Every industry goes through its slop phase. You should see how much of early print was smut or really amaturish. We just like to talk about the Bible and the great art. What we need is a way to filter through it. AI should be decent at this, but for many intentional and unintentional reasons it isn't.
Early print was not just smut or amateurish. Some of it was highly harmful misinformation: Malleus Maleficarem is an outstanding example that caused an immense amount of harm.
This is market introductory pricing that hasn't factored in cost recovery. Most of it has been run on early investment with the assumption they will recover costs in the long run. The prices are subsidized across the board and they will need to go up signficantly to recover them.
Assuming this were accurate, then presumably the AI companies would be betting that inference costs come down before the bill is due - I don't see enterprises being willing to absorb another ~10x price increase for tokens (as they've just done going from subscription prices to per-token pricing)
For claude shops this was a huge hit. But lets back this up. There are some companies that haven't even built a break-even model at this price because they are funded by investment. As soon as those investors lose patience the first dominos will fall. For those who have somewhat of a business model, will it survive a price increase? The bigger question is do the base model providers have enough runway and have a way to keep going as they need to recover costs.
Aren’t the Chinese labs quickly turning them into a commodity?
The open-weight models will have a steady race to the bottom on inference costs just by dint of competition between providers. They aren’t at the frontier yet, but they are rapidly eating the flash market.
Yeah, that's not going to work if you can get e.g. 80% of value by using 10-20x or more cheaper open models. At some point it would just make sense for large companies to rent compute and deploy their version of DeepSeek or whatever (if they don't trust Chinese providers)
1) This happened because they fundementally misunderstand how to use AI and how AI is priced
2) Most organizations are throwing everything in for analyses and not limiting the answer they want. You need to be specific of about what you analyze and what answers you want
3) People undervalue prompting or templated responses. I will have written. validated and sanity checked a prompt several times and run it across several models before I say its ready for use. But when it is, I know what it will give me and that the scope of its research and answer is as close to what I want as it can be. As little excess as I can. This all saves tokens
I have the theory (not tested, subjective) that current economy prefers buying capital (broadly here defined as machine/tools) than having to pay workers salaries, even if both have the same level of competitivity
Capital expenditures are easy to calculate, and it's easy to help raising money. As the current economical system is based on debts, it works quite well: if a company knows that productivity output will raise by 15% over the next year if they spend X dollars, it's easy to get investments (investments firms themselves are relying heavily on private credits, which more and more is coming from bank too). With a system based on debts, they care less about the amount spent, than the yield generated.
With investing in people, it's harder to predict.
Industry does it by buying machines, now knowledge-based companies might do it with GPUs or tokens.
What’s built with all that VC money is already built though; I don’t foresee a future a few years out where we don’t have access to an open-source model roughly as good as the current flagship models for the cost of the compute itself.
It's like the rail industry analogy: we got a big bubble, but the rails are still there. Now with llm, we can just distill expensive one to create cheap open-source ones indeed
Variable costs - electricity etc. Current model is very resource intensive. You know when they build all those Olympic Venues and then once the Olympics is done the ongoing cost is too expensive and then they become derelict buildings.... like that...
Related: Alberta Voter Data was leaked to an American Company by the separatist movement. Also, the question right now is if there will be a referendum proposal.
This is clear foriegn political interfierence. It's like mini-brexit. We have a weak, incompitent leader in Alberta who is giving in to her right-wing base so she can stay in power. It's David Cameron all over again.
Mini Brexit in the sense that a foreign entity is working to destabilize another.
Russia and its proxies ran an active measures campaign in the UK. If the US government isn’t doing something similar, the toxic soup of the maga-sphere definitely is.
> A province seceding from Canada is way bigger than the UK leaving the EU
Genuinely debatable. The total economic destruction of Brexit has been far higher than anything Alberta would suffer. And geopolitically, Alberta wouldn’t take itself off the table the way the English have basically rendered the UK irrelevant.
What? The UK is doing better economically than Germany right now.
And better than anywhere in Europe for Tech with Deepmind and Ineffable Intelligence there.
It still shares many of the same mistakes as Europe though - e.g. now having to buy Russian oil and gas again instead of using the North Sea oil, not expanding nuclear power, rampant welfare and council housing corruption, etc.
(That said, how each nation handled the pandemic is a massive confounding variable).
Germany is currently ahead by 1.2 trillion per year for nominal GDP, 1.7 trillion by PPP GDP, and also ahead on both nominal per capita and PPP per capita.
I agree there are some shared weaknesses, but oil and gas are now short-term thinking, and energy policy wasn't helped by (nor, fortunately, hurt by) Brexit.
AI, much as I like using it, I'm not at all clear who is going to get left holding the bag, in each of the various scenarios from "it's a bubble" to "and now we're post-scarcity" and everything between.
> Lorne Gibson, former Election Commissioner at Elections Alberta: “The data is worth probably millions of dollars. It's probably worth at least $3 million.” “It’s the largest data breach in Canada. I haven’t heard of anything that surpasses that scale,” he added.
Not gonna lie, the Commissioner’s remarks and the general tone wouldn’t be out of place in a South Park episode about Canada, hah.
The Strait of Hormuz is a such a historical f-up. 1) It cuts the oil supply 2) It creates the demand and infrastructure for non-US backed Oil 3) It gives Iran a revenue stream and domain over taxing the Strait where none existed before 4) Crypto happens outstide of reach of most sanctions 5) Not knowing your footing: This has now encompassed the placement of underseas cables and global connectivity 5) As time goes one, there are other shoes that will drop 6) Even if this resolves, things like decoupling the USD and Oil now have momemntum.
The US has never looked, or been, weaker than it is right now.
It was Jimmy Carter that established that the Strait of Hormuz would stay open, through the strength of the US military threat.
And now? The US is a paper tiger, making ridiculous threats via barely used social media platforms and then revoking them with just as little formality. The US has already done its worst, except for nukes, and the threats of nuking Iran are clear fakes.
The US used to be a guarantor of safety on the seas. That appears to have been completely destroyed by the weak leadership in the US.
None of these things are true, it's just propaganda.
> The US has never looked, or been, weaker than it is right now.
Nothing has fundamentally changed with respect to American power. If this was true, that America has never been weaker than it is right now, why wouldn't China just go ahead and invade Taiwan? This is the perfect opportunity! Or is it that the US is so strong that even at its weakest point it can deter China from taking military action over Taiwan? Doesn't pass the smell test.
> It was Jimmy Carter that established that the Strait of Hormuz would stay open, through the strength of the US military threat.
And that worked for a long time.
And things change. The world isn't static.
And if the Strait is closed then it, as it is today, is also closed for the Iranians with the ultimate effect of making a cheeseburger cost a few dollars more and people coal-rolling their F-250s around having to spend more to do so. It screws over the rest of the world, but they also allowed this Iranian regime to fester and threaten until it was intolerable.
It's too late now, but the rest of the world which so clearly depends on the Strait of Hormuz should have taken diplomatic and economic action earlier and/or more forcefully to prevent a group of religious cultists and fanatics from seizing control of Iran and then constantly threatening the US. At some point enough is enough and so the failure to act or stand up to these bullies leads to more pain down the road. It's a trap that Europe especially continues to fall in to because culturally they don't understand that bad people exist and you have to use force to stop them. They're learning that about Ukraine now too.
> And now? The US is a paper tiger, making ridiculous threats via barely used social media platforms and then revoking them with just as little formality.
The United States casually walked in and bombed the hell out of Iran's military and killed its leaders. Idk. If I was Iranian I sure wouldn't be looking at the US as a paper tiger when it can go park an aircraft carrier nearby and then bomb all my stuff and there's basically nothing I can do about it except to bomb defenseless oil tankers.
> The US used to be a guarantor of safety on the seas. That appears to have been completely destroyed by the weak leadership in the US.
It's a package deal. In order to be the guarantor of the seas you have to take actions like the on in Iran. All Iran had to do was double, triple, or quadruple its missile stockpile and then try to enact tolls on the Strait of Hormuz and the cost to stop it would be too great. US action today is exactly the role it is playing in guaranteeing safety on the seas. By the way, why is the US the one that has to do this? And if you don't like us doing it, maybe we should stop. I know that's what the far-left and MAGA want - they want isolationism.
> Nothing has fundamentally changed with respect to American power.
In all honesty my friend, from the other side of the pond the US has never looked so weak and ridicule. Every day there's new proof the current rambling leadership has no idea what to do.
> The United States casually walked in and bombed the hell out of Iran's military and killed its leaders. Idk.
Bombed "a" leader, a new one is already up. You can't bomb ideas.
> In all honesty my friend, from the other side of the pond the US has never looked so weak and ridicule. Every day there's new proof the current rambling leadership has no idea what to do.
I don't think the Trump administration handled this particularly well, but you're too focused on the short term. Just because a lot of people are ridiculing Trump (and for good reason, I think he belongs in jail over January 6th, and he does lots of dumb things) doesn't mean that the US has changed much. If anything it's getting stronger relative to the rest of the world - both the United States and China seem to be leaving everyone else in the dust.
> Bombed "a" leader, a new one is already up. You can't bomb ideas.
Well, no, this is incorrect. We didn't just bomb a leader, we bombed many leaders in the Iranian government and also in the IRGC. Separately but of course related, Israel has been killing Iranian proxy force leaders in Lebanon and Gaza and elsewhere.
I don't have a strong interest in this issue but it would appear your responses aren't incorporating the full scope of recent facts:
> Nothing has fundamentally changed with respect to American power
Yes, actually - Iran is charging tolls and was not doing that before. This is in the face of an American naval blockade right in their neighborhood. That is an affront to power, at least for the moment.
The China point is really immaterial to the instant issue of the Strait, but even there China is very obviously growing more aggressive (cf the recent trip of the Taiwanese president where he had to sneak out of his nation).
> The United States casually walked in and bombed the hell out of Iran's military and killed its leaders.
Yes, but now the Strait transit is being dictated by the new rulers. We can keep killing them but the issue is that we are no longer in control of a situation that we used to be in control of. That's why the paper tiger comparison is apt—for all our bombs, this isn't in our hands.
> there's basically nothing I can do about it except to bomb defenseless oil tankers.
Iran has bombed over a dozen US installations, probably the greatest damage to US military installations in recent memory, if ever. This includes destroying equipment that's worth > $700 M. The oil tankers are kind of a distraction when they can clearly damage all of our allies' infrastructure despite being decapitated by the first strikes.
> In order to be the guarantor of the seas you have to take actions like the on in Iran.
The whole point of this is we cannot guarantee passage in the Strait. I don't think that will over go back to how it was.
> By the way, why is the US the one that has to do this?
We don't and because of this current issue, nobody will be able to do it until our next world war establishes a new, single hegemon. It was convenient while it lasted because it allowed stability for our post-war economy.
> Yes, actually - Iran is charging tolls and was not doing that before. This is in the face of an American naval blockade right in their neighborhood. That is an affront to power, at least for the moment.
I send a bill to every car that passes by my street. It's weird, none of them ever pay it. Iran can charge whatever it wants, but as long as America holds the blockade it doesn't matter. There's a misunderstanding that Iran "controls" the Strait of Hormuz. It doesn't. Control doesn't mean you simply stop others from exercising action, because if that's the case the US is also stopping any ships that Iran allows and is therefore in control.
> The China point is really immaterial to the instant issue of the Strait, but even there China is very obviously growing more aggressive (cf the recent trip of the Taiwanese president where he had to sneak out of his nation).
Well you can't really separate China out from the initial comment I responded to. How is American power the weakest it has ever been but then it's also not changed at all with respect to China? These kinds of statements just don't make sense. It's the kind of thing that feels good to say but is wrong.
> Yes, but now the Strait transit is being dictated by the new rulers.
But it's not because the US controls it too.
> Iran has bombed over a dozen US installations, probably the greatest damage to US military installations in recent memory, if ever.
Yea, now imagine Iran quadruples its drone and missile stockpile and then closes the Strait and then proceeds with accelerating development of nuclear weapons. I'm not sure why folks seem to lack the capacity to project future actions
There's plenty of cars on the street. I'd recommend checking your state department of highways as they usually have live streams of traffic at certain intersections, highways, and other areas.
> This clearly lacks the context of the conversation thread, to a comedically goofy looking extent.
Are you referring to your own statement where you stated there are "barely any cars on the street". Where do you live where that's true? I live in Ohio - believe me there's plenty of cars on the street.
Here's a link (I don't know what state you live in but presumably you have the same): https://ohgo.com
From here you can select various web cams and see that the claim that there are "almost no cars on the road" is objectively false. If you're still confused, wait about 4 hours until 5:30 PM Eastern Time and you can see the traffic for yourself if you select a major city.
> Well you can't really separate China out from the initial comment I responded to. How is American power the weakest it has ever been but then it's also not changed at all with respect to China? These kinds of statements just don't make sense. It's the kind of thing that feels good to say but is wrong.
What you're not to accept/acknowledge is this type of reasoning:
The US used to be power level 9000 [for several decades, in the past going back to the 1940s or before]
Now the us is power level 7000
China is currently power level 5000
The statement "The US is weaker than it ever has been [ed. in the lifetime of any current decision maker and relevant to current geopolitical decisions]" is true.
The fact that it's still stronger than China is also true.
It's absurd to pretend you don't understand this.
> Yea, now imagine Iran quadruples its drone and missile stockpile and then closes the Strait and then proceeds with accelerating development of nuclear weapons. I'm not sure why folks seem to lack the capacity to project future actions
What evidence is there that Iran would have shut down the strait at all? The only time they've done so in the last 40+ years is in response to a direct, unnecessary attack.
What evidence is there that Iran would behave differently than any other nation with nuclear weapons - that is use them as a deterrent to prevent pointless meddling by other countries prone to an unnecessary attack?
It seems like what you call a "lack [of] capacity to project future actions" might just be people wanting to avoid wild speculation.
> It's absurd to pretend you don't understand this.
If you want to phrase what that person wrote in this way, then you're going to have to provide deeper analysis than a Dragon Ball Z style power comparison.
> What evidence is there that Iran would have shut down the strait at all? The only time they've done so in the last 40+ years is in response to a direct, unnecessary attack.
While neither of us have intelligence on Iran, you can reason about their activities and speculate on future actions. In the case of the Strait, Iran was stockpiling missiles and drone capabilities and if they continued to do so at the rate they were there is a tipping point where even the mighty US military would struggle to deal with this. Someone else commented about the US Military not learning anything from the Ukraine war, but I'd submit it was the opposite.
We saw how devastating cheap missiles and drones were, and realized if we didn't do something now then Iran could continue stockpiling, declare the Strait closed pending payment, and then work on a nuclear weapon as well leaving the United States (since we're the only one that can do anything) with very limited and unpalatable options.
Now it's fair, certainly, to speculate that Iran had no intention of closing the Strait or whatever, but their actions seem to indicate the opposite.
You can also ask why is it that Iran is the only country stockpiling these weapons systems, working on a nuclear weapon, chanting death to America, and whatnot? Maybe if they stopped doing those things we wouldn't be in this situation. But why would they stop when the IRGC and religious fanatical leadership want to actually do those things?
I think it's unfair to characterize this as wild speculation when anyone can read for themselves from reliable sources about Iran's activities. There seems to be this impression that the Iranian government is like this peaceful government and oh if only the US would just stop bothering them, but that simply does not stand up to reality.
> If you want to phrase what that person wrote in this way
"That person" was literally you. I replied to you and quoted you. Are you sure DBz is beneath you?
> Now it's fair, certainly, to speculate that Iran had no intention of closing the Strait or whatever, but their actions seem to indicate the opposite.
It indicates only that they wanted to have a stockpile of weapons... the most common reason for which is to defend the country from attacks. It seems perfectly reasonable that they would want a bunch of weapons in striking range of both attacks from the sea, and of hostile military installations (which were located specifically within range to strike Iran). In fact, given that the 2025 project explicitly targeted Iran it seems very likely that it was a bolstering of defenses (absent other evidence).
> You can also ask why is it that Iran is the only country stockpiling these weapons systems, working on a nuclear weapon, chanting death to America, and whatnot?
They aren't the only country doing any of these things. (semantics aside... maybe they are the only country stockpiling those brands of missles and drones.... but certainly not the only country stockpiling missles and drones, etc).
> I think it's unfair to characterize this as wild speculation when anyone can read for themselves from reliable sources about Iran's activities.
The wild speculation is intent. Each of the actions that you bring up have many possible motives. The idea of Iran attacking directly and initially is a change in M.O. for Iran, and such a claim requires evidence that points directly to it beyond "this one of many possible motives".
> There seems to be this impression that the Iranian government is like this peaceful government and oh if only the US would just stop bothering them, but that simply does not stand up to reality
I don't think may people are saying that at all. They are saying this war was unnecessary for any of the reasons that have thus far been stated because there is no evidence pointing to those reasons being true. The consequential evidence does not add up to a single conclusion, and the direct evidence has not been presented.
You seem to have had an awful lot of the "Iran is irrationally evil and stupid" kool-aid. I don't beleive Iran is a "good guy", but I don't believe in war justifications without good evidence either, particularly not ones that rely on cartoon-level villainy.
> Do you really believe this? Anytime someone or some country does something, it only indicates that the specific action is taking place?
> Here's one then: China has no intention of attacking Taiwan - it's just practicing its ability to blockade small island nations in case it comes under attack.
By this logic the US war with Canada happened how many centuries after stockpiles of weapons were near the border?
The direct conflict with the Warsaw Pact happened exactly which decade, given all the stockpiles of arms the US had on those border?
China has had stockpiles of weapons ready to invade Taiwan for decades, when exactly did they do it?
My point is - Most weapons stockpiles do not indicate imminent threat, and the do not require conflict. There needs to be evidence beyond "there's a stockpile of weapons". I have been asking for that evidence, for something that indicates that this is a situation different than the others. I really don't understand why you're so upset that I want actual evidence, not vague assertions like:
> But I think you're taking an extremely charitable position which stands in stark contrast to Iran's actual activities and actions in the region.
What activities are you fucking talking about. Show your work and bring receipts. I don't play "just trust me bro" on this shit. I saw enough of my generation come back dead, maimed and broken from the last time a conservative moron said "just trust me bro, they gonna do bad stuff".
In fact - you clearly beleive this so much, go get on the front lines and catch bullets for it. Better you than someone who didn't sign up for this and actualy deserves to live.
> This doesn't hold water since Iran has been working on these programs and projects since before 2025. October 7th, for example, which was a de facto attack by Iran on a US ally obviously occurred prior to 2025.
Um... project 2025 is a plan for the repulican party, the goal of which was to begin action in 2025. The plan was named for (at the time of its writing) a future date. All this to say project 2025 plan was first publisht in early 2023. Simple facts are useful... see how i back up my statements with them. You should try one day, its nice.
October 7 was not a direct attack by Iran. I promise you... the palestinians who are being genocided did the attack. Iran may have had a part funding and planning it, but they didn't use any of their stockpile of weapons to do that attack. I really don't see how this is evidence that Iran will be using a stockpile of weapons for a direct attack... particularly given that Iran generally does things via proxy.
> It's not wild speculation though. You can look for yourself at Iran's activities. Why is it that only Iran has these problems? Why does Iran always need special treatment like the JCPOA? Why does Iran fund terrorist groups as recognized by the United States and European Union who launch missiles and blow people up, and kill and maim others? Do you just not care or pay attention to that stuff? Do you excuse it all away? It's truly something I find bewildering.
The basic premise - that Iran is special in any of these regards, is fundamentally wrong. The US has funded plenty of terrorist organizations (recognized as such by the US and EU). The US launches plenty of missles that kill and maim children, etc.
I do pay attention when Iran does it, and when the US does it, and when others do it too. I find all of it abhorrent. None of it justifies even more of the same though. It's even less of a justification for a full scale, poorly planned and excuted war that isn't accomplishing any one of it's stated goals.
> But there is evidence haha. The drone and missile stockpiles and attacks, nuclear enrichment programs, providing Russia with drones to kill Ukrainians, funding terrorist groups, chanting death to America, killing 30,000 of their own peacefully protesting people.
None of this is enough to justify intervention elsewhere, so its not evidence that justifies invading Iran. Whats the actual reason for going after Iran? Why didn't Bush use these arguments to go after North Korea before they had the bomb?
> Do you want Iran to have a nuclear bomb? Do you think that's a good thing?
I don't care if they have a nuclear bomb. Im don't drink the kool-aid that tells me that "scary brown people will use the bomb because they are stupid enough to beleive they will accomplish their mission magically after the retalliation leaves all their people dead". I think it's a rational choice for any nation without nuclear weapons to seek them in order to prevent random attacks from other nations.
> Oh I don't think they're stupid at all. Incompetent or crazy at times, absolutely. Your characterization about cartoon level villainy is incorrect as it applies to me or any comments I've said.
You literally are making more assertions of cartoon villany in the very post I'm replying to. It's tiring to deal with illogical zealots, take your kids, go to the front line, fight the war you want so my neighbors don't have to go off and die for your absurd and illogical stance.
> Well, first of all I did enlist in the military and go to war in Iraq.
Congratulations, you have experience in pointless middle east wars, and expertise at ineffective action which takes 20 years to utterly fail. It seems like the best place for you is in Iran fighting another pointless war that isn't actually doing much but making life worse back home - it's what you're good at. I want to see you thrive friend, go use you skills and take the place of some kid that doesn't need to die or be ruined by this pointless conflict you want.
> Congratulations, you have experience in pointless middle east wars, and expertise at ineffective action which takes 20 years to utterly fail.
I don't even think that's true anymore, though I used to. When I look at Iraq at least today I think it's much better off. They went from Saddam Hussein to a functioning parliamentary style government and, excluding Iranian action to destabilize the country they are prospering. Was it worth the money that the United States spent and the lives lost? Maybe, maybe not. But I think many folks are anchoring their understanding to in an early 2000s view of the war and I believe that view is increasingly incorrect.
> It seems like the best place for you is in Iran fighting another pointless war that isn't actually doing much but making life worse back home - it's what you're good at. I want to see you thrive friend, go use you skills and take the place of some kid that doesn't need to die or be ruined by this pointless conflict you want.
War is just politics by other means. Western society and our democratic form of government by nature don't require a person to personally enact or participate in a policy that they agree with or they voted for. That would be highly impractical, certainly even more so at the scale that the United States operates at with over 340 million people.
1) I re-read that thread and realized that person was talking about ship traffic. Of course the analogy isn't great because of course yea that "road" is closed but roads are generally open. I thought they were talking about actual car traffic as a comment about gas prices.
2) Friendly advice but HN tends to skew one direction politically at least when it comes to this Iran war, but you are going to in fact find folks such as myself who disagree with you and others and voice good arguments in those disagreements. I'm an actual person, and I can tell you that for a fact and Dang will also tell you that because he's in the past emailed me directly and warned me about engaging in flame wars on the site, which I am earnestly trying to do while engaging in debate and discussion. I enjoy debating and discussing these topics, and using an LLM wouldn't serve any purpose for me. The fun is in the debate, and so if an LLM was doing that for me, I'd just not engage.
Really, trying to be friendly here but it's probably not great if you just suspect people who disagree with you to be bots. I was incredibly confused when you (I think?) called me an LLM, hence the "Are you an LLM?" question/statement.
The confusion came from what we were talking about. I was comparing the ineffectiveness of the toll to me just saying hey car pay me to drive down my street. You interpreted that in a different way to compare the shipping traffic. Fair enough, I didn't catch that which is why my comments probably seem so weird - I thought what was being pointed out was the impact of the Strait being closed as in nobody can afford gas, there aren't any cars on the road!
The reason the car analogy is bad in the way that you used it is because when you use it, you have to look at the entire map and you just see like yea some lane is blocked. An important one sure, but it's just one piece of the overall flow of traffic. You're saying hey look at how bad it is that this one lane is closed, and I'm looking at the broader picture there.
I've already explained myself and have tried to do so charitably. It's up to you to choose how to act. If you want to keep comparing ships in the Strait of Hormuz to cars, I'll just say again that it's a bad comparison that you're making because all it really means is there's a roadblock in one spot but traffic flows great everywhere else.
>We saw how devastating cheap missiles and drones were, and realized if we didn't do something now then Iran could continue stockpiling
This is some crazy post hoc rationalisation.
They met with Iran, they even had the outline of a deal. Trump was on the cusp of showing that he was a better deal maker than his predecessors (or at least trying to) Israel intervened via Israel aligned lobbyists and suggested they could easily headcap Iran and not need to have a deal at all. They tried and screwed up the strait.
This wasnt some carefully planned "oh no the USA is really scared of cheap missiles we better for the good of the entire world stop Iran now". This was seat of the pants mercenary action on behalf of Israel, and its cost them.
>Now it's fair, certainly, to speculate that Iran had no intention of closing the Strait or whatever, but their actions seem to indicate the opposite.
Until Iran successfully develops a nuclear deterrent, it has literally 1 way of fighting back against the USA. Hurting the oil price. They did this in response to US provocation. Its insane to try and flip cause and effect here. Its like US haspara.
>You can also ask why is it that Iran is the only country stockpiling these weapons systems, working on a nuclear weapon, chanting death to America, and whatnot?
>stockpiling these weapons systems
Heaps of reasons, including self defense. "Only country" is a stretch.
>working on a nuclear weapon
Only way to protect themselves against a larger power, as is the case with other small nuclear armed nations.
>chanting death to America
They are clearly intelligent and have good taste.
>Maybe if they stopped doing those things we wouldn't be in this situation.
Unlikely. Its threatening Israels domination of the region that offends the USA>
>But why would they stop when the IRGC and religious fanatical leadership want to actually do those things?
The USA and its religious fanatical leadership wouldnt recognise any change anyway.
>There seems to be this impression that the Iranian government is like this peaceful government and oh if only the US would just stop bothering them, but that simply does not stand up to reality.
The legitimate issues with the Iranian government that most people have, will not be resolved by bombing their civilian populace into the ground. There are more paths here than bomb them/dont.
Power is two things: what can you do based on fundamental force, and what can you do because of perceived force.
The US has destroyed it's perceived amount of force, ergo it has lost a ton of power. And by not being able to keep the Strait open, it's a de facto demonstration that Trump is a far weaker president than Carter was.
> And things change. The world isn't static.
Yeah, what changed? The US got weak and incompetent leadership. What changed? The US lost power.
Enough coping, we all see what's going on, you can't Jedi mind trick your way out of people realizing the prices they are paying at the pump.
Will China attack Taiwan? You say it's not going to happen because it hasn't happened yet?! It's an obvious fallacy to say that something can't happen because it hasn't happened yet, which is the sum total of your argumentation. The chances of China attacking Taiwan right now have gone through the roof because of the weakness of the US, mostly because of perceived weakness, but also because of the US squandering massive amounts of precision munitions on a strategy with zero gains. When are we going to be able to rebuild all those Patriot missiles? Who knows, the supply chains are long and super slow.
What's really protecting Taiwan right now is Ukraine. By Ukraine taking out Russia's navy through cheap naval drones (thanks UK for your assist there!), Ukraine has provided Taiwan a very thorough path to defense. Both by sea and by air.
Trump also gave up Taiwan in his recent meeting with Xi. Nobody thinks that the US will go to bat for Taiwan anymore, it's all on its own. But thankfully other, less corrupt places like Ukraine have shown the way for Taiwan to defend itself.
> The US has destroyed it's perceived amount of force, ergo it has lost a ton of power.
That's your perception. It's not the perception of those who matter.
> Enough coping, we all see what's going on, you can't Jedi mind trick your way out of people realizing the prices they are paying at the pump.
I'm glad folks are paying higher prices. We need less c02 in the atmosphere, more transit, and fewer giant trucks screaming around. We need less dependence on oil, too, and we're never going to get there if we keep having cheap and easy access to oil. Part of the reason we're in these wars and conflicts is to secure those oil supplies. These things are linked together. Americans need to start putting 2 and 2 together.
> Will China attack Taiwan? You say it's not going to happen because it hasn't happened yet?!
That's not what I said.
> What's really protecting Taiwan right now is Ukraine. By Ukraine taking out Russia's navy through cheap naval drones (thanks UK for your assist there!), Ukraine has provided Taiwan a very thorough path to defense. Both by sea and by air.
America has provided Taiwan a very thorough path to defense. Not Ukraine.
> Trump also gave up Taiwan in his recent meeting with Xi.
This is factually incorrect. These are the things I'm talking about - people read some headline and then all of a sudden we've gone from this summit and a few random comments to Trump "gave up Taiwan".
I have a really tough time looking at the current situation and not seeing the USA knocked down at least several pegs. In regard to China, my read is they are gaining more power from this episode and allowing the US step on rakes than they would from a Taiwan invasion.
Not all power is measured in military might, that seems to be the mistake the Trump administration has made time and time again.
China imports oil from Iran and Venezuela. China's economy is not doing so hot because by being dependent on exports with less than ideal domestic consumption you wind up with, say, 17% youth unemployment.
You're reading the news and hearing about all the bad things about America because that's what everyone cares about talking about and what everyone knows the most about. Most people outside of China can't speak Mandarin, and don't read Chinese news - not that they report bad things that are going on, and so we have to rely on smaller samples of western media outlets.
If you have a perception that the US is knocked down several pegs (whatever that means) it's because you're consuming news that focuses squarely on criticism of the United States.
I read the news and make my own judgements based on events. I can read how the president has said we have reached a deal and threaten to destroy Iran over breaking the deal over the course of a day. And he's done that many times over in the span of the last 2 months. If I watched any other leader do that I would certainly be questioning their judgement and ability to lead and I would definitely question why their organization hasn't ousted them.
> Nothing has fundamentally changed with respect to American power.
Oh, come on. NATO and Gulf allies are starting to deny US use of their bases, and Trump's been credibly threatening to leave NATO. We've also nixed a bunch of our soft power programs like USAID.
NATO just today as reported by Bloomberg said that if the Strait isn't open by July that it will take or consider taking action. [1]
Your view of the situation doesn't match reality.
Separately, we still have like 11 aircraft carriers and our entire military still in tact. Nothing has changed with respect to our power. If you think otherwise, you are simply wrong. There's no other way to put it.
Sorry for the paywall, I don't have a subscription but saw the headline on Bloomberg TV. There are other sources but I wanted to be consistent and link where I saw the news.
This what most "why Americans have no healthcare" proponents not realizing. 11 carriers a pittance in terms of sortie generation. ~80% CENTCOM strikes was from now degraded land basing. 3 carriers = ~20% of total fires... ~10% when pushed to standoff range and have to spare sorites for tanking + cap... ~5% when tanking from land basing disrupted. >5% because original ~20% assumes unsustainable high tempo operations. If US waves magic wand and somehow got 11 carriers doing standoff strikes on Iran tier threat, that's ~10% of CENTCOM land strike generation. Iran degrading regional land basing and pushing CSGs to standoff in Arabian Sea basically broke CENTCOM logistics posture in ways that compound. NVM global (not just theatre) stockpile of highend munitions and interceptors would likely be gone before dismantling Iranian ghetto regional strike complex... who could also reconstitute faster. TLDR even if US could, 11 carrier are likely not enough.
Great points I think. And even more poignant when you realize that this is basically the only game in town. No other country or combined group of countries has the ability to even attempt what the United States is doing. So without the US, well, you don't really have a way to stop Iran if they decided to get a nuclear bomb or close the Strait pending tribute.
Oh, 8 weeks, and they'll think about doing something? Huh, yeah, I'm sure that strong statement will have a big impact.
> Separately, we still have like 11 aircraft carriers and our entire military still in tact. Nothing has changed with respect to our power. If you think otherwise, you are simply wrong. There's no other way to put it.
Naval power has shifted massively over the past four years due to massive technology change, and the US has done nothing to adapt or learn from its former ally, Ukraine.
You are simply wrong and outdate in your thinking, and not understanding the current reality. Which is why you accuse others of the same thing, it's classic projection.
> Oh, 8 weeks, and they'll think about doing something? Huh, yeah, I'm sure that strong statement will have a big impact.
It shows that you're wrong about the diplomatic situation. 8 weeks isn't that long of a timeframe. It takes weeks just to move some assets in place. You don't have a good understanding of how long it takes to do these kinds of things.
> Naval power has shifted massively over the past four years due to massive technology change, and the US has done nothing to adapt or learn from its
Factually incorrect. First you can't make a claim that the US has done nothing to adapt or learn from the ongoing war in Ukraine. The reason you can't make that claim, aside from the fact that well, any single change in tactics would prove you wrong, is because the US still to this day is deploying weapons and testing weapons and capabilities in Ukraine on the battlefield.
> former ally, Ukraine.
Also factually incorrect because Ukraine was never a US ally. Secondarily we are still supporting Ukraine and without our help in the early days of the war they would have very likely fallen under a renewed Iron Curtain. America and England were rushing missiles while the rest of Europe was sending helmets and debating whether Russia was even going to invade.
> You are simply wrong and outdate in your thinking
Incorrect. You're parroting catch-phrases and what others tell you and not thinking through things for yourself here.
I think you're living with an alternative set of facts/interpretations from the mainstream, to which you are entitled.
We aren't supporting Ukraine anymore, that is essentially only Europe (via purchasing arms made in the US as well as elsewhere).
I really encourage you to try to think about what evidence undergirds your ideas and how you'd disprove your beliefs, which seem very resistant to current events.
Well the first problem here is you're ignoring the previous support that was provided and of course some hundred + billion to date. The US and UK were rushing in missiles before the war even started.
Second, if you pay attention you can read about things like this for yourself:
" “We must also send a strong message that Russian support for Iran’s targeting of U.S. military assets will not be tolerated,” he added.
Sponsored by Rep. Gregory Meeks (N.Y.), the senior Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, the legislation would affirm U.S. support for Ukraine, slap new economic sanctions on Russia and help to fund Ukrainian reconstruction whenever the war ends.
It also provides Kyiv with additional weapons and military funding. And it declares U.S. support for NATO at a time when the Western treaty alliance has come under fire from President Trump, who has attacked the group and threatened to pull the U.S. from its roster. "
Of course this is one minor example.
You're focusing too much on what Donald Trump says. You need to give him a back seat and stop worrying about whatever dumb thing he tweets.
To respond to the closure of a key naval route that supplies 20% of world oil supply? After months of closure already, with zero response?
This entire thing was started with zero warning, as far as your "diplomatic timelines" go.
Asserting weird and strange judgement calls with extreme confidence, and belittling others' judgement at the same time, is a very weak argumentation style. Perhaps you could provide some evidence that a "watch out we'll talk about this in 8 weeks" is a strong sort of statement of any sort?
> Speaking of, you're also doing what you're accusing me of "months of closure with zero response" how is there zero response?
As you noted, only today has it been reported that NATO is considering maybe doing something in the Strait. In a few months. "Don't be intellectually dishonest", indeed.
How is that being intellectually dishonest? You made a claim that NATO and Gulf States are closing bases to imply that they were denying support to the US, not that I think that claim is even true anyway, but even so I simply provided literal breaking news of NATO increasing support for the US here. They may ultimately decide to do nothing because, by July this whole thing could be over. Who knows?
You are right though, Europeans do like to talk a lot and usually decide to do nothing. Maybe that'll play out again here.
Plus, at least I provided a source for my claim. Where are yours?
> You made a claim that NATO and Gulf States are closing bases to imply that they were denying support to the US, not that I think that claim is even true anyway…
> even so I simply provided literal breaking news of NATO increasing support
You provided breaking news that they're considering it, and that it's breaking news today perfectly illustrates the "months of closure with zero response" claim you're trying to knock down.
> You provided breaking news that they're considering it, and that it's breaking news today perfectly illustrates the "months of closure with zero response" claim you're trying to knock down.
But saying there are "months of closure with zero response" is factually incorrect. The blockade itself is proof enough that there is a response lol.
Additional details are needed - this doesn't seem to be a very strong claim. France also as the article implies previously allowed these flights and resupply operations. They may change their mind yet again.
> Spain
Sure Spain doesn't support the war. I agree with you there.
Ultimately, political hot potato on American overflights or strikes or usage of bases (which are being broadly used across NATO members) doesn't match the strong claim you seem to be wanting to make.
> No, the American-only blocade is not proof that NATO has responded.
To be clear you're claiming that there isn't a NATO response? If so I apologize as I thought you were referring to a US response to the ongoing war. More generally NATO allies and Gulf States have participated in various ways in the war. UAE and Saudi Arabia for example are reported to have struck Iran. I don't recall the full extent but I believe the United Kingdom and France which both have facilities or operate in the area were going to assist in shooting down threats to civilian facilities but I don't recall where that landed.
> Unresponsive; "in the early days of the war".
Responsive - provided a link to an example.
> "I might be right! Someday!"
Well it's hard to tell, they issue statements all the time. Here's an example:
"France has said it is "ready to help" defend Gulf nations and Jordan against Iran, signalling a firm commitment to regional allies as tensions spiral following a wave of missile and drone attacks." (https://www.rfi.fr/en/france/20260302-france-backs-gulf-stat...)
So yea, like they do change their mind. You know situations and stuff are dynamic and things change, right? France could decide tomorrow they've had enough and outright participate in the war. Who knows?
> Good; we now agree my claim was accurate.
I'd agree your specific claim about Spain is accurate, but it's inaccurate with respect to NATO as a whole. Why is it inaccurate? Because for every Spain there's another NATO member who is allowing overflights or whatever.
I always felt the implication of power was a lot more valuable to US interests than exercising it, cheaper too for that matter. And even very recent history revealed that with the greatest military strength ever seen, the US cannot achieve all of its desires through force.
Refilling the SPR would’ve required finding money to actually buy some oil. Put simply the SPR is broke/in debt.
Over the last few years congress passed pieces of legislation (infrastructure bills, healthcare changes, BBB) and used future SPR oil sales as an "offsetting receipt". Basically they say the’ll sell off millions of barrels of SPR holdings, count the future revenue as negative spending on paper, and use that money to pay for entirely unrelated legislative projects to make bills look deficit-neutral.
Yet another source for deficit spending (to the tune of $20bn) that doesn’t even show up in the headline numbers. Borrowing from future generations yet again.
(Sorry this is the kind of thing that grinds my gears - setting up some organization that is intended to be revenue neutral and self sufficient, then plundering it when politically useful. Same thing is happening to the Presidio park in SF right now)
Nobody who was a decision maker on the war thought about any of this, at all, in any way.
There was no strategy, no thinking, no planning, nothing.
The US military has wargamed the Strait of Hormuz to hell, and all that was ignored, or dismissed, or not even considered to be relevant.
The full force of the US military is in the hands of a man who operates on whims based on what his reality TV instincts tell him will look good, and we are seeing the weakness of electing a reality TV star known for his capricious decision making and cruelty.
At what point can we just commonly agree that the goals of this "administration" are to do as much damage as possible to the United States? I'm sure there are some true believers (eg Trump himself would be just as much at home yelling racist abuse at nursing home staff), and many that are just in it to steal as much as they can. But the people whispering in ears and the overall support is driven by powers that want to destroy the United States - whether it's Russia, Israel, China, Big Tech who want to turn the place into a corporate authoritarian hellhole, or all of them together with their own pet projects. And that so many Americans continue to buy into this administration's nonsense narratives really illustrates an undercurrent of hate for this country that has been brewing for decades.
1) Oman and Iran both have territorial waters that extend into the center of the strait. See #3
2) What is "non-US backed oil?
3) Every country has the right to control their territorial waters.
4) Governments have worked hard to erode people's privacy rights such that crypto is not as untraceable as people still think.
5) ?
5) ?
6) Let it happen.
These objections seem confused. The person you are replying to is not attacking Iran, but you seem to be defending Iran. They're saying that attacking Iran was a stupid idea, because it caused Iran to strangle the Strait of Hormuz, a thing they hadn't done and that there was no indication that they were considering doing before the attack.
It's even stupider than the OP said. Aside from the strait, when you destroy Iran's oil facilities, you raise the price of oil for the foreseeable future. When Iran retaliates by destroying the oil facilities of local allies, it raises the price of oil for the foreseeable future. The only beneficiaries are oilmen in the US, Russia and South America, and the US is also supposed to be attacking Russia and South America.
It was clear from very early on that this war was (IMHO) the largest strategic blunder in US history and it's not even close. Prior to this, closing the Strait was an untested threat. This war forced Iran to prove they can in fact close the Strait and there's nothing the largest military on Earth can do about it. Well done, everybody, the system works.
The one point I'll disagree with is that sanctions do prevent you paying Iran even with crypto. I mean, you can fund your own wallet and give money to Iran but you've technically committed a crime and a pretty serious one. It's also one that's fairly easy to document and prove that you did it.
Oh, also the impact of cutting the world fertilizer supply hasn't hit yet. That'll come later in the year when the harvests are down, primarily in the Global South. This will also impact food prices in the West so look forward to that.
Your last comment suggests weakening of the petrodollar. I don't know if you meant it this way but let me dispel that myth: the USD doesn't have strength and power because oil sales are denominated in dollars. You have it backwards. Oil trades are denominated in dollars because of the demand for dollars and the root of that is the US military.
>the USD doesn't have strength and power because oil sales are denominated in dollars. You have it backwards.
Not quite. The "petrodollar" deal has helped to bootstrap and anchor the USD strength at a somewhat critical moment of history after the gold peg was "temporarily" suspended, which was effectively a default of the US government (second in the 20th century!).
Sure, today trade of oil in USD no longer plays a significant role in supporting its dominance, but it still plays a role. Together with other factors (such as increased weaponization of the USD-led financial system) rise of alternative settlement systems corrodes the network effects on which USD relies. Each blow in isolation may be insignificant, but their accumulation could become critical owning to the extreme non-linearity of the network effects.
Re fertilizer, it’s already happening. Potash exports from Canada, the world’s largest producer, have surged. In another US own goal, I believe potash demand will offer serious Canadian leverage in CUSMA negotiations.
Agreed on the potash but I was referring to the impact on food prices, which is still to come. Although Canada still exports almost all of its energy via the US so this street goes two ways.
The nature of trade is a complex web of many interdepdencies and this applies to war too. Like for awhile, the US was letting Iran-flagged ships headed to China and Chinese-flagged ships to pass through the Strait. Why? Because of the repercussions of an energy blockade on China to the US and its allies. China produces like 30-40% of the world's "stuff". China dominates rare earth production and an export ban on that would cripple the US military long-term.
Part of the reason the US is going it alone in Iran is because of all the torched good will from the tariffs. You broke it, you bought it. This event is a seachange in the international order that will take years to play out. What's ironic is that the US designed this international order post-WW2 for their own benefit and they're probably going to destroy it in a single presidential term.
> The threat of US sanctions are a just a threat, not any sort of law enforcement.
The threat of arrest is a just a threat, not any sort of law enforcement.
The threat of handcuffs is a just a threat, not any sort of law enforcement.
The threat of tasering is a just a threat, not any sort of law enforcement.
The threat of criminal charges is a just a threat, not any sort of law enforcement.
The threat of drone strikes is a just a threat, not any sort of law enforcement.
The threat of literally having your President helicoptered out of your capital by US special forces is a just a threat, not any sort of law enforcement.
You're taking this claim way too seriously. Iran is at war. This part of the information war. Nobody is going to pay fees to Iran to use internet cables.
> Now Iran knows they can blockade that Strait and makes these demands so they have much more leverage
Tehran has more potential leverage inasmuch as they've credibly demonstrated they can block the Strait. Whether they have more actual leverage than before is uncertain–trade flows are routing around them. And their own shores remain blockaded. (Just because the U.S. has less leverage than it did before doesn't mean Iran necessarily has more.)
They can make all the demands they want. I can demand you give me a thousand bitcoin to not burn your house down. That doesn't mean it has any remote chance of happening.
What's to stop Iran from using the threat of cutting those cables as leverage? A speedboat and a depth charge are all it takes, and neither are particularly difficult to make.
The threat of force is much more potent than the actual use of force: this has been the delicate dance that the US has used with Iran since the Revolution.
It took an idiot to try and actually use the full force of the USAF against Iran and reveal that the force was manageable- not great, but not going to topple the regime. And once that force was used and Iran's leaders realized it could be survived, that threat became much weaker, forcing a decision onto that previously mentioned idiot, he could either escalate to use greater force (some form of ground troops) or admit that he made a mistake and lost a war. And I suspect that the same will be true for Iran: the threat of cutting those cables is far more potent than the actual effects of cutting the cables.
The Internet is, it turns out, pretty good at routing around damage. The Russians have done some cable cutting in the Baltic Sea and it is annoying but it is not a winning move.
> The enormous pile of ordnance floating in the gulf of oman that can be easily dropped on Tehran, for one
Probably not. The other comment is right: cutting cables means having its own cables cut. (Tehran is also probably weighing whether it wants to continue mobilising almost all of its neighbors against itself. Trashing e.g. Kuwait for shits and giggles isn't strategically productive.)
> might be a good time for some good old-fashioned false-flag action
It's always "a good time for some good old-fashioned false-flag action" if you can pull it off. Given Riyadh and Abu Dhabi are already bombing Iran, and are now unaligned, there wouldn't be much for the U.S. to gain from something like this. (And if Israel were to pull off a false-flag operation against the U.S. now isn't better or worse than tomorrow or yesterday.)
See in an information war, it doesn't have to be true to be dangerous, and never assume how stock prices might effect people's resileance. The greater point is there are cans of worms that are opening that weren't anticipated. This is just one example;].
I imagine they'll be able to cut exactly one cable before the US starts bombing them again. If my goal is to profit from subsea cables I don't own, getting bombed doesn't sound like a great strategy if I'm Iran.
It's information war to scare US companies away from the middle east.
Do you think the US was holding back on bombing Iran? It doesn't work; they have always prepared for an American attack, because they are a government that was formed by overthrowing the dictatorship that the US installed after destroying their democracy, and the US has been constantly threatening them ever since.
This is the only fight they've been preparing for. They knew they were going to be facing an overwhelmingly superior navy and air force. That's why everything is dug in, buried and hidden. It's also why the propagandistic idea that they're a "terrorist state" is stupid, because a terrorist state would be prepared to do terrorist damage. The only terrorist arming and funding was from the US and Israel to people in Iran. I don't even see any heightened security at any level in the US - we're not even expecting anything.
Don't believe that the US can eradicate all ability for Iran to do something as trivial as cutting an undersea cable anytime soon. They would still have the ability cut the cables as a last gasp after they were totally defeated at every level.
1. AI wipes out entery level jobs. Cost of tokens used will make you spend more especially overtime. Keep in mind, right now we're probably in the era of cheap tokens
2. We rehire base employees at lower wages. Move AI to hire level tasks. AI is now doing the work we said humans will do. Talent drains to other compaines. AI can do certain things every well but can't put it together. Start rehiring talent at lower wages
3. In the end, AI turns out to really be artificial wage competition designed to drive worke salaries down. All of this is subsidized by the government, fund managers and the environment. Billionaires leave earth in spaceship.
>> The current commercialization isn't economically sustainable.
And if it were, and the result were like Elon and Scam Altman say it would destroy the economy. Not sure any country wants to lead the race to self destruction.
This is how I feel. No matter what they do at this point it is moot as they cannot be trusted to maintain products into the future. So much so it is a meme at this point.
reply