lwansbrough

Iran has zero leverage. Any leverage given is an olive branch. Obama era diplomacy was the right path, Trump is a moron. But the bigger issue here is Iran's free-will pursuit of nuclear weapons. It is a choice they're making. They choose to pursue nuclear weapons, forcing the US to either take a diplomatic path to stop them, or intervene.

They don't have to build nuclear weapons! They're just doing that shit.

Well I won't deny that. Nevertheless, countries who "play ball" seem to have it pretty good. Awfully high cost to pay to stick it to the man in charge.

North Korea has the backing of the US' two most powerful adversaries, it was not a free pass.

The US can deploy a carrier strike group faster than any nation can build a nuclear weapon. And after seeing the hellfire unleashed on Iran, it is clear that pursuing nuclear weapons may not be the answer it once appeared to be.

Meanwhile, the so-called vassal states of the US - some of the richest countries on Earth mind you - haven't bothered to deploy nuclear weapons because we have no use for them.

Israel does employ a facade of a liberal democracy that aligns itself to some extent with Western culture. Though this is very much in decline and I think, generally, sentiment on Israel has shifted quite dramatically in the West in recent years.

Tell me: is the US supposed to stand idly by while the Iranian regime develops nuclear weapons? They pursue nuclear weapons of their own volition, by the way. There are paranuclear states and nuclear threshold states which have not pursued nuclear weapons and have delivered on providing for their people in every manner in which a human society needs. So what does Iran hope to achieve that diplomacy cannot?

At what point does it turn from a "disagreement" to a credible existential threat that an adversary cannot ignore?

I was wondering today how many people will develop cancer in a few years because of this.

Why must Israel be so duplicitous? It is exhausting.

Yes I believe this was the line of thinking that has lead us to the invasion of Iran. So it doesn't appear to be a viable strategy. The US can dispatch a strike group faster than any country can build a nuke, let alone enough nukes to actually make a difference. North Korea only succeeded because of its close ties with China and Russia, and perhaps because previous administrations weren't so brazen as to invade them.

An alternative, as always, is to work towards our strengths as middle-powers. Remain steadfast in our pursuit of diplomatic and economic ties. Make the world too complex and intertwined to make invasions practical.

And of course, while Russia is the leader in this area, it's not the only country that could balkanize the US through "peaceful" means.

Well of course, which is why we prohibited the development of defence tech in the ABM treaty. But that doesn't stop non-nuclear states from developing anti-nuke defence technology. Perhaps the only reason why they don't is because it's harder than building a nuke.

I'm not saying MAD is a bad doctrine, I'm saying it breaks down as the complexity of diplomacy increases quadratically with the number of nuclear equipped actors.

I'm Canadian. Things are good here. Obtaining a bomb wouldn't make life materially better for anyone in Canada, nor would it defend us against the US. Not to mention anybody could drive a nuke into the middle of Manhattan and detonate it and you'd maybe never know who was responsible.

The importance of non-proliferation cannot be understated.

MAD assumes rational actors and perfect game play. Ultimately what stopped armageddon wasn’t MAD but the blind faith of Stanislav Petrov.

States seeking nuclear defence should join the nuclear umbrella of a greater power.

You are arguing in favour of a nuclear apocalypse.

Tangential, but one thing that really irks me is when people advocate for nuclear proliferation as a safety feature.

Aside from just the potential for accidents, one has to consider the potential for irrational actors or those who choose to employ game theory more recklessly. And when I think of Metcalfe's law, I feel this sort of horror about the idea of proliferation and the loss of control in communication (which was of course vital in preventing Armageddon during the Cold War.)

I think ultimately, future security will come from defensive technology and I believe that's the most noble pursuit for engineers wishing to leave an indelible mark on humanity.

There is of course no defensive solution against those who wish to build Sundial [0] or Poseidon [1]. Humanity appears to be unequipped to carry the mantle of life.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sundial_(weapon) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poseidon_(unmanned_underwater_...

For me, I'll do the engineering work of designing a system, then give it the specific designs and constraints. I'll let it plan out the implementation, then I give it notes if it varies in ways I didn't expect. Once we agree on a solution, that's when I set it free. The frontier models usually do a pretty good job with this work flow at this point.

The Chinese spyware app won’t do E2EE? I can’t believe what I’m reading.

I wonder if we should move beyond this messaging. It’s well known to the smart half of the population that climate change is happening. There is apparently some debate on the cause. But this point is mostly irrelevant, it is problem-oriented thinking. By keeping the conversation in the problem-realm you invite troglodytes into the conversation to insert their bullshit. Instead, if we move forward with “presumption of truth” solutions-based messaging, we can start to talk about what we’re going to do.

Climate control is something more people will be on board with compared to trying to have a conversation about climate science to a person who didn’t graduate high school.

I'm haunted by the criticism Dropbox received from HN users when they posted their project here. While I respect the views many of us have, I think this has the potential to have the StackOverflow effect where the community makes the whole process miserable and worse.

If Flutter is dying, so is React Native, if Google Trends is any metric to go by. Flutter has nearly double the search volume over the past 5 years.

How does it handle leap seconds?

“We sent our people to school and after becoming smarter they stopped believing our ideology so we’re going to keep them stupid instead”

I like to imagine GP just accidentally leaked classified info.

Can anyone with specific knowledge in a sophisticated/complex field such as physics or math tell me: do you regularly talk to AI models? Do feel like there's anything to learn? As a programmer, I can come to the AI with a problem and it can come up with a few different solutions, some I may have thought about, some not.

Are you getting the same value in your work, in your field?

The solution may just have to be technological literacy.

Reminds me of The Lonely Island doing a song about being in Japan so that the record label would fly them out to Japan to record the music video.

An odd choice, for sure. Not much else to be said really.

Lots of ideas in here that fail to properly identify and address the root cause, which is disappointing given how many of us are programmers.

Trace the problem back. Where does it start?

Why is PE investing in homes? Because they can make money. Why does buying a home make money? Because the value appreciates. Why does the value appreciate on an asset that literally deteriorates over time? Because of restricted supply. Why is there a supply shortage?

The root cause of this issue is supply. Zoning, mostly, is to blame. There are down stream issues, like the capacity of the construction industry, but that is an effect of the current environment not a root cause in and of itself — if there is money to be made, construction will grow as fast as it can.

Fix supply, and you fix the issue. This is a uniquely (English) western world problem. Go look at western countries that speak English vs. non-English housing starts. It’s just a cultural failure. You can blame corporations all you want but at the end of the day most people in the anglosphere expect a return on the largest purchase of their lives, even if it comes at the cost of materially worsening the lives of those around them.

What you’ll find is that a subset of players define a behaviour and now you have to prove that that behaviour is cheating. For most behaviours that could be cheating, it will overlap with skilled players.

Examples would be pre-aiming corners and >99th percentile reaction time.

You need a false positive rate well below 1%.

Anti-cheat is a necessity for an enjoyable game experience. If you are a casual who doesn’t care about game integrity, you probably aren’t the target audience.

I don’t want any cheaters in my games. I don’t care if a rootkit is required. Riot has a kernel level anti-cheat and it’s _really_ good. It’s so good in fact that it deters most cheaters from even trying. This is the dream for anyone who wants fair games.

I seem to recall a few people being helped into executing sudo rm -rf / by random people on the internet so I’m not sure it “didn’t happen.” :)

Once you internalize that flat-Earther-ism isn’t about the Earth being flat you realize that rational arguments are pointless.

To expand on that, it’s about community and finding people who share your interests. The movie Behind The Curve explores this idea and it’s quite revealing.

I see a lot of people in here saying no. Just don’t use it if you don’t want it. It’s really that simple. This is a very simple feature request for HN.