MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by JeremyNT | 2025-06-22 03:28:56+00:00
While Trump is a complete pushover, Biden was also well in pocket.

Maybe Harris wouldn't have gone this far, but the democrats were happy to carry water for Israel for a long time.

I'd argue their unflinching support was also a key to priming the American public for this moment.

Fully and unquestioningly supporting whatever Israel does is practically a requirement for all American politicians.
by mindslight | 2025-06-22 03:29:17+00:00
People with morals don't sing the praises of other people for immorally executing well, rather they view it as an unfortunate failing. And "genius" is solidly in the territory of praise - contrast with your distancing of "very effective politician" and "don't like".

That's just one touchpoint though. There's a larger but handwavier argument about how Trump's whole technique is to engage in negative-sum destructive aggression, causing pain to other parties so they capitulate and "make a deal". War is entirely on-brand for him.

Really though we should probably be relieved that he turned his focus to a foreign enemy rather than spending most of his energy escalating attacks against the State of California.

> Being critical of your own country doesn't mean that you hate it

Read the sentence right after the one you quoted. I most certainly understand good faith criticism! I'm a libertarian - I actually care about many of the issues currently being burnt on the bonfire of credibility by Trump and the fake "libertarians" that actually only care about their own "rights".
by esperent | 2025-06-22 03:31:30+00:00
There are many paths to understanding yourself. My personal opinion is that analyzing why I like certain movies is one of the less effective paths because movies are such a cultural thing - the movies I like say less about me as a person and more about the culture I grew up in. That in itself could be worth analyzing but honestly I rarely watch movies, they're just not an important part of my life.

You're free to feel differently - maybe movies have a more important role in your life and upbringing, and genuinely are a good path towards understanding yourself.

However, don't make the classic mistake of assuming that what is effective for you is effective for everyone. And don't make the even more classic mistake of assuming that people who don't respond deeply the way you want them to are not capable of deep thought.
by tbrownaw | 2025-06-22 03:31:31+00:00
> But so far Iran has been the only rational actor in this region. Iran has been attacked with justification. Anytime someone says "preemptive strike" they mean "attack without justification". Their responses have been measured, rational, justified and proportionate.

Either I'm misunderstanding (or misreading) something, or at least one of these sentences accidentallied a negation.
by crystal_revenge | 2025-06-22 03:31:43+00:00
This is a statement that's fairly ignorant of Iran's long running military strategy. The military situation is much more complex and nuanced that you're laying it out.

One of Iran's strengths, for example, has always been lots of cheap missiles. People often point out how few of the missiles actually hit their targets in Israel, but that's missing the point: every intercepted missile costs orders of magnitude more to intercept than it does to create and launch. The Iron Dome is very effective, but is both incredibly expensive to run and, most importantly, loses efficacy over time as it's resources are depleted.

Nobody knows exactly how close Iran is to a nuclear weapon, but most analysts that I've read that the time to actually being able to launch a weapon is in terms of weeks. So part of Iran's strategy will always been draw attacks until it is ready to potentially retaliate.

On top of that, this is not a video game. Iran does not want to use a nuclear missile, nobody really does since it like ends, at least regionally, in everyone losing. Part of the balance of the conflict in the middle East in Iran is precisely not putting them in a potion where the use of nuclear weapons suddenly becomes rational. This is exactly why we in America have been nervous about open aggression towards Iran. Not because we might not win, but because it backs them into a corner where nuclear options suddenly become more rational.

> Because it is not liked the Iranian regime does not have any political options either.

Just one tiny example of how this is false: because of US sanctions China gets a enormous (estimated at around 15%) amount of their oil, very cheaply, from Iran. A serious threat to Iran then becomes a serious threat to Chinese oil supplies.

The issue is extremely complicated and nuanced, so any takes that are binary are missing a lot of information. By striking Iran we are pushing this this issue into places we haven't really explored yet, with consequences nobody truly knows.
by vFunct | 2025-06-22 03:32:34+00:00
Why must we stop Iran's terrorism? Their terrorism is directed at Israel, not America.

We can in fact just as easily support Iran's attacks against Israel. No reason to pick either side.

Right now the American people are coming to the consensus that Israel are the bad guys. Everybody under 50 already recognizes that, purely based on the thousands of Palestinian toddlers they see on Instagram that Israel kills and injures (the popular post today on Instagram is of a toddler with his legs severed). And the people over 50 will eventually die off, causing Israel's base of support to disappear.

There is no hope of Israel's permanent existence. We should remove our support for Israel immediately and prepare for the long term.
by aisenik | 2025-06-22 03:33:47+00:00
> The position you're taking only really works if you start from "Iran will always work towards having a nuclear bomb, no matter what."

Understanding that Iran is religiously opposed to the creation of nuclear weapons with only the caveat that the fatwa declaring the development, acquisition, and use of nuclear weapons against Islamic law may be rescinded in the event of an existential threat to the republic, it naturally follows that people hold that belief because they intend to present an existential threat to Iran.
by jrflowers | 2025-06-22 03:34:09+00:00
What evangelical church doesn’t believe in the second coming or the significance of the holy land?

Like your pastor, at your evangelical church, preaches that these things are not literal?

Edit: As someone that grew up evangelical, and has had evangelical friends my entire life, it is very strange to see someone casually say that the rejection of biblical inerrancy is an evangelical thing. It stands in stark contrast to the theology that’s fundamental to the faith.

It is literally as odd as seeing someone get mad when another person says that sainthood or the Eucharist are fundamental tenets to Catholicism. I would certainly want them to clarify what exactly their priest was saying to make them feel otherwise.

It is a real religion with a real theology! “Evangelical” isn’t a vibe, it’s a distinct system of worship! Biblical prophecy is very fundamental and a strongly-held belief and value that is taught in every evangelical church I have ever heard of!
by energy123 | 2025-06-22 03:36:11+00:00
> the increased chance of nuclear war in the ME.

I disagree, given the high probability they were going to do it anyway. They built Natanz enrichment in secret, they built Arak in secret, they built Fordow in secret, not to mention the more recent violations of the NPT to which they're still a signatory. They've violated the NPT over and over and over again. Why would one more agreement make any difference to their clandestine program?

This is the thing Western liberals need to understand. The leaders of these despotic regimes don't think like you. They don't intend to adhere to the agreements like you would. Their psychology is different to your psychology. And you can't make a unilateral agreement with a party like this. The agreement becomes a weapon to creep forward and present the world with a fait accompli at a future date.
by infamouscow | 2025-06-22 03:36:53+00:00
De-Nazification required the Allies mass-murdering about a million Germans after the war was over. There's a reason why there's a fudge factor of 1M in the POW camps in the years after the war.

During the Civil War, Abolitionists mass-murdered slave owners by way of dueling them. The story of Cassius Marcellus Clay is littered with stories of brutally killing slave owners and we champion Abolitionists as righteous.
by dralley | 2025-06-22 03:36:58+00:00
This is grammar-hacking and misleading.

According to the IAEA, Iran has around 400kg of 60% enriched Uranium. Nobody disputes this. There is zero reason to ever enrich beyond around 5% for civilian purposes, and zero reason to ever enrich beyond around 20% for non-bomb purposes (naval ship reactors typically use higher enrichment to avoid refueling and increase power density). That's enough Uranium to build around 10 bombs if fully enriched. They've done work on designing the actual bomb itself, too, and there's very little dispute about that either.

They have a nuclear weapons program. What Iran hasn't done, or there's no evidence of them having done, is actually start putting one together. But many of the prerequisites to do so are in place, though people dispute exactly how long it would take them to pull it off once they decided to do so.
by CapricornNoble | 2025-06-22 03:37:48+00:00
Russia's drones are primarily domestic production, not imported. The original Shaheds and their design were imported, but now the Russians are on the Geran-3 version and are cranking them out at the cyclic rate.

Ukrainian sources still insist on calling them "Shaheds": https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2025/06/4/7515633/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2025/05/29/russia-iran-...
by all_factz | 2025-06-22 03:38:11+00:00
Iran has shown itself a rational actor time and time again by not escalating against continued provocation by Israel and the US, knowing that to do so would be to enter a conflict it can’t win. That’s not the behavior of an irrational actor who’s willing to fight whatever the cost, even total annihilation (which would be what happened if Iran nuked the US/Israel).

They may be religious fanatics, but they’re not idiots.
by physicles | 2025-06-22 03:38:15+00:00
Wow, in 7 years of daily Linux use, I somehow never thought of doing this. Thank you.

~/.bashrc:

stty intr ^x

~/.inputrc (at the end):

"\C-v": "" # Unbind Ctrl-V

~/.config/terminator/config (in case anyone happens to be using terminator):

[keybindings]

copy = <Control>C paste = <Control>V
by neilv | 2025-06-22 03:39:23+00:00
In that reporting stream, at 22:58, "White House releases photos of Trump in Situation Room"[1], I'm struck that we are in a timeline that is not only dark, but surreal.

It sounds trite to say from a position of relative comfort and distance, but I can only hope that someday our better selves will find peace with each other, around the globe.

But we won't be able to undo all the injustices and atrocities that we inflicted upon each other. We know these wrongs as we are doing them, and they will remain upon us.

[1] https://i.imgur.com/sR8YhcY.png
by 7speter | 2025-06-22 03:40:16+00:00
Isn’t the whole body growing from the same point at the same pace in a lot of instances when someone is in the womb (except when something like thalidomide is introduced)? It would seem a big challenge would be to have a part of a human body, at any number of stages after birth, maybe especially after full development, regrow from nothing, and excluding, at the very least, the areas of the body in proximity to it.

I’m obviously not an expert.
by crystal_revenge | 2025-06-22 03:40:44+00:00
Which is precisely what makes the calculus of this so dangerous, something I don't think many people understand.

Iran isn't actually a nation of pure evil, they are looking out for their own interests and on any given Sunday, are not particularly interested in starting a nuclear conflict. At the same time, understandably, their adversaries are not particularly interested in them having that option.

The risk is when they are backed into a corner where using a nuclear weapon increasingly makes sense. In this case, if you bomb Fordow and can completely eradicate the nuclear weapons, you do eliminate the immediate nuclear risk (though not without creating a slew of new problems to deal with). But, if you fail you have now backed them into a corner where this might become an increasingly reasonable option.

Either way the events of today are very likely to unfold in ways that forever change not only the dynamics of the middle east but global politics as a whole.
by kragen | 2025-06-22 03:41:08+00:00
I don't know.

Shape can change it to be arbitrarily bad; 14 tonnes of 5-micron-thick Eglin steel foil spread over a ten-block area wouldn't penetrate anything, just gently waft down, although it could give you some paper cuts. I suspect it can't make it much better, except in the sense of increasing sectional density by making the bomb longer and thinner, which we already know the results of.

Velocity doesn't enter into Newton's impact depth approximation at all. It does affect things in real life, but you can see from meteor craters that it, too, has its limits.

Target characteristics, no idea, but in a fast enough impact, everything acts like a gas. It's only at near-subsonic time scales that condensed-matter phenomena like elasticity come into play. Even at longer time scales the impact can melt things. This of course comes into conflict with the design objective of the bomb acting solid, so that it penetrates the soil instead of just mixing into it, and can still detonate when it comes to rest. I feel like buried plates of the same metal would have to be able to deflect it? And there are plenty of other high-strength alloys.
by pmarreck | 2025-06-22 03:41:10+00:00
LOL, what? Take on 10 projects at once, and start making way more money... if you're not an external-locus-of-control moron at least

You've literally been given an excavator when you currently have a shovel, and you're worried that other excavators will dig you out of a job. That is a literal analogy to your POV, here
by muzani | 2025-06-22 03:42:02+00:00
Bad if you leave for a competitor. I've never really done so. Fintech, social media, recipes, bidding, e-commerce, fashion, saas, mental health, games, and so on. There's just a wide range of fields you can go into that don't compete and still use the same skills.

Unless the previous employer is slow and incompetent, if you've done good work, they'd probably be ahead and better funded. I'd take the money.
by dralley | 2025-06-22 03:42:54+00:00
I mean, you're also forgetting the fact that Israel sends assassins after their top nuclear scientists every year or two, and cyberattacks every few years, and "mysterious accidents".

It's a bit like saying "but Y2K never happened, they must have been exaggerating" or "but nobody talks about the Ozone hole or acid rain anymore so it must have never been a real problem".
by runako | 2025-06-22 03:42:55+00:00
I agree with you about accidental detonation and nonproliferation in general.

But it is also clear that enforcement of nonproliferation without similarly muscular enforcement of sovereignty in general creates a huge incentive for proliferation.

If we truly want nonproliferation, it simply follows that powerful nations must stop actions like the Russian conquest in Ukraine and whatever Israel is doing in Iran. Every government at base has an incentive to do everything possible keep bombs from falling on its cities, and a demonstrated nuclear capability is the only proven way to do that in a regime where nuclear powers are allowed to act with impunity.
by Retric | 2025-06-22 03:42:59+00:00
Everything I just said was factually accurate.

There’s a lot of misunderstanding around this stuff. Technically all you need for a bomb is the ability to go prompt critical on demand which you can do at surprisingly low enrichment levels. What’s a useful weapons grade enrichment to you has a lot to do with your delivery systems not some universal constant. If you’re looking to fit something in a WWII bomber or early generation ICBM that imposes specific limitations.
by mrtksn | 2025-06-22 03:43:19+00:00
Let’s hope that the destruction of facilities comes with the regime change in Iran. otherwise it may have just given a brief pause and further escalation.

If the regime survives, now Iranian people have a very good reasons to ignore its shortcomings and tyranny and Do a proper sacrifice. It’s a natural resources rich nation of 90 million people. If they want to get serious, they can get serious.
by patrickhogan1 | 2025-06-22 03:43:31+00:00
Wrappers absolutely have value. The same as software on the OS has value. The same as workflow SaaS has value.

I do not follow your point on privacy. AFAIK all tokens that perplexity sends to the foundation model APIs are stored by those companies. For example OpenAI is under court order to store everything. Is your point that because perplexity can trim off the metadata of who their customer is, the body of the content is harder to identify?
by ViscountPenguin | 2025-06-22 03:43:53+00:00
Any chance of a flatpak (or some form of Linux Binary) for this? I've been wanting to play around with Music Programming for ages, but none of the options I looked at play well with Ubuntu. SonicPi in particular didn't run no matter what I did, I had to dualboot into Windows to get it working :'(
by tripletao | 2025-06-22 03:43:56+00:00
Leaving aside the accuracy of this claim, "building a weapon" here means "taking the uranium they've already enriched almost to weapons-grade, and completing final assembly into a working device".

The nuclear physicists got the glory for the Manhattan Project, but the enrichment was the vast majority of the time and cost[1]. Similar ratios apply today. There is zero question that Iran's government is spending a significant fraction of its GDP on enrichment activity that would be economically absurd except as a step towards nuclear weapons--they acknowledge it proudly!

That doesn't mean these strikes were necessarily a good idea. There's no question that Iran was working actively towards a bomb though, even if "building a weapon" gets redefined narrowly to exclude almost all the actual effort.

1. https://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2013/05/17/the-price-of-the-...
by HAL3000 | 2025-06-22 03:44:08+00:00
Thinking that doing something like that will stop Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon is naive. It's not a technical challenge for them, it's a political decision, only a political decision. If they really wanted to, they would already have it. Enriched material was transported from these centers some time ago, as news outlets have already reported.

As for the facts, and not just the narrative: 60% enrichment is not considered weapons-grade enrichment, and it is not illegal under the NPT (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty). Therefore, today's attack is an illegal act of aggression against another country, violating international law. Those are the facts.
by all_factz | 2025-06-22 03:45:03+00:00
Have you been to Israel? I have cousins there. When I was 14 and visited, my 19 year old cousin told me we need to kill all the Arabs because “if we exile them, they will just come back.” Do you really think (a large segment of) Israelis are less crazy than (a large segment of) Iranians?
by crystal_revenge | 2025-06-22 03:45:15+00:00
Unfortunately MAD in the classic sense doesn't apply here. Yes if Iran launched a nuke at Israel, or vice versa, and the other had nuclear capabilities, they would destroy each other, but the MAD scenario between the USSR and the United States doesn't really play out here.

The biggest global risk in this case would be that tactical nukes would be back on the menu which would immediately change the face of modern warfare.
by nebula8804 | 2025-06-22 03:45:15+00:00
Belt & Road continues to fray as China shows reluctance to help its partners when in need. China seems to only come to the aid of anyone after embarrassment or pressure or if it directly helps them. I'm reminded a few years back when Pakistan was suffering from terrible floods, China initially sent its very best thoughts and prayers but it wasn't until after the US started to send aid that China finally got involved. Ultimately all packages from the US seemed to have exceeded the Chinese total but I am unsure. If countries can get away by playing both the US and China off of each other great, but if you need help just from China, good luck.
by dataviz1000 | 2025-06-22 03:46:23+00:00
This. I spent 6 weeks in Taiwan last year traveling around the island. Unless there is a US President as brave as Bill Clinton who put two aircraft carrier strike groups between the island and the mainland in support of democratic elections, it will take 3 days to take over the island and not a single shot will be fired. Since the chip lithography systems can be shut remotely, there isn't any reason to attack the island.
by tdeck | 2025-06-22 03:47:20+00:00
The fact that someone dislikes their government's current ruling regime doesn't mean they want the US to invade and install a puppet government instead. It's a false dichotomy.

> if the regime is actually somehow magically removed I don't think attacking Israel would be a high priority

Attacking Israel hasn't been a high priority for Iran. When Israel bombed an Iranian consulate, Iran referred it to the security council and waited, but the security council took no action. When Israel carries out an assassination within Iran, Iran did the same thing. Only after the UN refused to do anything to hold Israel to account did Iran retaliate. Then recently Israel launched a massive series of strikes against Iran, assassinating top members of its military and blowing up apartment buildings. It seems clear that the Iranian government didn't want to go to war with Israel, but at a certain point they ran out of options.

First letter: https://digitallibrary.un.org/nanna/record/4043282/files/A_7...

Second letter: https://digitallibrary.un.org/nanna/record/4055716/files/S_2...
by dralley | 2025-06-22 03:48:19+00:00
This is dumb. Strategic bombing did work in WWII, but it was never as effective as its advocates claimed at the time mostly because the bombs rarely hit anything important. They had to drop far more munitions than originally envisioned to actually do critical damage to infrastructure.

You can't really compare WWII dumb bombs dropped from 25,000 feet to modern precision weapons that can hit precisely the weakest point on a target, times thousands of targets, within the span of a few hours or days.

I mean, we literally just watched a massively successful strategic bombing campaign over the last week! Desert Storm was massively successful, Iraqi Freedom (the actual invasion, pre-nationbuilding part) was massively successful, Israel's bombing of Hezbollah was massively successful. I don't know how anyone can argue that strategic bombing with precision munitions isn't successful.
by Animats | 2025-06-22 03:48:31+00:00
Also note that Iran does have an ICBM of sorts. They have a space launch vehicle, capable of putting maybe 600kg in orbit. Anything that can achieve orbit can also be used as an ICBM. The US tends to operate on the assumption that it can bomb abroad without return fire. That may have just changed. The US has never attacked anybody with significant missile capability before.

The symbolic value of Iran hitting a target in the US, even with only a small conventional warhead, would be considerable. Washington, D.C. has some drone and missile defenses. But the rest of the east coast is not protected much.

Iran could also attack the US with drones launched from a small ship off the US east coast. Roughly the same technique Ukraine just used on Russia, using some small expendable ship instead of a trailer.

.