Unlurker|Replay|About
Passengers who refuse to use headphones can now be kicked off United flights (cnn.com)
•
Good, now do the same for public transit.
•
I agree with the policy but this is such a mild offense. Just a few years ago in the US there was an epidemic of drunk people savagely beating flight attendants. People who cannot figure out how to share use of shared space should lose access to those places.
•
Airlines have been quietly expanding what they can remove you for. This isn't really about headphones. It's about how much discretion crew have now and how little recourse you have at 35,000 feet.
•
The airlines could alway remove you for literally any reason. Even if it was discriminatory or otherwise illegal, you'd still definitely be getting off the plane, at least.
•
You might blame the airlines, but passengers have become more rude and entitled year after year. It's really everywhere now, not just on airplanes. I personally am fine with removing passengers who think they are entitled to annoy the rest of us when we can't just get up and leave the place.
•
I assume it's about blasting others with noise, not company sponsored headphones.
•
Is this really a thing?!? Blasting the others with unwanted noise. I never been in a flight, or train across Europe where passengers showed just lack of respect for the others. The only ones pumping anything loud, on trains or busses, usually get quickly pointed down by other passengers, personal or security. Ah, and then there are the rebellious kids or gangs, as the other exception, which usually don't take flights anyway.
•
I am astonished how many people now use speakerphone as their default interaction. On subway, go train, in grocery stores, on the streets, sometimes even in the office, they blast their conversations with zero care. And so yes, I've definitely seen and experienced people watching inane tiktoks on speaker in subway or bus or airplane. It's the epitome of complete lack of empathy or self awareness to me, but I guess that's the way culture is going.
•
From what I can tell, if no rule is enforced, about 2-5% of people think it's totally normal to scroll tiktok or instagram at full volume in public. So on a crowded bus you've normally got 1 or 2. Behavior is actually much better on airplanes, usually (maybe 1-2 in ~150 passenger plane), and I have never seen someone who did not silence their phone after being asked politely by the attendant.
•
I've experienced it all over Europe. Trains with reserved seats tend to have a separate "silent car" for this reason.
•
That's because in Europe certain demographics don't catch many planes or trains. But they do catch the tube or the bus, so get on one of those and enjoy the experience.
•
I've definitely experienced this on public transit in cities in several different countries here in Europe. It's not an everyday experience, but it definitely happens.
•
Yes, but that isn't a flight.
•
In America, a small number of people derive pleasure from being disruptive to everybody, and blasting music on public transit with captive audiences is a very "traditional" way of fucking with people and expressing your broad contempt for their society. I'd estimate that maybe one in five times you get on a city bus in America, you'll encounter somebody like this. Very rarely does anybody call them out or otherwise try to reign it in, because you're as likely as not to be physically attacked and in America, the odds of bystanders coming to your rescue are... Not zero, but not great.
•
Pretty sure on planes this is more ignorance than malice. It’s self absorbed people that are too selfish to consider someone else might not want to hear what they’re watching, rather than some deliberate anti society thing. Regardless, no punishment is too harsh, this should be considered the equivalent of lighting up a cigarette on a plane.
•
The idea someone doesn’t know they bothering everyone around them is absurd. It is 100% malice.
•
I don't think I'd have the wherewithal to jump in and do something if I were a bystander. I'm not the sort to throw hands, I don't carry, and these disruptive types are already a bit feral. I'm not sure it's contempt they're expressing, or if they're expressing anything at all. There really are people who enjoy and defend it, too; "it's just a guy playing music, mind your own business." Truly alien.
•
My business includes my ears . If you don't want me in your business, keep your business to your ears.
•
Happens elsewhere too. Can be an issue in Dutch trains
•
>is a very "traditional" way of fucking with people and expressing your broad contempt for their society. Motivated in large part as a response to society saying fuck them. I'm not defending assholes being assholes, but I think what we have been seeing in the US over the last 5 or 10 years is classic collapse of the social contract stuff. The less a society cares about its people the less its people will care about the rest of society.
•
I get what you're saying, but blasting music on buses has been a thing since boom-boxes were invented, it's nothing new. I am also not inclined to blame systems instead of individuals because most people with the same background of injustice will choose to respond to that injustice by being better than it. It's only a very small number of people being disruptive like this, while the number of people with fair and understandable grievances against society is massive.
•
20%? That's a bit insane. This does happen in Europe but is heavily looked down up on and usually quickly corrected. On the other hand I did get a chewing out from an older guy for having a conversation with friends on a train once, so some people take it perhaps a bit too serious.
•
It’s very much a thing on US public transit, with the added negative bonus that no one ever confronts the person doing it, because chances are they’re either crazy, armed, or both.
•
I’ve absolutely seen this nonsense in the UK.
•
Yup. Eg guys getting on Thameslink services in south London, walking right up to the area behind the driver's cab and and start creating a disturbance. Driver stops the train and has a go at them if he's feeling in the mood...
•
Doesn't surprise me, but I'm only speaking from my experience in America.
•
Ok, but how about kicking sick people off of flights, particularly trans continental?
•
> how about kicking sick people off of flights Difficult for the airline to do given the myriad of health privacy adjacents.
•
What if we asked the President to give us a quick rundown of each passenger's health?
Yes! Now do the same on beaches, busses, streets. Same punishment: banishment from the area.
•
> beaches, busses, streets Bus, sure. On beaches and streets you have the option of moving away. It’s obnoxious. But in the same category as a large group walking slowly.
I often see younger people in parks near me blasting loud music on speakers. It’s so disrespectful to those looking for a peaceful place. Especially when they’re playing explicit rap music with everyone’s families and children around.
•
> It’s so disrespectful to those looking for a peaceful place Idk, they’re not looking for “a peaceful place” and are using a public space without damaging it. Nobody is forced to use the park at the same time as them. This seems like a difference in preferences which is fine.
•
I was recently in Hawaii in the middle of the forest and this group nearby on the trail were blasting music from a bluetooth speaker. Whether it is compelte lack of self awareness or utter disregard for other people it is just disturbing behavior.
•
Yeah or people on bikes with a boombox. They do it because it's illegal to cycle with earphones in in these parts. But it creates its own problem of course.
•
I wonder if shoulder mounted speakers that aren't touching the users ears could help resolve this to everybody's reasonable satisfaction. (That is, everybody who's not deliberately trying to broadcast their music to everybody else.)
During flights? Sounds a bit harsh.
•
Seems like this flew right over a few heads.
•
and yet the joke fell right into our laps
•
United says we should tone down the sarcasm
> During flights? Sounds a bit harsh. Sounds harsh to you. Let the market decide. Vote with your wallet and fly a different airline.
•
I'm going to vote with my wallet by moving United up my priority list.
•
Either you missed the joke or I missed your sarcasm. I read GP as a joke: being literally kicked out of a flight in air is a death sentence, which is a bit harsh penalty indeed.
•
But kicking someone off mid-flight at high altitude is still a bit harsh. I hope they give them parachutes at least.
•
> give them parachutes at least the first time
•
Only if they paid extra at check-in.
•
And you specifically have to request it. It isn’t a normal option during purchase.
•
Bet it won't happen twice though.
Have you ever tried to sleep while the person next to you watches a movie at full volume?
•
Yeah, it sucks. I agree with you, they should be brutally murdered.
•
That's too harsh, a regular murder would suffice.
•
> That's too harsh, a regular murder would suffice. Correct. Kicking someone off during a flight and not giving them a parachute counts as a regular murder...
•
Just put them in row 24 on a Boeing 737 max and let the problem take care of itself.
I don’t think United airlines has the authority to do that. That is to say, do you really want a federal law passed about this? I vote we go with social shaming. Worked for cigarettes.
•
I don't really want that. But I do sometimes fantasize about revoking some people's ability to use speakerphone or reply-all.
•
It didn't really work well with cigs until govs started banning smoking in restaurants, bars, etc. That said, the shaming was important for setting the social stage for such legal bans.
↙ time adjusted for second-chance
Invisalign Became the Biggest User of 3D Printers (wired.com)
So shouldn't this really be something that could be opened sourced. I think I've seen a few write ups of people that did their own, but seems like a highly functional implementation could be democratized.
•
A point I didn’t see sibling comments make is that the dentist often has to file between teeth for them to sit and align correctly. They did so several times in my case. I would not want to do that to myself!
•
Orthodontics is simply “making a retainer” the same way orthopedics is simply “putting screws in a leg”. The difficult part is not the manufacturing, but knowing how to do it properly so you don’t harm the patient.
•
>The difficult part is not the manufacturing, but knowing how to do it properly so you don’t harm the patient. And yet plenty of horror stories of bad orthodontics. Ask me how I know. Went to 3 different orthodontist to fix what a bad orthodontist did to me when I was a kid, and each gave me a completely different treatment plan. I feel like being an orthodontist is just eyeballing and patching your way to an acceptable resolution.
It is definitely not that simple for a number of reasons. Yes, aligners and retainers in theory may be printed on some commercially available hardware. At your own risk, because you will be printing a medical device and you will need: 1. A treatment plan: simulated movement of teeth at every step, taking into account all forces. That’s specialized software or external lab service. 2. Precision. You put too much pressure at the wrong angle and you will need a surgery to fix the damage, because the tooth root moved in wrong direction. 3. Plastic. You cannot use ordinary 3D printer ink. You need a plastic that can survive the chemical environment in your mouth, maintain the pressure, and you probably want it to look good (no discoloration etc). 4. Finish: Align Tech, Straumann etc do not stop after 3D printing, there are few other steps involved to make sure there’s no sharp edges etc. 5. Maybe you will need attachments (to focus pressure in the right direction on certain teeth) or wires. Align Tech is Apple of clear aligners, but now competition exists, producing aligners at scale is commercially more efficient, considering all the risks and required qualifications, and of course the best materials for aligners are patented and not sold OTC to everyone. Disclosure: I worked at Align 10 years ago and later was CTO of European DTC competitor.
•
Per point #3, aren't the liners thermo formed around at 3d printed model of your teeth?
•
IIRC, yes. It’s been some time ago, I don’t know how manufacturing looks now. It’s different process compared to 3D printing at home. It doesn’t mean it should be different, it just has to maintain certain properties. I’m not chemical or bioengineer to go into detail of it :)
I did Invisalign a few years ago. Manufacturing the retainers is surely only a small part of the puzzle. They used a specialized sort of 3D camera on a stick to get an incredibly accurate model of my mouth, any open source solution would need an equivalent. And you’d also need open source code from somewhere to work out which teeth need to move where and at what stage in the treatment.
•
>They used a specialized sort of 3D camera on a stick to get an incredibly accurate model of my mouth AFAIK Align's system is more or less branched from the same Israeli tech base that went into the Xbox 360 kinect camera and the iPhone face-ID.
•
That’s pretty wild. I got a mould taken with some sort of a putty .
•
I wear a night guard and have had them made both ways. The 3D camera was really neat. A little faster, and I didn’t once dry heave. I could watch the software and a 3D model slowly form of my mouth. Looked surprisingly user friendly. Missed areas were highlighted, for example.
Thinking Fast, Slow, and Artificial: How AI Is Reshaping Human Reasoning (papers.ssrn.com)
•
The main problem with "System 3" is that it have its own kind of "cognitive biases", like System 1, but those new cognitive biases are designed by marketing, politics, culture and whatever censor or makes visible the original training. Even if the process, the processing and whatever else around was perfect (that is not, i.e. hallucinations) But, we still have the System 1, and survived and reached this stage because of it, because even a bad guess is better than the slowness of doing things right. It have its problems, but sometimes you must reach a compromise.
•
The concern isn't that AI reasons differently. It's that we stop practicing the slow thinking ourselves and then quietly forget we ever had it.
•
The concern isn't that AI reasons differently. It's that we start outsourcing the slow thinking entirely and then forget we ever had it.
•
I already noticed that. When I feel lazy, I feel like reaching for the AI. Exactly the same laziness voice that nudges me to drive instead of walking. But then I go running and swimming for fun, and there is no laziness voice there, telling me to stop, because I enjoy it. And similarly with AI, I only use it for things where I don't care about, like various corporate bs. Maybe the cure for AI-brain is to care about and be passionate about things. Conversely, does this mean that the kind of people who use AI for everything don't care about anything?
404 Deno CEO not found (dbushell.com)
•
For me Bun’s dramatic entrance and the a lack of any Deno response that reached my attention effectively evaporated any interest I would have in switching my runtime. I’m already set with my tooling and hosting.
•
I was really into Deno until it went all-in on nodejs compatibility (like Bun). At that point I was left wondering -- if Bun and Deno have essentially the same strategy/approach, why would I pick the less mature option? And so I ported everything to Bun
•
> I wanted to know if the hundreds of hours I’d spent mastering Deno was a sunk cost Hundreds of hours? I'm sorry but if you truly needed that much time to find your way around an incredibly straightforward runtime that's on you. Skills for Deno, Node.js, Bun, Cloudflare Workers, browser-based JS and all the rest are like 99% transferable. If Deno doesn't work for you then use something else. It would probably be simpler to switch than writing all these aggressive blog posts.
•
Truth of the matter is Ryan Dahl is a suboptimal CEO. Being able to build good open source software does not have a strong correlation with being able to build a successful business.
Before yt-dlp started recommending Deno as its JavaScript runtime, I had no idea it even existed. Since then, I know that it's there and that it's more secure than Node in some applications, and I can see using it being a good option. But it sounds like it might be too little too late? Going by this article, at least.
•
yt-dlp was definitely the reason for the increased adoption mentioned in the post. I wonder if the layoffs have a deeper connection to yt-dlp.
I'm just annoyed that decimation would be a 10% layoff; standard if even weak-sauce these days. Too many people use "kill one in ten" to mean "kill them all, let God sort it out."
•
Etymology is not usage though. I get where you're coming from, but fighting vernacular is all but useless outside of academia.
Isn't it reasonable bitterness? He invested a lot of his own life on a promise that didn't pan out, and there's probably a lot of people in that community. Leadership comes with responsibility and consequences. Content marketed at wannabe startup founders tends to be encouraging and panglossian. It's good to see here what you're signing up for if you succeed with some degree of traction.
•
> He invested a lot of his own life on a promise that didn't pan out So did the people who built Deno
Bun, competition? Zig is yet to be 1.0, and who knows what anthropic will make out of it. They can even pivot yet again back into node, as most acquisitions go.
•
In the mindshare, certainly. Bun to Deno is what Zig i to Rust: a much simpler, much easier way to overcome its common predecessor's shortcomings. Not nearly as thoroughly and revolutionarily, but still.
GitHub tokens can span more than one repo or org if the account requesting has access to them. Is this supported on the non-web version? (I was going to try claude again this weekend, but when I tried to login, got an error and am reminded how much down time I experience from Anthropic, arg...)
•
The non web version uses whatever credentials you have setup yourself, so it works just fine.
•
Is that host level or can I provide scoped tokens based on what I'm doing? In other words, do Anthropic tools provide any affordances for this or is it something I have to manage externally?
Iran launched unsuccessful attack on UK's Diego Garcia (bbc.com)
•
To me this is like the Doolittle Raid on Tokyo during WWII. The tactical result isn't important, the range of the strike is, and that it happened at all. Japan thought it was immune from air attack on the home islands in 1942, and the raid shocked them. Iran is showing the world (especially Europe), that it's more vulnerable than it thinks. Europe has more skin in the game than just the price of oil and nitrogen. Also think about what would happen if Iran is able to recreate something like the Cuban missile crisis now that we've moved a bunch of our military assets to the middle east.
•
Question: could this lead to much more expensive war risk insurance for all ships transiting the Arabian Sea and Indian Ocean? That’s a lot of traffic
The reason people leave North Korea alone is because they have nuclear weapon(s)
•
They also have the GDP equivalent of JetBlue Airways
•
Prior to that, they had thousands of artillery pieces pointed at Seoul the presumed backing of China if the Korean war resumed.
According to postwar foreign policy clearly that’s true: Look at Libya and Ukraine for your most direct examples - give away your nukes, get invaded. South Africa is an odd example that proves the rule: they simply bend the knee to the west. Nuclear deterrents and mutual assured destruction has been the key driver in preventing large scale conflict in the “postwar period.” Everyone knows Israel has nukes it’s just a matter of when they can get enough public support to use them
•
Mutually assured destruction does seem to deter conflict, but even assuming it works, it always seemed like a poor tradeoff to me. Significantly reduce the frequency of small to medium-scale conflicts, in exchange for an inevitable, possibly apocalyptic nuclear conflict at some point. Maybe not this year, maybe not for centuries, but one day, someone will press the button.
Your comment made me realise that while Iran has attacked a dozen countries, they have yet to attack a school or a hospital. Not condoning anyone but shows the priority of both sides.
•
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMIA_bombing
They did however murder thousands of protesters in their own streets in January, and who knows how much more dissidents over the years. This one was just this week: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/iran-execution-teen-wrestler-january-protests/ So there's that.
•
You're being disingenuous - the "protestor" was caught on camera literally hacking a policeman to pieces. He murdered a policeman, and will now be executed.
•
Strategically, it makes no sense to corner and threaten people. Murdering their own citizens shows the degree to which they'll go to preserve their power. If anything, that's a reason to slowly bleed them instead of cornering and escalating. The evil of your enemy does not excuse your own strategic stupidity or cruelty.
Well some civilians have been injured when Iran attacked the hotels where US agents were stationed. Mostly due to them being foreign workers and well we all know how Dubai and the Saudis treat foreign workers. They were not allowed evacuate in time. Of course it will be hard to completely avoid civilian casualties in the long run, I fear but yeah Iran has been pretty measured. Iran's fight is with the US imperialists and Israel and not the people that live in the region.
•
> some civilians have been injured when Iran attacked the hotels where US agents were stationed Surely the US are using civilians as human shields?
I can’t be an apologist for what’s going on but the Iranians seemed capable of killing tens of thousands of their own citizens in order to quash an uprising against the regime only weeks before the current events.
•
There is zero proof that Iranian government has killed thousands of their own citizens. Please stop spouting Zionist propaganda
Well China is still getting Iranian oil no problem. We in the West, well we are aiding the US in this war by allowing it to operate from military bases in our countries. We deserve it for looking the other way while Israel has been mass murdering Palestinians for more than two years now. At least Spain showed some guts. Of course it will also potentially cause suffering in the global south but that is on those that started the war.
•
How is China getting that oil without problem? Something like 90% of it when through Kharg island which is now rubble.
Iran did the same before the conflict in response to prior Israeli attacks - the two drone waves they sent that were intercepted were both demonstrations of capability, not actual attacks. Unfortunately I’m not sure their current audience is gonna pick up the implied threat.
•
Iran even has a history of calling in their attacks to ensure no one gets hurt. I don't think they did it this time, but they have in the past.
It’s more like if David and Goliath are in a standoff David takes a small rock and whips it at a sensitive spot on Goliath’s ankles that most people don’t know about (Diego Garcia) David knows Goliath will probably dodge it, and most likely kick it away given it’s importance, but there’s a point being made by shooting: if it hits then that’s a win, but if gets knocked down it’s a warning that they know where they need to hit for it to hurt
•
I doubt whether the missile had sufficient range/fuel. More like a warning shot.
Iranian kids have been chanting death to Israel and death to USA for 47 years now. They’ve been waiting for this.
•
Well, if you take down their democracy and down their domestic passenger jets, no country is going to respond to that with flowers in their hair
This is simply not true. I'm Iranian and I wish it were but IRGC has more support than you think. There is at least 30-40% of the population who support it and within those, more than half will gladly die for the regime. My home country has more than 90M people and 40% of that equates for millions of supporters. From the outside, you are only hearing the diaspora talking points, which don't realistically represent Iran. Many of them have grievances with the regime, or have been exiled after the Shah. Iran is a complex country and it's hard for outsiders to grasp it, mainly because the censorship happening on both sides. I personally think this war was a major mistake, no Iranian is going to cheer for US or Israel after watching their children being killed by them. The west was doing a good job exporting liberal ideas to Iran slowly over the past 3 decades. Some of those were starting to drip into the country, but this war undid all that effort.
•
If anything, the attack on Iran has increased their support. US and Israel doesn't give two fucks for the people of Iran. If they did they wouldn't have been under such crippling sanctions. Irani people want to control their own destiny, not as a vassal of US-Israel backed power. Iran's best bet I think is to negotiate with the IRGC to earn reforms. I suspect that if IRGC doesn't feel so threatened they might even get them. There's a lot of commentary in this post about Iran is now a threat to Europe. Yes the capability might exist but it is not in Iran's interest and have never shown such interest or ambition. US and UK have screwed the relation up by organising coup, scuttling democratic processes, downing domestic passenger jet without apology, and economically ravaging them with sanctions. As for nukes, with Israel and undeclared nuclear power right next door, it's a very reasonable ask for any country that wants to control its own destiny. In fact had it has one, the current conflict would not have happened.
Many people that protested against the government in January are now marching in support of the Islamic Republic and demand that the imperialists are punished. Most of them have protested for economic reasons, they don't want to see their country destroyed and their children murdered by bombs. Iran is more united than ever because of the imperialist war. That is what you get when you turn state leaders into martyrs.
•
That sounds made up. Marches largely stopped after bombings, no one marches for IRGC - not even supporters. And there is no way for anyone to know what Iranians actually think now. No one does the polls there now.
Unfortunately this is more interesting than a failed Diego Garcia attack — the late Ayatollah had a self-imposed range limit on the strikes or tests they would carry out. By using IRBMs in this fashion, it’s clear the new regime no longer feels bound by that restriction.. Which is notable since it’s about the same distance from Southern Iran to Diego Garcia (3,800km) as it is from Northern Iran to London.
•
London? Why would they attack an almost Muslim country, especially one that's their most fanatical ally?
Saying that your enemy "plans" to do something, is never justification for mass murdering civilians. It's interesting that this is basically the same playbook Zionists are currently using. Hurl some accusations, then start killing civilians.
•
Haman’s plans weren’t theoretical. He had taken steps to put them into action, just like Iran has taken steps for decades in attacking Israel. Likewise, the people that were killed weren’t civilians. They were supporters of Haman. Undoubtedly, some innocent people were killed. That’s just how war works.
They had a religious ruling on the range, and they also had a religious ruling on "not creating an atomic bomb." The question of whether the world can assume its security on some religious rulings of some Ayatollas is still standing, as these rulings can apparently be changed or bypassed.
•
Well if the last year is an indicator, changing and bypassing rules at whim is definitely not limited to the Ayatollahs. If anything, they’ve been fairly consistent.
This "religious ruling" stuff is less interesting than it sounds. To begin with, while the Islamic Republic of Iran is a totalitarian state, the Twelver Shia hierarchy isn't unified. The supposed ban on nuclear weapons was Khamenei's, and binding only on his followers. But there are several other marja (marjas? marji?), with significant followings even in the security state & IRGC (al-Sistani being a good example). More importantly, it's pretty clear that the geopolitical rulings are, well, geopolitical in nature. Iran is a nuclear threshold state; its strategy is to come as close to the breakout line as it can and extract concessions for not crossing it. The supposed nuclear fatwa is just public relations strategy. At the point Iran decided the cost/benefit/risk/reward of crossing the threshold made sense, it would be updated.
•
Maraaji' is the pluralized version in Arabic, but nothing wrong with saying marjas. Marji would be most wrong though.
I don't know but I can certainly blame them for oppressing and murdering their own citizens.
•
Would you prefer they murder and oppress other countries citizens? Oh wait…
•
But that has nothing to do with this war. Like, nothing at all. Israel doing genocode in gaza and what seems like ethnical cleansing of lebanon does not have anyyhing with that either. USA threatening Greenland is also not a factor in this war. Donald Trump does not care about protesters in Iran. His idea of regime change is "keep the regime and change head for someone who will pay me personally". And Hegseth does not care either. He is proving his manhood. And Israel have completely different goals, so. It is not like Saudi were democrats. They have cut that journalist into pieces. They are violent dictatorship on their own right.
Like they flattened Afghanistan? It is funny people thinks land war in an huge mountainous country with 90 million people is easy.
•
Never get involved in a land war in Asia but only slightly less well-known is never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line.
flatten with what?
•
Like what is happening now, completely decimating their army, navy, and air force. If that isn't enough, destroy their only source of revenue (oil fields), or go even further and destroy their electrical grid and send the country back to the stone age. Finally, if the regime does not surrender after all this, a nuke could still be used.
> On the other hand if Iran was to fire a missile at continental Europe I would hope that the consequence for them would be to be flattened Iran have been attacking uninvolved NATO member Turkey for a while now and nothing happens. The USA is already fully engaged into this war while Europe can hardly deal together with Russia, it is doubtful they'd do anything even if it rained down on their territory
•
It should be noted that Iran has publicly stated that the attacks on Turkey were false-flag attacks launched by Israel.
Attacking as in a couple of rockets heading US bases which were intercepted. Of course nothing would happen, why would Turkey (or other European countries) join this pointless war?
•
This is an attack on Turkish territory regardless if there's a US base, and Iranian missiles usually miss the bases anyway. Turkey is led by a strongman leader and these are very sensitive to acts of public humiliation. So that's unwise when thinking about any negligible strategic advantage they may gain from these attacks
The article kind of downplays the most interesting elements. Not an expert, but to my limited understanding: * I think this is the longest-range use of a ballistic missile in anger, possibly ever? * This seems to reveal previously-unknown range of Iranian ballistic missiles and, if true, could touch basically all of Europe?
•
It's a message toward the west don't think you're safe further away. Iran is pushing the west out of west Asia. Time will tell what USIS and EU will do to combat this.
•
> Time will tell what USIS and EU will do to combat this. Diplomacy was working fine, per high-ranking diplomats: https://www.economist.com/by-invitation/2026/03/18/americas-friends-must-help-extricate-it-from-an-unlawful-war
•
US intelligence had assessed that this was possible a long time ago. It was one of the motivations behind the installation of long-range missile defense capabilities in Poland and Czechia in the late 2000s. Obama killed that program to appease Russia. Of course, there is a significant gap between Iran possessing the capability, having the temperament to use it, and actually doing so.
> This seems to reveal previously-unknown range of Iranian ballistic missiles and, if true, could touch basically all of Europe True but they have also literally launched multiple orbital satellites from iran on iranian rockets. Eg. The Noor 2 spy satellite and before that the Noor 1 series https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noor_2_(satellite) These are in orbit to this day. They regularly post images it takes of US military bases. Essentially it’s similar to how sputnik was a demonstration of icbm capability. Iran can launch a first generation ICBM right now. Pointless if they use a conventional payload (too small payload to be cost effective militarily) and a non manoeuvrable warhead (would just be intercepted) and so these aren’t used militarily but essentially everyone acting shocked they can hit 4000km range was not paying attention. I think one of the problems we are having right now is that we have leaders who actively believed the downplaying of Irans military capabilities. It’s one thing for the common civilian to think the enemies missiles are made of cardboard and tanks of paper but it’s another when the leader of a nation believes it. Now here we are with a war that’s stalemated and no way out.
•
Why does it matter if they have some capabilities to hit whatever targets in Europe or America? They’re not crazy, it would still be suicide for them to do it. It would just give them leverage, which I can’t think of a fair reason to prevent them from having.
> it's all about managing upwards That might not work with the current administration. Which probably a/the problem.
•
It still does/is. Most of what I'm seeing with Iran is similar to what was discussed back in the early 2010s. There hasn't been significant churn in the NatSec space aside from political appointees.
> Iran's missiles are used as a terror weapon against civilian population Classic. An advanced tech US missile hits a school and kills 200 schoolgirls? "A tragic mistake, it happens in war". A much less advanced Iranian rocket hits a building? "Terrorists! They point their weapons at civilians!" Since Iran was attacked and it has a right to defend itself, we should give it more precise weapons so it can hit directly the military headquarters in central Tel Aviv.
•
Have you protested when they killed 40,000 unarmed civilians in early January?
•
Intent is literally the difference in terrorism though. The US hitting 500 targets in Iran and one of them being a school is the exact opposite of a strategy of terrorism. With terrorism you explicitly target civilians to drive fear. Trying to hit the Burj Khalifa without targeting any military or high political office is terrorism. When Iran launched at military bases or tried to shoot at planes, it was not called terrorism.
They're Muslims. You can debate whether that means 'stupid', but they've come to totally erroneous opinions on the structure of reality.
•
first, what does it matter whether they are Muslims or not? second, what is the structure of reality?! you may have some notion you know what “reality” is given what your media allows you to think - the actual reality is vastly different than you think it is - that is a certainty
Do you think launching a dumb ICBM at New York would make the US put boots on the ground. I kind of doubt it's enough. This wouldn't be another 9/11, it would be merely be retaliation.
•
the war is wildly unpopular in the US (rightfully so) - attacking US would rally the country (rightfully so) and regime would fall within a week (with significant casulties on our side)
•
It already looks like the US is sending marines over. Any excuse to make it more politically palatable would be latched onto.
Hardly, after attacking all their friends in the region, which would leave them even more isolated after the war, I would not attribute careful strategic planning either
•
They were not mutual friends. They were mutually hostile. And the friends are hosting american soldiers and bases.
•
Qatar and Oman were mutually hostile? that's a very unique interpretation of Middle Eastern politics
> a non manoeuvrable warhead (would just be intercepted) Intercepted? In the UK, by what? London has no missile defence system that I am aware of.
•
Probably by the Sea Viper system from a destroyer parked in the Dover Strait. Now, the UK probably doesn't have enough interceptors or destroyers carrying them to be confident they'll be able to stop a proper all out attack, but that seems to be a common problem with every Western country right now with a peacetime military budget in an increasingly unpeaceful time.
I was just talking about winning the “plant-bombs” vs “detect and-blow-up-bombs” chess game. I have no comment on the rest of what you said, nor do I care who “wins” here, I have no say in the matter and have chosen zero emotional investment.
•
Similarly, there are new laser guided hydra pods starting to roll out. https://en.defence-ua.com/news/ukraine_could_equip_its_f_16s_with_low_cost_apkws_ii_rockets_to_counter_russian_drones-16727.html
They’ve been preparing for this day for 5 decades, and I wouldn’t believe this administrations propaganda if they claimed the sky was blue.
•
>They’ve been preparing for this day for 5 decades... So have the USA & Israel I suspect.
Grafeo – A fast, lean, embeddable graph database built in Rust (grafeo.dev)
•
The d:Document syntax looks so happy!
I was ready to learn more about this but I saw "written in Rust" and I literally rolled my eyes and said never mind.
•
I think "written by genAI" should be a bigger turnoff than "written in Rust".
Does anyone have any experience with this DB? Or context about where it came from? From the commit history it's obvious that this is an AI coded project. It was started a few months ago, 99% of commits are from 1 contributor, and that 1 contributor has some times committed 100,000 lines of code per week. (EDIT: 200,000 lines of code in the first week) I'm not anti-LLM, but I've done enough AI coding to know that one person submitting 100,000 lines of code a week is not doing deep thought and review on the AI output. I also know from experience that letting AI code the majority of a complex project leads to something very fragile, overly complicated, and not well thought out. I've been burned enough times by investigating projects that turned out to be AI slop with polished landing pages. In some cases the claimed benchmarks were improperly run or just hallucinated by the AI. So is anyone actually using this? Or is this someone's personal experiment in building a resume portfolio project by letting AI run against a problem for a few months?
•
Using a LLM coded database sounds like hell considering even major databases can have some rough edges and be painful to use.
Yes a graph database will happily lead you down a n^3 (or worse!) path when trying to query for a single relation if you are not wise about your indexes, etc.
•
That sounds like a ”graph” DB which implements edges as separate tables, like building a graph in a standard SQL RDB. If you wish to avoid that particular caveat, look for a graph DB which materializes edges within vertices/nodes. The obvious caveat there is that the edges are not normalized, which may or may not be an issue for your particulat application.
Senior European journalist suspended over AI-generated quotes (theguardian.com)
•
> That was not just careless – it was wrong lol
HN is full of people saying ABCD should know better and honestly I thought the same, but when I look at almost all of my friends working in critical domains like as a judge or engineer or lawyer or even doctor, they seem to trust ChatGPT more or less blindly. People get defensive when I point out out to them that ChatGPT will make things up and it is widely know, and some even tell me it is the fault of "tech people" for not fixing it and they can't be expected to double check every chatgpt conversation. So I am very sure this problem is more prevalent than what we see and also that it is going to continue increasing.
•
Your friends should know better. That their behavior is prevalent does not contradict that.
•
>but when I look at almost all of my friends working in critical domains like as a judge or engineer or lawyer or even doctor, they seem to trust ChatGPT more or less blindly That's why I lost trust and faith in people who end up in positions of doctor, lawyer or judge. When I was young I used to think they must be the smartest most high-IQ people in the world, having read the most books and have the highest levels of critical thinking and debate skills ever. When in fact they were only good at memorizing and regurgitating the right information required to pass the exam that gave them that prestigious title. It's a miracle society functions at all.
•
on the flip side, so much chatgpt usage, full of flaws, doesn't seem to really matter in various "critical domains." you can't generalize "critical."
It doesn't seem AI generated to me. Are we at the point where you have to write in a particularly outrageous style in order to not be accused of using AI?
•
This is either ChatGPT or the one journalist who influenced all of ChatGPT's writing style.
•
If you look at the replies[1] to that tweet, many commenters point out his style was entirely different prior to chatgpt. [1] https://xcancel.com/maxwelltani/status/2023089526445371777 ?
•
I was giving this the benefit of the doubt as well and was just looking at his older writings that have a little "This article is more than 5 years old" banner above it. Looks totally different indeed.
•
>Are we at the point where you have to write in a particularly outrageous style in order to not be accused of using AI? I don't think we've gotten to the extent that all popular writing styles (eg. hamburger paragraphs) are considered suspect, but the "it's not just X, it's Y" construction[1] attracts particular scrutiny. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signs_of_AI_writing#Negative_parallelisms
A CTO sent me a message that opened with: “Here’s a friendly message that will perfectly convey what you want to say”. A double PhD friend says she has to talk to chatGPT for all sort of advice and can’t feel safe not doing it, “because you know I’m single and don’t have a companion to spitball my ideas”. She let chatGPT decide which way to take to get to a certain island, and she got stranded because the suggested service didn’t exist. I have more examples. It’s a fucking mind virus.
•
How is the getting stranded example different than asking on a travel forum how to get somewhere, and an active and well intentioned user that isn't familiar with your area of travel answers, gives you wrong instructions, and you get lost?
•
Because they aren't probabilistic parrots? If they get it wrong, there's usually an understandable reason behind it.
•
Because the vast and overwhelmingly majority of the time, if you ask a question into the ether that nobody has a good answer to, most people will gloss over it and not bother answering, as attested by decades of relatable memes ( https://xkcd.com/979/ ). In contrast, the chatbot is trained to always attempt to give an answer, and is seemingly disincentivized via its training set to just shrug and say "I don't know, good luck fam".
Good lord, even the apology is AI generated: "That was not just careless—it was wrong." https://pressanddemocracy.substack.com/p/i-am-admitting-my-mistake
•
His non-apology apology even follows a familiar pattern: I wrote it myself but just used AI for some help, and it inserted false quotes! Bad tech! But I have now learned my lesson! Very similar to what a rector recently wrote when she got busted giving an AI-generated speech in her inaugural speech in her new university job. None of it is true, of course. These people are just sorry they got caught.
•
I think his apology was actually written in Dutch so this might be a translation that was automated? Source: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/peter-vandermeersch-a4381b30_ik-trek-het-boetekleed-aan-activity-7440424431992311808-I9jm/
Some Things Just Take Time (lucumr.pocoo.org)
•
I think it's hard to argue with the idea that we should slow down and think more, and that AI is pushing us to do the opposite. But time is limited, it's very limited. And at least in a professional setting, to spend time on the correct things is key. What AI allow us is to do those things we would not have been able to prioritize before. To "write" those extra tests, add that minor feature or to solve that decade old bug. Things that we would never been able to prioritize are we noe able to do. It's not perfect, it's sometimes sloppy, but at least its getting shit done. It does not matter if you solve 10% of your problem perfect if you never have time for the remaining 90. I do miss the coding, _a lot_, but productivity is a drug and I will take it.
•
I love this, and it applies to a lot more than software and trees :)
•
I feel for the larger companies and the people who started 10 years ago, though. They have spent the last decade building processes and guardrails for getting consistent average performance from people. But now, some talented people who worked at those companies are building their own new companies without the overhead and moving much, much more quickly. I think what we assume is "vibe slop at inference speed" is not as simple as people make it out to be. From a perspective, I think generally it might be people trying to save jobs. I'm seeing more slop come out of larger, older companies than the new ones (with experienced operators). And the speed is somewhat scary. For smaller team it doesn't take as much effort to build deep, beautiful product anymore. The bottleneck was never the ability for a engineer to code. It was the 16 layers between the customer and the programmer which has vanished in smaller companies and is forcing larger ones to produce slop.
•
I don't see the problem - everything the author describes has, and will always be, true. You can't vibe code anything of value in a weekend exactly because anyone _else_ with the same level of experience can do the exact same thing in the same weekend! This has always been true across all trades and technologies. Once again, the domain expertise, wisdom, and simply _time_ of doing something always win. LLMs literally don't change that at all.
•
>Nobody is going to mass-produce a 50-year-old oak. And nobody is going to conjure trust, or quality, or community out of a weekend sprint. absolutely although i wonder how different 'trust' is in the culture of tomorrow? will it 'matter' as much, be as cherished, as earned over the fullness of time? i suspect it is a pendulum - and we are back to oak trees at some point - but which way is the pendulum swinging right now?
Sounds familiar, for most of my life I have tried to remove all "friction" from life – applying that engineering mindset to make everything as efficient as possible. Only then I realized that life somehow is about that "friction".
•
Indeed. Without friction you can't steer.
With all the emphasis on the speed of modern AI tools, we often seem to forget that velocity is a vector quantity. Increased speed only gets us where we want to be sooner if we are also heading in the right direction. If we’re far enough off course, increasing speed becomes counterproductive and it ends up taking longer to get where we want to be. I’ve been noticing that this simple reality explains almost all of both the good and the bad that I hear about LLM-based coding tools. Using it for research or to spin up a quick demo or prototype is using it to help plot a course. A lot of the multi-stage agentic workflows also come down to creating guard rails before doing the main implementation so the AI can’t get too far off track. Most of the success stories I hear seem to be in these areas so far. Meanwhile, probably the most common criticism I see is that an AI that is simply given a prompt to implement some new feature or bug fix for an existing system often misunderstands or makes bad assumptions and ends up repeatedly running into dead ends. It moves fast but without knowing which direction to move in.
•
> It moves fast but without knowing which direction to move in. It also moves fast with a tendency to pick the wrong direction (according to the goal of the prompter) at every decision point (known or unknown).
•
I've definitely gotten it into contexts where it will never stop going into the wrong direction, even when I tell it to forget everything it did before, and told it a correct path forward. Usually restarting the entire session fixes it, but not always.
I’ve noticed this dynamic acutely working at YC startups the last 5ish years. Coding has become like a sweatshop. I don’t think it’s exclusive to startups or tech either, it seems more like a downstream consequence of the fact that there’s no real innovation anymore. Capitalism demands constant growth, and when there are real technological improvements you can achieve that growth through higher productivity. If there are none, you have to achieve that growth through other means like forcing employees to work longer or cutting costs. The alpha is all coming from squeezing the labor force right now.
•
> it seems more like a downstream consequence of the fact that there’s no real innovation anymore This doesn't sound right to me. We are currently getting smacked upside the head by an enormous technological innovation. I believe that, even within the framework of capitalism, this problem has social and political roots. The "robber baron" period late 19th century America has strong similarities to what we are seeing today, and technological stagnation was not the cause.
I have very similar experience. I vibecoded a foreign language practice app for myself. It works decent from functional perspective and I don’t see too many bugs. But the biggest productivity constraint I see is the time I need to spend using it in order to understand what is working and where the issues are.
•
My newest joke is: „I was able to vibecode those 5 apps I always wanted but never had time to code them myself … it is so different now because — I don’t have time to use them”.
Apologies for the obligatory question, but what did you try to do, and with which AI did you try to do it with?
•
Well following advice from folk on here earlier, I thought I'd start small and try to get it to write some code in Go that would listen on a network socket, wait for a packet with a bunch of messages (in a known format) come in, and split those messages out from the packet. I ended up having to type hundreds of lines of description to get thousands of lines of code that doesn't actually work, when the one I wrote myself is about two dozen lines of code and works perfectly. It just seems such a slow and inefficient way to work.
> I don't understand what problem AI is supposed to solve in software development. When Russians invaded Germany during WWII, some of them (who had never seen a toilet) thought that toilets were advanced potato washing machines, and were rightfully pissed when their potatoes were flushed away and didn't come back. Sounds like you're feeling a similar frustration with your problem.
•
I don't really see where that comparison is relevant. Why is AI supposed to be good?
You should be able to understand the definition of a common term such as "status symbol" though. Understanding words does not require being impressed by anything, nor caring about the opinion of kids.
•
Different mileage for different people.
•
If most people are thinking "whoopdedoo... you clearly have more money than sense" when they see your status symbol, is it still a status symbol?
•
It depends, if someone fundamentally believes that having more money that someone else means that person is of higher status then it is. If people don't consider that someone with more money is of a higher status then symbols of that wealth aren't meaningful. I think a lot of people have an ingrained belief that "more money == more status"
I like the sweater, and some people like you might recognize it as special, but it doesn't have the universal cachet of a Rolex or something. It's also a bit chunky and funny-looking (but I guess so are some Rolexes).
•
"universal" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there.
You fill the bottle with water, you put a fish in it, you remove half of the water, the bottle is still half full, but if you remove the fish, it will have less water than before. You fill the bottle with half of the water, you put the fish in, you can fill in the other half. If you start with the first half, you will end up with more water.
•
The point of the metaphor is not to say "spending time is mechanically similar to putting things in a container". It is to look at spending time from a new angle, and see if it helps you understand it better. A wise person sees a metaphor as a launching point for thought, not as an expression of a metaphysical connection. Yes, there are bad metaphors, and people who take metaphors too seriously. That you can conjure a bad metaphor with somewhat similar to semantics to some other metaphor does not mean that said metaphor is bad.
•
You put your right foot in, you put your right foot out, you put your right foot in, and you shake it all about.
Mayor of Paris removed parking spaces, "drastically" reduced the number of cars (cnn.com)
Hmmm... "Mayor of Paris drastically reduces productivity of city by removing parking spaces"
•
Yes because wasting 2 to 3 hours in traffic every day surely makes people more productive.
Yes, she's the poster-child for gentrification, that's why France is about to have a far-right government in the near term. But I guess she has made some Parisian bobos really happy, good for her.
•
Big cities in France never vote far-right, and the PS (left) candidate is leading the polls in Paris' next election, so I'm really not sure what you're talking about. Gentrification is hardly a cause for far-right coming to power.
I cannot read the fiery letters, but it’s quite possible, depending on how the affected metro vs the voting block overlaps, that those who vote aren’t those complaining. Also complaining is easy, I could do it right now here on HN from any bathroom in the world; voting is comparatively much harder.
•
I've noticed in my city that a lot of the complaining about impinging upon the car-centric status quo comes from people who live outside the city.
There is some clear bias and green agenda in the way this has been written, which to be fair it's very common in Europe. As the EU continues its course to ban the sale of ICE cars by 2035, the argument of "fewer cars make for cleaner air" is gradually losing weight. As more and more EVs hit the streets, the argument against cars is more ideological, about lifestyle. It's about collectivism, about giving up individual transport in favour of public alternatives. It's happened in London, where a clear anti-car agenda is being disguised as a pro-clean air agenda. Almost the entire city now has a 20 mph speed limit "to reduce emissions" but, if that was the truly the objective, then I should be able to drive faster with an EV. Or maybe the angle they're trying to go for is another very European problem: cities are no longer designed for the people who live there, but for the people who visit them. Barcelona in particular has become a theme park, Venice has been one for decades. Entire neighbourhoods looks their soul so we can have more Airbnbs and drunk tourists. Sad times.
•
Come to New York, we still have freedom-loving individuals who reject collectivist ideology. https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2026/03/21/drunk-driver-arrested-in-high-speed-harlem-crash-that-killed-cyclist-injured-four-others
The "mess" being a massive reduction in harmful particulates?
•
Yes that is literally the only impacts, no unexpected consequences whatsoever...
I believe that was LaGrange's point.
•
It was. I was differentiating between eating them (evidence unclear) and breathing them (pretty clear).
The difference in severity of a crash between a car and a bicycle is on the order of 20x. Are you seeing 20x more agressive cyclists than motorists? Anyhow, talking about the hospitalization rate without the mortality rate is very odd and smells of manipulation one way or the other.
•
So the argument of "well it would have hurt more if it was a car!" is cold comfort, and cars aren't mounting pavements to get me...
The wealthiest people I know are philanthropist that spend their day on zoon meetings to decide who get the grant. A couple of time a week someone arrange a visit for them to check on "things are going" on the trenches. They also spend a lot of time on the phone strategizing with other folks like them. -- But that's not a contest!I'm sure your rich people are richer than my rich people. -- If we were looking at a formal definition, my naive approach would be to use the median income, add the revenue of assets, and add a 20% to that ? I'm sure the field of sociology could help be more formal here. -- Here I was talking specifically about French folks, where access to remote work and living in the inner city are strongly correlated with higher income.
•
I wasn’t really looking to argue about who knows the wealthiest people. I’m just curious who you are looking at. If you’re looking at billionaire philanthropists, I don’t know what they do but at that level of wealth it’s probably whatever they want.
Were the working class driving SUV's into Paris before the changes?
•
What has got to do with it? Some of them are driving vehicles even larger than SUVs, e.g. tradesmen driving vans, builders with pickups etc. The obsession with SUVs is classist.
Why not take the train...?
•
Loud, dirty, and stuck in a confined space with people doing acrobatics, or panhandling, or angry. I wouldn't take BART if you paid ME $20 to go into SF.
> I was thinking more about the unofficially mobility impaired people by obesity, like me The vast majority of obese people are not meaningfully mobility impaired.
•
As an obese person I disagree. Even 40 pounds is a meaningful mobility impairment, a difference between a joy and a trudge. I've experienced 200 pounds, and it is a kind of prison. Even a little bit of that prison is deeply meaningful. Have you not experienced it? I think I did more intensely as a yo-yo dieter. I knew what it was like to be fit from recent memory when I wasn't fit, and hated the difference.
> Motorists are incredibly fragile Until you throw yourself in front of my car
•
> > Motorists are incredibly fragile > Until you throw yourself in front of my car Fragile with regard to their egos, as illustrated here.
I would almost believe this, except for your shoes get absolutely soaked.
•
They don't, Gore-Tex Eccos with high-enough collars. (Gore-Tex does have other issues though.)
↙ time adjusted for second-chance
Books of the Century by Le Monde (standardebooks.org)
•
The Stranger at #1 sort of tells me everything I need to know about the list. It's a fine book, and I ended up liking it a lot more when I went back and re-read it in French many years later, but #1 of the 20th century. Yeah, not even close. I know this is primarily a Francophone list, but not having Toni Morrison or Cormac McCarthy or so many of the great Latin American authors on it makes me wonder how much makes it into French via translation.
•
Honestly, American lists are the same. Every decent English speaking author, plus some selections of other languages. Any national worlds book list, and this explicitly includes US and UK lists, are heavily skewed and I mean ridiculously so
pretty french heavy that list.
•
well, it is a french newspaper surveying french people
When reading "Books of the Century" I expected a list of the most important, most influential or just best books. Skewed towards the french perspective, given Le Monde as a source. But this was never the goal, just a "what stuck in your mind" question. For example, 1984 is missing, and Louis Begley Wartime Lies. And I wouldn't have expected Ulysses in there given the french source, for me it was incomprehensible gibberish and I thought only the US ranks it high. But that gibberishness makes it certainly memorable, so given the question it fits.
•
> most influential > "what stuck in your mind" That's strongly correlated IMHO; and I don't really see any objective metric for the influence of a book anyway.
 Top