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

Iran begins cloud seeding operations as drought bites

arabnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 224 posts

Re: Iran begins cloud seeding operations as drought bites

#211

Post by [deleted] »

Thlom wrote: post #73
energy123 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Israel also said Pakistan was trying to build nukes, but they were stopped by the Indian PM in the 1980s from launching a preventive attack. The silver lining is that we don't have to suffer the internet commentators saying "Pakistan has been weeks away from nukes for fifty years!" You can choose to put your head in the sand about a theocracy that enriches uranium to 60%, holds up mushroom clouds in their protests, a…

Iran can of course build a nuke in a relatively short timespan if they want to, but for a range of reason they have made the decision not to. Perhaps they should have built a nuke, if they had one Israel and the US wouldn't have bombed them.

[deleted]

Re: Iran begins cloud seeding operations as drought bites

#212

Post by tavavex »

nandomrumber wrote: post #192
tavavex wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does if your reference point is Saudi Arabia.

The UK is number one for wrong-speech arrests.

Saudi Arabia is one of the world leaders by number of death sentences. They have no qualms with putting you to death or giving you life imprisonment for all sorts of things, including "wrong-speech" in the form of leaving the state religion, or opposing the government. The UK isn't some shining beacon of freedom by Western standards, but it's not even in the same universe as Saudi Arabia.

Re: Iran begins cloud seeding operations as drought bites

#213

Post by lithocarpus »

zamadatix wrote: post #195
lithocarpus wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So sprayed metal particles from airplanes for weather modification are only "chemtrails" if it's done covertly. Language sure is interesting. I guess there's also a spectrum of what covert means. If a government does this but only announces it in places where only a few people hear about it from the official source, I guess that still counts as public and so not chemtrails.

I'd say not quite, but closer. The original > Any idea except "it's a contrail or non-hidden spraying of some sort" Meaning the chemtrail conspiracy is "contrails are actually cover ups for chemical spraying that isn't otherwise known", not just "if chemical spraying is covert, then people made a language rule saying it should be referred to as a chemtrail instead". I.e. chemtrails refers specifically to the conspira…

Ok. All of the handful of folks I've heard talk about chemtrails used the word to refer to the contrail that they thought had something added to it.

Re: Iran begins cloud seeding operations as drought bites

#214

Post by tgma »

y-c-o-m-b wrote: post #207
tgma wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

BBC is UK propaganda and fine; Arabnews is Saudi propaganda and not fine. Who are you to judge?

The BBC is a public service. Saudi Arabia is a country with a LONG list of RECENT human rights abuses, migrant abuses and exploitation, human trafficking, child sex trafficking, and shamelessly slaughtering journalists on foreign soil.

Oh wait… “public service” that destabilizes countries and then you come in and preach such things about human rights when one of the root causes were in fact your nice public service. Just look up how BBC supported the Mullahs against the Shah in Iran in 79.

Re Saudi Arabia “journalist” you do realize he was from a famous intelligence community family. Hardly a simple “journalist.” On balance what MBS has done in terms of freedom and modernization of his country should be appreciated not put down simplistically. Statecraft is not always clean.

The world isn’t that simple as presented to western audiences.

Re: Iran begins cloud seeding operations as drought bites

#215

Post by zamadatix »

lithocarpus wrote: post #213
zamadatix wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd say not quite, but closer. The original > Any idea except "it's a contrail or non-hidden spraying of some sort" Meaning the chemtrail conspiracy is "contrails are actually cover ups for chemical spraying that isn't otherwise known", not just "if chemical spraying is covert, then people made a language rule saying it should be referred to as a chemtrail instead". I.e. chemtrails refers specifically to the conspira…

Ok. All of the handful of folks I've heard talk about chemtrails used the word to refer to the contrail that they thought had something added to it.

Exactly! That's spot on. Conspiracy of covert chemical spraying via contrail cover up.

Re: Iran begins cloud seeding operations as drought bites

#216

Post by lazide »

_heimdall wrote: post #202
lazide wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like people who build in flood zones and don’t have flood insurance, they do have a nasty tendency to make their problem your problem somehow though.

They shouldn't be my problem, and I say that as someone who lived in a flood prone home with no flood insurance as it was ridiculously expensive for pretty terrible coverage. I wouldn't have lived in that house if I was unable or unwilling to deal with the consequences of a flood, no one else should either.

Should == I wish, unfortunately.

Re: Iran begins cloud seeding operations as drought bites

#217

Post by mkoubaa »

kcplate wrote: post #199
slumberlust wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I enjoy playing golf and also realize how wasteful it is. Id support repurposing the spaces near me for parks/zoning usage.

Parks need to be landscape maintained, so does new development—-often in very similar ways that a golf course is (water, chemical, maintenance). Unless around you simply doesn’t have the open land space to support the area’s park and development needs, what is actually wasted? I think folks get caught up on golf course water usage, but every course around me uses reclaimed water. If houses were built there, that woul…

I think the point is that you can't ban houses through policy but you can ban golf courses. So like it or not (and I sympathize with your point), the policy knobs that can be used to curb water can only directly influence things like golf courses, but they can indirectly affect home water usage through utility pricing.

Re: Iran begins cloud seeding operations as drought bites

#218

Post by kcplate »

Forgeties79 wrote: post #204
kcplate wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just don’t see the waste. Unless you are just going to let those spaces go wild again you will have similar efforts to maintain the spaces and with potential similar water usage.

> you will have similar efforts to maintain the spaces and with potential similar water usage. For more people across a broader socio-economic background. I mean come on let’s just acknowledge the elephant in the room: golf is a rich sport for upper-income/rich people that requires a massive amount of space that then often has a deleterious effect on surrounding real estate (i.e. inflates it and prices people out).

You have obviously not spent much time at a golf course if you believe it only attracts upper income/rich people. Go to your local course and drive around the parking lot sometime on a Saturday…my guess is you are going to see far more older Hondas, Hyundais and Kia’s than Bentleys.

Yeah, not gonna attract the lower income folks because it’s not a zero dollar hobby, but from experience I know the middle class is well represented.

Re: Iran begins cloud seeding operations as drought bites

#219

Post by kcplate »

Forgeties79 wrote: post #203
kcplate wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Parks need to be landscape maintained, so does new development—-often in very similar ways that a golf course is (water, chemical, maintenance). Unless around you simply doesn’t have the open land space to support the area’s park and development needs, what is actually wasted? I think folks get caught up on golf course water usage, but every course around me uses reclaimed water. If houses were built there, that woul…

Public parks directly serve way more people than golf courses and don’t discriminate based on income (or class, ethnicity, etc) to the same degree, if at all.

On any given Saturday the public parks around me (that are free to enter) have far less people than the golf courses around me. So just because it can serve more people, doesn’t mean that it does.

Also, pretty sure you will be hard pressed in 2025 to find courses actively discriminating anyone who has the $$ to spend to play a round. Every course I have played in the last 40 years seems to have all sorts of people from all sorts of backgrounds, ethnicities, and income.

Re: Iran begins cloud seeding operations as drought bites

#220

Post by kcplate »

mkoubaa wrote: post #217
kcplate wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Parks need to be landscape maintained, so does new development—-often in very similar ways that a golf course is (water, chemical, maintenance). Unless around you simply doesn’t have the open land space to support the area’s park and development needs, what is actually wasted? I think folks get caught up on golf course water usage, but every course around me uses reclaimed water. If houses were built there, that woul…

I think the point is that you can't ban houses through policy but you can ban golf courses. So like it or not (and I sympathize with your point), the policy knobs that can be used to curb water can only directly influence things like golf courses, but they can indirectly affect home water usage through utility pricing.

Reality is that if you are going to convert 150-200 acres of course space to residential, it’s not going to happen organically. A developer will come in and drop infrastructure and a couple of hundred homes, and then add an active HOA so folks feel good about that nice neighborhood maintaining their property values. That is going to likely demand a level of property maintenance that will work to counter any utility pricing soft control you try to impose.

I think the folks who try this ecological impact argument and want to push homes into that space just don’t think through all the consequences or assume there is a greater landscape effort than it actually takes. It’s a lot of work, but is it less that the combined work of 200 homes? Probably not. A couple of tractors vs 200 mowers? Landscape chemicals on perhaps 20 acres of the 150-200 (tees and greens, spot treat everywhere else) vs 3 homes per acre treating their whole lawn? 300-400 more vehicles driving in and out of the area everyday?

You want to outlaw them and let them go wild, I can accept that argument and can’t counter it but for “golf is fun and people enjoy it.” However if the concept that houses are better ecologically…I think that is a huge stretch.

Post reply on HN