Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | JohnTHaller's commentslogin

I'm using OVH for downloads from PortableApps.com as their un-metered VPS was one of the better and affordable options. Haven't noticed any issues (knock wood). Is there something else I should look at?

Man I used PortableApps.com so much back when I was in high school to get around the "you can't install anything on this computer" rule... Thank you for your service.

First, thanks for PortableApps!

Still use it as soon as I'm forced to use a Windows computer.

Otherwise, as long as you make sure that no billing issue can arise from your side (like an expired card...), you should be fine.


I don't get the folks referring to this as a "Chromebook killer". Chromebooks start at around US$150 new. The MacBook Neo is 4 times the price at US$599. There are premium Chromebooks like the Chromebook Plus line that are more in the Neo price range, but those aren't the ones being bought for schools and such. Doesn't make the Neo a bad thing, of course, I think it's a solid basic laptop from the reviews.

I think for kids in particular, it's important to remember that the educational discount brings it down to US 500. That's not exactly nothing but that's a pretty reasonable amount for a non-crap laptop.

I used non-discounted consumer prices for both. Education discounts for both the Neo and Chromebooks will bring them down further.

So our a lot of our prisons. One of the reasons Republicans keep voting to keep marijuana, etc illegal.

The modern Iran War began in April 2024 when Israel bombed Iran's consulate in Syria, marking the first direct conflict between the countries.

There were many many milestones that are relevant to the current war.

- Proxy war waged by Iran in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen.

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Qasem_Soleima...

Arguably the bombing of IRGC meeting in the consulate-adjacent structure was not really "direct conflict". It was Iran firing missiles at Israel that was the first real direct conflict: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_2024_Iranian_strikes_on_...

Also if we want to split hairs Iran attacked Israel's embassy in Buenos Aires in 1992: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Buenos_Aires_Israeli_emba...

"In April 2024, Argentina's second highest court ruled that the Iranian government was responsible for the bombing, and that it was carried out in retaliation for Argentina reneging on agreements to transfer nuclear material to Iran. The ruling also characterized Iran as a terrorist state"


In your last point, wasn't that just Miley pandering to the US and Israel ?

Bombing an Embassy/Consulate is a direct attack on sovereign territory according to international law, so technically Israel started first, but I agree, it's splitting hair, both sides attacked each other in various ways, via proxies, sabotage, killing scientists, economic damages, sanctions long before any of this happened.


That was an Argentinian court so I'm not sure the government matters. Also there is other evidence of Iran's involvement. Not to mention countless other attacks on Israel proper and Israelis.

I don't think it's clear from an international law perspective. I remember reading the Vienna Convention and not really finding anything specific and my attempts to read it now and use AI to figure it out aren't yielding anything.

The status of the embassy or consulate is generally considered to be an agreement between the host and guest countries. It is not considered territory of the sending country at all.

Anyways, as we said this is mostly splitting hairs. Israel had really no grievance with Iran and no reason to act or attack it before Iran decided that destroying Israel is one of its goals. In the kindergarten game of "who started" it was clearly Iran, no doubt about that.


That only works if you treat Iran’s proxies as unrelated actors.

Hamas (Oct 7), Hezbollah on the northern border, the Houthis in the Red Sea, Iraqi militias hitting U.S. bases — that’s been Iran’s strategy for decades.

April 2024 may have been the first direct exchange, but the war with Iran’s proxy system was already underway.


Hezbollah and Hamas are friendly with Iran but they very much have their own reasons for attacking Israel. Handwaving that as "Iran's proxies" is motivated reasoning.

Iran probably wouldn't have blown up the $300m radar installation if we hadn't randomly attacked them.

[flagged]


History really doesn’t say otherwise. Tensions were mostly cooling after the Obama nuclear deal.

Now the message we’ve told the world is: If you don’t want to eventually be at risk of the US attacking you, you better be nuclear armed.


Of course they cooled Iran kept enriching uranium and the rest of the world agreed to ignore it.

because enriching uranium worked out so well for Iran?

Doesn't mean the direction wasn't correct.

Take any American, and treat them the way Americans treat others, and they would be forming terrorist cells (gorilla war), building nukes, basically every single thing they could to fight back. To never surrender.

Remember Red Dawn? That would be an American Response, to what America is doing.

That is it basically. If shoe was on other foot, Americans would never surrender.

So, why are we expecting others to give up quietly?


> So, why are we expecting others to give up quietly?

We're not. That's why we're bombing the regime and associated military targets. Iran was never expected to give up quietly.


Think you are missing the point.

They aren't going to just give up after a few weeks of bombing.

Will need boots on the ground versus a resistance/multiple sides of a civil war, and now we have another 20 year war.

People don't just shrug and go "all shucks, yuck yuck, guess you got us, i'll roll over"


because it worked out for North Korea

Largely because they didn't actually need it. Their conventional artillary pointed at south korea was already (and still is) more of a deterrnt than the nuke is.

Nobody was desperate to invade North Korea prior to their acquisition of nukes. It's a horrific war field and combat prospect. Iraq and Afghanistan were each a cakewalk next to going into North Korea (again). North Korea was safe as they were.

The primary threat to Gaddafi over time was internal, nukes would not have protected him. What was he going to do, nuke his own territory? The same was true for Assad.

The primary threat to Iran's regime is internal. Nobody is invading Iran. It's a gigantic country with 93 million people. It can't be done and it's universally understood. Trump won't even speculate about it, even he knows it can't be done. What would nukes do to protect Iran's regime? Are they going to nuke their own people? Are they going to nuke Israel and US bases if the US bombs them?

So let me get this straight: the US bombs Iran, Iran nukes Israel and some US bases, maybe even a regional foe - then Iran gets obliterated.

That's not what would happen in reality at all. Don't take my word for it, ask Pakistan: the US threatened to bomb them [0] - despite their possession of nukes - after 9/11 if they didn't cooperate. Why would the US do that? Because the US knows that MAD doesn't work like the online armchair crowd thinks it does.

[0] https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2006/9/22/us-threatened-to-bo...


"The primary threat to Gaddafi over time was internal, nukes would not have protected him. What was he going to do, nuke his own territory? The same was true for Assad."

Have you checked, how many outside interventions both countries had and still have?

Labelling this as "internal" is pretty missleading. If both dictators would have had nuclear weapons ready to launch, no foreign bomber would have dared going in against the regime.


> That's not what would happen in reality at all. Don't take my word for it, ask Pakistan: the US threatened to bomb them [0] - despite their possession of nukes - after 9/11 if they didn't cooperate. Why would the US do that? Because the US knows that MAD doesn't work like the online armchair crowd thinks it does.

That isn't a MAD situation.

Pakistan has nukes but they can't launch them on the US.


Because NOT enriching uranium worked so badly for Gaddafi.

Giving up their nuclear weapons did not work out well for Ukraine.

History does not say otherwise. The US however has a history of attacking Iran, including murdering 190 people on a civilian flight: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655

Not sure why this comment is downvoted: the facts are established, as is (among others) the Mosaddegh coup d'état co-organized by the US:

> On 19 August 1953, Prime Minister of Iran Mohammad Mosaddegh was overthrown in a coup d'état that strengthened the rule of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the shah of Iran. It was instigated by the United Kingdom (MI6), under the name Operation Boot[5][6][7][8] and the United States (CIA), under the name TP-AJAX Project[9] or Operation Ajax. A key motive was to protect British oil interests in Iran after Mosaddegh nationalized the country's oil industry. (...) > In August 2013, the U.S. government formally acknowledged the U.S. (...) was in charge of both the planning and the execution

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta...

Or the US backing of Saddam Hussein from 1982 onwards during the Iraq-Iran 8-year war of aggression, with “massive loans, political influence, and intelligence on Iranian deployments gathered by American spy satellites”. During this war, Iraq employed chemical weapons leading to 50.000 - 100.000 Irani deaths.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War

This (and other pieces of historical context) help very much understand the Iranian insistence on a ballistic missile program.


*290 people. Mistook an Airbus A300 for an F-14. Maybe it's an easy mistake to make on radar back in the day?

Back in the day, or even now. Kuwait’s US-supplied air defense shot down three US F15s this weekend.

History doesn't say anything, because there is no precedence Iran attacking the US assets first.

Iran has never carried out an attack against US military infrastructure that wasn't clearly retaliatory.

Look it up. Every case of Iran attacking US infrastructure has been in direct retaliation to the US blowing up some Iranian stuff.

Sure Iran has funded tons of proxy attacks by anonymous militias but these are generally not at the same kind of scale.


Is there good evidence for this?

It'd been there for decades. And Iran stated that if attacked by the US and Israel they'd retaliate against US targets in addition to Israel.

Yes. Their repeated warnings that Iran would no longer tolerate the kind of back-and-forth blame shifting that think-tank policy papers openly described years ago as a strategy to keep Iran off sides, and that any attack by Israel would be considered an attack by the USA too and that American assets that surrounded Iran would be attacked; since under all the clownish “who? Meeee?”act gaslighting and stupid pathological lies, everyone knows they are one and the same.

It’s like dealing with psychopathic toddlers who think people aren’t smart enough to know they are lying when they deny killing the family pet even though their hands are covered in blood and you just watched them mid act of slaughtering the family pet.


Confirmed.

$1.1 billion AN/FPS-132 radar hit, likely by a $50,000 Shahed drone: https://x.com/sam_lair/status/2028961678776488111

Holy shit.


The coat asymmetry with drones is crazy, they are stupid cheap to deploy on a nation state level. I feel like it’s going to be years until we fully learn the lessons from the Ukraine Russia war.

Giving Republicans the benefit of the doubt is nearly always a losing proposition

This is a popular issue in Canada, Australia, and Europe too. There's obviously some need for reform. You just can ask people who work at these institutions. Not everything is an American republican-bad thing.

I actually disagree that just because something is a popular issue necessarily means there's need for reform, people are perfectly capable of driving themselves into a frenzy over something that, when actually examined, is functioning appropriately.

Well this isn't a new issue to me, I've been talking about H1B reform for a decade now before Tiktok ragebait existed. Mostly based on my experience trying to immigrate to the US and speaking to immigration lawyers. This isn't new and there's endless real examples of poor enforcement. The situation here is even worse in Canada regarding education Visas, it's a giant backdoor for loose immigration.

The visas in the US around education are even more liberal than they are for STEM jobs (which IMO is a bit exaggerated online), there's less or no cap limits in edu and the organizations can sponsor people easier than companies. IT abuse is the big ticket item while no one really talks about education. Both need better enforcement.


> there's less or no cap limits in edu and the organizations can sponsor people easier than companies.

Why is this necessarily a problem?


The abuse and lack of oversight which I already mentioned. Pretending to not understand issues in an attempt to dismiss them is not a helpful tactic.

I'm not pretending not to understand anything, I'm genuinely unconvinced that's a particularly pressing issue. The actual material downsides strike me as minimal, especially as compared to the upsides, the costs of enforcing any change, and especially as compared to the amount of attention it gets.

I recognize that it's an issue elsewhere and that there are abuses and there is need for reform. But my point stands. The modern Republican party, especially in Florida, is generally not interested in reform to make citizen's lives better. Nearly every time they are given the benefit of the doubt, it's a benefit that should not be given them.

I couldn't agree more!

Global crazy tariffs, supply chain issues, and RAM and storage shortages due to AI hype betting. Also greed.

They're against anyone cancelling their "culture"

> What am I missing?

Racism and Christian Nationalism


Samsung will switch from monthly to updating less and less often over the age of your device. Your device will be vulnerable to known security issues but Samsung will stick to their once every 3 months and sometimes once every 6 months update schedule. I found this out after my premium Samsung tablet sat vulnerable for months.

https://www.sammobile.com/samsung/samsung-galaxy-security-up...


That's true, but for the price and compared to non-Samsung they are doing really well. Our daughter's A54, which was a bargain at 300 Euro, is still getting monthly updates after three years and looks like it's still getting them for at least another year (since A53 is also still supported).

Though for price vs. updates it's hard to beat the Pixel 9a. It's currently often ~349 Euro and gets updates until April 1, 2032.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: