MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by AnthonyMouse | 2025-06-22 04:07:37+00:00
Business expenses are tax deductions because business taxes are on profits and profits are calculated as revenue minus expenses.

Taxing businesses on revenue rather than profits doesn't work because it would bankrupt every business with slim margins, which is most of them, while effectively cutting taxes for the ones with the thickest margins and creating a massive tax subsidy for vertical integration.

> It falls under the fallacy that rich people can avoid investing their fortunes, inflation already makes that a nonstarter.

If all someone cared about was avoiding inflation they could just buy a stack of precious metals. Moreover, the return from typical passive investments (e.g. S&P 500) significantly exceeds the rate of inflation.

The preference for investment is as opposed to spending. If inflation is at 3% and someone is getting a 10% return from stocks, they can avoid real value loss while still spending up to 70% of the nominal profits. But we'd rather people build factories and develop new drugs and technologies than buy second private jets and third personal mansions.
by hansvm | 2025-06-22 04:08:44+00:00
I'm a little surprised too. Even at the speed of sound in granite (6km/s) where you can start to consider crater-forming dynamics you only get an impact depth of 200ft. Treating it as a Newtonian impactor you get a depth of 60ft. I'd wager the cone shape pushing material to the side is hugely important to the outcome.
by runako | 2025-06-22 04:09:53+00:00
Understood. I am just making the latter argument that any head of state in a conflicted region must, as a matter of baseline sovereignty, pursue a nuclear deterrent.

It’s clear at this point that such deterrent works, and it’s also not clear what other deterrent might work in its stead. Some of the big imperialist wars of the last half-century likely would have been avoided had the invadee been armed with nukes.
by TheAlchemist | 2025-06-22 04:10:13+00:00
And now what ?

If the current regime stays in power, it's pretty much a guarantee that they will pursue nuclear weapons by all means available, in the future.

If the US / Israel want to topple the regime... that worked really well in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afganistan....

Also, isn't it really illegal for a US president to authorize a strike like this without Congress ?
by mrtksn | 2025-06-22 04:11:13+00:00
I guess it’s all about how it’s handled afterwards. Germany and Japan have become huge US allies after some proper bombings.

Just recently Trump tried to troll the Germany’s leader for it and only got a “Thank you for defeating us”.

The truth is that Iran’s regime is indeed a very shitty one and a lot of people have grievances with it but the problem is, this is about Israel and they are not any better and didn’t stand at a higher moral ground with their illegal occupation and actions that many consider genocidal.
by energy123 | 2025-06-22 04:11:14+00:00
They lack the capability to do much aside from disrupt shipping with SRBMs. They've taken down only one drone, which is one less than the Houthis. Their ballistic capability is heavily degraded. Their military leadership is gone. Their airforce is gone. Their air defense is gone. They're a paper tiger and I don't understand why people still think there's the prospect of some kind of grand retaliation. They're not holding back, they just can't do anything.
by tolerance | 2025-06-22 04:11:15+00:00
You're reacting emotionally to handfuloflight's witty remark and now you're caught in this strait-laced and dignified bit to mask you being offended by the remark and caught making a very poor argument.

Would it be fair for me to assume that you are an Evangelical who doesn't support Israel's genocide under the theological pretenses that other Evangelicals are known for (i.e., the "apocalyptic accelerationism" handfuloflight refers to)?

Would it be fair for me to assume that handfuloflight's remark was solid but fell short in the generalizing way that jokes often lay, because of the possibility that there are Evangelicals who don't support Israel's genocide under the theological pretenses that other Evangelical's are known for because it's a terrible look and indicative of the contemporary fractures that capture the faith at large?

Both of ya'll need to be more forthright with your positions instead of performing this constipated do-si-do along the HN guidelines. Give me a good flame war, get flagged, ring up dang and the new dude, or just downvote each other.
by trhway | 2025-06-22 04:12:21+00:00
They don't have much options. They have only Revolutionary Guard for them. Army hates the Guard. The Guard isn't really a fighting force, it can only launch missiles and beat unarmed protesters. Once it runs out of missiles (with a lot of missiles lost to the bombing), it is done.

I expect a full no-fly zone enforcement, and with that the regime's domestic authority and power will quickly go down the drain.
by mdni007 | 2025-06-22 04:12:31+00:00
Exactly, they should be rational just like our secular politicians.

"As a Christian growing up in Sunday school, I was taught from the Bible, ‘Those who bless Israel will be blessed, and those who curse Israel will be cursed.’ And from my perspective, I’d rather be on the blessing side of things.”

- Ted Cruz, a U.S. senator

"There is a reason the first time I shook Netanyahu's hand, I didn't wash it until I could touch the heads of my children."

- Randy Fine, a U.S. congressman

And of course, there's the President of the United States who's known to be completely rational.
by tehjoker | 2025-06-22 04:13:41+00:00
> If they wanted to disrupt China's oil wouldn't they have hit the main export terminal on Kharg Island?

They aren't ready to directly start that war. They are trying to cut off the alliances first. Iran is a much smaller country (90M vs over a billion) with a lot of oil. Conveniently, Iran is already so dehumanized many Americans don't even recognize their rights to sovereignty.

> their main motivation is they don't want Iran to have a nuclear weapon?

No. They have been trying to attack Iran since the revolution. It's similar to how Cuba embarrassed America and was never forgiven. If Iran wanted a weapon they'd have one. However, these attacks may force Iran to get one because countries with nuclear weapons appear to actually have sovereignty. Iran of course retains the possibility of making one, hoping that will have the same effect, but it appears that doesn't do it.
by mrkeen | 2025-06-22 04:15:28+00:00
Turns out you can't just put your country in the middle of other countries without the shit hitting the fan.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-54116567

Not that they keep to themselves either.

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2017/06/israel-o...
by invalidname | 2025-06-22 04:18:59+00:00
You are lumping together three very different countries into a western mindset of deterrence.

While Pakistan is Muslim they are not the same as Iran in any way. The current rulers of Iran do not operate by western logic and would be consider a "holy death" as a direct path to heaven.

Iranian populace isn't behind that, the people themselves are reasonably secular and aren't behind that. However, the leadership is dangerous and you should not assume they would use western logic.
by 0xbadcafebee | 2025-06-22 04:19:00+00:00
Could be a good way to boost the economy amidst a trade war while simultaneously doubling-down on protectionism. On the one hand we usually profit from wars, on the other hand we lose trading partners when we do our usual human rights violations shtick.

I predict this is a ploy to try to get us into a war, so Trump can have his third term, rejecting calls to step down "because we're at war". It's a little early, but our kids are already used to being in 20-year-long pointless wars in the Middle East.
by skissane | 2025-06-22 04:19:09+00:00
> then they wouldn’t be attacked for fear of nuclear retaliation

Even supposing Iran developed a nuclear weapon, their ability to engage in nuclear retaliation depends on (a) the number of warheads, (b) the available delivery mechanisms

An Iran which had only a handful of warheads, and rather limited delivery mechanisms (few or no ICBMs, no SLBMs, no long-range bomber capability) might find its ability to engage in nuclear retaliation against the US extremely limited

Even attempting to use nuclear weapons against Israel or regional US allies, there would be a massive attempt by Israel/US/allies to intercept any nuclear armed missile before it reached its destination

People argued missile defence (as in Reagan's "Star Wars") would never work against the Soviets because they could always just overwhelm it given the superabundance of warheads and delivery systems they had. The same logic does not apply to Iran, because even if it did build a nuke, initially it would only have a handful. Only if they were allowed to build out their nuclear arsenal and delivery systems without intervention, over an extended period, might that eventually come true.
by hwillis | 2025-06-22 04:19:13+00:00
> Another unrelated point, a significant number of Iranian civil engineering graduates are women. A somewhat dichotomous economy, when you consider the theocratic restrictions on costume and behaviour.

Iran does not have the same degree of sexist restrictions as eg Saudi Arabia. It's a very different climate from places where salafism is more common. Female education in particular is highly supported eg: https://x.com/khamenei_ir/status/1869369086142296490
by cloverich | 2025-06-22 04:19:18+00:00
So i don't buy into trumps instability being a factor here nor bidens deteriorating mental health as president being ok. Yet i still think this is false equivalence.

I've watched many people deteriorate mentally and their are many routes. Biden was clearly the "i misplace stuff" route, not "i will now attack an ally".

He definitely shouldn't have been allowed to run for president again but Trump is far more belligerent. I'm not even necessarily opposed to his actions in Iran. But he's now verbally, fiscally, or actually attacked several allies and enemies. He'll likely attack more. I think it's fine to argue for or against his actions. But it's silly to equate the scale of his actions, or risk of mental deterioration, with Biden. The stakes are much higher, the strong allies and enemies are all making reactive bold moves in response. Things are moving fast now.
by danwills | 2025-06-22 04:20:56+00:00
I found this diagram:

https://jbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/jbiol105/fi...

It's fairly reminiscent of how limb growth looks during embryogenesis - and I think considering that is how other vertebrate (such as axolotl) regeneration looks, that it's probably what human limb regrowth would be like too. So your second description sounds more like it, but with continuing development of 'prior' parts while the 'later' parts (fingers etc) are still developing.

Michael Levin's group have experimented with a 'bioreactor' that can be attached to the stump of an amputated limb in frogs (that don't ordinarily regenerate limbs) and after a short period of treatment (days), the reactor is removed and the limb then regenerates on its own over the next few months. They are looking into reproducing this in rats now, with the clearly-stated aim of similar human regeneration being the ultimate goal.

I wholeheartedly recommend watching some of Levin's lectures on YouTube, there are a great many of them and I think they're both illuminating and fascinating!
by throwaway2037 | 2025-06-22 04:21:16+00:00
It has a peace treaty with Jordan and Egypt. Also, they signed the Abraham Accords with UAE and Bahrain. As far I know, there is no risk of conflict with Saudi Arabia, Qatar, nor Oman. Who else am I missing?

Half joking: (ignoring Trump's recent "threats") Is the US a threat to Canada or Mexico?
by Retric | 2025-06-22 04:21:38+00:00
> Business expenses

Investment isn’t a business expense.

> If all someone cared about was avoiding inflation they could just buy a stack of precious metals.

Capital gains of precious metals “yield” drops you below inflation.

> But we'd rather people build factories and develop new drugs and technologies than buy second private jets and third personal mansions.

Someone needs to do that for your hypothetical 10% S&P gains. Giving handouts to wealthy people hardly discourages them using a private jet, just the opposite.
by yibg | 2025-06-22 04:21:48+00:00
Optimistically given how much Trump loves attention and declaring victories:

- Trump declares mission accomplished. Looks tough to his base, appeases Israel and calls it a day

- Ditto for Israel. Declares Iran's nuclear ambitions over and re-affirms the friendship between the US and Israel

- Iran lobs a few more missiles at Israel in retaliation to provide legitimacy at home and moves on

Everyone declares victory and gets an off ramp.
by pmarreck | 2025-06-22 04:22:00+00:00
Or just because they tried to assassinate Trump.

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/11/08/donald-trump-iran-a...

Ted Cruz can blather whatever he wants (and he also footnoted it to say it was only HIS belief), but only Iran has holy-text justification for the destruction of all Jews, mentioned numerous times in authenticated Hadiths (just search them for "The last hour will not come")
by rixed | 2025-06-22 04:22:30+00:00
It is definitively lazy to ascribe to "capitalism" any cultural trend, because indeed that's always going to be a first order explanation for everything, but isn't that even more lazy to "just let people enjoy"?

Maybe there are higher order explanations, some even progressive (I'm not a big connoisseur of pink bow trends, but I suspect there is an element of mockery in there?)
by cloverich | 2025-06-22 04:23:59+00:00
OP predicted Trump will mess up not that he'll lose an election. His electorate is largely supporting him via emotional response, hence his constant appeal to emotions, morality, demonization, etc - it works very well. The title of the book on my manipulated mothers shelf is "Democrats hate America" not "Iranian nuclear enrichment policy” — because this isn’t about policy, it’s about identity. Trump’s rhetoric doesn’t have to withstand scrutiny; it just has to resonate. And it resonates because it offers a simple moral binary: good vs. evil, us vs. them. That’s why failures, scandals, or even authoritarian gestures don’t shake his base — they’re not evaluating him on outcomes, but on whether he reflects their emotional reality. The real danger isn’t just that he might “mess up,” but that the political incentives now reward this kind of performative grievance over competence.
by jrflowers | 2025-06-22 04:24:32+00:00
Amillennialism does not necessarily mean a wholesale rejection of the notion of biblical prophecy. If anything it is largely a disagreement about what the fulfillment of biblical prophecy will look like.

That aside, of course there are always small movements in every faith, but that isn’t usually super meaningful or helpful when talking about the larger group. I’m sure you can find some Catholics that don’t believe in transubstantiation but nobody is out here painting the church as being Eucharist-neutral.
by 1659447091 | 2025-06-22 04:27:44+00:00
> "building a weapon" here means "taking the uranium they've already enriched almost to weapons-grade, and completing final assembly into a working device".

Agreed. However, taking into account the full statement (provided by the collective U.S. Intelligence Services) to include the parts about: Khamenei has not reauthorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003 and that he has final say in the matter, says they were not working actively towards a bomb.

But there was growing advocation for doing so. Now they have been emboldened further and been given fuel to advocate restarting the program. If Khamenei had so far kept the pro-nuke elements of the regime at bay, this strike may force the very thing that foreign Intelligence roped us into "stopping".

I am not saying they did not have the means; they will rebuild the means, and now they will have the motivation as well as know-how in a way that will be more difficult to stop.
by Ancapistani | 2025-06-22 04:27:50+00:00
The plan we've committed to now is to prevent it.

If we fail, there's still the hope that other commenters here are right, and Iran isn't intent on using them offensively. If so, then Iran itself will be safe from this sort of attack.

... but it will also be clear to every other that the only way to be secure from Western military intervention is to possess nuclear weapons. There will be a precedent of a country acquiring them despite Western demands and surviving. This will lead to a world where proliferation is rampant, but not necessarily one where their use is no longer taboo as it is today.
by skissane | 2025-06-22 04:28:19+00:00
I think when a lot of people here say "evangelicals" they actually mean "dispensational premillennialists"–who are a significant chunk of "evangelicals", but not the whole

But to be fair to the dispensational premillennialists, even many of them would consider the idea that Israeli (or US) military action is somehow "accelerating the end-times" to be distasteful – whether or not they think that action is justified in itself.
by Trenthug | 2025-06-22 04:28:37+00:00
This essay presents an original, information-theoretic model of consciousness, built around the structure of belief-formation in response to object descriptions. It begins with the premise that all entities can be described through statements of the form O(x)–Q(y), where O(x) is an object and Q(y) a quality, both indexed by natural numbers. Consciousness is formally defined as the ratio of the complexity of an observer’s true beliefs to the total complexity of the object’s full description. Misbelief (Schizo-Consciousness) is the complexity of falsely labeled descriptions, and Unconsciousness corresponds to the portion of the object’s description for which the observer holds no beliefs.

To capture this structure visually and computationally, the model introduces geometric metaphors—a graph and a layered paper diagram—to illustrate how different observers might overlap or diverge in their conscious mappings of the same object. Each observer’s belief system is governed by an internal “brain code,” a modifiable algorithm updated in response to external stimuli. Two types of brain codes are proposed: one for belief updates (B-code) and one for attention dynamics (A-code), both of which vary across individuals and can model psychological conditions such as ADHD, OCD, or psychosis.

The essay also explores complexity metrics for descriptions, including binary encodings, programming representations, and entropy-based measures. It introduces the idea of “atomic qualities” as potential irreducible elements of description, which could ground a method of formal complexity measurement. Overall, the model provides a mathematically structured approach to comparing, simulating, and potentially diagnosing differing conscious states based on how beliefs correspond to the inherent description of reality.
by almostgotcaught | 2025-06-22 04:29:16+00:00
> In essence, caches allow hardware to be flexible and adapt to a wide range of applications. This is a large reason why GPUs are very flexible hardware (note: compared to TPUs).

this is correct but mis-stated - it's not the caches themselves that cost energy but MMUs that automatically load/fetch/store to cache on "page faults". TPUs don't have MMUs and furthermore are a push architecture (as opposed to pull).
by alun | 2025-06-22 04:29:20+00:00
Definitely a step in the right direction for the UK, a nation that has historically been full of inventors.

One of the most important factors for ARIA’s success will be whether its leadership can protect a culture that accepts that some bets won’t pay off until after their term ends. Short-termism plagues government leadership roles, and it's exactly the kind of thing that could kill a program like this.

In other words, pick bold leaders that don't have an ego.
by jimbob45 | 2025-06-22 04:29:46+00:00
so we should expect that to compel the majority of Iranians to rally behind their government in the face of a brutal foreign invasion by not one but BOTH of their standard-bearer arch-nemeses.

Organized how? There’s no internet. I hope Kinko’s is still open because they’re going to need a lot of leaflets to organize anything meaningful.
by greyface- | 2025-06-22 04:31:05+00:00
This will generate a multicast MAC 50% of the time, which will usually work, but can theoretically cause problems if there's a multicast-aware Ethernet bridge in your path. Ideally, the LSB of the first octet should be fixed to 0 to indicate a unicast address.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAC_address#Unicast_vs._multic...
by AnthonyMouse | 2025-06-22 04:31:07+00:00
> as more things got privatized in the US, you can clearly see the degradation of our services. For example, the NYC subway.

The question is whether this is caused by privatization or by corruption. Obviously if you constrain who can bid on the contract so that it can only go to some well-connected paymasters who overcharge and underdeliver, things are going to go poorly.

> We've tried the theory of privatization. In fact we keep trying it over and over. Look around you. Is it working?

In which place are we incarcerating the politicians who deliver the contracts to their cronies?
by bluefirebrand | 2025-06-22 04:32:09+00:00
> I don't think regular employees today should see LLMs as competition, rather they should see it as a tool they can use to level the playing field against current CEOs.

LLMs aren't some magic silver bullet to elevate people out of poverty. Lack of access to capital is an extreme restriction on what most people can actually accomplish on their own, it doesn't matter if they have the worlds best LLM helping them or not.

It doesn't matter if you use an LLM to build the most brilliant business in the world if you can't afford to buy real world things to do real world business

Also, Historically when regular people decide to level the playing field against the ultra wealthy, they use violence

I don't think anyone should be expecting LLMs to be the great equalizer. The great equalizer has always been violent and probably always will be violence.
by farts_mckensy | 2025-06-22 04:34:52+00:00
What planet have you been living on the past 25 years? Iran has a population of almost 100 million as well as a sizeable diaspora across the world. If even a small percentage of the population engages in terrorism, that translates into thousands of potential actors. And unlike a state-to-state war, this is the kind of distributed, unpredictable threat that’s much harder to deter or contain.
by dragontamer | 2025-06-22 04:35:19+00:00
30, 20, 10 years ago. Or never.

Linux continues to use RB Trees for a huge number of its processing. Because its faster to keep a tree sorted than to sort arrays.

You talk as if linked data-structures are inferior or something. Rather than different. Now yes, linked data-structures get relatively worse when latency remains the same but CPU GHz gets faster, but then the reverse is true when cache sizes get larger. L3 caches are now 192MBs on some processors, while Intel consistently has been pushing 1MB+ L2 caches with full load/store bandwidth per core.

There is a time and place for all techniques. Including linked data-structures / cons / list-processing.