MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by dh2022 | 2025-06-22 01:45:43+00:00
For me the last few days show how militarily-impotent Iran is. Even if they had the nuclear bomb they would not be able to use it against Israel-because right now Iran had no air-defenses and Israel is rumored to have about 100 nuclear warheads.

I do not think Iran has any military options. Because it is not liked the Iranian regime does not have any political options either. So I have no idea what will happen-which makes the current situation so interesting to watch.
by heavyset_go | 2025-06-22 01:46:27+00:00
Agree with your post, but do want to point out that using private message routing on SimpleX theoretically hides your IP address from the server[1].

Similarly, built-in routing over Tor can make performing correlation attacks difficult for some adversaries, and if you elect to use your own .onion servers instead of the official ones, it adds another layer of obfuscation.

[1] https://github.com/simplex-chat/simplexmq/blob/stable/protoc...
by actsasbuffoon | 2025-06-22 01:46:33+00:00
I prefer to go for companies that win me over rather than ones where I start out excited about them.

That’s how it was with my current company. The description from the recruiter had me questioning if I even wanted to talk to this company because they wanted me 2 to 3 days-per-week in an office 3 hours away.

I spoke to the SVP of engineering and it was immediately clear that we got along really well and had similar values and priorities. He told me that they would knock the in-office requirement down to once per week because I seemed like such a good fit. They moved from a definite-no to a maybe.

I spoke to a lead engineer and he was one of the smartest, most thoughtful people I’ve ever met. He really impressed me with his answers to my questions. I spoke to the senior director of engineering and once again, really good connection. Impressive guy who cared about the same things that I do. They moved from a maybe to kinda-exciting.

I spoke to the CEO, and I have to be honest; I’ve had some bad run-ins with executives. I find a lot of them to be terrifyingly clueless. This guy really got it, though. I think he understands exactly how to make this company successful. They had officially become exciting.

They made a great offer that was an upgrade on both title and pay, thus becaming the most exciting out of the bunch.

After visiting the office twice they told me that my commute was insane, and I should only come in once per month. With that, my only real concern with the company basically became moot.

I’m building some really exciting stuff and the entire company is constantly freaking out about my work. I love what I’m doing. I can’t imagine any of the other companies would have been this much fun.

And to think, when the recruiter told me about them, I wasn’t even sure if I wanted to talk to them!

Keep an open mind and get to know the company before you decide who is or isn’t exciting.
by yyyk | 2025-06-22 01:46:33+00:00
Iran did not have the tech to get beyond 20% at the time. The deal gave them time and funds for that, which is hardly nonproliferation work.

>Clearly that was all for nothing, so no country will ever agree to a similar deal ever again.

Well, yeah, bombing Libya was a huge error, so you end up between a bad deal and bombings. But that's inconvenient politically so nobody mentions who was President then.
by wredcoll | 2025-06-22 01:46:41+00:00
In this case it comes in via the coc plugin, which in turn has a plugin named coc-json, which, among other things, tries to download "well known" json schemas although now that I think about I'm not sure where those live.

Edit: apparently it just has popular ones built in: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/SchemaStore/schemastore/ma...
by ummonk | 2025-06-22 01:47:32+00:00
Ah I see what you mean. Yes they don’t have the birth rate (or the suicidal fanaticism) to sustain a decades long attritional war against an occupation like Afghanistan or Yemen can.

But given the size of the existing Iranian population and geography, and the lack of any significantly sized pre-existing anti-government military faction, I’m not sure the US military is large enough to even occupy Iran in the first place, absent a draft.
by brian-armstrong | 2025-06-22 01:47:46+00:00
The thing is though, you're just as likely to be not improving things.

I think we can realize another reason to just ship it. Startups need to be always moving. You need to keep turning the wheel to help keep everyone busy and keep them from fretting about your slow growth or high churn metrics. Startups need lots of fighting spirit. So it's still probably better to ship it rather than admit defeat and suffer bad vibes.
by lwansbrough | 2025-06-22 01:47:46+00:00
Iran needing to be babysat is their choice. Numerous states are capable of building nuclear weapons or enriching weapon-grade uranium. And they don't, because they aren't bad actors.

Iran is an objectively bad actor when it comes to nuclear weapons. They created the problem voluntarily, of their own volition. What comes after is not up to them.

Iran, by the way, broke the IAEA agreement. Fordo was built illegally, without disclosure to the IAEA.
by card_zero | 2025-06-22 01:48:14+00:00
> We can — in fact, we must — interrogate the culture and society that simultaneously shapes us as we shape it.

It's not optional, you see, it's a moral obligation for everybody who likes fluffy pink whatevers to "think critically about the ways that our consumption or our For You pages might be reflections of that deeply political and social world" ... this amounts to telling them, in general terms, that the reason they like the thing is political. It's a disingenuous "just asking questions" deal where the objective is to talk to them about Marx, like a JW doorstepping you to just ask you whether you've thought about Jesus.
by kelnos | 2025-06-22 01:49:16+00:00
Yes, but as much as I don't trust Trump or his administration, it's not clear whether Iran has or doesn't have a nuclear weapons program, and if they do, how close they are to a serviceable weapon.

Bush Jr and his buddies are IMO unindicted war criminals. It remains to be seen if this current act puts Trump in the same shoes. I hope Iran really did have a nuclear weapons program and that this attack is in some way justified. But I won't believe or disbelieve it until we know more, corroborated by trustworthy sources outside the US.
by nradov | 2025-06-22 01:49:31+00:00
You completely missed the point. Whether certain actions are "OK" are not is utterly irrelevant in geopolitical affairs. Sovereign states will always act in their (perceived) best interest regardless of legalisms or moral codes. Justifications are then manufactured for public consumption.

Ultima ratio regum.

As for international frameworks, how should the Non-Proliferation Treaty be enforced? If a country violates it then what should the consequences be?

https://disarmament.unoda.org/wmd/nuclear/npt/
by runako | 2025-06-22 01:49:45+00:00
> The US does not just send B2 bombers without knowing it's going to work.

I'm old enough to remember when we (the US) ran this exact playbook, except the last letter was 'q' instead of 'n'.

Spoiler: the B-2 played a part in both of the big wars we lost in the last couple of decades. The problem hinges on the definition of "work": yes, the bombs hit what they are aimed at. No, that does not result in operational success without a coherent theory of victory.
by YZF | 2025-06-22 01:49:59+00:00
My common interpretation of a war is that it involves the continuous exchange of violence on both sides over some time. An isolated bombing operation isn't what I think of as a war. Israel and Iran are at war for sure. The US and Iran, we'll see. It's possible Iran will calculate that it is not in their benefit to wage an open war on the US.

There's is already a history of violence between Iran and the USA. Was that a war? When Iranian funded militias attacked American bases is that war?

Anyways, that's how I think about it.
by woodruffw | 2025-06-22 01:50:24+00:00
Signal does not have access to your social graph[1].

(Delta Chat markedly does leak your social graph, because it's email and email has no way to protect sender metadata from each user's email provider. That means full social graph recovery is one low-effort subpoena away in your attacker's municipality of choice.)

[1]: https://signal.org/blog/private-contact-discovery/
by unyttigfjelltol | 2025-06-22 01:51:16+00:00
Add to that, its "deterrence" arsenal of intermediate range ballistic missiles (IRBMs) are credible militarily only as nuclear delivery systems. For example, the "Khaybar Breaker" rocket (English meaning), referring to a destruction of an historic Jewish stronghold, leaving little to imagination, when equiped with conventional warheads are simply an expensive way to ruin hospital wings. But, when you merge heavy rockets with diligent production of precursors of nuclear weapons, not only is that work toward military use of a nuclear weapon-- it creates a powerful inertia toward actually completing that work, from two directions, lest your very expensive work prove pointless. The current war is vividly demonstrating that IRBM's are not deterrent unless (a) impossibly numerous or (b) unconventionally armed. A threshold IRBM threat makes it more, not less, likely to provoke a first strike against it, as has occurred.
by yencabulator | 2025-06-22 01:51:37+00:00
If Visa loses its position, it'll be replaced by something fairly similar. It serves the interests of the system.

Why? Unchecked capitalism, lobbying, corruption, politics, societal needs[1], realpolitik[2].

[1]: E.g. legal system requiring KYC to investigate money laundering.

[2]: In the positive sense; see items 2-4 for the negative sense.
by whoknowsidont | 2025-06-22 01:51:59+00:00
> the US only used atomic weapons to end a devastating war inflicted upon it by a ferocious and fanatical adversary

This isn't true at all. You don't need to bomb civilian cities to end a war. The Japanese government, specifically the emperor had already indicated they wanted to negotiate. They were already well aware they couldn't win the war.

There is far, far more evidence that the U.S. just couldn't help itself and wanted to demonstrate our/their new weapon:

"The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan."

- Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet

In true U.S. fashion, we had to create a boogeyman to commit some atrocity in order to achieve absolution for the evil we inflicted upon our fellow man.

But hey, don't take my word for it:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombing...

* https://youtu.be/RCRTgtpC-Go?si=cXL4QevdwyYFQ-0i&t=5912
by sorcerer-mar | 2025-06-22 01:52:14+00:00
> which is hardly nonproliferation work.

Except for the part that it reduced proliferation, reduced stockpiles, and dramatically increased breakout time...? You think a workable solution is to just keep a country perpetually impoverished so it never even has the money required to learn how to enrich?

You don't understand the logic of nuclear weapons, do you?

As Ali Bhutto said: "We will eat grass, even go hungry, but we will get our own [nuclear weapon].... We have no other choice!”

> Well, yeah, bombing Libya was a huge error, so you end up between a bad deal and bombings

Say more. What's the relevance?
by nemothekid | 2025-06-22 01:52:18+00:00
Canada is sovereign because of its proximity and interconnection with US. If your economy is large enough, you can "nuke" your opponents by using mutually assured poverty.

But I largely agree, if you aren't a giant economy and you don't have nukes - then if the US or Russia accesses you of building nukes, you need to start building nukes ASAP.
by snozolli | 2025-06-22 01:53:09+00:00
I don't agree with that. I first heard CUI used to describe software like the Turbo Pascal IDE. I believe that "CUI" came about when GUI was coined to describe the modern graphical interface like Windows and Macintosh. That was in the latter 80s and early 90s. I've never heard TUI until literally today.

Additionally, TUI is either Text or Terminal User Interface. Either way, it seems to be heavily associated with ncurses. As I understand it, ncurses essentially outputs a stream, which includes things like ANSI escape sequences for position and color. By contrast, CUIs like Turbo Pascal wrote directly to video memory.
by dkjaudyeqooe | 2025-06-22 01:53:16+00:00
There are reasons why presidents have avoided attacking Iran.

- massive instability in the ME. Just a few men with shoulder fired missiles can disrupt oil shipments from the biggest oil producers

- the high chance of being sucked into a forever war. Iran can cause a lot of problems with limited resources and can rebuild. They have no reason to give up and the US might have to continue bombing indefinitely, or launch a ground invasion.

- the increased chance of nuclear war in the ME. This action assumes that Iran has no backup facilities, or will never have, to continue building a bomb. Having already suffered the consequences, Iran has no reason not to seek a bomb.
by lamontcg | 2025-06-22 01:53:31+00:00
That's like saying driving from NYC to Sacramento is just a "Stepping Stone" to driving to SF. You've done most of the drive.

To get 1kg of U-235 requires 1.11kg at 90% purity, 1.67kg at 60% purity, and 140.6kg at natural 0.711% purity.
by ericmay | 2025-06-22 01:55:31+00:00
Maybe, but the EU has different policies and a different understanding of immigration now compared to say 2010-2023, right? Also those countries you mentioned are a bit closer to Europe compared to Iran.

But I’m also not sure that the situations are comparable. In the case of Ukraine which is probably most similar to Iran from an economic standpoint, had many refugees who were temporarily fleeing Russian aggression but planned to return to Ukraine. Iran, especially if/when it’s out from under sanctions has a more robust economy and geopolitical forces going for it, versus Libya or Syria, in my view.
by runako | 2025-06-22 01:55:47+00:00
Huge difference here IMHO is that the west has been using this line for 40-50 years. At some point it's not "appeasement" and just "diplomacy between countries with differing values are complicated."

Put another way: if you want to call it appeasement, fine, it has worked for a long time. On the other hand, "peace via war" has a terrible track record.
by greenavocado | 2025-06-22 01:56:06+00:00
Fascinating how this happened merely weeks after Iran-China railway link opened (Reported on May 25, 2025. Link below.). It directly threatens US hegemony by providing a faster and more secure land corridor for trade, particularly Iranian oil and gas exports to China and Chinese goods flowing into Iran and the broader Middle East. This bypasses critical maritime chokepoints like the Strait of Hormuz and the Strait of Malacca, where the US Navy traditionally exerts significant control, reducing reliance on these US-dominated sea routes. Furthermore, the railway facilitates sanctioned Iranian oil exports to China and enables increased Chinese investment in Iran, undermining the effectiveness of US economic sanctions as a primary tool of foreign policy. It accelerates Eurasian integration under China's Belt and Road Initiative, deepening economic and strategic ties across the continent and fostering the development of a US-independent economic bloc linking China, Iran, Turkey, Central Asia, and Russia. The railway physically connects two major US adversaries, China and Iran, enabling easier movement of goods, resources, and potentially military or logistical support, thereby strengthening an anti-Western coalition challenging US global dominance. In essence, the railway erodes US control over trade routes, weakens sanctions, empowers a rival Eurasian bloc centered on China, and solidifies an opposing strategic axis.

https://www.tasnimnews.com/en/news/2025/05/25/3320800/freigh...
by mousethatroared | 2025-06-22 01:56:27+00:00
Since Israel started the war without authorization being the security council, it's legally the aggressor. Which means the actions in of themselves are crimes, regardless of where they are conducted.

Of course, Israel has hit hospitals in Tehran. And condos. War crimes.

So, no matter how you slice it, Israel commits war crimes as a matter of course.

Now, one could object and say that Israel has to commit war crimes because it's so endangered. If that's the case, why doesn't it go to the security council and get authorization for lethal military action? Who on the security council would vote against Israel if the threat was remotely real?
by nemothekid | 2025-06-22 01:56:43+00:00
>You're naive if you think the current Iranian regime has any interest in aligning itself to western views via deals.

You are going to have take a step back and convince me why I should care about US hegemonic interests in the region. Iran is it's own nation - I don't see why we should be "dealing" with them in the first place. If you really care about the profit margins of Aramco and ExxonMobil (the whole reason were in this mess in first place) you should lead with that so that others know why you care about what a sovereign country does.
by kelnos | 2025-06-22 01:57:20+00:00
I've read opinions/theories that suggest the US didn't really need to bomb Hiroshima or Nagasaki, and that Japan would have surrendered soon enough, due to fears of a Soviet invasion, without that invasion needing to actually happen. The bomb drops were so the US could claim the achievement of getting Japan to surrender, which would give it prestige and leverage over the Soviets, and more of a say in what happened to Japan and the Pacific theatre after the war. (Which, if true, worked exactly as planned.)

Beyond that, there are moral questions about the use of nuclear weapons. I know people who think it would have been more moral to force a Japanese surrender via many Japanese and American soldiers to die during an invasion of Japan, than for the US to kill civilians with nuclear weapons. I'm not sure I agree with that line of thinking, but I can't dismiss it either.
by arp242 | 2025-06-22 01:57:24+00:00
North-Korea has had a bunch of conventional artillery aimed at Seoul since the 50s. They've had a "we will completely fuck your shit up"-type deterrent way before nukes, which is also why they've been able to do their nuclear programme: they used their previous deterrent to develop their new one.

There was never really any other option than "ask nicely to not do that", and maybe try some covert sabotage here and there. Everyone knew that and everyone knew that everyone knew.

In Iran the situation is different, because everyone knows that they don't have any such deterrent and they will lose in any real shooting war, with fairly little options to meaningfully fight back. There is a real inventive to actual pursue diplomacy for Iran which didn't exist in North-Korea.

Also the North-Korean regime and population is of quite a different nature than Iran. By and large, the North-Korean regime just wants to be left alone and is quite isolationist. This also doesn't really apply to Iran.
by proc0 | 2025-06-22 01:57:52+00:00
The US is the leader of the liberal empire which depends on the middle east allowing trade. Iran is standing in the way of this and wants to push back the empire's control away from the middle east... but they have their own plans to establish another empire of their own.

I know "empire" is maybe an outdated term but I'm just illustrating there are bigger incentives than at the national level. Ironically it is conservative nationalists (who are hated by the Left) that want the empire to shrink and for the US to pull back from this leadership position. The risk here is it could also destabilize the entire world, but that's a different matter.

In short, this move is an attempt to strengthen the status quo that began after WW2.If the status quo is maintained it directly benefits the US.
by yyyk | 2025-06-22 01:57:53+00:00
>Except for the part that it reduced proliferation, reduced stockpiles, and dramatically increased breakout time

The breakout time was _reduced_ in the long run, since Iran was allowed to keep stocks and enrich (limits were to be removed starting from 2026 up to 2031).

>You think a workable solution is to just keep a country perpetually impoverished so it never even has the money required to learn how to enrich

They could just give up.

>You don't understand the logic of nuclear weapons, do you?

I do. They want it for offensive purposes, so it's best to handle it when it's easy. It would have been easier to handle AlQaeda without the risk of Pakistani nukes falling to it.

>Say more. What's the relevance?

Literally read the other talking points on the thread on how signing disarmament deals are cuz see how Qadaffi ended up. US did not have to make that choice.
by upofadown | 2025-06-22 01:58:01+00:00
OpenPGP is a message format standard, not an architecture standard. Since they are doing a instant messaging thing, there is no particular reason they couldn't do forward secrecy. They could even do a hash ratchet and call the result a double ratchet if they really wanted to. It would probably be more reasonable to do something a bit less obsessive and just make it so that the user can more securely delete their messages in the face of device compromise in an instant messaging environment.
by YZF | 2025-06-22 01:58:17+00:00
Israel and the Palestinians have a history of violence from Israel's first day as a country. Israel and Iran not really. More recently Israel has been attacked by Palestinians on Oct 7th. Iran was involved in training Hamas: https://ecfr.eu/article/iran-hamas-and-islamic-jihad-a-marri...

"The Hamas-led attacks against Israel on 7 October reflected their own independent calculations. Although they could not have happened without the provision of long-term Iranian support, the attacks likely came as an unwelcome surprise for Tehran, which over the last two months has avoided giving Palestinian groups full-throated support. Whether Hamas and PIJ remain tightly aligned with Iran, however, will depend on the outcome of the war in Gaza and wider dynamics in the Middle East’s fluctuating geopolitics."

Israel has really no history of any hostility towards Iran that predates their proxy wars on Israel. There is absolutely no rational reason or excuse for Iran to be attacking Israel.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Israel_proxy_conf...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/10/09/...

> A genocidal state cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons.

Exactly.
by spauldo | 2025-06-22 01:58:42+00:00
Probably because most of us don't think it's correct at all.

TUI apps aren't common anymore, which adds to the confusion as a lot of people didn't grow up with them and don't grasp the difference. A TUI app takes control of the terminal and redraws different parts of the screen to present a consistent, non-scrolling experience. If you've ever used a system where your interface was an IBM 3270 emulator (or better, an actual 3270 terminal), that's TUI. vi/vim and non-GUI Emacs are also TUI.

A CLI app just prints its output at the cursor and the output scrolls off the top of the screen as you go. The Bourne, Korn, Bourne Again, and C shells are all CLI, as are most REPLs and the majority of interactive non-GUI UNIX programs (including ed) these days.