I was not saying that there was a problem with the rockets themselves. Any attack is a long process with a lot of stages, and something (in this case, probably the targeting) needs to go wrong.
And because I dislike a regime that wants to kill me, I must automatically worship Trump?
I agree with you, but i want to also ask, have you heard what the ayatollah and the mullahs have said about killing Americans, dismembering protestors, raping children, nuking the United States. Have you heard the protestors mowed down by machine guns, have you heard they make you buy the body of your loved ones for the cost of the bullet, assigning that value to their life, have you heard that they literally living inside hospitals and schools, that they told the iranians they would rather every iranian die then let go of power, have you heard at all how insane the islamic regime is? How seriously they talk about destroying America and all of the west so they can spread their Islamic regime (forced conversions or death, forces prayer or death, women cannot go outside with men, men have all rights in marriage, age of consent is 9 years old _for girls_, older for boys, speaking against the governed is death, protesting is death. They literally walked the streets with speakers and plays on the national tv (propaganda, the only channel allowed now) that the people should go into the street and leave their houses, while america and israel are saying to shelter while we take out military installations. The mullahs are trying to get people killed to use that as a story to get us to stop the war. They've literally embedded military installations in every single block of most of the cities. They do that to use the citizens as human shields. The only reason they haven't already been toppled is that owning guns is illegal, and the regime and their insanity are willing to murder anyone and everyone it takes to hold on to power. They don't care about iran, they care about islam and nothing else, they're willing to destroy the world if it means no other religions are allowed. They killed tens of thousands of protestors, they raped the bodies of women then ripped out their wombs to prevent investigation. It's categorically insane. These are facts. If you don't believe them is cause you don't know anyone who came from Iran, i know many and all of them support toppling the ayatollah, sending in pahlavi as transitionary leader to get democracy running again. Trump is and has always been a crazy person too, but having learned some farsi and listened with my own ears, he's nothing like the mullahs.
>I think that if you start an unjustified war of agression against a country [...]
That's just moving the goalposts because the original comment said
>What part of "doing the right thing" is bombing an all girls school?
which is calling out that particular event specifically, other than the war itself. Otherwise you can just head over to the wikipedia page and point out the casualty figures.
You do not get to decide that. If we allow everyone to invade other countries and murder leaders because they deem those people worse than themselves, the world will be engaged in endless war. Or do you think perhaps deciding who to invade and kill is a special privilege reserved only for your country, which should be emperor of the world?
If a guy pays soldiers to sneak into another country, kidnap rape and murder children, and continues similar behavior for 4 decades I can decide he's worse than Trump. I do get to decide that. Some things are worse than others.
The preceding comment was about holding someone responsible. It appears you might have misunderstood that mine points out that this is exactly how the school was hit.
??? Do most of your everyday life decisions involve starting wars or killing people? That's concerning. Are you a high-ranking officer in the US military? As it happens, I'm not, and my decisions do not typically have life-or-death consequences.
I also don't even know what you're getting at. There was nothing "relativistic" or "morally grey" about my argument. My point is that in order for any kind of peace to exist, each country must be able to accept that there will be other people in the world who are morally repugnant to them. Because there will always be leaders who consider each other repugnant, so if you endorse starting wars over that, you're committing to a world where everyone is starting wars all the time as the international norm.
But if you're getting attacked for 4 decades by another country, do you do something about it or are you saying that's also wrong?
My understanding is that the regime in Iran has been terrorizing around the world for decades. It's not just disagreeable. People are seeking justice.
It's one thing to dislike another politician. No one needs justice for repugnancy. But if they are committing acts of terror, that's a totally different thing.
The regime in the US has been terrorizing around the world for decades. Among many other things, it overthrew the democratic Iranian government to establish a puppet autocracy in Iran, leading directly to the current one after a revolution. The entire reason Iran funds terrorists that target the US is because the US is an existential threat to it. So your argument basically boils down to "if I shoot someone, and they shoot me back, am I not entitled to self-defense?". The actual answer is to stop shooting them. Stop fucking up the entire Middle East and the people from there won't hate a country across the world so much that they feel a worthwhile use of their life is to strap a bomb to themselves in order to kill people from there.
Your other comment is locked apparently. Can't reply.
But there you suggested that the US should stop because they make Iran want to bomb and that's why there's war. And we can say the same about Iran.
So, your solution is hopeless as we already know from centuries of conflict history. Iran wants to kill us for historical events. We want to kill them for those too. Very insightful.
But we're bigger and the war is just on the TV in America. You have a much better shot of convincing them that we'll stop bombing them if they just take it for a while and then don't seek revenge.
I didn't know why you think America will be easier to convince of that.
No, Iran wants to kill you for current events. You're talking like American imperialism in the Middle East is past-tense. It is on-going, constantly. It is happening right now. This, itself, is an imperialist war. Trump is not going to war for whatever fucking reason you think he is, like stopping terrorism or changing the Iranian regime to help the Iranian people.
> You have a much better shot of convincing them that we'll stop bombing them if they just take it for a while and then don't seek revenge.
They LITERALLY DID THAT. The first invasion striking their nuclear facilities was itself an act of war that would have justified closing the Strait and all other measures they could take to fight back. Yet they accepted such a blatant crime against them and tried to de-escalate, were in the middle of negotiating a humiliatingly one-sided deal (after Trump tore up the one they had made with Obama, for no reason), and then the US attacked them in the middle of negotiations for the second time in a row. This time killing their leader, 150 children, and countless other crimes. Nobody could ever lay down and accept that. You have just created a country full of people that will justifiably hate you for another 80 years, minimum. They have been taught that the only thing trying to appease the US does is embolden the US to take even more from them.
I don't know how to communicate this to you, but your country IS THE AGGRESSOR. The US is worse than Iran. Fullstop. The Iranian regime is evil, and despite that, the American regime manages to be multiple times worse. Peace in the Middle East was possible. It is the US who is constantly, constantly, constantly stirring up conflicts there, and you have the gall to blame Iran for it.
Which events were they wanting to kill Israelis and Americans for on October 7th? Or is it totally acceptable for Iran to start wars by kidnapping and torturing civilians and filming it, but not for America to do it without celebrating the death, kidnap, torture and rape of children?
Ali Shamkhani, just based on his Wikipedia page, openly stated on several occasions that he intended to build nukes and that he regretted not building them and nuking Israel and the US in the 90s.
He was also a high ranking military leader in Iran, which implies that he commanded, or maybe organized, but at the very least funded terror in Gaza, Israel, the US, Australia, France, etc.
I don't see that as a negotiator any more than the assassins who finally killed him were negotiators.
And yes, I was talking about Hamas, Hezbollah, and other Islamic Revolution export efforts stemming from the Islamic Republic government in Iran.
You'd be surprised if you knew what many American leaders and generals thought about using nukes.
Whatever you say is besides the point, there's plenty of war crimes and terrorism to go around on both sides. Israel kills negotiators during an active negotiation. They have no interest in solving this other than Iran becoming a failed state. They are manufacturing this situation, its been the goal of Netanyahu for 4 decades, and he was there in congress to lie about WMDs when Iraq was attacked.
But they found enriched uranium in this case. Regardless, it makes sense to disempower a regime that has been firing rockets at civilians in neighboring countries for 4 decades during peace time.
That's not happened when we talk about "plenty of war crimes and terrorism to go around." Not the US and not Israel.
It seems the goal (and Khameini stated this not just once but it's literally the stated primary goal of the Islamic Republic) is to bait other countries into war and use the media to blame them for war crimes generating support for the Islamic Revolution.
And that seems to be exactly what they've succeeded in doing here with your commentary. Here you are critical of the US.
If there is plenty to go around then why pick the side that promotes revolution and mutilation and opposes civil rights?
Export revolution is not the stated goal of the US. Whether it happens or not is irrelevant. It shouldn't be considered a good thing, right? One of these countries thinks it should be and that's worse.
US and Israel has done plenty of warcrimes, though they cannot be prosecuted.
>a regime that has been firing rockets at civilians in neighboring countries for 4 decades during peace time.
Hard to tell if you're talking about Israel or Hamas etc.
Laughable that you think that Iran can control western media.
I've been critical of the US for much longer than after oct 7. All the wars since WW2, overthrowing of governments, support of dictators, ignoring genocides for profit, all for US imperialism and weapon sales.
There is not a country that has caused more global suffering post WW2.
>The regime in the US has been terrorizing around the world
Yeah, that already happened. Now what? How do we stop more kids from getting kidnapped, raped, murdered, or bombed?
Your proposed solution is essentially a leader in every country that has suffered from Iran's terror who can convince his/her people that their kidnapped children are worth it.
Obviously that isn't feasible. But worse, how is that different than saying it's okay for Iran to kidnap children?
> My understanding is that the regime in Iran has been terrorizing around the world for decades
The list of Iranian terror attacks in America amounts to a whole lot of fuck all. Whatever Iran might be doing elsewhere shouldn't be America's problem.
I didn't think the point was that subtle. There is good and evil, right and wrong, survival and destruction. You seem to think that drawing a line around some land and calling yourself a country immunizes you from the moral scrutiny of your neighbors.
While this certainly accords with the promulgations of the morally bankrupt UN, it is not a recipe for existing in our world. This is why it is important to have a powerful military.
It is a matter of pragmatism. Even if I myself consider my perspective on good and evil to be objective, it is a given that each of my neighbors will have their own seemingly-objective sense of good and bad that differs from my own. We are then at an impasse. Do I attempt to kill all of my neighbors in order to rid the world of what I perceive to be evil? Or do I perhaps make peace with an imperfect world in which bad things happen in other countries that are not my jurisdiction to worry about? Apparently you subscribe to the "kill all your neighbors" camp, that your objective brand of morality must be enforced on the entire world by means of military might. World conquest, however, is an utterly irrational thing to attempt, and will only lead to death and destruction, not an idealistic world that conforms to your sense of morality.
I don't know what to tell you. You're restating the paradox of tolerance. You should probably come to some philosophical resolution regarding that before you keep digging.
What I have said has nothing to do with the paradox of tolerance. I am firmly on the side of not tolerating the intolerant, but stating that, "not tolerating" does not extend to "starting wars in an attempt at world conquest to rid the world of the intolerant".
It is actionable. That action is simply not "world conquest", jesus fucking christ. Is America itself a society in which the intolerant have no power? No, it is not. Maybe first it could think about clearing things up in its own borders before trying to use that excuse to invade the whole goddamn world. Indeed it is the intolerant who currently have power in the US. You seem to be projecting your own desire for invading Iran, which is completely incompatible with the people in power's actual reason for invading Iran. They are not invading Iran to make life better for Iranians. But you believe invading Iran to make life better for Iranians is justified, so you lend your support to the current administration, even though that is explicitly not what is going to happen as a result of your support. You are, in short, a useful idiot[1].
> We tried the nuke deal and they lied and kept building
This is a lie. A complete fabrication. Trump says this, completely baselessly, without a shred of evidence, as known liars are wont to do. They allowed inspectors in and not one of them ever suggested they were violating the terms of the deal.
> How many have to die for us to decide to act.
This is a murky question, but if anybody was going to intervene in a country's domestic affairs, it would need to be by broad international consensus to have any legitimacy. It absolutely cannot be a unilateral invasion where one country decides who is worthy of invading and who is not. Moreover, that is not why they were invaded. Whatever qualms you have with the Iranian regime, this war is not a war to instate democracy in Iran. We already saw with Venezuela literally just two months ago that Trump invaded and deposed the leader, only to keep the current regime in place with an agreement to serve as his country's economic vassal. Stop projecting your own justifications for why you would invade Iran if you were President of the United States, to justify the actions of the current one who is not invading for those reasons. The only thing you are doing by justifying his invasion for unrelated reasons is giving your support to the death of more innocent Iranians that you ostensibly want to help.
Do you support Khameini's call and platform to fund the export of Islamic Revolution?
Do you believe that other countries should be allowed to defend themselves from the import of Khameini's Islamic Revolution?
Or did you not know that this was his openly stated purpose?
How many people have to die before you start blaming the international community for inaction or worse, you start to feel that the international community is complicit because they prevent one country from acting while another funds terror attacks with impunity?
I don't know why you decided to hop to multiple unrelated threads of conversation with other people while ignoring my reply to you on this subject specifically earlier, but to restate: wholesale violence does not solve terrorism. You already fucking tried this in Afghanistan, and failed, badly. The solution to terrorism is to stop giving people reasons to be terrorists, which means you must stop killing their people and trying to conquer their land/resources, as the US has been engaged in constantly for the entire post-world-war period. A commitment to peace won't make all of the terrorists disappear overnight, so you will have to deal with a long tail of violence against you for years to come, which is known as "consequences for your actions". You have a right to take measures to defend yourself against individual terrorists, but if you ever want actual peace, those measures can't include actions that will create new generations of terrorists, like invading a fucking country, assassinating its leader, bombing schools, sinking ships on diplomatic missions, and destroying infrastructure. Every single one of these actions will create new terrorists who hate your country so much they will lay down their lives to hurt it.
Actually, not only did you ignore my reply, you're ignoring the post you're replying to as well. THIS WAR IS NOT EVEN A REGIME CHANGE WAR. STOP PROJECTING YOUR OWN MOTIVATIONS ONTO THE US GOVERNMENT.
So by your reasoning America is the terrorist. Got it.
But then it's Iran that's giving America reasonable cause to be terrorists. Maybe the US is the biggest terrorist in history. Good for you, I'll buy your story for the sake of discussion.
But then why isn't the IR subject to the same scrutiny? Why are you criticizing one side, but not the other.
For me, I criticize IR far more than the US for banning free speech. For hanging and mutilating women. For kidnapping civilians. For celebrating Israeli deaths. For using residences and schools to house munitions and military targets. For openly advocating that their purpose is to "export Islamic Revolution." For subjugating and murdering protesters by the tens of thousands. And more...
For me this makes the US the lesser of two bad actors. I don't have much choice but where I do, I choose the less immoral, and hopefully I'm right. That doesn't mean I promote the violence on either side. Or that I like or agree with either side.
There's bad and worse. That's politics and even more so, that's war. But I'm definitely not voting for worse.
FFS they don't need reasons. Their stated goal and actions in support of it is the destruction of the apostatic free world. Your oppressed/oppressor narrative is vapid. Though terrorism is a tool they use, their goal is a caliphate with Sharia law.
You are literally brainwashed by American propaganda, JFC. Iranians do not hate you because you are free, they hate you because you are trying to control their country. Do you understand they are not movie villains? They are real people? Real people who would, in normal circumstances, prefer to live their lives peacefully? Imagine what it would take for you to decide the best way to spend your life is to strap a bomb to yourself and kill people from a country on the other side of the planet? Some reasons that may motivate you so heavily would perhaps include that country overthrowing your democracy and massacring your children. Reasons that are not likely are "jealousy of their FREEDOM".
I already know your next tired argument will be BUT THE RELIGION OF PEACE, so I will go ahead and pre-empt it. It is not genuinely religion that motivates people to die in acts of terrorism. If it were, that would still not be a reason to attack America, which is on the other side of the planet, as opposed to any of their closer neighbors who are just as full of heathens. Take, for example, Japan. It is a notable country on the world stage, once the #2 economy in the world. It has never, not even a single time, been attacked by an Islamic terrorist. Why do you think that is? Is it because Japan is not free? Is it because Japan lives in accordance with Islamic principles? Or is it because, maybe, just maybe, Japan hasn't given a single person from the Middle East any reason to want to sacrifice themselves to kill Japanese people?
Similarly, note that Indonesia is the fourth most populous country in the world, with 270 million people, 87% of which are Muslims. Not one of them has ever staged a terrorist attack against the US. Doesn't that seem strange to you? If Muslims are inherently evil people born for the religious purpose of attacking the US, surely Indonesians should be doing it too? Or maybe, just maybe, it's not actually religion that motivates such extreme acts of self-sacrifice, and the real reasons Indonesians don't attack the US is because the US has not given Indonesians reasons to hate it?
False dichotomy. There are other ways to deal with Iran that don't involve starting an ill conceived (and illegal) war that kills school children and possibly (probably?) plunges the world economy into recession. It is highly unlikely that the current military action will result in a pacified Iran.
Why do people think that since Iran is evil all actions against Iran are justified?
They're not old enough to remember the start of the war in Iraq, I imagine. For those who aren't: it was a barrage of justifications which were found to be untrue, especially the 45 minute claim which said Iraq could strike European targets within 45 minutes with chemical or biological weapons. The UN weapons inspector said this was nonsense, and so it proved to be - after the invasion.
Sovereignty. You only get to hold responsibility of your own citizens, like Jeffery Epstein AND his supporters. You do that right, and then maybe then people will like you as the world police.
Well, a couple of days ago Iran fired 2 missiles at a US base in the Indian Ocean with twice the range of anything they were supposed to be allowed to have.
Right. Under sanctions to prevent them from being a danger to everyone around them while they sponsor terror globally and go on TV talking about getting nuclear weapons to destroy Israel.
Most of Europe is within striking distance of their current capabilities that they were not supposed to have.
Treaties gave terms to limit the range of their missiles. Treaties were agreed to to prevent them from enriching uranium.
They violated both. Had they been allowed to continue on their path, we can all expect that we would be looking at a nuclear terror attack in the near future.
People are going to react for their left/right politics but the Iranian regime is a danger to the entire planet. There’s a reason that Iranian expats world wide have been celebrating in the streets.
Their biggest fear is that we are going to leave before the regime is fully removed.
The real dangers to peace in the Middle East are America, Israel and historically the British, because these three are the bastards that toppled Iran's democracy and lead them to such a defensive posture in the first place. With the utmost respect, kindly blow your judeo-american sanctions out your ass. America should have NOTHING to do with Iran whatsoever, we don't have any moral right to intervention here.
It’s impossible to take anyone seriously who dismisses the threat of developing a nuclear weapon with intent to use it.
Sponsoring and funding global terror networks is not a “defensive posture”. Giving speeches about nuking your enemy while secretly developing those capabilities isn’t either.
Please apply your thoughts to Israel then. Israel is the greatest destabilizing force in the middle east. From Gaza, to false flags in Iran, Saudi Arabia and who knows where else.
>secretly developing those capabilities isn’t either.
At least Iran's been pretty transparent about their intentions for a while now.
Israel maintains the "strategic ambiguity" about its nuclear "energy" development which is the stupidest fucking thing ever. Of course they've got nuclear weapons.
lets see... what country in the region actually has nuclear weapons? Could it be the same country that is conducting genocide in Gaza, displacing hundreds of thousands in Lebanon, and allowing settlers to do pogroms in the west bank?
The treatie that trump left in 2017 at a time when all US intelligence agencies after that they were not working on a nuclear bomb and were then put under sanctions? Yeah ok buddy.
I think reducing what LLMs do to « typing » is misleading. If it was just typing, you could simply use speech-to-text. But LLMs do far more than that, they shape the code itself. And I think we lose something when we delegate that work to LLMs
We do lose something, but really I still see it as an extension of autocomplete.
I had some pieces of code I wrote I was quite proud of: well documented, clear code yet clever designs and algorithm.
But really what always mattered most to me was designing the solution. Then the coding part, even though I take some pride in the code I write, was most a mean to an end. Especially once I start having to add things like data validation and API layers, plotting analysis results and so many other things that are time consuming but easy and imho not very rewarding
To me its just a natural evolution of the search engine.
And now looking back its an obvious outcome. The search engine of the time was the best way to find websites. But those websites grew in quantity and volume over time with information.. that information as we know is/was a vital input for LLMs.
Agreed. Also, it takes time to understand a domain properly- so the innate slowness of coding helps with letting things “simmer” in the back of the mind.
It’s not that they replace the act of typing, so much as figuring out how to express the specific algorithm or data structure in a given programming language, typing that, debugging it, etc.
Once I can describe something well, that’s most of the interesting part (to me) done.
with an LLM, you can have an ill formed idea, and let the LLM mold it into a shape to your liking, without having the investment required to learn how to do molding first.
ActivityPub supports a less compelling user experience for many people: you only have a partial view of the network (you won’t see all the replies to the posts of people you follow on other servers), no global search, etc
This is how offline social networks work, and it might be fundamentally the only way social networks end up working. If each instance can't filter what it receives, then spam is too easy. If every message is globally flooded, the system scales as O(N^2) and is easily vulnerable to DoS.
Sure, but it shows global replies, it provides global search, it's not O(n^2), it's not easily DOSed, and it's highly amenable to spam filtering, which are the issues you raised.
It's true that this solution doesn't work for private posts and DMs, but the n in O(n^2) is much smaller there, so I don't think it's as much of an issue for personal data servers to communicate directly in those cases.
There's also software called Constellation[0] from microcosm that exclusively collects "backlinks", which are items which link to a certain thing. e.g. follow records for an account, reposts/replies/likes on a post. If you click on the Backlinks tab when examining something on pdsls.dev you can see a list of them.
It can be self hosted and is much lighter than running a full appview. The author has a public endpoint for it that's keeping up with the whole network running on a single raspberry pi on his home network.
It's basically event sourcing. You listen to the data you care about from the network and update the local index (DB). There are also tools like Tap (https://docs.bsky.app/blog/introducing-tap) that do the plumbing work and let you backfill automatically.
> Israel an the US are a single entity when it comes to security matters in the middle east. It was already the de facto regional power
Not independently. At this point, Israel is independently a de facto regional power. The strike in Doha drove that home. (As did the attacks on Iran, which delivered a geostrategic win to Riyadh that Washington was never able to.)
absolutely. it’s even in the design paper, when they discuss the AppView the authors say it’s “less decentralized than alternatives” and yet you can’t say that without bsky fans getting mad.
When you state that "European social safety nets are pretty damn generous" it seems to imply that someone else, rather than the Europeans themselves, is being generous and footing the bill.
• (of a person) showing a readiness to give more of something, as money or time, than is strictly necessary or expected: she was generous with her money.
• showing kindness toward others: it was generous of them to ask her along.
• (of a thing) larger or more plentiful than is usual or necessary: a generous sprinkle of pepper.
Dubai / UAE is about the largest per capita inflow of high net worth individuals, and even on an absolute basis has one of the highest immigration inflow of high net worth individuals.
Yes if you are poor as dirt and can just take your life savings of <$10k (probably 99% of humanity) on an airplane if you need to use it in another country, you can do so no problem and you do not care, the idea of a crypto OTC desk likely does not even occur to you. It is still solving the same problem, but by being small enough that no one cares.
The data pretty well speaks for itself. Humanity with money cares a lot about escaping capital controls. This is inviolable, the more the banking system handicaps itself the more capital flows into less regulated products.
reply