats to their regional partners,” he added.

Looks very interesting!

In your pre-made Estonia-scenario, some of the attacks come from Finland. What's that about?

I understand the launches from the Baltic Sea, but launching Kalibr next to a Finnish garrison seems a bit far-fetched.

Out of the examples, aerospace engineering was helped by many government interventions such as war-time buying and development of titanium working.

On the other hand, it's also hindered by government regulations making all new development much more expensive than what it could be.

I'd think all the industry segments would exist as the do provide clear benefits to everyone but the development paths taken could be different from what they're now.

Could there be other explanations here? Like marginal cost of one taco when there might be less customers?

Also, higher labor prices, since labor is also a pretty big component of cost in the restaurant business.

That’s why SoCal has the highest land prices, but not the highest priced food at restaurants.

Wouldn't that also apply in places like NYC and LA? Where the enormous traffic volume offers lower marginal costs?

Interesting.

What do you see being disappointing about tweets on Israel? I've mostly seen him care about Palestine civilian deaths but I can't say I've read and remember 100% of his tweets.

Both landfills and incinerators are good places for waste as long as they're not next to water bodies.

They don't contribute to the waste in oceans that this sub-thread seemed to be about.

They do: landfill are surrounded by fence and/or buried but most (not all) plastics degrades due to heat, sun, rain, ph of other materials and micro organism. Then all of those little flakes

- fly away with the wind

- are carried down the groundwater by rain. This is called leachate Modern landfills are protected by liners but those have a lifespan and eventually any of them could leak.

On chat applications: In Finland no one used AIM and everyone used messenger.

I suspect this was the norm also elsewhere in Europe. I am talking about Messenger 4.6 that came built in with windows xp and its later versions, not the business version.

The most popular choice in Germany used to be ICQ, at least based on my own friend group and various conversations I've had over the years.

In the Netherlands, MSN Messenger (commonly abbreviated just 'MSN') was essentially a monopoly, although at that time it was only used by young people (older people still just called each other on the phone).

With the rise of smartphones though, it ended up being supplanted by WhatsApp, with the ill-conceived migration to Skype killing off most of the last stragglers.

I’d say that it’s backwards compatibility.

My understanding is that moving from 1.1 to 2.0 (that introduced reified generics) required work from developers of libraries.

It was also done in relative infancy of the ecosystem.

But I trust some c# oldtimer to tell me how it actually was as I only remember that some tools I used insisted to have older .net runtime installed.

Value types (structs) were in C# 1.0, and they’re used e.g. in native code interop.

Java generics use erasure, and they are backwards-compatible with non-generic-using code. You can still say `var l = new ArrayList();` in the latest Java versions; you’ll get a compiler warning, but the code will compile and run as well as code using `ArrayList<object>` would. C# uses reified generics (which are faster, saner, and more expressive), and standard collections exist in two namespaces (System.Collections vs System.Collections.Generic). If you needed to work with legacy code that uses the non-generic types, System.Collections.Generic.List<T> implements System.Collections.IList (but the code would need to be smart enough to demand the IList interface instead of the concrete System.Collections.ArrayList implementation).

> reified generics (which are faster, saner, and more expressive

I wouldn’t go as far to claim that, e.g. it is often claimed to be the reason behind why the JVM has a blooming language ecosystem, while the CLR, not so much.

Generics have language-level semantics and they may decide to do it differently, in which case erasure gives better results.

The way generics are implemented is definitely not the reason why the CLR has a non-existent language ecosystem. The real reason is because .NET Framework for years was a Microsoft/Windows-only thing, and is still perceieved that way despite .NET being cross-platform now; yes Mono existed since 2005, but why would anyone invest time in writing a whole new programming language for a platform that was Windows only until 2016? This, despite the technical facilities that allow for multi-langauge implementations in the CLR. All the langauges that support the CLR are Microsoft developed ones: C#, VB.NET, F#, and C++/CLI, the last one still being Windows-only. Even then VB.NET and C++/CLI exist because Microsft internally needed to support old code for a bunch of already existing projects at Microsoft anyway.

Also generics in the CLR isn't mandatory - you can implement a language without buying into the CLR-way of generics. For instance in C++/CLI, you can mix and match templates with CLR generics, but it's in no way mandatory. You can still write C++/CLI code using C++'s native template system: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/cpp/extensions/generics-an...

Which languages that are built on top of the JVM would have significant issues if generics weren’t implemented via erasure? I’m pretty sure Scala would be happier with reified generics. I think the CLR might not be as popular a target because of the Microsoft ties (and the main implementation being Windows-only and closed-source for most of the CLR’s existence).

Scala actually was implemented for the CLR, but was later dropped. Here is what its creator said: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14179881

A short way to describe this: you have to throw away all high-level type information in order to execute code on real machines, so the choice becomes when to throw it away.

CLR languages throw it away in the runtime, JVM languages throw some away in bytecode, and Haskell throws it all away in the compiler.

I've heard this often.

Why don't they scale? I used them for some years for a team of ten or so people who all first had to learn to understand how they worked so might that be the problem?

It’s just annoying? Especially if you have access to everything, at one point just having a monorepo makes git “actually work”.

The configuration of ssh vs https can break a lot of workflows, the inability to (reliably) track a branch from a submodule can make maintenance a pain, I've never really figured out how to reasonably do a rebase in the presence of gitmodules changes on both branches, github actions had broken support for submodules for quite awhile... just to name a few.

There's not one giant issue with submodules. There are dozens of small annoyances and footguns. I have yet to see a problem that is better solved by git submodules that can't be solved another way.