Nah it's foolish to think only that it's just Trump war.

That's a very exact number if you know what I mean

You mean round, not exact.

Looks like some block-size thing.

Even if Trump goes Taco, Khamenei Jr won't accept. Remember the adversary also get a vote.

Mojtaba will be dead within a month. What would it say about the entire operation if they just backed off and let Khamenei’s son take over?

It would tell us that they are incompetent buffoons which is exactly what they are.

That it was a stupid operation with a predictably useless outcome. But we also said that about the whole invading Greenland stuff, and it ended like that. And about the war in Afghanistan. And I would presume, about the Vietnam war.

Trump will say he won and move on.

> Trump will say he won and move on.

Then Trump will move on and attack China maybe? Anyway, with Trump in office I expect to see more and more chaos coming.

Cuba is next

I imagine much of US/Israeli intel has been burned on the initial strike, and it's not that hard to hide someone in a bunker at the end of the day.

Seeme like Israel has very strong intel in Iran though. Not sure they got burned, they seem to have infiltrated deeply into Iran. Remains to be seen how it plays out in the end.

The US killed a lot of people in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq and it didn't mean squat.

Are we just doomed to repeat this bullshit?

> never put a political sign in your yard or even just talk about the wrong thing with your friend in a WeChat.

Practically, how many care about that? Consider that in other part of the world they also cancel folks based on social media opinion...

and that Benjamin Franklin's opinion on security and freedom? Thats terminally online phenomenon only. I once tried to bring that without specifically mentioned that it came from ol Ben himself to folks IRL. Many thought it was some anarchist blabbers.

> okay, well yes you might be right but you also understand what the point of the interview is.

So the point is? I honestly dont understand.

The point isnt to give a simple answer, even if it's a correct answer. The point is show how much you know and how smart you are.

The question is framed to you as a way for you to show you know x, y and z and talk about x, y and z.

Even if a valid solution is just do a, that's great. But the interviewer has no idea if you actually know about x ,y and z do they ?

> The point is show how much you know and how smart you are.

I like that this sentence can be read both as a productive, well-meaning view on interviews, as well as a highly cynical one.

Also makes me wonder if the person will keep showing how much they know and how smart they are after they are hired, and if that is a good thing.

The point is the interviewers are sometimes obtuse.

Sometimes the point of the interview is to see if the candidate knows an existing solution and "just use postgres" is the good answer. Sometimes it's to test the technical chops and pretending postgres doesn't exist is the point.

The candidate shouldn't be expected to always guess right, unless the position says "a psychic". The interviewer should notice if the candidate is solving the wrong kind of problem and nudge them in the right direction instead of punishing the candidate for the wrong guess.

In an interview you need to explain your thought process and demonstrate that you’re making an informed decision with supporting evidence.

Saying “just use Postgres” and then providing no explanation for why you believe Postgres is sufficient for the job, a general explanation of what type of hardware and architecture you’d use, and other details is not answering the question.

> AI made me faster at producing code, but it also made me produce MORE code, which means more surface area for bugs, more maintenance burden, more complexity to reason about

I think from time to time, it's better to ask the AI whether the codebase could be cleaned and simplified. Much better if you use different AI than what you use to make the project.

I'm not discounting that Trump is thinking he could back another Pahlavi and restore the Peacock Throne.

IRGC or whatever succeed next should wise themselves and stop hedging about whatever next deal with US/EU.

I think the biggest problem of IRGC is that they grabbed a large share of economy but spent a lot of that in geopolitical expansion for the last 1-2 decades. This in turn contributed to a more fragile Iranian economy and high inflation, which makes them extremely unpopular among the people.

No matter who steps up, Trump's actions make clear they have only two options:

1. Permanent subjugation to western countries, to be unilaterally abused whenever they felt like it, or

2. Race to the nuke as fast and as secretly as possible

Then Hegseth and Caine must be prepared to face the next Taiwan strait crisis with depleted munitions.