Amazon is an extremely visible American company, hitting their assets carries a symbolic meaning even if the DoD wouldn't have anything running on that datacentre at all. Iran's trying to transmit a message of "we can destroy your stuff too", trying to impact the general US feeling of invulnerability.
I don't think it'll work, but they might as well try I guess.
That's why they've been hitting residential buildings and hotels as well? They assume that because their proxies (Hamas, Hezbollah) hide in civilian structures, so does the US army?
All these attempts to justify Iranian terror demonstrate just how deep Qatari influence online has been. And even Qatar is being attacked by Iran now.
Is Hezbollah hiding in the elementary school that got bombed? Perhaps that’s where the Iranian nuclear research was done?
We attacked them. Full stop. And as far as I can tell we haven’t given them any conditions for when we will stop bombing them. In what moral framework do you have to just accept another sovereign, a vastly more powerful one, invading your country without fighting back?
I can't guess what the USA wants other than a distraction from the raping-of- children saga, but I bet Israel would settle for "we acknowledge your right to exist and won't fund or encourage organisations that plan to harm you."
Who in your opinion sets the moral framework for defending oneself against an enemy which has sworn genocide and proven capable of destroying entire peaceful villages along their borders?
Let's re-frame this: what behaviour do you think is beyond the pale for any military?
Then, in you heart of hearts, if Israel's IDF ever did that, would you condemn them and demand sanctions, arrest, and imprisonment?
If not, then this is a non-falsifiable situation: you are for Israel not matter what, because it's your parent's tribe.
So when you are making the list of no-nos above, note that the IDF is already past starving child civilians of food aid and bombing entire residential buildings in Iran.
So I'm not sure that behaviour you could find that's beyond the pale.
The rest of us have lines we will not cross, regardless of what our enemies do to us; it's the slow march of civilisation.
The IDF did not starve civilians - that lie has already been disproven. I know that you'd love to repeat it until history records it, but by no objective measure was there famine nor starvation in Gaza. Other than the starvation of Hamas' hostages.
The images of "starving children" were images of children with other medical conditions. The UN reports used a metric that considered starvation at HALF the threshold used in every other conflict zone, and even with that metric only found "evidence" in a single location once.
I accept the bombing of buildings which house those who have declared "Death to America, Death to Israel", and then have proceeded to bomb apartment buildings in Beit Shemesh.
Why should Israel have a right to exist? And under what parameters? Within which borders? Who gets citizenship?
Surely there's no moral case to be made for Israel having a right to exist in its current religious ethnostate form? People who presumably should have citizenship due to their ties to the land area are excluded because they believe in the wrong ancient delusions.
There are at least three basic answers to that question, depending upon one's worldview.
1. Israel does not have a right to exist, in fact no state has "a right to exist".
2. Israel has a right to exist because her citizens successfully defend her from those who wish her not to exist.
3. Israel has a right to exist because the UN declared it.
>>> random.randrange(1,4)
3
That's the tough one, but I'll answer under that worldview for the remainder of the reply...
> And under what parameters?
Under the parameters established by her founders, and the UN, and those established by her neighbouring states.
From the Israeli declaration of independence:
"WE EXTEND our hand to all neighbouring states and their peoples in an offer of peace and good neighbourliness"
- https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Independence_(Israel)
From the neighbouring states:
"No peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with Israel."
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_Arab_League_summit
Need I remind you that seven nations attacked Israel on the day of her independence? That attack caused a million and a half people to become refugees - both Arabs in the holy land and Jews in the rest of the middle east. It also moved the lines of control from the UN partition plan lines to the 1948 cease fire lines - which far favoured the Jewish state and extended in some places to the internationally recognised borders of Mandatory Palestine.
> Within which borders?
Within the borders of the predecessor state, Mandatory Palestine, just like all other newly-established states (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uti_possidetis_juris). Had the Arabs founded an Arab state on the remaining lands of Mandatory Palestine then I would argue that Israel should be established only on the land allocated by the UN and the land lost by the Arabs in their failed war. But the Arabs never established a state there.
> Who gets citizenship?
The people who live within the borders of the new state, and those whom the state determines are eligible for immigration. Just like every other state.
In other words, there is no reason to treat Israel any differently than any other state on the planet.
Negotiations during which the Iranians continuously stalled and continued their nuclear work. The threat of attack was part of the US negotiation strategy, and the Iranians thought they would call the "bluff". They were wrong.
Iranians have been chanting "Death to America" for decades. If you are unfamiliar with that well-attested chant, then I think you are unqualified to declare opinions about this conflict.
They have been chanting "down with America" - that does not mean "murder every single person in America with their missiles (which can't reach America)"
"Death to" is a mistranslation of "marg bar", a phrase that is also applied to traffic, and inflation.
Do the Iranians want to kill all traffic and all... inflation?
I'm grant you that I do not speak Persian, but I do speak Arabic and Hebrew. In Arabic the phrase موت لامريكا is common enough. And this Hebrew sign in Tehran says "prepare your coffins":
So I do appreciate you educating me on the literal meaning of the Persian phrase, yet I dispute your interpretation that they state no intention of murdering us. Quite the opposite, the more I research it the more Hebrew banners in Tehran I see and I can conclude not only are they capable of murdering myself and my children, they have intent as well.
Israel supports Hamas financially several times, a.) so they can justify a crackdown on Palestinians b.) to weaken the other political groups in Palestine that wanted to negotiate with Israel so only the most radical group is left to represent Palestinians, right wing Israeli assassinated the prime minister who negotiated a peace deal with PLO and the right wing is now in represented at top o government in Israel.
Israel funded terrorist organisations in Syria, and in Palestine itself - most famously the group Hamas.
Many of the terrorist groups Iran funds operates in areas illegally occupied by the Israeli military, making them legitimate resistance fighters.
And Israel itself is a terrorist state - they achieved independence via the actions of Jewish terrorist groups in Palestine like Igrun, Lehi - which included several future Israeli Prime Ministers as members.
So no, I do not trust Israel with nukes - they should be disarmed immediately.
At the end of the day you have to understand the reality that Iran is a sovereign nation that is going to defend itself. And yes they are hitting residential buildings and hotels with US military personnel present. None of this is terrorism, this is a nation state retaliating after an attack on their nation, you have to understand this basic concept, actions have consequences.
This is not propaganda, you are just willfully ignorant. If you want to destroy Iran you have to take retaliation into account, everything else is just propaganda, what do you expect them to do instead? Just lie down and take it?
You can't use retaliation of the nation you attacked as justification of why the attack was justified, its circular logic, this is textbook propaganda you are repeating.
I genuinetely do not think Hasbara like this works anymore. The overton window on this has irrevocably shifted since 2023 and it would be a better strategy for you to live within this new reality, rather than making ludicrous claims that the middle eastern country most vehemently trying to shape western views on the region is... Qatar. It just comes across as an obvious projection, and only encourages sentiment that has a real potential to become harmful to you personally.
That is, unless posts like thos are designed to encourage that sentiment, which I sometimes suspect.
I think this shifted overtone window has partially to do with why they started this war to begin with, they see the writing on the wall and their window of opportunity is closing. Trump is at historic lows in polling [1]; 65% of democrats now sympathize more with Palestinians over Israelis (17%) [2]. HN is just a generally reactionary place, I wouldn't read to much into that.
Instead of claiming "whatever bullshit you come up with" at me, go search for Qatari influence in English too. I prefer Qatari sources in Arabic because then one cannot claim a biased source, but for those who can not read Arabic there is ample English language discussion.
Here's just the first two Google results, enjoy, there's quite a few more from both sides of the US political divide if you would like to start nitpicking sources.
Everybody got flagged in this thread lol What is your argument again? Is it that Qatar used propaganda to make americans anti-war in the middle east or something? I don't even know at this point.
> They assume that because their proxies (Hamas, Hezbollah) hide in civilian structures, so does the US army?
> Two US Defense Department employees were wounded when an Iranian drone struck a hotel in Bahrain's capital Manama, The Washington Post reported Monday.
Are you suggesting that two people sleeping in a hotel makes the hotel a valid military target? Because people have been telling Israelis for years that hospitals, mosques, residential apartment buildings, and schools from which rockets are stored and launched are not valid military targets, even when these activities are supported by the building administration and the rocket handlers are clearly visible.
I mean if you want to put your geopolitical blinkers on, sure...but how to beat America is old news at this point: cause casualties however you can, and wait for the US to give up.
Complain about it all you want but what are you going to do? The US is already bombing them.
Perhaps all of this goes into the big bucket labelled "war is expensive and unpredictable, maybe try diplomacy?"
Which the current administration has made a note of promptly tearing up prior agreements with everyone anyway so...whoops I guess.
They can make it very expensive though. And they can't negotiate, given it's the second time they are attacked during negotiations, so really, what can they do? Cause the most chaos possible around them, strain the relationships between the US and other ME countries, force the US to make a choice about which ally to protect (it will be Saudi Arabia), make the oil price go up and deplete US weapon stocks. If the force the US and Israel to put boots on the ground, they will have won.
In WW-II, the US bombed the hell out of German forces for months on end. That is what people do not understand. The US have the capability to generate bombs indefinitely. There will be no boots on the ground for soldiers (they wish). They will just get pulverised as time goes by. If the US and Israel will think they cannot get to their thick skull they'll simply bomb the oil refineries and let the Iranian regime deal with paychecks from their street goons and fanatics who will eat them alive.
> The US have the capability to generate bombs indefinitely.
The same US which had to re-build and re-open factories to be able to support Ukraine, and had an important shortage of shells for some time?
The same US talking with their allies to build ships for them?
US generals said that their defensive munition is not infinite. Middle Eastern countries said that they have Patriot stockpiles for 4 days.
We're past WWII. Nobody has that capacity anymore. Some of the tech and factories built these gigantic battle cruisers are not present anymore even.
US may, and can pulverize Iran if they want, but it'll be much more expensive than WWII era, because of how interconnected the world is now, and this is how post-WWII world has been designated. Make everyone depend on everyone, and make war very expensive as a result.
> I don't think it'll work, but they might as well try I guess.
Consider this from the eyes of the people living there. Your world is peaceful one day and burning tomorrow. It doesn't have to be "burning like hell", but something came from the sky, entered your building, exploded and damaged some stuff to the extent that fire-supression triggered and damaged more things.
Even if it's not a trauma, it's a shock. Something you'll be remembering for a long time. We live in fragile bubbles, but don't know it until we experience it pop. While this might not make them "win" the war, it'll leave a mark and make the affected persons' ears perch up to understand what's happening better.
Please note, I'm not from either side. I'm a close observer because of where I live, and still believe that this should have not happened.
Not just Amazon - I guess the Oil and gas industry is now run on the cloud.
They used to have big SGI machines 30 years ago... but I bet everything is on the cloud now using GPUs.
I tend to believe that they still have their own clusters. For speed and privacy reasons. You don't want to give away the location of the oil you have found.
Well sure, but surely this takes some inspiration from both `&` as the "address of" operator in C as well as the `>` operator which (apart from being the greater-than operator) very much implies "into" in many circumstances.
So `>&1` is "into the file descriptor pointed to by 1", and at the time any reasonable programmer would have known that fd 1 == STDOUT.
I imagine it would be something like Option<NonZeroF32>, since -2.0 + 2.0 would violate the constraints at runtime. This gets us the Option handling problem back.
I think the article would have been better with NonZeroPositiveF32 as the example type, since then addition would be safe.
I suppose because generating tokens is slow. It is a limitation of the technology. And when data is coming in slowly, you don't need a super high performance client.
...I think a vibe-coded Cocoa app could absolutely be more performant than a run-of-the-mill Electron app. It probably wouldn't beat something heavily optimized like VS Code, but most Electron apps aren't like that.
Anything that can be automated can be automated poorly indeed. But while it has been proven that textile manufacturing can be automated well (or at least better than a hand weaver ever could), the jury is still out if programming can be sufficiently automated at all. Even if programming can be completely automated, it's also unclear if the current LLM strategy will be enough or whether we'll have another 30 year AI winter before something better comes along.
Sounds like a them problem. If they can't be bothered to learn how to use their tools, it won't be a surprise that they then won't know how to use them. A free advantage to those of us that do dedicate the time to read the docs I guess.
At least in web development it really seems to have become widely accepted, at least at many places, that people aren't expected to be anywhere near experts in the tools they use every day.
reply