> Claude Code is a steaming pile of vibe-coded bloat.
Not disagreeing but I'm curious how much it really matters.
I use OpenCode which is similarly a steaming pile of vibe-coded bloat and get pretty good results!
I'm open to switching to pi, which I've read about occasionally on HN, but I'm struggling to see where it might have practical benefits versus OpenCode.
The idea that pi is now under corporate governance with a potentially sustainable business model does intrigue me, but there's risk in adopting "open core" software too due to the potential rug pull and incentives to gate important features behind more restrictive licenses.
Exactly. The (real) issues were ultimately disregarded even if they were correctly identified.
My assumption is that it was too expensive to actually release at the time. It wasn't good enough for anybody to pay to use it yet, and it surely was very expensive to run, especially for a (fake, granted) non profit.
The best Iran could hope for given its inevitable defeat by a far superior aggressor was to deny the invader any kind of spoils. And by those standards they seem to be succeeding.
So now we have a pointless war that has resulted in thousands of dead with no tangible benefit to anybody, except of course those cronies of the administration doing insider trading.
This is not pointless. It exists to exchange a future nuclear war with Iran with a conventional war today.
The US and Israel can fight a conventional war with Iran. In a nuclear war, Israel would be destroyed by nuclear missiles in the two days. The possibility of a nuclear Iran is an existential crisis for Israel, and Israel will do anything possible to prevent Iran from gaining nukes.
Most people do not comprehend this conventional war is happening today, (with unclear goals), to prevent a nuclear one in the future.
Hitting desalination plants across the gulf isn't much better than a nuclear war. If anything, the takeaway from this conflict is that nobody is ready for even the modest number of conventional ballistic missiles produced by an impoverished and dysfunctional state.
So instead of using diplomacy to ensure Iran stopped short of acquiring nukes - which had been effective - the US preemptively has attacked them, disrupting the region, killing civilians... to continue to prevent them from getting nukes.
What is the cost to the US to go on this excursion in an effort to simply maintain the status quo wrt nukes? Of course there's the real cost in treasure and the damage to its gulf allies, but there's a continued erosion of soft power and a deeply weakened relationship with other NATO countries.
So the upside here - the reason to suddenly switch from "diplomacy" to "aggression" was - what exactly? Oh, it's that Israel saw its opening, Netanyahu wanted a boost in his polls, and the old man in charge of the US was glad to do what his friend asked of him [0].
People want to believe that there's some purpose here, that there's method in the madness. But that continued belief relies on being blind to the reality before us.
> It exists to exchange a future nuclear war with Iran with a conventional war today.
That's just ridiculous. Nobody can predict the future, so trading uncertain war in the future for a certain war today is completely irrational. (And for the same reason, the war today is unlikely gonna be easier than the war tomorrow.)
Besides, Iran has avoided having nuclear weapon, because it causes too many civilian casualties, and that's against their beliefs. In this, they're more civilized than Americans (and Europeans), despite that this might be considered to be an irrational view by barbarians like you.
I think you're just coping with the fact that this war was utterly pointless, destructive for almost everyone in the world, and a poor attempt to increase power by a small group of people.
Former Iranian Majles member Ali Motahari said in an April 24, 2022 interview on ISCA News (Iran) that when Iran began developing its nuclear program, the goal was to build a nuclear bomb. He said that there is no need to beat around the bush, and that the bomb would have been used as a "means of intimidation" in accordance with a Quranic verse about striking "fear in the hearts of the enemies of Allah."
"When we began our nuclear activity, our goal was indeed to build a bomb,” former Iranian politician Ali Motahari told ISCA News. “There is no need to beat around the bush,” he said.
Read the last two lines of that interview. Khamenei interpreted Islam as forbidding even building the bomb, and he is the moral authority on this, like it or not.
Japan could also have built a nuclear bomb, but chose not to. They decided that out of nothing else than their moral beliefs.
You simply don't want to accept than other cultures can be (in some respects, and even regardless of what individuals think on average - that's probably similar for large enough groups) more ethical than your own.
Iran enriched over 450kg of uranium to at least 60%.
There's no need for anything over 5% for powerplant use. They were preparing HEU for weapons; whether those weapons were to be built now or in 20 years is irrelevant.
Yes, I agree, except it's not irrelevant whether they built functional nuke or not, because this is used as a justification for war. (Not to mention, as a justification for war, "they could have built a nuke" is even more barbaric than "they have built a nuke".)
Still, that doesn't counter the fact they didn't actually make a nuclear bomb out of the material, nor the fact that their highest moral authority banned them from doing that, so it doesn't do anything to disprove that culturally they are more civilized (in that respect).
(Maybe an example from a corporation would clarify this better - the fact that there is a group of people in it doing things unethically doesn't mean that the company as a whole condones this behavior, even if structurally - how the corporation or capitalist society is constructed - might lead to some people doing it internally off the books. But once it is known to the CEO - the highest moral authority in a corporation, if he is not to be implicated in this, he must tell them to stop.)
It's frankly just moving the goalpost in an attempt not to accept your own barbarism. Is your culture OK with using nuclear weapons, even in self-defense? If yes, how do you dare to judge?
> their highest moral authority banned them from doing that
This means nothing. Iran says one thing publicly, then privately does another. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said his country will not develop ballistic missiles with a range exceeding 2,000 kilometers [0]; yet they secretly developed missiles with a range of 4,000 km [1].
Per international agreements, it was their right. The idiotic thing about this argument is that now everyone knows they want nukes and that not having ones is strategic mistake. Because Iran and Ukraine did not have one. Meanwhile, countries with nukes are safer.
> The best Iran could hope for given its inevitable defeat by a far superior aggressor was to deny the invader any kind of spoils
clearly not, they had an already planned goal to remove the american ability to impose sanctions, and implemented the plan, while sufferjng a ton of losses to personel and materiel.
this is a major improvement from where the US could impose sanctions and states would comply. surviving iranians are in a much better position now than before the war
The 12 D chess explanation, people still believe this?
This whole thing is a debacle. Trump was manipulated by his betters into engaging a war he doesn't understand at all [0], and while flailing he just reached for the most insane threat he could imagine.
The madman theory ironically actually requires a sane and competent person to perform the bluff, [1] which is not the case here.
> Back when it used military power to commit war crimes the world over, and gained or maintained financial capital supremacy from it? As compared to now, when it can only use military power to commit war crimes on a smaller scale, and is throwing away American hegemony in the process?
Such comments either are propaganda or they play into the hands of propagandists.
There is a huge difference in the degree of corruption and malfeasance of this administration. Implying that the current regime is so similar to prior ones downplays the critical importance of restoring competence.
Or, it might be the case that the prior regime had tactfully hidden all of those things being accused by the GP's comment, and this regime is simply doing it in the open with no regard.
Even if this were true (which of course it's not), doing bad stuff in the open actually is far and more deleterious to the fabric of society than doing bad stuff in secret.
for which society? the American society, maybe? they get to feel good about themselves
for the societies all over the globe that have been the targets of such policies for more than a century, I think it's better to call a spade a spade. the non-American politicians and aristocrats that benefit from US imperialism get to hide much better if the Americans are "the good guys"
No even for other societies, it would be far worse if American politicians felt no imperative (moral, political, economic, or otherwise) to not behave like raving lunatics.
This is of course what we're seeing today, where Trump is just discovering his taste for utilizing American military power to achieve his whims.
Hopefully we get bogged down in Iran enough not to continue, but obviously as soon as we started the Iran conflict, the GOP was already talking about "Cuba's next" etc, which is obviously the start of an infinitely long list of places to "liberate."
This situation is far worse for everyone than the one where the US is mostly benign (despite mistakes) relative to its incredible power.
It is absolutely true. The USA has a history of making shit up, kill some million(s) of people, steal their oil.
The only difference is that Donald Trump doesn’t care about plausible deniability at all, unlike previous presidents,which is why the American public remembers (the demons) George Bush neutral or slightly positive. They should both have died in prison.
This is an extremely popular view that recently has been disseminated and while based on fact, is emotional propaganda. It basically exists as a justification for Trump’ and this administrations actions, along the lines of “they’ve always done it, at least we don’t hide it” and gives them a combination of legitimacy and a strange sense of “doing the right thing”.
I understand that it’s true that the USA has been problematic in the past but in this case, the story being sold to people about the US “always” having been bad exists to convince people that there is no other way, and you either have to accept it or tear it all down. Interestingly both benefit the current administration
No, this is not “propaganda “ to justify anything Trump is up to.
The USA has not been “problematic”, it has enforced a particular ideology on the world with the rest of us unwilling participants.
The USA has repeatedly overthrown diplomatically elected leaders(Iran ironically being the best example, a democratic government toppled because it was stopping American business interests and democratising its oil resources) so the USAs ownership class can make their fortunes.
Sometimes , it has stopped elections, exterminated millions, set their villages on fire, because the people were picking the wrong ideology.
Yes those are all bad and you are naive if you think a USA that relishes brutality could not or would not be 1000x worse.
Militarily, the US can trivially eradicate entire countries. It is “only” our leadership and their sense of morals (imperfect and spotty as they are) that prevents this.
A USA run amok for a mere 4 days can literally end human civilization as we know it. One sentence uttered from the mouth of a contemporary POTUS can make the atrocities of WW2, Vietnam, OEF, OIF all look like charity projects.
Whether the US is capable of hiding their maleficence or not should not be an indicator of whether it is safe to deal with them. If your indicator for the US being a good partner in _anything_ is that "well we did corrupt things in the past, but people didn't use to care about it", then the US is still not a good partner.
It's not like the US has never e.g. openly threatened NATO allies with war: There is quite literally a standing law that allows the US president to invade the netherlands if any US military personnel is ever detained by the International Criminal Court.
This law has been on the books for over 20 years and has the publically announced intention to prevent the US from being prosecuted for all the other atrocities committed in e.g. Iraq. This bill was supported by both democrats and republicans.
The reality is that the US' stance towards the rest of the world has not changed with the recent administrations (nor would I expect it to: Trump does not happen in a vacuum). What did change was willingness of the rest of the world to act on the US' actions.
The US government always committed war crimes and all sorts of human rights abuses abroad.
The previous presidents were just more competent stewards of these activities.
In some ways, not being from the US, I don't dislike Trump. He may be a senile buffon and apparent pedophile, but at least he laid bare what the US truly stands for. He was elected twice after all, and still has substantial support.
At least other countries can stop pretending the US is in any way friendly.
May I recommend Chris Hedges' American Fascists The Christian Right and the War on America, published in 2007. The current situation didn't develop in a vacuum, it is the mushroom that shows how far the mycelium has spread and how old it is.
fwiw i agree with you that the current situation is much worse than in the past, given all the horror's being done in the open without any nod toward reason, multilateralism, or public consent
I don't have rose-tinted glasses with regard to US actions in the past, especially in OEF/OIF. So many instances of horror in Vietnam, WW2, and so on.
But all of those things are the awful things that happen during war even with a military, political, and legal apparatus that tries to mitigate it.
We are now dealing with a regime that claims and will make no such efforts. The only reason the Iran war hasn't so far yielded the same horrors is because so far we haven't attempted to occupy Iran.
If we do, I absolutely promise you that a military populated by people who know they can be court martialed, jailed, or even executed for crimes against the local population will be significantly better behaved (even if imperfectly, per your article) than one that is told – from the very top – that they will be accountable for nothing except maximal brutality and lethality.
The past was bad. But the current is far worse. Tell it to the people disappeared in the ICE concentration camps. Or to any trans people in any bad state.
> The real test: his personal email should be pretty uninteresting except for stuff like HIPAA, amazon purchases, communications with friends / family. (good for HUMINT) But other than that, there shouldn't be anything in there which should make the news.
I have no idea why this would be the default assumption for somebody as sloppy and erratic as Patel. Look at how many people were emailing damning stuff to/from Epstein's personal email accounts from their own personal email accounts!
I believe it's the second half of parent's comment that is doing the heavy lifting.
A 9-0 ruling written by Clarence Thomas which puts basic human rights (internet access) above civil liability - try asking a chatbot to find many of those.
Their key insight is that you don't have to manufacture consent when so many voters just love the guy in the White House and will stand by him no matter what.
Why waste time convincing anybody of anything, when support for the war will just converge on the president's approval rating anyway?
It certainly appears to be a cult of personality. If he had a massive stroke tomorrow, or one of his secret service detail took him out, could anyone around him pick up the baton and get that same level of support?
They could at the very least just package it up to run with Wine, but Sweeney is stubbornly set in his linux hating ways. I could use their store through the Heroic launcher, as I do with GoG, but I won't because fuck you Tim.
If we're being realistic from a business standpoint: Linux is at best, 3% market share. A very passionate 3%, but 3%. Using resources to support such a niche sector is a hard sell.
3% of millions of people is a massive number of people. Given how easy recent work on wine has made porting from windows, it's really hard to defend not having a linux version, from a business standpoint.
I'd hope this community of all places would understand that "just integrate X with Y" is never as simple as "just". It's still something a team needs to do, and the gain is minimal unless Epic is also going to try and make their own console-esque device. That's the incentive for Steam.
Going by the Steam hardware survey, 3/4 of Linux users were not using Steam Decks when they got polled. So I’m not sure if a console-esque device is actually required. A large part of the reason why Linux usage is growing, is probably that it mostly just works these days
Yes, it's not the most optimal business decision as a software company to invest in hardware. The clear move is to either grease Microsoft's palms, or let then outright acquire Steam (or Valve as a whole). Valve not doing that is either in part ideological, or part very long term thinking on the best financial path later, instead of now.
But at the same time: while the ends was "be independent from Microsoft", their means at first was very Microsoft esque. Partner up with hardware vendors, make some Pcs with Steam built in, and brand it as such. Didn't work. Their goal had to be to roll their own hardware because that's what was needed to get the ball rolling (as well as a form factor that accompanied a desktop instead of competed against).
The problem for an also-ran app store is that you need every user you can find.
Linux support may not be a huge deal in the overall market (although it's growing due to the steam os devices) but it's just one more element to Steam's moat.
It's a glorified wrapper around curl, wine and a webview, a few interns could knock this out in a few months. For "3% market share" (growing every day, thanks to Valve) its a no brainer, but Sweeney has no brain.
Not disagreeing but I'm curious how much it really matters.
I use OpenCode which is similarly a steaming pile of vibe-coded bloat and get pretty good results!
I'm open to switching to pi, which I've read about occasionally on HN, but I'm struggling to see where it might have practical benefits versus OpenCode.
The idea that pi is now under corporate governance with a potentially sustainable business model does intrigue me, but there's risk in adopting "open core" software too due to the potential rug pull and incentives to gate important features behind more restrictive licenses.
reply