Which goes back to the shame thing, really. Few people are willing to stand up and advocate for common sense laws because they don’t want to be associated with anything regarding sex. Politicians, whom are not generally noted for being averse to hiring sex workers, sure as hell don’t want to be advocating for them for fear of losing elections.
> Politicians [...] don’t want to be advocating for them for fear of losing elections.
This assumes that the politician plans and has a chance to become re-elected. If this is not the case, the arguments for not advocating for such laws become much less important for the respective politician.
Is there anywhere with one term limits for law makers with no staggered terms? If every member of a parliament is yoloing it, I'm not aure if things would be better or worse.
"Nobody in the middle of an existential war threatens to attack more - they just attack with everything they've got."
That sounds like a poor strategy. Expend all of your resources in one grand gesture rather than trying to push your enemy's internal factions to curtail or end the fighting?
Unlike the current US administration, Iran is playing a long game - one in which it has been isolated in many ways. Indiscriminate attacks on civilian targets is not going to win it many friends; putting pressure on the tech companies that have been buddying up to the administration and may have some sway, on the other hand, is a cheap strategy that could pay off. Iran understands that the only language that seems to matter with Trump's backers is profit; threaten that and you may have some success.
The fact that Iran has already done some damage to AWS data centers makes it seem likely they could do so again if they tried. I don't know for certain, I'm not a military intelligence expert, but the strategy of "throw the kitchen sink at it" seems like a sure loser.
I guess i should say, nobody holds back out of being nice. If they hold back its because of some strategic benefit, such as rationing the weapons for the long haul.
What is the strategic benefit here of not attacking? The warning is unlikely to change us behaviour by itself, at most it might just get america more on alert.
> Iran is playing a long game
Doesn't seem like it. Attacking semi-neutral gulf states and mining the strait are desperation moves. They are things that sacrafice the long term but you still do them because if you dont fix the short term there won't be a long term.
> Indiscriminate attacks on civilian targets is not going to win it many friends
Which has played out in practise... part of the reason why the usa is getting such limited push back internationally (basically just some strongly worded letters) is nobody really like iran because of how they have conducted themselves historically.
They have had no issue with fairly indiscriminate attacks so far in this war, i doubt they are going to start now.
> The fact that Iran has already done some damage to AWS data centers makes it seem likely they could do so again if they tried.
The threat here seemed to be cyberattacks and/or physical attacks on US based infrastructure.
Nobody doubts that iran can fire drones/missiles at their next door neighbour (although some reason to doubt they can keep it up). Attacks on us soil and/or cyberattacks are a different story.
> What is the strategic benefit here of not attacking?
Twofold. First you deplete your enemy interceptor with smallish payload and older tech before really hitting them (basically what just happened last Monday). Second, you get to say 'i didn't start this, they did'.
Also, I think Iran have 'sleeper' cells in remote areas that don't phone home to get orders, but only get them through radio or publicly broadcasted message. Them striking at the right time, either behind enemy lines or at a very inconvenient time, from a very inconvenient place, would probably their best use. Maybe this is a 'prepare your weapons' message.
"Iran has always lacked an ability to project power at a distance"
I'm curious what you're basing this on, since Iran has been supplying Russia with drones, etc. for much of the war in Ukraine and so far has launched attacks into Jordan, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Oman, and Cyprus since the US began its attacks.
Iran may not be able to strike at sites in the US, but it could certainly target data centers in the Middle East with some hope of success. I'm not at all confident the current administration has accurately assessed Iran's capabilities or has the ability to protect the assets of US-based companies (or US citizens) in that region.
Your post is extremely misleading. Shipping drones in a box or whatever they are doing so Russians can use them is completely different from what we mean by projecting power. In many cases the Russians are actually manufacturing the drones themselves based off the Iranian plan. That's not anything like the USA's power projection, where B2s can takeoff in Missouri, bomb Iran and come home without ever landing or even being shot at. I mean it's just not even close.
Launching attacks and having "some hope of success" is weak. And that's what Iran is and has always been, weak.
Yes they launch attacks. Most of these fail. They have nowhere near the level of lethality, precision, force projection and penetration of Israel or the United States.
When are Americans going to learn nationstates and some radical blowing themselves up are two different things? The latter is the threat to Americans here. You don't stop it by blowing up the former. History has always shown in fact that doing that makes the latter problem worse.
The article didn’t say it was wrong by my reading: it reported that it’s happening.
That said: “benefits US companies” != good public policy for the US as a whole. It’s explicitly trying to interfere in how other countries govern themselves for the benefit of shareholders, not because it’s necessarily good policy.
It’s also something we wouldn’t necessarily appreciate if done to us by our allies. If we have any actual allies left given all of Trump’s tariffs and threats against other countries.
Nothing beats humans with great music tastes and deep knowledge. I’ve yet to find any form of recommendation engine that has surprised and delighted me the way humans have.
This tool might unearth something interesting, but I find it sus that it’s recommended the same artist (Adrianne Lenker) when I asked about Aimee Mann and Steven Jessie Bernstein.
Destroying the bot would be analogous to burning a library or desecrating a work of art. Barring a bot from participating in development of a project is not wronging it, not in any way immoral. It’s not automatically wrong to bar a person from participating, either - no one has an inherent right to contribute to a project.
Yes, it's easy to argue that AI "is just a program" - that a program that happens to contain within itself the full written outputs of billions of human souls in their utmost distilled essence is 'soulless', simply because its material vessel isn't made of human flesh and blood. It's also the height of human arrogance in its most myopic form. By that same argument a book is also soulless because it's just made of ordinary ink and paper. Should we then conclude that it's morally right to ban books?
> By that same argument a book is also soulless because it's just made of ordinary ink and paper. Should we then conclude that it's morally right to ban books?
“No advertisements” seems extreme to me. I want to know when a good band is playing at a local venue, or has an album out. I like hearing about new books, or a restaurant near me.
The absolutist position that “all ads are always bad” is a non-starter for me. Especially as long as we exist in a capitalist system. Small business, indie creators, etc. must advertise in some fashion to survive. It’s only the behemoths that could afford to stop doing it (ironically). I’ve never really understood why, e.g. Pepsi and Coke spend so much on advertising: most people already have a preference and I am skeptical that the millions they spend actually moves the needle either way. (“Is Pepsi okay?” “It absolutely is not.”)
>I’ve never really understood why, e.g. Pepsi and Coke spend so much on advertising
When was the last time you saw an ad for something non digital and you stopped everything and bought it or even made concrete plans to do so later ? Probably almost never right ? So why still so many ads ? More importantly, why is it still so profitable ?
Because much of the impact of advertising is sub conscious imprint rather than conscious action. Have you ever been in a grocery store and you needed to get something and picked a "random" brand ? Yeah, that choice may not have been so random after all.
Or perhaps you're sitting at home or work and have a sudden seemingly unprompted craving for <insert food place>. Yeah, maybe not so unprompted.
There are (and continue to be) millions of young people who do not yet have firm preferences. For the already faithful, their advertising is mostly about reminding them to consume more.
If an order is legal, yes. Not if an order is illegal. If a superior officer orders a private to shoot unarmed civilians or commit some other war crime, the private is supposed to refuse the order. They are not protected by a "just following orders" defense.
"And doesn't their pay and their family's healthcare depend on them remaining employed?"
Sure. But that does not excuse committing war crimes or otherwise knowingly following illegal orders.
Most of the time, the presumption is that illegal orders will be issued infrequently and by rogue elements in the armed forces -- so disobeying may have unpleasant immediate consequences (say, get thrown in the brig) but long-term they should prevail.
Right now? Well... that's the problem. But if significant numbers of the armed forces refused illegal orders, there's little that the administration can do. Which is why they've been cleaning house to kick out anybody at the top who might push back.
reply