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

591–600 of 1001 posts

Re: Miscellanea: The War in Iran

#591

Post by 3eb7988a1663 »

epsters wrote: post #486

Joe Kent [1] offered a possible way out of this - however slim the odds might be. Trump's one quality that may save us all from this quagmire is his ability to do a complete 180 on his previous committed path - "TACO" as his detractors like to call it. Like he did with ICE in Minneapolis, or in Yemen last year when he quit his bombing campaign after one month. If he could be convinced to just declare victory over Ira…

I am just as annoyed at the Democrats, but let us not always pretend the Republicans lack agency. The majority Republican congress could do any number of things to curb his power, but they choose to abstain.

Re: Miscellanea: The War in Iran

#592

Post by N_Lens »

coolThingsFirst wrote: post #590
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…

Why didnt Iran use this earlier to get rich?

Because it would have been an act of aggression to close off the strait. Iran did not want to invite war, the US and Israel have entirely been the aggressors in this recent conflict.

Re: Miscellanea: The War in Iran

#593

Post by [deleted] »

p_j_w wrote: post #488
Dig1t wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the article: >Israel could force the United States into a war with Iran at any time. >It should go without saying that creating the conditions where the sometimes unpredictable junior partner in a security relationship can unilaterally bring the senior partner into a major conflict is an enormous strategic error, precisely because it means you end up in a war when it is in the junior partner’s interests to do so…

>publicly said "all options are on the table" to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. Which means had she won the election she likely would have also invaded Iran. Your second sentence doesn't necessarily follow from the first. Obama had similar words to say about Iran during his administration and never invaded.

[deleted]

Re: Miscellanea: The War in Iran

#594

Post by masswerk »

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…

On the dark side, it will take quite a while to offset the environmental costs of this war, even if this provided an essential incentive for switching. (In reality, energy infrastructure is often locked in longterm and not easy to switch in just in a decade or so.)

Re: Miscellanea: The War in Iran

#595

Post by ryandrake »

tolciho wrote: post #534
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.

It's a complicated picture. Some Americans did not like the advice to "turn down the thermostat, and wear a sweater", and the next president removed the solar panels from the White House. It may be amusing to learn the country some of those panels ended up at, and the propaganda value in having such. Other Americans have improved water conservation ("Cadillac Desert" is a short and relevant read here) and those horri…

I think a lot of people simply want to be contrarian to their perceived opponents: People in the other political clan like X so I have to hate X. No matter how much X might help them or how much better it is, they have to oppose it.

Re: Miscellanea: The War in Iran

#596

Post by geerlingguy »

throwup238 wrote: post #511
ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #497

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> buying a piece of shrink-wrapped software and using it for the next 18 years I'm wondering how that works. I have written software that was still being used, 25 years later, but it was pretty much a "Ship of Theseus," by then.

Old hardware or emulation of old operating systems on new hardware. Quite common on old industrial machinery and other capital equipment like lab equipment. San Francisco BART for example has to scrounge eBay for old motherboards that still allow DMA to parallel ports via southbridge because it’s too expensive to validate a new design for controllers.

I have a G5 with a bunch of old boxed software that runs as well as it did the day I bought it. And an Xbox 360 with the same. Not everything has to keep up with the times.

Re: Miscellanea: The War in Iran

#597

Post by JumpCrisscross »

scoofy wrote: post #588
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #582

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> isn’t there an implicit IRR that a household would maintain and usually a 20 year payoff would be maybe not the first use of investment dollars? Yes. Also, the risk for industry is going all in right before a new technology comes out. At that point, you either write off your original investment and deploy the new kit. Or you accept a structural energy-cost disadvantage. I am massively pro renewables. But you have t…

The system already pays for itself. The only thing you lose if a new technology comes out is opportunity cost. You also likely don’t want to be an early adopter of the newest tech anyway if this is a concern for you. This doesn’t really make sense to me as an objection, so maybe I misunderstood.

> system already pays for itself

No, it yields savings. This is a massive difference.

> You also likely don’t want to be an early adopter of the newest tech anyway if this is a concern for you

This is a real concern for any long-term investment, particularly when we're talking at utility/industrial scales. Dismissing it like this is basically arguing that solar is too new to be properly talked about, which is nonsense.

Re: Miscellanea: The War in Iran

#598

Post by JumpCrisscross »

zahlman wrote: post #589
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.

...What does induction cooking have to do with renewable energy?

> What does induction cooking have to do with renewable energy?

Gas stoves aren't renewable. For most countries, they're dependent on volatile exports.

Re: Miscellanea: The War in Iran

#599

Post by poisonarena »

ardit33 wrote: post #68
Synaesthesia wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The purpose of the war is to destroy the Axis of Resistance, Iran, Hezbollah and its allies, the only force standing in the way of US/Israeli hegemony in the region.

It is to benefit Israel (so it can anex more territory in Lebanon), and it has no benefit to the US. The US had already a deal with Iran, which didn't threat its own interests directly. It is like leave a snake alone, but once you step into it, it will bite you. This war is only to benefit Israel, and right now indirectly Russia (due to the rising prices). Basically, the US is the main loser/sucker in this war, and w…

why would israel want to annex territory in Lebanon? Israel has fought in southern lebanon at least 2 times since I have been alive to fight hezbullah, they always go in, try to remove hezbullah and go back. From a geopolitical perspective what would israel gain by permanently annexing a this area?

Re: Miscellanea: The War in Iran

#600

Post by w00ds »

tim333 wrote: post #398
mrexcess wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

After being restarted, the red (opposing) force general resigned due to the restarted game having what amounted to a scripted end, with little to no latitude for the red force to exercise creativity in strategy or tactics. Among the highlights, the red force were required to turn on and leave on their AA radars so that blue force HARMs could take them out, and the red force was prohibited from attempting to shoot dow…

Similar complaints from Trump the other day “So, it’s it’s uh little unfair. You know, you win a war, but they have no right to be doing what they’re doing.” https://x.com/ME_Observer_/status/2033768757688934424

In fighting games, this is exactly the way "scrubs" think. They lose and appeal to some vague notion of fairness to avoid confronting the reality - they lost!

Would be funny if it wasn't real.

Post reply on HN