Again this whole line of argument is irrelevant. It simply doesn't matter what Iran was actually willing to do if it had nukes. What mattered was the threat of what it could do to decision makers on the other side of the equation. What is irrefutable is the fact the US acted at least twice knowing full well Iran would respond by blocking transit thru the straight. That threat FAILED to DETER the US from attacking Iran. It also failed to prevent the US from continuing its blockade of Iranian ports.

You seem to be making the argument and please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong that if Iran had nukes this would somehow matter even less than the threat of straight blockage and presumably the US would still have attacked a nuclear armed Iran anyway? If that is what you believe then just come out and say it. I personally think that is batshit crazy and few believe this to be the case yet everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Again as you yourself pointed out nukes are a DETERRENT. The issue at hand is the credible threat of use not personal opinions of whether or not they would actually be used.

The hell it is. The Khomeini quote is over four decades old. Since then the regime through its own deeds have lived up to its founding principals by virtue of being the worlds largest state sponsor of terror wreaking havoc and destabilizing the entire region. It just massacred tens of thousands of its own people over the course of two days and injured hundreds of thousands more. The regime has demonstrated through its own actions it doesn't give a flying fuck about Iran. Iran is simply a resource to be exploited.

GitHub is an upstream Git host with a web interface and some automation stuff for CD/CI attached. All of this can be downloaded and installed in less than 5 minutes with any contemporary FOSS package manager for any OS that people have in use. There's absolutely nothing here you can't replace in less than 60 minutes with some cheap ass 5 Euro/Month virtual host, setup and config included.

Migrate and move along. It's Git, so you've got your backup right in your working copy too.

If you are aware why are you bringing up irrelevant sidecars about nuking Iran and US having nukes when this is not the topic at hand?

You need to be able to articulate a reason. I gave my reasons chief amongst them is the fact US attacked Iran anyway knowing in advance they would mess with traffic thru the straight. Not only that the US maintained their blockade even after Iran dropped theirs during the ceasefire after a month and a half of straight disruption. So where is the leverage? Do you believe having a nuke would have been a less effective deterrent at preventing the US attack? I don't think you'll find many people willing to accept that. I would characterize such a proposition as absurd and ridiculous.

I have argued no such thing. I did say if Iran had nukes the US wouldn't have attacked in the first place and I stand by that claim.

"We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah. For patriotism is another name for paganism. I say let this land burn. I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world." ~Ayatollah Khomeini

Now we are back to the nukes are worthless because they can't be used despite you yourself having stated the obvious nukes are a deterrent.

I disagree. See my quote from the founder of the regime above.

When one finds themselves arguing yes I know what I said is meaningless but it has value it is probably best to stop digging.

This is like saying if the US invaded Russia I do not believe that Russia would escalate to a nuclear conflict and is just as silly. Whether or not Russia lobs nukes the threat of such a response would have been sufficient to prevent the US attack in the first place.

I don't criticise the concept, but the concern is whether it has long-term adverse neurological effects, and a "quick study" doesn't sound like it'll tell us that.

It's essential we have more ways of dealing with treatment-resistant depression. We just need to make sure that they're less harmful than the depression itself. You willl, of course, recall that each and every single bad decision by medical boards to approve a treatment has been because they wanted to rush through a "medical cure" that turned into a medical hell.

I'm not stupid enough to say that mushrooms would cause long-term damage, but equally I'm not stupid enough to say that we should only look to see if it has short-term benefits.

The correct approach would seem to be to make sure there aren't any immediate hazards and, if there aren't, then to continue the study to check for consequences of long-term use whilst authorising short-term prescription use, on the understanding that the prescription use permission will be extended outwards to whatever the data cansafely tolerate. In other words, don't deprive people of necessary treatment but equally don't claim greater confidence than the data supports.

This tightrope has only got to be walked because nobody has been seriously studying depression for a very long time and now we've got a hunge backlog of cases that are refusing to shut up, making it hard to ignore. This research should have been done years ago, but politicians were far too ignorant and far too swayed by religious money. But that doesn't mean we should rush.

I'm sure the scientists know how to keep a level head, but the CEOs and the politicians clearly can't and they're the ones who will be making the demands.

While caps on aggregate volume of enriched uranium were temporary the monitoring regime and less than 4% enrichment level were permanent.

You are correct the JCPOA was only for nukes not missiles or other delivery vehicles.

They were still being sanctioned for the missiles and terrorism but they did receive relief from nuclear related sanctions in exchange. Sanctions relief I believe was the source of Israeli and US right wing opposition to JCPOA. It was obvious any lifting of any sanctions would mean more dollars directed to the IRGC to export terrorism and destabilize the region.

While nobody can prove a counterfactual it is likely they would be much further away from a nuke today if Trump didn't tear up the nuclear deal. Today we know at the very least there is 60% enriched Uranium and evidence of higher 85%+ enrichment levels.

These comparisons of harassing ships in a waterway with nukes are not just absurd they are ridiculous absurd. This is evidenced by the simple fact everyone knew in advance the Iranians would fuck with transit through the straight but the US knowing that waged war against the IRGC anyway. This wouldn't have been the case if Iran had nukes.

Like they care or ever even gave a fuck about Iran in the first place.

"We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah. For patriotism is another name for paganism. I say let this land [Iran] burn. I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world." ~Ayatollah Khomeini

The regime is just as justified in charging tolls and blocking transit as they were lobbing missiles and drones at 14 different countries in the region. All they've done was manage to solidify sentiment against them and strengthen western alliances including with the Israelis who just gave UAE iron dome.

It is effective at promoting regime collapse given they can't sell their oil thanks to the US blockade and are having trouble paying the 5k proxy forces to occupy Iran that they just imported from the region.

Again there would be no attack against Iran in the first place if they had nukes. So no not more progress or grief or whatever.

I clearly remember when OpenAI was inaugurated as a non-profit FOSS project and kicked off with private money by Elon Musk (IIRC a few million or so).

From where I stand Elon Musks complaints - which have been going on for quite some time now - are on solid ground and it looks to me as though Sam Altman and his camp took Musk and the rest of the initial team for a ride and turned OpenAI into a for-profit as soon as they had a useful product on their hand. Quite a few people left OpenAI when that happened, also because they were as concerned as Musk about the risks involved with building a superhuman AI.

If this all is the case - and, as I said it sure does look so to me - it's likely Altman and Co. are going to get sued for a bazillion dollars and OpenAI is going to be turned back into a pure FOSS project. ... That sure would be a good thing.

It is way more than that by now. Last estimate I heard months ago was 700k since the illegal destruction of USAID.

"As of November 5th, it estimated that U.S.A.I.D.'s dismantling has already caused the deaths of six hundred thousand people, two-thirds of them children."

https://www.newyorker.com/cult...

The way I see aid disruptions is akin to operating a bird feeder. If you start and make people depend on you then you are responsible for continuing. If you don't want to do it anymore there are responsible ways of shifting the function to other entities or drawing down and extricating yourself. Feeding USAID to a "wood chipper" is not among them. This is willful negligence with predictable results.

I'm trying to understand what thegarbz was trying to say. The context here isn't nuking Iran or the US having nukes it is Iran having nukes vs Iran blocking a straight.

I wish people would read the thread and if they want to reply reply in context to what is actually being discussed. What is the point of going off on these insane tangents about nuking Iran and parking nuclear submarines?

Rhetorical devices have no objective value. If you believe this then the nuke characterizations are just a waste of everyone's time.

No, Russia has the worlds largest nuclear arsenal.

No, your assertion US is powerless is absurd. The US currently chooses not to commit assets to the Hormuz kill box to unblock it during current "ceasefire". I wouldn't either. Way better ATM to cure Iran's oil curse and let nature take its course. The regime is having trouble paying the foreign proxies currently occupying Iran it imported just a few weeks ago and shit is only getting worse for them.

Just to be clear you are saying nukes are useless so literally anything is more effective than a useless nuke? A handgun would for example be a more effective deterrent than a nuclear weapon? Is it your position when people compare the effectiveness of nukes this is simply a rhetorical device given nukes are "useless"?

I'm going to turn your country into a glass parking lot is neither equivalent to or more effective than I'm going to block ships from traveling through a waterway.

Blocking or meaningfully threatening to block a choke point results in capital expenditures on infrastructure to prevent the choke point from persisting. So no it isn't "way more effective than any nuclear weapon they could ever get their hands on." in any way shape or form.

This is further evidenced by the fact the US blockade persisted despite Iran having recently cried uncle and lifting their blockade of the straight for a 24 hour period while expecting the US to drop theirs. When the other side does not care about the damage you are causing sufficiently to lift a blockade it is obviously not the same as nuclear weapons. The comparison is obviously ridiculous.

With some exceptions regional hydrocarbon extractors deliberately decided not to invest in bypassing the Hormuz choke-point. They likely presumed worst case US would intervene to open it by force. Nobody is going to make that mistake again.

This nonsense is absurd on its face.

Iran now has even fewer allies after lobbing missiles and drones at everyone in the region. The UAE was one of Iran's top targets. Now the fucking Israelis are sending Iron dome to UAE.

I wish people would cool their jets /w cheapest to build. Renewables are merely Gresham's Law in action. It only works initially then prices go to plaid when share of energy mix increases and full cost to buffer and or oversubscribe renewables hits. You can support it for other reasons yet humanity currently lacks the technology for cost to be amongst them.

While I support large scale wind projects I do question the sanity of offshore vs onshore projects in the US. It seems cheaper to go for increased hub height onshore vs added capital and maintenance costs of offshore.

What is the basis for this claim? What energy shocks ahead?

Making it continuous avoids having strange behaviours near bracket limits (where a pay raise can result in an actual pay cut). This is something the rich fear as much as anyone, hence the anxiety around whether earning more will get you more. With an S-curve, you can provide that as a hard guarantee whilst also making the current notion of high-scoring (billion and trillion dollar pay packets) completely senseless economically -- without denying the rich the glory if that's the kink they're into.

It also means that you don't have an "upper bracket" where people well beyond it are essentially getting free cash. It's also more computer-friendly. It also becomes possible to make a much higher maximum tax.

But, yeah, you're correct in principle.