MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by aisenik | 2025-06-22 01:32:31+00:00
Strict adherence to the JCPOA, capriciously discarded by the man who just bombed Iran in my name, suggests that Iran's position was legitimately held.

In fact, it implies that someone else is lying. Probably the country that just did a complete 180 on its intelligence assessment and attacked another country unprovoked, if you want my assessment.

It's not like the USA doesn't have a documented history of lying and engaging in information warfare to justify wars of choice. This isn't even our first time this century.
by TulliusCicero | 2025-06-22 01:32:36+00:00
It does remind me of the North Korean situation, where nobody wanted NK to get nukes, but since nobody was willing to take action on it, and diplomacy went nowhere (because they obviously wanted nukes), eventually NK got the nukes they wanted.

Does anyone think that situation resolved well? If we were able to go back in time, would we choose diplomacy again, knowing it would fail?
by CamperBob2 | 2025-06-22 01:32:49+00:00
11/29/11: "In order to get elected, @BarackObama will start a war with Iran."

1/17/12: "@BarackObama will attack Iran in order to get re-elected."

9/16/13: "I predict that President Obama will at some point attack Iran in order save face!"

11/10/13: "Remember that I predicted a long time ago that President Obama will attack Iran because of his inability to negotiate properly - not skilled!"

"If Kamala wins, only death and destruction await because she is the candidate of endless wars. I am the candidate of peace. I am peace." - Presidential debate, 2024

If you voted for Trump, you voted precisely for this. Every accusation from him is either a confession in disguise or an unfulfilled wish.
by smashah | 2025-06-22 01:33:13+00:00
Israel is committing a holocaust of Gaza right now, the time for good faith discussion ended a while ago. Accusing anti-zionists of Anti-semetism for pointing out that the sky is blue as a way to protect Israel from scrutiny is manuscript double anti-semetism. One should be ashamed of oneself for trafficking in genocide whitewashing by using the real issue of antisemetism almost as a human shield.
by sealeck | 2025-06-22 01:33:20+00:00
> Yea, why don't we let the most destabilizing state sponsor of terrorism obtain a nuke? Surely that's only in Israel's interest...

Well, the Democrats had a very good plan to deal with this: diplomacy. They agreed a deal where Iran agreed not to build nuclear weapons, and in exchange they removed sanctions on Iran. A win-win scenario for everyone (except Bibi). Trump then - completely inexplicably - decided that he could do better at negotiating a deal, ripped up Obama's one, and then decided to... plunge the Middle East into chaos.

> You know, none of this would have happened if Hamas didn't attack Israel on Oct 7. Iran should know. They paid for it.

Surely the man who decided it was a good idea to alllow Qatar to give Hamas lots of money is at least partially to blame? [1] Or perhaps the person who decided to advocate to the US government that they should sell weapons to Iran [2]

[1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/10/world/middleeast/israel-q... [2]: https://www.ft.com/content/8d75baf6-6756-4d52-a412-bc90bbbde...
by tdeck | 2025-06-22 01:33:35+00:00
There are lots of people in this thread who are defaulting to "when the US attacks someone that's by default OK, and you have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it's not".

What makes it OK specifically for the US to do this? There is an entire international framework to deal with non proliferation. Bombing another country on the other side of the world because you can is not that.
by YZF | 2025-06-22 01:34:12+00:00
The US messed up a lot of things e.g. in the Americas. Before them the Europeans also messed plenty of stuff up.

But the US has also at times been a positive force.

I don't think the way to fix "messing up" that is to just disappear and step away. Like it or not, the US is the leader of the free world. Retreating means people like Putin and Xi and going to step into the vacuum.

But I agree the US should act responsibly. I'm also unsure where the current path is leading. It is weird that you declare two weeks for negotiations and then you attack though I'm pretty sure the negotiations would have led nowhere.
by nemothekid | 2025-06-22 01:35:35+00:00
>A world where Iran has no nukes is a safer world, end of story.

Safer for who? Would anyone be lobbing missiles into Tehran if Iran had nukes?

Given how Iraq, Syria, and Ukraine were treated after dismantling their nuclear programs, and given how much grace countries like North Korea are given you'd be an idiot to not have nuclear program, especially when the US accuses you of having on.

Remember, Iran agreed to nuclear deproliferation under Obama, and the next guy tore it up. It's only rational to try and develop nukes and I'd argue its safer if Iran had nukes. Kids wouldn't be dying under rubble in Tehran otherwise.

Nuclear deproliferation is complete joke unless the US and Russia are the first to give up their nukes.
by netsharc | 2025-06-22 01:35:40+00:00
Re: Death to America.

Why don't you go die!

I don't mean it literally, read: https://www.mypersiancorner.com/death-to-america-explained-o...

Isn't it great when people take things out of context? In this case the context that wishing death is quite common in Iranian expressions of frustrations?
by arandomusername | 2025-06-22 01:37:59+00:00
> Iran wants to have nuclear weapons to destroy Israel

That's often spread by Jewish media, but I see no evidance for this. Iran's supreme leader has issued a fatwa against nuclear weapons.

> Israel has nothing against Iran

Just like Israel has nothing against Palestinians?

> Israel, at least to date, has shown that it can be trusted to use nuclear weapons as a pure deterrent.

A genocidal state cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons.
by TeeMassive | 2025-06-22 01:38:00+00:00
The point of Iran of enriching U beyond civilian use but not actually going full military grade was leverage. They're the only Shiia super power in the reigion. Nobody likes them.

So what can we expect:

* a ground invasion is pretty much out of the question considering the geography or Iran and its neighboring countries.

* Iran destroys every oil production and transport sites in the region (say good by to your election, Republican Party)

* they could fast produce the bomb and test it underground as a final warning

* OR they fail and resort to more desperate measure like a dirty bomb

* OR they fail and there is some sort of regime change

* Or there is some kind of extended war of attrition and it makes the refugee crisis from the past 20 years seem like it was a mere tourist wave.

In any case, this will accentuate the Qaddafi effect and more nations will follow the North Korea option of nuclear "unauthorized" nuclear dissuasion, which is also the case for Israel by the way. Talking of which, Israel will become politically radioactive in the world. Its support is already negative in nearly all countries and has dropped significantly in the US such as the evangelicals.
by FridayoLeary | 2025-06-22 01:38:46+00:00
You misunderstood me. I was talking about oil from the other gulf states. About 25 percent of the global oil supply goes through the straight of Hormuz. If iran were to disrupt that it would be disastrous for obvious reasons.

It's logical for the West to work to prevent that from being a possibility.

Iran/persia is far older then 300 years old. But again you somehow missed the point. I was talking about the current 40 year old regime, which while not having directly started any wars, have since the beginning declared their intentions to do so against America and Israel.

Really you are being deliberately obtuse.
by __MatrixMan__ | 2025-06-22 01:39:00+00:00
The wild thing is that they'll probably find entirely novel versions of this:

> they start spicing the soup with lead to give it cinnamon flavor or whatever

Like, we all know lead is bad, and we all know that humans are unscrupulous, but at least the human putting lead in the soup knows they're being unscrupulous at that time (probably). For an AI it would just be an entirely favorable optimization.

We're going to find out how far we can trust them, and the limits of that trust will determine where the people need to be.
by jandrewrogers | 2025-06-22 01:39:14+00:00
The GBU-57 used here is an outgrowth of the demonstrated inadequacy of traditional bunker busters bombs used in the Middle East after 9/11. They needed something more specialized for deep penetration than the old bunker busters. This was kind of a stopgap weapon that works pretty well but the size limits the practicality.

US is developing a new generation of purpose-built deep penetration bombs that are a fraction of the size of the GBU-57.
by elzorroplateado | 2025-06-22 01:39:19+00:00
TX is preparing for more waves of USD inflation. The conventional understanding is that Bitcoin allows its holders to protect themselves from massive waves of currency debasement. A Texas Bitcoin Reserve throws a massive power re-distribution back into the its hands and out of the those of the Federal Reserve System. Sure, TX could 'hodl' their oil, but sometimes it's good to have a digital savings technology that cannot be debase.
by nicomeemes | 2025-06-22 01:39:55+00:00
"Accountability is the essence of democracy. If people do not know what their government is doing, they cannot be truly self-governing. The national security state assumes the government secrets are too important to be shared, that only those in the know can see classified information, that only the president has all the facts, that we must simply trust that our rulers of acting in our interest." ~ Garry Wills

Never heard of Wills? Whet your appetite with his masterpiece and best work (in my humble opinion): https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/29435.Nixon_Agonistes
by ericmay | 2025-06-22 01:40:01+00:00
On the other hand, the US only used atomic weapons to end a devastating war inflicted upon it by a ferocious and fanatical adversary, and in doing so saved both American and Japanese lives from continued fighting.

Though your point about the US being more capable of destruction than Iran is obviously true. China also is more capable of destruction than Iran, as are Israel, Russia (as we see today with their unprovoked invasion of Ukraine), and many others.
by yyyk | 2025-06-22 01:40:30+00:00
For now, nothing (everyone is kinda busy).

The first infliction point would be to see whether the regime intends to strike at US forces or do they intend to climb down. IMHO, that would be suicidal, but it doesn't mean they won't do it.

The second point is when they decide to end the war (they aren't doing well), and all the accusations start flying. Then there'll be political fallout.
by jack_h | 2025-06-22 01:40:34+00:00
> Does anyone think that situation resolved well?

I don't think we've seen the resolution of that situation. We will one day, and I think the chances of it being a good outcome are pretty slim. I'm very much against Iran having nuclear weapons. I just hope we don't get dragged into a long war which will explode our national debt and potentially lead to a sovereign debt crisis.
by nemothekid | 2025-06-22 01:40:50+00:00
If you are a leader of any nation, you are an idiot to not have a nuclear program. It's carteblanche for any nuclear power to come in and fuck your shit up.

Russia would not have invaded Ukraine if Ukraine has nukes. The US would not have dismantled Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Iran if they had nukes.

You look at a country like North Korea and they get the red carpet despite have an incredibly oppressive regime and spending millions on cyber attacks and corporate espionaige. You know why? Because they have nukes.

It's not a question of "trusting" Iran. Iran with nukes is more geopolitically stable situation than Iran without nukes. As it stands today, Iran without nukes, means that Lockheed Martin gets to fleece another 10 trillion dollars from the American public for the next decade.
by alessivs | 2025-06-22 01:40:58+00:00
Radiopharmacy / Nuclear pharmacy. While peaceful, it's a delicate science and some kind of inspections are usually enforced. Thankfully, Iran did allow IAEA inspectors and is a signatory of the NPT (non-proliferation treaty). One could wish that was the reality of the nuclear operations of certain other states which are not scrutinized.

Some developments in this area:

https://tvbrics.com/en/news/iran-presents-15-developments-in...

https://wanaen.com/iran-surpasses-70-locally-produced-radiop...
by gudzpoz | 2025-06-22 01:40:59+00:00
So I've been writing a JIT runtime for a Lisp dialect [0] for a while and got into the habit of feeling jealous of other languages with array primitives, especially after I learned what you can do with arrays or opaque lists (see V8 element kinds [1] for an example). And then I discovered this article (or complaint?) by Xah Lee.

Aesthetically speaking, I quite like conses, in that it is powerful and flexible enough to hold both trees and lists. But performance-wise, I guess it's always the simplest things that are hard to optimize, and cons-style linked lists can't really compete with arrays [2], if you are aiming to get on par with V8.

However, I still believe that, with a JIT runtime, it is possible to have some Lisp lists backed by arrays and am working on it [3]. Currently, =setcdr= causes most trouble for me and I don't know if the additional checks are going to ruin the performance improvement brought by arrays. But if things go well, we might get to see what conses could have cost us.

[0] Emacs Lisp, in Java, with Graal Truffle

[1] https://v8.dev/blog/elements-kinds

[2] https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/pointer_chasing

[3] I am not aware of other Lisps doing this. Cdr-coding is the closest, but it is still a linked list (implicitly).
by abletonlive | 2025-06-22 01:41:28+00:00
You don't seem to understand that the government of Iran isn't going to exist in about 2 weeks. This was their only leverage in negotiation. Trump is about to make a speech in 30 minutes. It's over for them. The US does not just send B2 bombers without knowing it's going to work. Israeli intelligence and bombing for the past week was setting up for this final act.
by lwansbrough | 2025-06-22 01:41:50+00:00
The people who decide if it's okay are the ones with nuclear weapons. They are the ones who built and enforce the framework for determining what "okay" even means. That's why nuclear weapon acquisition is so powerful. And why it's so fiercely protected.

The framework to deal with non-proliferation depends on the states involved voluntarily participating in the framework. Iran was not doing so.

There are numerous countries that enjoy paranuclear status who have had no problem not lying to the IAEA.

You cannot place blame for this outcome on anyone other than Iran, they made the move entirely of their own volition. Once you open the door for consequence, you don't get to choose how it is handed out.
by benreesman | 2025-06-22 01:42:00+00:00
Not the situation as it stands. If it ends here its a disaster for Netanyahu.

As concerns global stability a single precision strike from an untouchable platform with zero marginal increase in obligations on strained naval assets is basically the best case scenario. If we had dropped a bomb, took a picture in front of a "Mission Accomplished" banner, and gone back to playing chess with peer adversaries in any conflict since the Korean War it would have been the smart move. The United States military is designed to protect global trade and win high intensity conflicts against peer adversaries and be seen preparing for it as a deterrant. It does this job extremely well. It was not designed for assymetrical quagmires with no possible palatable exit strategy.

Likud may be willing to fight Iran to the last American, but I'd rather we didn't.
by sealeck | 2025-06-22 01:42:02+00:00
> I meant that demographically, if your populace isn't as poor, battle hardened and religious (like Afghanistan) maybe going into a long ground war is less politically feasible?

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

Excerpts:

> 95,000 Iranian child soldiers were casualties during the Iran–Iraq War, mostly between the ages of 16 and 17, with a few younger

> The conflict has been compared to World War I: 171 in terms of the tactics used, including large-scale trench warfare with barbed wire stretched across trenches, manned machine gun posts, bayonet charges, human wave attacks across a no man's land, and extensive use of chemical weapons such as sulfur mustard by the Iraqi government against Iranian troops, civilians, and Kurds. The world powers United States and the Soviet Union, together with many Western and Arab countries, provided military, intelligence, economic, and political support for Iraq. On average, Iraq imported about $7 billion in weapons during every year of the war, accounting for fully 12% of global arms sales in the period.
by aisenik | 2025-06-22 01:42:58+00:00
Thank you for the engagement.

It is extremely important to document the facile and childish level of argumentation within the industry whose hubris seeks to force the world into the period of its greatest calamities. Society failed to highlight the intellectual immaturity of the Nazis and it has yielded the material reality we exist in today.

Again, I appreciate your labor and contributions to the historical record.
by 1659447091 | 2025-06-22 01:43:10+00:00
Another source, from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence[0]

On that page you can download an unclassified 2025 Annual Threat Assessment [pdf] where on page 26 it states:

>> We continue to assess Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and that Khamenei has not reauthorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003, though pressure has probably built on him to do so. In the past year, there has been an erosion of a decades-long taboo on discussing nuclear weapons in public that has emboldened nuclear weapons advocates within Iran’s decisionmaking apparatus. Khamenei remains the final decisionmaker over Iran’s nuclear program, to include any decision to develop nuclear weapons.

I also think there is more reading in there that may interest people here.

[0] https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/reports-publications/...

[pdf] https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/ATA-202...
by latexr | 2025-06-22 01:43:24+00:00
> with a criminally underdocumented Objective-C bridge

The documentation is the Objective-C docs, I use those all the time. You do need to understand the basics of how to translate from the Objective-C APIs to what JXA (or AppleScript) expects, but once it clicks you can do it for essentially anything with the same logic.
by esperent | 2025-06-22 01:43:45+00:00
My take on this is that I don't need to examine my taste in movies that deeply. Unless I find it problematic for some reason, I can just let my taste be as it wills, enjoy what I enjoy. I watch movies to relax, to escape, to connect with people. I don't watch them to deeply analyze either myself or the field of cinema.

I do analyze other aspects of my life deeply. My diet, my fitness routines, my family, my relationships, my work, and other personal interests. But nobody has energy or time to analyze everything that they do, any thing that you do spend time analyzing is another thing that you don't.

So of you ask me why I liked a particular movie, maybe I'm just gonna say "because explosions go boom", and you shouldn't take that answer to mean that I'm incapable of critical thought. Let's just chill and watch a movie, then save the deep discussions for something else like our work, families, or recent discoveries in physics and medicine (personal interests of mine which I find far more interesting to discuss than cinema).

If you do like analyzing your taste in movies, that's great. And if you find other people who like it, that's great too. But it doesn't make you superior to or smarter than people who just watch the stories to relax and zone out for a bit.
by YZF | 2025-06-22 01:44:11+00:00
I think there's a difference between one attack and a full blown war.

The US has had many bombings of other countries without a full out war:

https://www.maurer.ca/USBombing.html

Most recent big example is Yemen. Would you say the US is at war right now with Yemen?

Was this already the start of this war? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Praying_Mantis

I guess you could say that during the bombing campaign in Yemen until the ceasefire (and maybe now) they were at "war".

Were Israel and Iran "at war" when they exchanged blows a year ago?
by haiku2077 | 2025-06-22 01:44:13+00:00
> I also have to investigate all these new AI editors, and sign up for the API's and work out which is best, then I have to learn how to prompt properly.

I found this didn't take me very long. Try things in order of how popular they seem and keep notes on what you do and don't like.

I personally settled on Zed (because I genuinely like the editor even with the AI bits turned off), Copilot (because Microsoft gave me a free subscription as an active OSS dev) and Claude Sonnet (seems to be a good balance). Other people I work with like Claude Code.
by fallingknife | 2025-06-22 01:44:27+00:00
They're not going to escalate. They're already getting their ass handed to them by Israel and the last thing they want is to throw down with their other enemies in the region right now. You are correct that there will be no ground invasion, so there is no existential threat to the government. This means they have no incentive to do something stupid that will make anyone change their mind on that invasion.
by throwaway2037 | 2025-06-22 01:44:39+00:00
Ok, I will take the bait. Two countries that are frequently noted as having the capability to build nuclear weapons is Japan and Korea. (For the purpose of this post, please assume with good faith that they don't have secret programmes to build nuclear weapons.) Both have world-leading civilian nuclear power programmes and at least part of the nuclear fuel cycle onshore. Side note: One thing that I never see discussed: As both countries are signatories to the Non-Proliferation Act, I assume that they have regular audits of their facilities by IEAE. (If they were consistently failing with major mishaps, or secret programmes, I am sure that we would read about it.) Both of them have incredibly sophisticated national scientific research programmes that could easily pursue nuclear weapons.

What is the difference between Japan & Korea vs Iran? It is simple: Trust. On the surface, sure, what you say might be true. However, it is hard to trust Iran as they so consistently threaten Israel. What do you think would happen if Iran had the bomb? They would lord over Israel and threaten them on the regular. This would be massively destabilizing for the region and world.

Final question: Is it harder to build a safe, civilian nuclear power programme compared to a (safe?) nuclear weapons programme? I don't know.
by kelnos | 2025-06-22 01:44:53+00:00
Iran seemed like they were doing fine in the existence department, no? I have a lot of disagreement (to put it mildly) with Israel, but I think they'd be fine letting Iran be if they'd stop funding Hezbollah and the Houthis, and quieted down with the "Israel must be destroyed" rhetoric.

(And before the argument changes subject, I think Iran [and others] are justified in being angry with Israel about what they're doing in Gaza.)
by ivape | 2025-06-22 01:45:34+00:00
I mean if Russia can just walk into Ukraine, why can't Israel terrorize Iran from the sky. Why can't China just waltz into Taiwan?

The thing about Trump's isolationism is that it's actually a passive aggressive position. Imagine you know which kids in your classroom are likely to fight and you take a policy of "I won't stop it if it happens", that's basically telling some of the kids "go ahead", so how is this isolationist?

Now, literally joining in on the fight when the kids pop off, that is uniquely Trumpian.