Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Miscellanea: The War in Iran

acoup.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

501–510 of 1001 posts

Re: Miscellanea: The War in Iran

#501

Post by stickfigure »

scottLobster wrote: post #479
scoofy wrote: post #471

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It really is crazy that environmentalists were like, "hey look, free energy," and suddenly everyone started screaming "No, boo! We like the way things are!" I have a friend who has never used an induction range before that is dead set that he never wants one. I just don't get it.

To be fair induction ranges aren't without issues, not due to the concept itself but failures in implementation. Touch screen controls are rife and not only become impossible to use when, say, grease is splattered on them or your hands are wet/wearing gloves (common when cooking on a stove top), they can even be falsely activated by such things. Cold spots can also be a concern depending on your cookware. Unfortunate…

LG makes an induction range with knobs. I have one. It's wonderful.

Re: Miscellanea: The War in Iran

#502

Post by sillyfluke »

CrzyLngPwd wrote: post #484

It's not a war in Iran. It's an unprovoked war by the USA and its handler, Israel, against Iran. People are being killed, by choice, by the USA and Israel, and the USA and Israel are irreversibly destroying their own personas on the world stage. Even US hostage Merz is starting to stutter about it. Everywhere that isn't the USA or a USA vassal, they call the USA and Israel "The Epstein Coalition". That's how it is vi…

>Even US hostage Merz is starting to stutter about it.

Is he stuttering into an iron dome?

"Volkswagen may turn car factory into Iron Dome hub with Israel partnership"

https://www.business-standard.com/world-news/volkswagen-isra...

Re: Miscellanea: The War in Iran

#503

Post by netsharc »

aaa_aaa wrote: post #416
mrguyorama wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the protests were mostly genuine. That's what happens when your country is so up it's own ass with religious totalitarianism that you set yourself up to not have water at all in the next few decades. Average citizens generally get really pissy when you take away the "At least I'm not literally dying" excuse. The US could not participate in that because we had moved assets to south america to fuck with Venezuela.…

[flagged]

If you're claiming they've been duped, at least provide an argument to say why they're wrong. Preferably with links to credible research (sigh, what's "credible" anyway?)

Re: Miscellanea: The War in Iran

#504

Post by JumpCrisscross »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #63
khhu2bnn wrote: post #26

The amazing part to me is just the perceived invincibility this small circle within the US administration has. You can find dozens of articles with a search limited to Feb 1~Feb 27, plenty of analysis warning of the risks that have now become reality, everything - the strait, no revolution, further radicalization, critically low US stockpiles, abandoning other US partners, gulf destabilization, etc. In the fantasy im…

The failed revolution a month prior may have been the US too. It's after the ramp up in production of weapons used in the shooting war started.

> The failed revolution a month prior may have been the US too

Probably not. History has practically zero examples of foreign-caused popular revolts. When you want your person in power, you do a military coup.

What history is littered with is adversaries (a) constantly fomenting dissent in each other and (b) levelling up convenient revolutions. America has been doing the former in Iran since basically 1979. But to say the recent protests "may have been the US" is ascribing way too much influence to Washington.

Re: Miscellanea: The War in Iran

#505

Post by Hikikomori »

r2_pilot wrote: post #412
mememememememo wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A country that goes all in renewable is in a stronger positon. UK power grid doesn't give a fuck about this war. Sure China. But unless they send in an army to retreive previously sold panels, or block the sun they can only harm future increases to supply.

Or wait 20 years for the panels to degrade...

Swiss measurement of 30 year old panels showed 20% degradation.

Re: Miscellanea: The War in Iran

#506

Post by JumpCrisscross »

andriy_koval wrote: post #495
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #493

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Saudi and UAE has less air power than US+Israel Less plus some is still more. > whatever could be bombed already bombed This is plainly untrue. We're still bombing things. Missiles are still being fired. Power plants and refineries continue to run. > Saudi and UAE are ruled by rich regimes who benefit from oil revenue, and very vulnarable to Iran strikes, they more likely will pay those $2m That functionally cedes…

> That functionally cedes Emirati and Saudi sovereignty to Iran. Today it's $2mm. Tomorrow it's anything else Tehran requires. the point is besides full scale invasion which Saudi and UAE won't do, there is no reliable way to remove threat of Iran striking oil infra, they just don't have way to deal with the problem.

> full scale invasion which Saudi and UAE won't do

Don't need a full-scale invasion. Just a land grab on the coasts. They can't do it alone. But they can provide troops (and mercenaries) as well as staying power where the U.S. cannot.

> there is no reliable way to remove threat of Iran striking oil infra

Barring invasion: mutualize the damage. Pot Iranian tankers. Seed their ports with mines. Israel locking up the Caspian and the UAE and Saudi Arabia locking up Hormuz to Iran changes the calculus of the war in Tehran and makes suing for peace–not with America and Israel, but with the Gulf–tenable.

Re: Miscellanea: The War in Iran

#507

Post by IncreasePosts »

riffraff wrote: post #480
IncreasePosts wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, he hasn't been saying that, despite what you may have read in a random reddit comment. In the 90s he was saying 3-5 years. In 2010 it was 1-2 years. The first time any kind of claim measured in weeks was immediately before Rising Lion last year, and guess what, the IAEA agreed with him.

In 2015 he said weeks. I think we can agree a few weeks passed before that and bombing Iran ten years later. https://youtube.com/shorts/jlqXOwYfpdQ?is=woFU_DlsW3Eb5NYd

I think we can agree that being weeks away from having enough fissile material for a nuke is different from being weeks away from having a nuke. Unless you think you just get your fissile material and then pop it in the next day

Re: Miscellanea: The War in Iran

#508

Post by adamtaylor_13 »

udioron wrote: post #483

> Iran was big and hostile, but relatively unimportant. How unimportant was Bin Laden?

I think culturally he was important to a lot of folks in the 40-60 year old range, but the cultural take of the younger (20-30 year old) demographic really feels like all of Iraq was a huge waste of lives, time, and money.

Was he important? Genuinely curious because all I know is cultural vibes.

Re: Miscellanea: The War in Iran

#509

Post by aetimmes »

amarant wrote: post #278

A core trait of my personality can be summed up as "always look on the bright side of life". To that end: This war seems more than likely to drive up oil prices not only in the near term, but in the medium and long terms too! In addition, petroleum usage seems likely to become dependant on sucking Iran's proverbial dick, a notion that very few people in The West will find palatable. Optimistically then, perhaps this…

Only a small fraction of a typical barrel of oil is allocated to energy generation. The majority goes to transportation/industrial use-cases. The transportation usage can be allayed with sonar energy, but the industrial use-cases cannot.

Re: Miscellanea: The War in Iran

#510

Post by bdangubic »

brightball wrote: post #413
1minusp wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd love to believe this, but very recent history has shown (in the US at least) that we are moving backwards and trying to resist renewable energy.

Economics will always win in the end. At the rate that costs are dropping for solar, it should just be a matter of time. Biggest concerns are usually placement and durability to bad weather.

> Economics will always win in the end.

This may have been true in the past but the economics of today is "whether this is good for 1% of the population" and not in general, yes? If I can buy cheap solar panels from China (or say for the sake of argument someone "friendlier" like Germany) but that gets slapped with tariffs or other means the "administration" (bought by the 1% crowd) has at their disposal to prevent this from happening. If we lived in a free market this would be true for sure but we don't (by we I mean USA :) )

Post reply on HN