I'm trying to sell simplicity to my target market, who I would call "semi-tech literate". Maybe it's stupid and I should sell whatever Forbes thinks is cool, but I just can't shake this feeling that I should be solving actual business problems.
We failed a bid for a project because of simplicity. We were to migrate a service running on an on-prem Kubernetes installation and a three, or five, node Apache Cassandra cluster to Azure.
The service saw maybe a few hundred transaction per day, total database size: 2 - 3GB. The systems would hold data about each transaction, until processed and then age it out over three months, making the database size fairly stable.
Talking to a developer advocate for Azure we learned that CosmosDB would get a Cassandra API and we got access to the preview. The client was presented with a solution were the service would run as a single container in Azure Websites and using CosmosDB as the database backend. The whole thing could run within the free tier at that point. Massive saving, much easier to manage. We got rejected because the solution didn't feel serious and to simplistic for an organisation of their scale.
On the other hand I also once replaced a BizzTalk server with 50 lines of C# and that was well received by the client, less so of my boss who now couldn't keep sending the bill for a "BizzTalk support contract" (which we honestly couldn't honour anyway).
They have been chanting "down with America" - that does not mean "murder every single person in America with their missiles (which can't reach America)"
"Death to" is a mistranslation of "marg bar", a phrase that is also applied to traffic, and inflation.
Do the Iranians want to kill all traffic and all... inflation?
I'm grant you that I do not speak Persian, but I do speak Arabic and Hebrew. In Arabic the phrase موت لامريكا is common enough. And this Hebrew sign in Tehran says "prepare your coffins":
So I do appreciate you educating me on the literal meaning of the Persian phrase, yet I dispute your interpretation that they state no intention of murdering us. Quite the opposite, the more I research it the more Hebrew banners in Tehran I see and I can conclude not only are they capable of murdering myself and my children, they have intent as well.
Likely the actual goal, as dictated by Israel and the Jewish Lobby in the US, is to destabilise Iran long term in a sort of Syria situation, so they cannot threaten Israeli hegemony in the region.
Remember even a non Islamic Iran is still a threat to Israeli power if it remains unified and intact.
Last I checked, International Court of Justice and International Criminal Court tend to disagree.
To say nothing about overuse/abuse of the term 'terrorist' and weasel words 'terrorist aligned ideologies'.
To say nothing about being randomly in the vicinity of a person Israel might consider terrorist might put you in mortal danger, simply because they do not care about 'collateral damage'.
To say nothing about being Palestinian child being a 'future terrorist'.
To say nothing about trying to document what they are doing might put you in mortal danger (just look up the number of journalists killed by Israel).
Is every death at the hands of Israel against someone who is terrorist or has "terrorist-aligned ideologies"? If not, is every unjustified death of a civilian just "one IDF soldier doing something bad"?
You are handwaving away any sort of accountability from Israel. It is impossible, given your framing, for Israel to ever do anything wrong.
Israel funded terrorist organisations in Syria, and in Palestine itself - most famously the group Hamas.
Many of the terrorist groups Iran funds operates in areas illegally occupied by the Israeli military, making them legitimate resistance fighters.
And Israel itself is a terrorist state - they achieved independence via the actions of Jewish terrorist groups in Palestine like Igrun, Lehi - which included several future Israeli Prime Ministers as members.
So no, I do not trust Israel with nukes - they should be disarmed immediately.
Israel supports Hamas financially several times, a.) so they can justify a crackdown on Palestinians b.) to weaken the other political groups in Palestine that wanted to negotiate with Israel so only the most radical group is left to represent Palestinians, right wing Israeli assassinated the prime minister who negotiated a peace deal with PLO and the right wing is now in represented at top o government in Israel.
I genuinetely do not think Hasbara like this works anymore. The overton window on this has irrevocably shifted since 2023 and it would be a better strategy for you to live within this new reality, rather than making ludicrous claims that the middle eastern country most vehemently trying to shape western views on the region is... Qatar. It just comes across as an obvious projection, and only encourages sentiment that has a real potential to become harmful to you personally.
That is, unless posts like thos are designed to encourage that sentiment, which I sometimes suspect.
I think this shifted overtone window has partially to do with why they started this war to begin with, they see the writing on the wall and their window of opportunity is closing. Trump is at historic lows in polling [1]; 65% of democrats now sympathize more with Palestinians over Israelis (17%) [2]. HN is just a generally reactionary place, I wouldn't read to much into that.
Instead of claiming "whatever bullshit you come up with" at me, go search for Qatari influence in English too. I prefer Qatari sources in Arabic because then one cannot claim a biased source, but for those who can not read Arabic there is ample English language discussion.
Here's just the first two Google results, enjoy, there's quite a few more from both sides of the US political divide if you would like to start nitpicking sources.
Everybody got flagged in this thread lol What is your argument again? Is it that Qatar used propaganda to make americans anti-war in the middle east or something? I don't even know at this point.
I guess the concepts and some of the vocab are important (though I feel compelled to point out that þurh is cognate with through as well).
But Old English inflecting nouns, rather than relying on indefinite and definite articles, gives the language a very different quality to German. Also stuff like negative concord.
It is not helpful because comparing English from 1000 AD with Modern High German is the wrong premise to start off with.
I hear this premise repeated time and time again. Search the internet. I believed this premise, and actually started studying German again while waiting for my Old English textbook to arrive. It did not help.
I do not need to search the internet as I am fluent at German as well.
The knowledge of Modern High German helps little to none as far as the comprehension of Old English is concerned. From a modern German speaker's perspective, Old English – with a relatively small number of exceptions – is gibberish.
Words to do with light are so subtle between German and English. Like Kraftwerk tells me neon lights are "schimmerndes" in German, which I will take their word on, but they also say they are "shimmering" in English which is definitely not true.
scyn/schön/sheen are a different root from schein/shine, for what its worth.
Also I realise now "forlet" is very archaic in modern english whereas "verlassen" is very common in modern german, which would have helped.
What I just learned is that OE scīnan, to shine, gives OE scimrian, "to shine fitfully" [1]. Fascinating: Gothic skeima - torch, lantern.
[1] Eric Partridge: _Origins: A Short Etymological Dictionary of the English Language. sᴄᴇɴᴇ paragraphs 8,9.
Also fascinating: "prob from Old Norse skaerr" "is English sheer, bright, hence pure, hence sole, hence also transparent, perpendicular" under paragraph 10.
and further down the rabbit-hole, OHG filu-berht, full bright. Name of St. Philibert, "whose day falls on August 22 early in the nutting season". Norman French noix de filbert.
