So glad to see someone doing this. I like to believe that the Ukrainians will also be able to export their "dumb" tractors once the war is resolved. I had lunch with a friend of mine who retired from the VC business and he asked me what kind of company I would start if I could start one right now. I told him probably a "dumb printer" / "dumb TV" company with a fully open designs. If the rejection of the "trade your privacy for cheap products" push back is actually widespread (instead of anecdotal) then such a company would do well I believe.
I know several people who have met online like this. I'd concur with the authors that working together to achieve an objective is kind of table stakes for an actual relationship. I've always felt that meeting someone in class and working together on homework and what not was something like that. But the key for me is that when you work with someone on a project you get a better understanding of how they approach things and how their values stack up.
Value stacks are something I heard about in a "Marriage and Family" class in college where the professor discussed that if you value say "economy" more than "time", you spend a lot of time to save a few cents, but if you reverse that stack order your spend extra cents to avoid spending the time. If the person you're dating has a very different stack than you do, it will be a source of problems going forward and doesn't suggest you'll have a successful marriage.
Playing video games together should certainly be a way to get a handle on how someone's values stack up relative to yours.
>if you value say "economy" more than "time", you spend a lot of time to save a few cents, but if you reverse that stack order your spend extra cents to avoid spending the time. If the person you're dating has a very different stack than you do, it will be a source of problems going forward and doesn't suggest you'll have a successful marriage.
This exact difference exists between my wife and I. For example, when her car needed a replacement part, she enlisted her dad in an effort to find the cheapest part on eBay, attempt to replace it themselves, and then shop around for the cheapest mechanic to install the part they bought. When my car needed a part replaced, I took it to the dealership where I bought it. I figured they'd have the part on hand and know how to do it right. They would overcharge, but not a criminal amount.
We've come to an understanding: I like to use money to reduce stress. She likes to save money because it gives her a feeling of accomplishment. Not very different from hobbies.
> Value stacks are something I heard about in a "Marriage and Family" class in college where the professor discussed that if you value say "economy" more than "time", you spend a lot of time to save a few cents, but if you reverse that stack order your spend extra cents to avoid spending the time. If the person you're dating has a very different stack than you do, it will be a source of problems going forward and doesn't suggest you'll have a successful marriage.
Adding onto this, I feel like the child/children from a marriage like this also get mixed signals from their parents on what they should value in things like this. So firstly it confuses them and secondly, if they pick a side of any of their parent then they would feel like the other parent doesn't get them which might make them feel bad.
For a good marriage/parentalhood imo, there should be a common layer of value stack ie. bedrock of shared values and trust in a relationship. Disagreements can occur but with the idea of we are more similar than different. Maybe Video games help in either checking that or measuring that. I am not sure if competitive games better reflect it than relaxed games but honestly I feel like if you are already into a relationship and say video games don't work, then you also adapt to the other person values.
If you had asked me in 1995 what was the one thing[1] that Boston could change in order to compete with Silicon Valley I would have told you "Make non-compete agreements illegal" Companies in the Bay Area whined about it all the time but it kept the ecosystem vibrant and a lot of technology exists because of that. In the late 90's early '00s a big reason for a lot of 'high profile' people quitting their cushy job and setting out in a startup was because 'management' wouldn't allow them to move forward on an idea that they felt would "disrupt our own business." Those same people could quit, create a start up, and make that idea real anyway. So this is excellent progress for Washington State. I wonder how many ex-Microsoft employees this effects.
[1] I vacillated between this and California law giving ownership of what you worked on in your own time on your own equipment yours, except the latter was pretty effectively neutered by big corps defining their businesses more vaguely.
Massachusetts used to be one of the most favourable states for non-compete agreements, with strong legal protection and support, favouring companies. Not sure if that has changed since the last time I looked (been a few years).
Yes. At the time, non-compete agreements were legal (and commonplace) in Massachusetts. I haven't followed the Boston tech news for a decade so they may have changed that. But I had this exact conversation with Senator Ed Markey who was a congressman at the time. He was in the Bay Area and I was one of the people who were invited to a dinner he held on "Technology and Innovation."
> Framework Laptop is more expensive than a Macbook Air with all around worse hardware.
Is it though? I'd agree the hardware is less capable but if your Macbook anything is really just one 'top case' repair away from being more expensive. RAM failure is 'motherboard replace', the display? it is similarly expensive to replace.
So I would agree that it is more expensive to purchase a Framework laptop than a Macbook laptop, but also feel it is more expensive to own a Macbook laptop than a Framework laptop. Also I just replaced the screen on my FW13 not because it was broken but because they have one with 4x the pixels on it now. That's not something I could have done with the Macbook.
What is the probability of those things failing during the time you have the MacBook? I've had Apple portables since they were called PowerBooks and the only problem I've had that wasn't caused by violence was a battery swelling, and that cost me something like $120 to replace, not a big deal. If you add 5% to the price, that's probably about your expected cost for repairs or premature replacements if you don't have a habit of damaging your equipment.
If'd rather not take a low risk of a big repair/replacement bill and you don't mind helping Big Fruit make a bit more of a profit, you can pay them $50-150/year (depending on model) to take that risk. Multiply that by the number of years you expect to own the device to come up with a "real" cost including repairs/replacements.
My Framework 13 is a bit long in the tooth. I can pay 529 EUR to get a new mainboard and keep the same case/battery/speakers/camera/keyboard/mouse/screen/etc. Or, I can replace the keyboard for 32 EUR.
It's not just repairs, to upgrade a Mac you have to throw away all that perfectly working hardware just to get a new mainboard.
> I can pay 529 EUR to get a new mainboard and keep the same case/battery/speakers/camera/keyboard/mouse/screen/etc.
Or you can spend 50 euros more and get an entire new laptop that is not only much more powerful than your old framework but is almost as repairable: the neo.
At some point your argument begins to work against you, you should just have talked about the keyword repair being cheap. Not how you can get a new motherboard for "only" 530 euros.
> Or you can spend 50 euros more and get an entire new laptop that is not only much more powerful than your old framework but is almost as repairable: the neo.
You forget to mention - less powerful than his old FW 13 with new mainboard/CPU.
I assume he's referring to the AMD AI 340 for 530 euros.[0]
Macbook Neo 31% faster ST speed and a bit slower on the MT.[1]
I wouldn't call the Neo less powerful than his 530 euros upgrade. In fact, I'd much rather have the faster ST speed in this kind of laptop. Most of the apps you're running with this class of laptops will be ST bound anyway.
You can literally get a brand new Macbook Neo using Apple EDU pricing for the price of a slower AMD motherboard upgrade. This is why Framework is an absolutely terrible deal overall. I'm not even convinced that Framework is better for the environment since Apple laptops last extremely long and will very often have second and third hand buyers.
> What is the probability of those things failing during the time you have the MacBook?
and
> ... you can pay them $50-150/year (depending on model) to take that risk.
These things are related, Apple knows what the failure rate in the field for their hardware is, and they "price in" that failure rate into their AppleCare costs. On my iPad pro, that's $90/year.
That said, it is entirely a 'bet' on your part as to whether or not you're in a position to cover costs of repair/replacement in the event of damage. That depends on a lots of factors and includes how much you can tolerate not having the equipment for a while, Etc.
I think the article downplays the element that the attack probably achieved its goal which was not to actually hit something at Diego Garcia, but to show that thing 2500 miles from Iran are potentially targetable by Iran. That starts conversations like the one here and in other fora about whether or not Iran would limit themselves to military targets (Russia doesn't as an example) and if not how could Europe and its East Asian allies protect literally everything with their finite supply of defensive units.
I heard the same about the number and location of French nuclear war heads, or their exact red lines. If you tell the enemy your limit they're gonna sit exactly on it.
Attacks on Israel clearly show that Iran - just like Russia - sees the civilian population as a legitimate target. Question of tactics remains, of course.
Except it would be very weird goal to achieve because it's only give more reasons to bomb whole country into oblivion and justify deployment of ground troops.
They’re at war. The US and Israel are bombing everything anyway.
Strategically, Diego Garcia is a forward operating base for irreplaceable B-52 and B-2 bombers. Placing them at risk on the ground seems like a reckless call, more likely the US pulls those resources back to the US.
I’m not rooting for Iran, but since the US has who they have making the calls, Iran has obvious strategic cards to play - escalation benefits them.
Could be. But won't be. The flying time to target is mere minutes, and taking the plane from zero (not even crew inside) to air takes much longer than that.
Why would Iran end up further isolated due to this war, and out of escalation? (your sentence is slightly ambiguous so I assume that you are referring to it.) If it successfully asserts control over the Strait as it seems to presently be doing, it should be able to negotiate a peace favorable to itself. Even with the status quo, I don't know how that figures into things, but the US has temporarily lifted sanctions on Iranian oil.
I don't follow the news very well, but from what I know the claim that you make isn't very obviously true but needs some evidence for it to stand.
I think this is the elephant in the roomt - in terms of quantifiable goals, Iran is winning this thing. I think they're going to want to punish the US and Israel to an extent where they will be reluctant to feel this particular sting again, and they want to assert their ability to control the strait. And it's working! They're clearly demonstrating that the US cannot simply decide when this is over and dictate terms, because Iran can pinch off an important vein of global commerce and probably sustain that pressure for far longer than it can be tolerated by other economies.
They've already gotten one concession in terms of this temporary sanctions relief, even as Trump frames it as a domestic emergency measure and repeatedly declares total victory each day of the conflict. They also got him to back off on targeting their power plants by promising to retaliate in kind against the power infrastructure of US aligned states in range.
I think the US has the ability to beat Iran in a fight, but it does not have the preparation or the resolve to do so at this time, because this is some halfcocked nonsense plan with amorphous goals that they thought would be over in a week.
maybe they aren't as worried about that as they should be. maybe america isn't as worried about that as it should be.
but, what are you saying? it would be weird for iran to act in a way that might provoke escalation? you mean in the totally unprovoked war israel/america launched against them?
I don't know which country you're from, but in most countries, "our troops may get bombed if we join this war" is a very strong public argument against joining the war.
Just look at Trump's latest attempt to enlist his "allies" into sending warships to the Strait of Hormuz, and what a resounding success it was.
Maintaining peace is not the same as restoring peace. Perhaps the American executive should have extrapolated the consequences of their actions using a model of the real world and not the fever dream they seem to be in. I am all for the Europeans standing their ground and not letting themselves get dragged into a conflagration not of their desiring nor of their making.
Trump and co are finding out that FAFO goes both ways. Much to the cost of all of us, Americans, Iranians, Europeans and the rest of us.
When the Nazi regime proliferated, do you think the allies considered it of their own desire or their own making? Should they have prevented themselves from getting dragged into WW2? Or was it good they allowed themselves to get dragged into WW2 and disarm the Nazi regime?
Suppose the Allies just moved away and made "lebensraum" for the Nazi regime, would you have called it "standing their ground and not letting themselves get dragged into a conflagration not of their desiring nor of their making" ??
I think most people would understand a different course of action when reading "standing ground"...
Of course there are costs that come with peace, and if we postpone those costs for too long, the average expenditure can rise compared to timely intervention.
I'm explaining why a European holds this position, Iran approaching nuclear weapons capability, approaching ICBM launch capability, approaching re-entry vehicle capability is the "lebensraum" we shouldn't tolerate.
Watching from the sidelines disapprovingly, while benefiting in this sense from the US/Israeli mission objectives, and even being "willing to go as far as" effectively posing in a security theater role (since a single shot fired would imply abortion of the mission), wasting tax payer money on symbolic gestures, is what I protested.
But it matters little now, European countries are starting to turn around and think a little deeper than the b-hurt mentioned earlier.
Lebensraum? Lebensraum is a very nice word. Israel has been the only country in this that is engaging in Lebensraum. Europe would have negative benefit in joining a stupid war created by fanatical Israeli and American governments.
I don't vouch for the incentives nor actions of Israel, I vouch for why a nonzero number of Europeans (including me) think Europe should get involved in disarming Iran, and prevent it from attaining the "lebensraum" to threaten Europe with nuclear weapons.
Why not? Then I should in WW2 times have said we must oppose jews and work our hardest to disarm jews and their defenders. Hitler did Lebensraum? I don't vouch for the incentives nor actions of Israel.
You seem to have some kind of hallucinatory issue where you see chemical weapons where there are none, and accuse a country that has never done and shown no signs of Lebensraum of doing so while completely ignoring the only country in that region actively doing Lebensraum.
If you worry about Lebensraum you should be working urgently to control and make toothless the only country thats actually doing Lebensraum, not live in made up stories with of your own making that have absolutely zero even speculative sense and getting scared off of them.
> Why not? Then I should in WW2 times have said we must oppose jews and work our hardest to disarm jews and their defenders. Hitler did Lebensraum? I don't vouch for the incentives nor actions of Israel.
I don't understand your argument?
> You seem to have some kind of hallucinatory issue where you see chemical weapons where there are none, and accuse a country that has never done and shown no signs of Lebensraum of doing so while completely ignoring the only country in that region actively doing Lebensraum.
If you believe such discussion would be fruitful I am more than willing to describe what I see when, and how I collate evidence and arrive at my conclusions. I did ask you if you watched the long multi-segment version of Mahsa Amini at the fashion police, or just a short one.
Also take note that anyone else reading along will think it strange that of all possible manners of dying you mentioned the right mode before I mentioned it to you, basically saying you also see it.
It seems you don't understand the concept of lebensraum, I'm not worried about European lebensraum you seem to be referring to: while we failed to learn our lesson after WW1, the mandatory education programmes after WW2 seem to have worked much better, and European nations haven't been lobbing chemical weapons at each other for roughly 100 years now, it works, and we know it works, we disapprove of Iran's regime, not because of their religion (there are muslims in the West as well), not because of skin tone, nor because of the oil under their feet, we disapprove of Iran's regime because we recognize our former collective selves (by education, since almost every direct witness has withered away by the passage of time).
I'm worried about Iran's concept of "lebensraum" involving the capability to threaten Europe with nuclear weapons. Yes Russia, Pakistan, India, China, ... can already do that. Our inability to disarm established nuclear powers should not be confused for acceptance of upcoming nuclear powers. If we can nip those in the bud, we could, we should and I assure you we will.
Yes, you seem to be having some issue with your glasses or monitor today, so I will just write it again to make it clearer.
Israel is the only country in this conflict who has and is engaging in Lebensraum.
I think your problem with your monitor might cover a large swath of the screen so it is beneficial for me to repeat the key text a few more times, so that it has a better chance of getting past your screen's problems:
Israel is the only country in this conflict who has and is engaging in Lebensraum.
Israel is the only country in this conflict who has and is engaging in Lebensraum.
Israel is the only country in this conflict who has and is engaging in Lebensraum.
Israel is the only country in this conflict who has and is engaging in Lebensraum.
>Also take note that anyone else reading along will think it strange that of all possible manners of dying you mentioned the right mode before I mentioned it to you, basically saying you also see it.
That's because its the only logical reading of your brain machinations I can think of when seeing a video of a person fainting, when literally no other news in the world seems to say chemical weapons about her, even if it mentions chemical attacks on other people. Again, you have another weird thing where you feel a country would bring out obscure chemical war agents just to kill a single person. Chemical agents are for the battlefield to kill thousands of people. For a single person, any perfectly mundane poison or chemical is fine even if that were actually the case.
Who said anything about European Lebensraum?
Israel is ALREADY AND EXPLICITLY ENGAGING IN LEBENSRAUM. Israel is the only country doing lebensraum. Iran has shown no interest in Lebensraum. If you are so concerned about Lebensraum, go attack Israel and decapitate their military capabilities.
Both Iran and Israel are governed by religious fanaticism, if you wish to twist and redefine Lebensraum to be something ridiculous it clearly isn't then Israel is engaging in DOUBLE LEBENSRAUM, not just the original Hitleric definition of Lebensraum but also your completely made up imaginary definition of Lebensraum. Again, go launch a military campaign against Israel if you are so worried about that.
Since you love puzzles so much, I will give you a much better puzzle with clear objective answers. Tell me who said this quote, and whether the nations he mentioned have ever threatened his country:
"We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets for our air force."
It's Martin van Creveld, an Israeli military theorist and military historian.
To my knowledge European nations have never threatened his country, if you mean the modern state of Israel.
If you refer to the holocaust during WW2, then yes multiple European nations were collaborators and participated in the holocaust.
If you refer to earlier events, then also yes, there is a long history of persecution and Diaspora.
As I said, there are many nations that possess nuclear weapons, the non-proliferation treaties don't describe how to treat possessors of nuclear weapons, it describes agreements on how to prevent new nations from acquiring the capability.
Can you please tell me if you watched the long multi-segment video of the surveillance footage surrounding Mahsa Aminis death, or just the single scene of her collapse?
No, you first tell me. Why shouldn't Europe want to completely eliminate and contain Israel when Israeli government and Israeli agents say deranged things like this. Iran hasn't said they want to nuke every single European country. An Israeli did.
Israel is engaging in Lebensraum. You accused Iran of Lebensraun. Iran never did Lebensraum. Israel does. You accuse Iran of threatening Europe with nukes. Iran never threatened Europe with nukes. Israel has threatened Europe with nukes. It is very clear who Europeans should neutralize.
If European countries had to justify every utterance by European historians they'd be busy for a long time...
You just keep ignoring how non-proliferation works, if you find evidence that Israel is approaching nuclear weapons capabilities, approaching mature ICBM capabilities, and if you have evidence that they are not quite there yet, then YES nuclear powers should collaborate on neutralizing the threat. There is disagreement if we are or are not too late on North Korea, hence why many oppose attempting to disarm it. But in the case of Iran it's not too late yet.
All the nuclear superpowers essentially developed their capabilities in sufficient stealth to attain those powers.
As I have stated elsewhere I find Iran and Israel not particularly better than either, and Israel worse in terms of psychotic unprovoked violence to others and things which the other parties they attacked have never done to Israel (poisoning other countries crops via plane!!). In that light, I will be frank, I don't mind Iran getting nukes. If Iran getting nukes puts a balance in the power differential and silences Israel's belligerence and reduces their tendency to attack anything and everything due to MAD like logic that would be a great achievement.
So you are embarrassed that your leaders don't want their soldiers to die in a war started by another country without providing any semblance of justification?
...I'm just glad that European politicians take their soldiers' lives more seriously than the court of public opinions. Well, at least some of them. That's the mark of being an adult.
I am willing to hear you out on this, but the Pentagon employs a lot of personnel, can you demonstrate that the sentiment you describe was actually representative?
Clearly those who do believe in this intervention don't have the same incentive to speak up as those that disagree with it.
It is also rather vague to conflate warnings with disagreement:
They can believe in the validity of an approach but still have the legal obligation to not just inform the president of the values and benefits of such a mission, but also warn him of any potential negative outcomes.
Warning someone about a path of action, is not equivalent to disagreeing with that path of action, it can be their job description to provide such warnings.
That said, I would like to read more about what you are referring to, to make sure we are talking about the same things.
> Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Dan Caine has been advising President Trump and top officials that a military campaign against Iran could carry significant risks, in particular the possibility of becoming entangled in a prolonged conflict, according to two sources with knowledge of those internal discussions.
"that a military campaign against Iran could carry significant risks, "
specifically
"could carry"
Sounds like people doing their job, and informing a president of potential outcomes, precisely what I predicted above. The media always makes things seem more adversarial than what it turns out to be.
Your comments make it clear that you are a propagandist and maybe even a bot. I assume that you can comprehend English, but are choosing to be obtuse. If that is not the case, and you still cannot understand the warnings, ask Claude or some other AI to help you.
Iran doesn't have nukes and had agreed to never build any, they fully complied with all audits.
You seem extremely confused, its really strange why you aren't demanding completely bombing and destroying the actual nukes in the only Middle Eastern country that has illegal nukes.
Hah, I'm so used to thinking about these missiles as conventional that I forgot it actually means Iran was building the capability to nuke Europe. Or more accurately - to deter Europe with nukes while they export terrorism globally.
The only Middle Eastern country that has illegal nukes and doesn't deny the theories that they would nuke the whole world, including innocent countries when they felt "threatened" and they feel threatened by anything and everything, is not Iran.
It's not just about Iran, there are videos of some Israeli people bragging about how they throw rocks and fire grenades and rockets at Palestinian settlements, its quite clear that some people including elements of government and military have become quite deranged, which is all the more concerning given their lack of comment clarifying they don't believe in Samson option. Obviously if it was a question like "Do you think Jews control the world and own all the banks?" would be ridiculous question unworthy of an answer, but asking if the Samson option is real or false is a perfectly reasonable question especially given Israeli elements like Pollard are claiming that more extreme version of the option as true. The modern Israeli government has a policy of declaring anything and everything antisemitic, and obviously, the next step after "knowing" something is sufficiently anti semitic is some kind of military action as evidenced by the events of past few years.
Iran has always obliged with inspections of its nuclear program. It has never built any nukes. It had agreed to stop refining nuclear materials in negotiations, and then America and Israel backstabbed it and attacked Iran during the negotiations, to also speak nothing of the various times Israeli military action killed negotiators in progress.
In light of all this, it is now upon you to tell me which is false and which is "trolling".
Do you believe Israel doesn't have illegal nukes?
Or are you thinking Israel hasn't yet clarified or denied the extreme version of the so called Samson policy?
Why would wanting to die for a war caused by America and Israel be a "show of strength", that'd instead be a show of being fucking chumps esp after America continually insulted and threatened them. I do think Europe has a potential good role they can commit, and that would be in solving the major nuclear threat in the Middle East: to make public and decommission or transfer in safe keeping all the illegal nukes Israel has.
Do you? Your whataboutism and dismissing concerns about this war as being butthurt is the dumbest and most morally bankrupt response anyone can make. I absolutely condemn the Iranian regime for what they have done, but that in no way excuses what the Israeli and US regimes have done. This was an unnecessary, unprovoked, world-destabilizing and ultimately counterproductive war. Please stop
LMFAO I had tried to engage him since he was insisting so much I thought he might have something of substance. This is what I got at the end of that hole:
Obviously, I heartily condemn all attempts by Iranian government to execute peaceful civilians in foreign countries just like I heavily condemn Israel's illegal assassinations of peaceful civilian scientists in Iran and worldwide. In both cases, the perpetrators must be brought to a neutral country and punished.
> I am not asking you if you condemn what happened to her, I think everyone condemns the fact she died in the hands of the regime,
to which you respond:
> Obviously, I heartily condemn all attempts by Iranian government to execute peaceful civilians in foreign countries
So you change the question from "what actually happened to Mahsa Amini?" to "would you condemn?" even though I predict that any responder already agrees with me and condemns her death in the hands of the regime.
Mahsa Amini was not in a foreign country from the perspective of Iran.
That's nothing, Israelis happily kill their own Prime Ministers. But obviously I condemn Iran and I condemn Israel killing peaceful civilians, the law and the morality applies to all. I mentioned killing civilians in foreign countries as it is strictly worse, as bad as killing innocent people in your own country is, at least it also does not involve the violation of sovereignty and peace of random foreign countries.
It is well known that IDF also uses civilians as human shields, so it is quite strange that you only mention the evils and immoral acts committed by one country and not both. None of the countries in that region are very nice by Western standards.
If it is the ICCPR, then it appears Israel is also a signer and as I said Israel is equally prone to violations of human rights on and off of its territory. So again I do not see what was the point of specifically calling out Iran for it.
I am referring to a different treaty, which you would realize if you took over from beedeebeedee to look up the video of Mahsa Amini's death and analyzed it critically.
All I can see is a video of a woman supposedly fainting and then this being declared her death.
If you are trying to insinuate some absurd nonsense like this is evidence of chemical weapons, then be straight. I don't see anything about her cause of death other than speculating police brutality.
This doesn't mention Mahsa and claims this was done without the state's knowledge by random actors. And that it's most probably some random household agent not nErVe gAs.
Again, you tell me what is the significance of all this to the Iran-Israel war which Israel started not Iran. Both countries are shitholes, I don't have any particular love for either.
Since we are doing wild theories, let us add some more of our own.
Mossad and its private arms are doing covert operations to corrupt European elections, oh wait, they are already doing so.
Israel is spraying chemical weapons on neighboring countries crops, oh wait they are already doing so.
Israel has 400 nuclear warheads, oh wait they already do.
Strange, I didn't seem to need to go to even speculations and unverified theories to get to these. I wonder how far we can get the tally if go into speculations.
> By such definition, all of science is "sealioning"
You are taking an overly literal interpretation of my comment and offering more sophistry in response. Apologies for the short reply but none of the rest seems relevant.
That is true, but I did not use your comment to define sealioning. Instead, I offered a definition and said that it matches a particular behavior. To claim that I am including scientific research in that definition is to claim the behavior in question as such. Hence, why I disregarded the rest of that comment as further sophistry: you seem to be arguing because you want to appear smart or correct more than you want to be so. As I said in my initial comment, you do not need to intend to troll in order to troll.
Not really. Because no one in Europe wants to bomb Iran into oblivion, if for no other reason but the fact that the Europeans (and Turkey) would face another massive refugee crisis.
The only people wanting to continue this war are the U.S. and Israel (and maybe Saudi Arabia?) and even Trump is clearly looking for an off ramp.
This is most likely a way for Iran to tell Europe to do what they can to end this otherwise they will drag Europe into this mess as well.
The war is extremely bad for business for Saudi Arabia and has already cost them enormous amounts of money. It is causing damage to their oil refineries that will take years to repair.
The only person who gains anything out of this is Netanyahu and his friends. Everyone else loses, including the Israeli people.
Europe to do what to stop the war? EU cant even stop war on their own borders. And we seen what Trump buddies think about EU in their leaked Signal chat.
Also it's not like EU and UK actually have any military capacity to bomb Iran even if they wanted because again everything they do have is going to Ukraine already.
I've been hearing similar things from a lot of different directions. The underlying issue about "you cannot replace time" is one that is good to internalize early. A number of people I know who "missed" their kids growing up because they were working hard to make lots of money. You can't go buy "time with my kids when they were growing up."
Agentic coding very much feels like a "video game" in the sense of you pull the lever and open the loot box and sometimes it's an epic +10 agility sword and sometimes its just grey vendor trash. Whether or not it generates "good" or even "usable" code fades to the background as the thrill of "I just asked for a UI to orchestrate micro services and BLAMMO there it was!" moves to the fore.
reply