I wouldn't mind seeing the British monarchy get abolished as well. It's far outlived any purpose it may have had. Even without them actually participating in government they are basically just celebrities living off the social welfare of the people.
The older I get the more I appreciate the value of a shared mythology. In some cases that is religion. Or a creed, as it was for a long time in America. But I think it is very valuable to have it for a healthy functioning society. It feels like we have lost it in America, which does not make me optimistic for the future.
I wonder if the monarchy serves that role for the UK. Might be better to keep it.
The monarchy is demonstrably powerless and unwilling to fight the destruction of UK democracy. Right-wing populism has infiltrated all sides of the political landscape there, and with it all the self-destructing ideas we have come to love: defunding of all public services, increase in policing and control, destruction of worker protections, tax cuts for the rich, tax increase for the poor, etc.
I live in France, our common mythology, our Roman National as it is called here, is that we beheaded our king. Yet, the most authoritarian people you know will still claim the legacy of our revolution, of De Gaulle and Jeanne d'Arc. Even worse, this mythology is poised as under threat by a made-up out-group and used to seed reactionary fear and divisiveness amidst our nation.
I was a fairly ardent anti-monarchist. The problem is, I had put my faith in politicians to unite the UK. The problem is, there isn't much mileage in uniting the UK at the moment, or competence in government.
The only real way that the monarchy can survive is if the kingdom stays united.
Also, president boris, stamer or farage is just a humiliation I can't really cope with.
> Also, president boris, stamer or farage is just a humiliation I can't really cope with.
I definitely appreciate the idea that if you lose confidence in the PM you can fire them pretty quickly. Being stuck with a crappy president for four long years kinda sucks.
> Also, president boris, stamer or farage is just a humiliation I can't really cope with.
The British royal family does get some bad press from time to time, but the recent string of British PMs really does serve to remind us all that the bar is really low :)
I don't like hereditary privilege at all, but the enormous constitutional headache removing the monarchy would cause might well outweight the practical benefits of doing away with it.
Personally, I like having a figurehead head of state that is subject to a directly elected Parliament.
The King may have cerimonital power but he can never exercise it. As was proved in the Glorious Revolution we can remove our head of state anytime we like.
I would much rather see the House of Lords reformed than the monarchy ended.
I am British. I think QE2 made a good job out of this cursed tradition. Charles is a crank, but a crank that I happen to agree with, so fine. But I suspect things are going to go off the rails with his failson William.
> I would much rather see the House of Lords reformed than the monarchy ended.
I'd be very careful about that one. Making it elected would be a terrible idea. There are some reforms that are possible, but they'd need to be very narrow (for example, limiting the size, and limiting tenure).
Technically he's the head of the armed forces, and also can dissolve the government.
In practice with a Hitler type he could dissolve the government and there'd be new elections. I guess if the people voted the same guy back that might be the end of it but it's a bit of a failsafe to this kind of thing https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42943973
It's the other way around: they're wealthy holders of land, like the rest of the dukes and such, who control large chunks of the land in the UK and own large businesses. The UK benefits from the royal family allowing the use of their land, including historic buildings, at a relatively low cost.
Another example: the Duke of Westminster is worth $12B and owns a large chunk of London outright, including a ton of large, notable buildings. (Also, I think, the Twinings tea company.)
There's the Crown Estate, which is controlled by the crown, but the family also owns the Duchy of Cornwall (45K acres) and the Duchy of Lancaster (45K acres), as well as numerous private holdings that are less visible. And this is predominantly highly developed city space.
If not then it's still the same question: how does the UK benefit from having the royal family allowing this rather than just some other entity that owns the land and rents it out at low cost? Why does that entity need to be a monarchy?
Mostly: tourism. The royal family is widely thought to bring in a lot more than it costs.
Also, they provide a lot of face-time for the government. They show up at a lot of events, the kind of thing for which you might hire a celebrity to give it a sense of occasion. The actual dollar value of that is hard to estimate, and it's less valuable than the tourism, but the fact that people still want it suggests that it's providing something of value.
But this seems like the fallacy of comparing a benevolent and somewhat reasonable monarchy to a malicious or foolish non-monarchist government. Any system can wind up with stupid people doing stupid things. The difference is if you get one stupid person in as king they could sell everything off or cause who knows what damage, whereas with a more diffuse government one person can't do as much harm. (The current situation in the US also shows how it's important to keep the power diffused rather than centralized in one person.)
> if you get one stupid person in as king they could sell everything off
Thats the point, its not trivial to sell it off, because it was set up to counteract a fooling king in exchange for a stipend.
This system was explicitly designed to take an asset from the crown and place it in trust so that the king could get a steady income, ostensibly from assets that had unpredictable income.
Thus the crown estate was born, which has a bunch of rules, most notably about taking on debt.
I intended to object, but apparently the royals cost the government ~500MM GBP/year. Which is a lot, but less than 5% of their tourism industry, so it seems possible.
They definitely do, but a lot of this admittedly is to do with the ability they have to raise revenue on things they privately own; only a handful of Royals are on what is called the Civil List (direct payment from government for their jobs, which are not inconsiderable.)
> I wouldn't mind seeing the British monarchy get abolished as well.
Strongly suggest the USA leaves tinkering with other countries' political systems alone for at least a generation. No standing.
The British are actually quite conflicted about the monarchy.
It tends to be bound up in what a lot of people used to observe was the distinction between Royalism and Queenism (or Elizabethism specifically).
We don't much like the institution in the same way (only narrow approval overall), but we pretty much loved the Queen as close to unconditionally as we love anyone (she's like one or two rungs down from Judi Dench and the late Terry Wogan), and would not have wanted to see it go in her lifetime because it would just have been weird.
Now, not so much. Charles has yet to earn that kind of affection. Though surprisingly he is getting there, and Camilla's popularity (always a very serious problem for the monarchy) is genuinely surprising because she turns out to be a) really a friendly, kind person and b) genuinely liked by her step-family.
I view the money we pay the Danish royal family as the cost of not having a bloody revolution some 150-200 years ago.
When you consider how many people and how much wealth was destroyed during/following revolutions like the French or Russian, and the compound interest of that wealth over 150 years, the pennies we pay to the royals todays is probably cheap.
Just saying, if you went back in time and opted for a revolution instead of a constitutional monarchy, you'd probably be poorer today -- compound growth over 150 years is no joke.
Brit here. I used to think of them as celebrities who entertain the tourists but there's a Chesterton's fence thing where you shouldn't abolish them without understanding their deterrent effect to dictators taking over. See the other European countries who abolished their monarchies and got Stalin, Putin, Hitler, Mussolini, Napoleon and so on.
I think their "branding" is misguided because I would feel literally on top of the world if the people who hated me accused me of being queen. Absolutely nothing in the world would be more effective and getting me to continue down that path. I would probably start wearing a crown and trade my office for a throne room.
The problem with demonizing people is that demons are badass and powerful.
Withdrawal symptoms :P The buyer decides whether their problem is a good one to have and whether the solution is adequate. Even when it's, objectively, not.
The big problem with MUMPS is that as the "Massachusetts General Hospital Utility Multi-Programming System", it does not work well for development in other states. There's been some experimentation with using it in Wisconson, but a W is not an M.
It's an ideal language for creating business reports, which is what it was originally designed to do. It has built-in commands for reading randomly or sequentially from a database and it has extensive report-formatting options.
It has other application capabilities, of course, but business reporting (especially complex reports) are its sweet spot.
To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand the joke. The humour is extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of CSS the joke will go over a typical viewer's head. There's also the author's nihilistic outlook, which is deftly woven into his post - his personal philosophy draws heavily from Chris Coyier's classic blogs, for instance. The fans understand this stuff; they have the intellectual capacity to truly appreciate the depths of this joke, to realise that it's not just funny - it says something deep about LIFE. As a consequence people who criticise being unable to select text within the blog post truly ARE idiots. I'm smirking right now just imagining one of those addlepated simpletons scratching their heads in confusion as Bologov's genius wit unfolds itself in their browsers. What fools.. how I pity them.
And yes, by the way, i DO have a tattoo of the Lobotomized Owl selector. And no, you cannot see it. It's for the ladies' eyes only- and even then they have to demonstrate that they're within 5 IQ points of my own (preferably lower) beforehand. Nothin personnel kid.
> But even in the US, no one I've ever had the option to vote for (and who had even a remote chance of winning) would ever consider lifting these sanctions. So I am similarly powerless to change this situation.
Not saying Obama’s foreign policy was perfect, but he did do the Iran nuclear deal which lifted some sanctions, and started the process of normalizing relations with Cuba. Like so many other things, these were immediately undone by his successor…
Obama acknowledging that the US overthrew an Iranian democracy for the benefit of oil companies definitely helped and could have ushered in a new era of understanding. Sadly, America then decided to elect someone with a toddler’s understanding of history and geopolitics which destroyed all that opportunity for a generation.
If you are referring to the Mosadegh story, that “apology” started with Bill Clinton and Madeline Albright trying to appease the current regime in Iran. Sadly, the “apology” itself is meddling with the historical facts. The Mosadegh government was no more or no less democratic than any other Prime Minister in that era. He had prorogued the parliament and waged a war against the Constitution and tried to elevate himself over the law and depose the ruling monarch. The Soviets and their affiliates and comrades on the ground supported the move (hoping to remove him next and extend the Bolshevik revolution to the Persian Gulf,) and the US and many Iranians did not want him to succeed.
In any case facts of the story are so brazenly changed in the apology’s telling of the story that regardless of which side you are on, in and of itself is a political interference against the will of the Iranian people. Please also note that the golden era of Iranian prosperity was the decade and a half when he was removed from power by the monarch.
Proroguing in parliaments is nothing new or anti-democratic. Canada had its parliament prorogued for the first 4 months of this year yet I didn't see calls for violent US-backed regime change and political suppression like there was under the American puppet Shah. Same with deposing a monarch (getting rid of monarchy is "anti-democratic" now?).
More information on the "Iranian golden age of prosperity" you mentioned:
>During that time two monarchs — Reza Shah Pahlavi and his son Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi — employed secret police, torture, and executions to stifle political dissent. The Pahlavi dynasty has sometimes been described as a "royal dictatorship",[1] or "one-man rule".
> Proroguing in parliaments is nothing new or anti-democratic.
He prorogued the parliament and was calling for a referendum to overthrow the monarchy against the Constitution. He was terminated by the monarch per Constitution, but he would not leave the post which resulted in uprising from both sides.
> During that time two monarchs — Reza Shah Pahlavi and his son Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi — employed secret police, torture, and executions to stifle political dissent. The Pahlavi dynasty has sometimes been described as a "royal dictatorship",[1] or "one-man rule".
Yeah if you read biased and debunked media and the Mullah supporters and comrades[1] (which is the source of Wokipedia) during the Cold War era, and by the way both sides conspired to get rid of the monarch for different reasons, you might believe such propaganda. If you'd talk to the actual industrious people who experienced it, you might get a very different perspective. Double digit annual GDP growth, #1 is number of international students in the US (not per capita, absolute.) So yes, golden era, indisputably.
[1] Interestingly, we see the same Marxist-Islamist alliance has now hit the West.
Strange that the mighty USSR broke down 10 years after that.
In retrospect, the astute mind would recognize the two may have just been interrelated. In fact, one may have been part of the plan to accomplish the other.
Are you seriously claiming that SAVAK wasn't a thing, or that it didn't employ torture? Or are you saying that the "golden era" justified such measures?
If you want to really argue this, you need to bring out specific claims one by one, as many have been either fake or overblown, or misattributed to SAVAK (acknowledged by the terrorists who taken over and are in charge now.) But in general, I do not believe it was anything out of the ordinary of the statecraft employed by the US or Britain in the Cold War era or arguably even the Bush era. In fact, post hoc, it is obvious they were too soft, as they released all these terrorists in the wild and let the country taken over. It is a failure of SAVAK and the security apparatus.
So yes, I would unequivocally argue to any extent the intelligence apparatus was actually operating, not only golden era objectively justifies those measures, but even for lots of the troublemakers themselves, turns out letting criminals loose to take over the country actually makes things worse; many of such Marxist-terrorists who claimed they were mistreated under the old regime were treated much much worse, or lost their lives, during the first years of the Mullah regime.
Long term foreign relationships cannot be built on top of four year presidential terms. Besides Israel, I'm not sure any country has continuity between recent administrations.
> Long term foreign relationships cannot be built on top of four year presidential terms.
Yes indeed, I agree.
Although: long term foreign relationships certainly can be un-built on top of four year presidential terms. See: current US president and rest-of-the-world.
It's very rare that international relations get poisoned for generations without some ongoing work from both involved parties. Populations tend to forget things on the timeline of a decade or so.
The US can rebuild most of what they destroyed. It's gone now, and some of it they were already on the process of losing and can't get back. But no country is beyond reconstruction.
As someone who grew up in Russia in the 90s, that McDonald's actually did wonders! The problem is that y'all figured that if you help people who say that they are "democrats" maintain control over the country, it'll all work out, somehow. What actually happened is that many of those people were grifters, some others idealistic incompetents who thought they had all the answers after reading Ayn Rand. On the whole, the people - who were very enthusiastic about the changes in late 80s - by mid-90s felt like they've been robbed, quite rightly so (read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privatization_in_Russia for some examples), by people now firmly associated with the West and with words such as "liberal". This is the big reason why Western-style liberal democracy very quickly became a marginalized minority political opinion in Russia, and why the likes of Putin could easily take power by promising people that they'll fix the mess.
Every international body had checked, and confirmed that Iran had no intention of building nuclear weapons. Even to this day. Even after what Israel and US did.
Netanyahu has been saying Iran in minutes away from building nuclear weapons since early 2010s.
Never mind those facts. Let's say they are building weapons. What gives the US the right to build enough nuclear weapons that they could destroy the world multiple times over, but Iran cannot? Why is the US funding terrorist groups, but Iran cannot? Just cos they're the big bad boogeyman? Don't you think it'd be better to normalise relationship with them so that they become friendly? So that even if they are building weapons, they wouldn't use it against us because they're allies?
> What gives the US the right to build enough nuclear weapons that they could destroy the world multiple times over, but Iran cannot?
Already having nuclear weapons, being a superpower and the center of the post-WW2 and post-Cold-War world, being able to fight 2 ground wars simultaneously, etc.
The relationships between countries is governed by nothing other than might makes right, and any seemingly altruistic cooperation between the hegemon and its lessers only occurs because the hegemon benefits more.
Hi I'm Kurdish. I'm 100% aware, heck my mother still cries in front of me remembein some of the horrors she saw. I'm also aware that we, the Kurds, have arguably benefited the most from that war. But that does not negate the fact that the US lied about Saddam having WMDs.
A New York Times investigation by C.J. Chivers revealed that the dismantlement of Iraq’s CW program was not as clear-cut as originally thought. The investigation revealed that approximately 5,000 chemical warheads, shells, or aviation bombs were recovered following the 2003 Iraq war. [15] Although all of these munitions were produced before 1991, they did pose serious hazards; at least 17 American soldiers and seven Iraqi police officers were exposed to CW agents. [16] A subsequent investigation by Chivers and Eric Schmitt revealed a major CIA-run effort, Operation Avarice, to purchase old chemical weapons that were on the Iraqi black market. The program purchased and destroyed over 400 Borak rockets, many of which contained sarin. [17]
Let me summarize: 5,000 chemical warheads were found in Iraq after the war according to the New York Times, backed by video testimonials and documents.
Also, ISIS stole part of the Iraqi chemical stockpile and used it against the Kurds.
Sounds to me like there was a huge misconception that no WMDs had been found in Iraq
I read the article (that you cited and misrepresented to fit your predetermined narrative).
The article discusses chemical weapons, not nuclear warheads. These are fundamentally different.
And the reporting actually contradicts the original WMD justification. It explicitly states these were abandoned 1980s-era weapons, not an active program as claimed pre-invasion.
So your summary is WRONG. The reporting actually undermines government credibility rather than supporting it.
You want to know something funny? Many shells were manufactured by European companies using American designs, an embarrassing detail the Pentagon apparently wanted to suppress. In fact the article shows officials understood these weren't the weapons they'd claimed existed, which is why they wanted to keep the findings a secret. To reiterate: the weapons found were remnants of Iraq's 1980s chemical program (which the West had helped build), not proof of post-1990s WMD development.
Let me summarize based on the article: these were 1980s-era weapons, many manufactured before 1991, not evidence of the "active WMD program" claimed in 2003, and they were chemical weapons, not nuclear warheads.
By the way, your response to my WMD comment was "You are of course aware that Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran and the Kurds killing thousands of people" which is absurd. There is a fundamental difference between chemical weapons and "WMD" as-is claimed by the US Government to justify the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Those 1980s attacks (which you are talking about) were already known and didn't constitute the "active WMD program" claimed as justification for the 2003 invasion.
In fact, the gap between the pre-war intelligence claims and post-war findings was so significant that it started multiple investigations, including the Senate Intelligence Committee Report and the Butler Review in the UK, both of which found serious intelligence failures.
So no, there doesn't appear to have been an active WMD program in Iraq in 2003, despite the claims used to justify the invasion.
You'd might want to recheck the definition of WMD, which includes chemical weapons and was mainly the focus of the UN disarmament program in Iraq, which was the pretext of the invasion.
Furthermore, the conventional wisdom that you echoed, is that no WMD were found in Iraq, this was found a decade later to be completely false. Iraq did not disarm and had huge stockpiles during and after the 2003 war.
Iraq did not only undertake to disarm the program (which was also partially active), but also to destroy all chemical weapons, it breached the UN disarmament program by not disarming, which makes the pretext valid.
We can discuss whether it was smart for the US to invade Iraq, due to the subsequent changes in the Middle East that was also a plausibly correct move, but that's more complex than I can discuss in a single paragraph
1. While chemical weapons are technically classified as WMDs, the pre-invasion claims were specifically about active production programs and imminent threats. Finding scattered 1980s remnants doesn't validate those specific claims.
2. Describing these as "huge stockpiles" misrepresents what was found. The NYT article YOU cited describes degraded, corroded weapons that were often non-functional, hardly the operational arsenal implied by "stockpiles".
3. You conflate the 1980s chemical weapons program with post-1991 disarmament obligations. The remnants weren't evidence of ongoing non-compliance but rather weapons that had been lost/missed during the chaotic dismantlement process.
4. The NYT investigation explicitly states these finds "did not support the government's invasion rationale" and shows officials kept them secret because they contradicted WMD claims.
5. There's a significant difference between "no WMDs found" and "degraded chemical remnants from the 1980s found." The latter doesn't constitute the "reconstituted WMD program" claimed pre-invasion.
My previous comment already addressed all of this, that these discoveries actually undermined rather than supported the invasion narrative / rationale.
Your response does not counter the fundamental point, it just reframes the debate around technical definitions while ignoring the substance of what the intelligence claims actually were vs. what was found.
I am not interested in continuing this conversation. Thanks.
You might read that the Army has failed to notify the Senate, creating false reports on the amount of chemical weapons found in Iraq, thus reaching the conclusion the war had no valid pretext. While 5000 (an underestimate) warheads is enough to kill ten of thousands of people, by a country who had used these previously.
The fact that the shells are corroded does not mean the material cannot be removed and reused, and it still means Iraq failed to destroy these properly, therefore breaching the UN mandate.
I think this is a great example of how due to political unpopularity of actions, an entire false narrative can be disseminated for a decade, and two decades later it still has many dogmatic followers that will defend it.
Maybe it's good food for thought about which false truisms we keep right now for political reasons that will be found out as lies in a decade.
This is going to be my last response to this thread as it is quite unproductive because you work backward from conclusions, reshaping evidence to fit your predetermined beliefs rather than following where evidence actually leads, AND you are not engaging with my substantive points but instead you cycle through different justifications while mischaracterizing evidence. In fact, your "false truism" is ironic given your consistent misrepresentation of the very article you cited. Additionally, you wrongly accused me of following "false narratives" while actively misrepresenting your own cited source. The NYT investigation contradicts your interpretation at every turn, as noted.
1. You shifted the goalpost again. You moved from "WMDs proved invasion was justified" -> "chemical weapons are technically WMDs" -> "UN mandate violations justified invasion" and each argument abandons the previous when challenged. Boring.
2. You claim the Army's secrecy proves WMDs existed, when the NYT article explicitly states the secrecy was because these finds contradicted WMD claims. The Army hid them due to embarrassment, not validation.
3. Whether degraded chemical weapons could theoretically harm people doesn't address the core issue: there was no active WMD program as claimed pre-invasion.
4. Scattered remnants from chaotic 1990s dismantlement != active non-compliance with UN mandates. Many weapons were simply lost during the destruction process, not deliberately hidden.
Chemical weapons are not "technically" WMD, the entire discussion around WMD at the time concentrated on chemical weapons.
I suggest you read about UNSCOM and UNMOVIC, what they were looking for (hint: chemical weapons), their struggles at achieving their mandates due to Iraqi manipulations, and how it led to the 2003 war.
I have not moved the goal posts, from the first reply to you I maintained Iraq had used WMDs in the past and was in breach of the 1991 terms by maintaining a very large stockpile, thus making the pretext valid (let's put aside laboratories that were not dismantled).
You say these are "scattered" but 5,000 warheads (again underestimated) is a larger stockpile than most of the world, making Iraq in 2003 having one of the largest amount of WMD warheads in existence.
Thus the conventional truth that you echoed "No WMDs were found in Iraq" is completely false
> "Chemical weapons are not "technically" WMD, the entire discussion around WMD at the time concentrated on chemical weapons."
False. The Bush administration's case centered on mobile biological weapons labs, aluminum tubes for nuclear centrifuges, and claims of active production facilities. Colin Powell's UN presentation focused heavily on alleged bio-weapons and nuclear programs. Chemical weapons were a minor part of the overall WMD narrative.
> "I suggest you read about UNSCOM and UNMOVIC, what they were looking for (hint: chemical weapons), their struggles at achieving their mandates due to Iraqi manipulations, and how it led to the 2003 war."
UNMOVIC chief Hans Blix reported in March 2003 - just before invasion - that inspectors found NO evidence of active WMD programs. UNSCOM had already dismantled Iraq's major chemical production facilities by 1998. The "Iraqi manipulations" were about concealing historical records of past programs, not hiding active ones.
> "I have not moved the goal posts, from the first reply to you I maintained Iraq had used WMDs in the past and was in breach of the 1991 terms by maintaining a very large stockpile"
You absolutely moved goalposts. You started claiming these finds proved WMDs existed, then shifted to "chemical weapons are WMDs," then "UN violations justified invasion." Past use in the 1980s was already known and irrelevant to 2003 invasion claims about active programs.
???
> "5,000 warheads (again underestimated) is a larger stockpile than most of the world, making Iraq in 2003 having one of the largest amount of WMD warheads in existence."
Absurd. Many were empty, corroded, or non-functional 1980s remnants. Countries with active nuclear arsenals, operational chemical weapons, and biological programs had vastly greater WMD capabilities than scattered degraded shells.
> "Thus the conventional truth that you echoed "No WMDs were found in Iraq" is completely false"
The truth is that no active WMD programs were found (as per every source you have mentioned, even), which is what the invasion was predicated on. Your own source explicitly states these finds "did not support the government's invasion rationale".
Seriously, you trigger me with your absurdity and logical incoherence. sighs.
I replied for other people, but you are on your own now. Take your own suggestions and execute them.
> Seriously, you trigger me with your absurdity and logical incoherence. sighs.
I replied for other people, but you are on your own now. Take your own suggestions and execute them.
I could continue to counter your arguments which are either cherrypicked or false, and the fact you blame me for moving goal posts, when you had done so yourself. But I really can only admire your continued ability to defend your mind against new information which such vigor. I am also stopping here
"Every international body had checked, and confirmed that Iran had no intention of building nuclear weapons."
That's obviously nonsense. Why would the Iranians build secret underground facilities to refine uranium if it wasn't for building nuclear weapons? An oil-rich country does not need civilian nuclear power. Even if they wanted nuclear reactors, they could make a deal with the U.S. and buy the fuel rods in exchange for oil.
Is the US government is so much more stable than Iran's?
The US has been directly or indirectly involved in all conflict in the middle east in the past few decades, and the instability in the region is due to the US's failed foreign policy.
Maybe the US should stop pretending they know what they're doing. The US can't keep domestic terrorism at bay, why are they trying in a foreign setting?
Yeah, I’ll take my chances with the global hegemon that has reigned over a historically unprecedented global peace. (Although I'd prefer we all did like South Africa and decomission our arsenals)
And yeah, the US should get out of the Middle East - we need to stop pretending is that sharia-law is compatible with western liberal democracies*.
* This IMO is the socio-cultural reason for the Middle East's instability following the US’s interventions - and why similar interventions had more success elsewhere.
Because they don't want foreign opponents at a time when they're having trouble keeping their house in order?
Also, speaking frankly, there's an implications that people don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons because it's a Muslim country. This is false. It would be far palatable for Saudi Arabia or the UAE to develop nuclear arms because even though neither country is 'Christian' or 'democratic', they are at least allies.
> So unstable, theocratic, dictatorships under sharia-law [1] should have access to nuclear weapons? Because it's "fair"?
Ironically, this statement could apply to Pakistan, which has had nuclear weapons since 1998 and yet has never used them. How strange! According to Western leadership, all Muslims are supposed to be barbarian religious fanatics who want a worldwide nuclear holocaust!
Iran having a nuclear weapon would make the Middle East and the world a much safer place - if Ukraine had not disposed of their nuclear weapons in the 1990s, there would be no war happening right now! Possession of nuclear weapons is the only way for a country to guarantee its own sovereignty, which is something America and its coalition do not want for Iran - they want a weak puppet like the Shah who will let Exxonmobil come in and take all their oil revenue for themselves.
Aside from the fact Pakistan is not a theocratic dicatorship, lets deal with your actual accusation:
> According to Western leadership, all Muslims are supposed to be barbarian religious fanatics who want a worldwide nuclear holocaust!
Thanks for telling me what I and every other westerner thinks!
As you have clearly stated, we can therefore easily conclude that all muslim countries (and by extension their people) are equivalent and all must therefore share the explicit ideological goal (enshrined in their constitution) to "fulfil the ideological mission of jihad" and hopes for "the downfall of all other [non-islamic] governments". [1]
Just to be clear: all muslim countries (and people) are equivalent = obvious sarcasm. To believe that I'd have to be about as braindead as someone who believes that all citizens of western countries share the same values, goals, and ideologies as each other (and their governments).
Tell me why Putin hasn't used nuclear weapons on Ukraine, a vulnerable non-nuclear nation that they are at war with? Is there something uniquely dangerous about Muslims in possession of nuclear weapons that you'd like to tell the class?
To be clear: Pakistan is a military dictatorship with Sharia Law and Sharia courts in effect for decades, and Islam as their state religion (something that isn't even true of Iran, a country of great religious diversity that's not reflected in Western propaganda). They are as much a theocracy as Saudi Arabia, yet their nuclear weapons aren't an issue because they play patty-cake with Western interests and have no oil reserves for Exxonmobil to salivate over.
Putin uses nuclear weapons to keep the rest of the world cowering while he launches military invasions of neighboring countries. It's a perfect example of why we don't want Iran to have nukes - considering the jihad and chaos their government is already exporting to the region, think how they'd act if they were "untouchable".
Personal attacks will get you banned here, so please don't post like that.
Also, please don't perpetuate religious/nationalistic flamewars on HN. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. I realize other commenters are feeding it, but the important thing is to stop feeding it regardless of what other commenters are doing.
Please don't perpetuate religious/nationalistic flamewars on HN. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. I realize other commenters are feeding it, but the important thing is to stop feeding it regardless of what other commenters are doing.
Ignore the rest of what wrote, and preemptively call facts silly. I'm sure you're more familiar with the matter than IAEA. Heck, even Tulsi Gabbard, the US intelligence director initially said they were not building nuclear weapons, until she changed her tune after Trump probably barked at her.
For power, uranium needs to be 3-5% enrichment, medical applications about 20%, and weapons will be 95%. The IAEA confirmed in May 2025 that Iran's had a stockpile of over 400kg of 60% enriched uranium. That's not enrichment for power. They had a stockpile at 20% in 2015 when the JCPOA was made, that was also well over what was needed for power.
> enabling Iran to develop nuclear weapons and fund terrorist groups
And yet we allow israel to develop nuclear weapons and fund terrorist groups. At least in iran's defense, they aren't engaging in genocide like israel is.
> For the life of me I can't understand why it was undone.
Zionist domination of america. We're always told china this or russia that, but we don't waste trillions of dollars fighting for china or russia.
Programming in a structured high-level language like C is much more productive than programming in assembly. Programming in a managed language with GC can be more productive still.
The creation of package managers and the widespread availability of open-source repos means developers don't need to write as much from scratch.
The creation of search engines and Stack Overflow did (and still do) much of the useful things that people use AI for (boilerplate, debugging obscure error messages).
Machines have gotten exponentially faster for the last several decades. This means devs need to spend less time optimizing code. And the time to compile and run speeds up, meaning you can prototype things faster.
Why is it, that somehow none of these inarguable improvements to the speed and efficiency of development haven't lead to a a massive decrease in the number of developers? If we take it as axiomatic that AI significantly improves productivity, why, for the first time in history, does that not result in more programming jobs?
None of the improvements of the past you outline were advertised as capable of replicating agency. They were sold as tools. Note that I am not making any claim about actual capability for agency, there’s other people more qualified than me to discuss this. Regardless factuality of ability to replace people, this is how it’s sold and arguably also how it’s bought. This gives the view that it has impact on jobs more weight.
Also I think it is plausible (if not likely) that LLMs reduce the demand for other kinds of software. They're (relatively) general purpose and can handle many tasks that previously would've needed bespoke software (and a team of people to create/maintain it).
In some ways developing and working with a high level but less efficient language for velocity is actually a vast improvement, imo.
Take node.js for example, devs can just sling code out as fast as they can and shit gets done. Then the node.js core devs can optimise certain paths/features after the fact to negate many of the efficiency problems.
However it does annoy me that what this has meant is that many of my colleagues don't know anything about memory management, debugging, or any other more traditional concepts, so we see bloat & OOMs over time that need to be resolved.
How much of an improvement does SIMD offer for something like this? It looks like it's only being used for strings and comments, but I would kind of assume that for most programming languages, the proportion of code that is long strings / comments is not large. Also curious if there's any performance penalty for trying to do SIMD if most of the comments and strings are short.
And the VMs for the two languages that you mentioned above (edit: though to be fair to your comment, I suppose those were initially written 20+ years ago).
