> There was high turnover from the lack of headcount and overwork which was somewhat alleviated by lowering the hiring bar...
Seen this game played before, at AWS working on the control plane for outposts. The correct solution here is dedicated operations staff to coordinate with the team and let the developers fast track issues that are resulting in high call volumes, not lowering the hiring bar for the entire team. The problem you run into with high call volumes and small teams is that it disrupts most developers enough that they can't build solutions and deal with the maintenance burden at the same time. You bleed talent because it places way more stress than necessary on the team.
I agree that we should abandon car-only transportation and instead move cars much further down the transit hierarchy. Ideally we would be relying on trains, bikes, and buses for most daily movement, using cars as needed instead of by default. But,
> still doesn't solve c02 [sic] emissions
This is incorrect. It doesn't magically make the entire grid carbon neutral but it does let us use much more efficient forms of power generation to make the electricity, and electric cars themselves do not emit CO2 (Carbon with 2 Oxygen). Effectively, switching to electric cars would remove cars themselves as a source of CO2 and make decarbonization much much easier.
If you want a real explanation, this is how defensive wars against an overwhelming opponent are fought. Iran knows that they can't build an iron-clad air defense perimeter, there still isn't a reliable answer against stealth aircraft and cruise missiles. They never had a chance of shooting down every plane that enters their airspace, and that isn't their goal.
Instead, they will fight this war by absorbing blow after blow, hiding their capabilities and striking back when it is advantageous.
All Iran needs to do to win is:
1) Outlast the US air campaign - note this only requires protecting enough of their defensive capabilities to remain difficult. It does not require shooting down every US aircraft that enters their borders. It does not require shooting down most aircraft that enter their borders.
2) Prevent free shipping in the Strait of Hormuz.
That's it. They just need to apply economic pain as domestic and international opposition to the unprovoked attack grows.
I'd argue there is a 3) show other gulf nations that the US can't defend them. They are doing a pretty reasonable job of that right now too considering the infra that is being destroyed daily. The real question is what are their goals and what do they stand to gain? A new list may be:
1) Stay in power. They really were pretty destabilized before this. This war may actually be propping up their government because hitting a bully, despite what the movies say, just gives them more power. Reporting from inside the country is sparse, but it seems like the few stories coming out aren't showing the same level of internal unrest that was there a month ago. This objective seems on track.
2) Increase their influence in the region. This is likely happening by the minute mainly by the fact that the US is losing influence in the region the longer this goes on. The US's loss is Iran's gain. I suspect that actual negotiations are happening in secret between Iran and gulf nations that will have long term consequences. I don't know that this objective is on track, it will take years to see, but if I were betting long term I would bet that Iran in 5-10 years will have much more influence in the region than they had a month ago.
3) Harm the US and Israel. Spain is getting almost hostile and we have a lot of US assets there. Pretty much every country on the planet is turning their back on the US openly. The most 'help' the US has gotten is basing from the UK and, of course, gulf nations supporting strikes. Israel is going to loose military aid for decades and potentially more after this administration leaves. This objective seems on track too.
I honestly don't know how Iran could get a better outcome than what is happening right now. By the end of this they will look rational compared to the US, the rhetoric of the last 50 years will look vindicated giving them increased influence and access in the region and a new generation of extremists will have been created. This has the makings of becoming one of the worst blunders in military history.
I guess it's possible that Russia and/or China delivered some hardware to the Iranians. Doesn't seem far fetched given the low international support for this "excursion". Both countries benefit from a US quagmire.
I'm an American and a patriot and the way I want to see this end is with Pete Hegseth and others from this nightmare administration delivered to the Hague, in chains.
They are explicitly forbidden from doing this without attribution. So yes, there is a legal problem with this. All they needed to do to avoid that was provide attribution, but Delve was staffed with such morally bankrupt and incompetent individuals that they couldn't even do that.
Your analysis of the war seems to hinge on a lack of "gumption", which is coincidentally the exact same thing I've heard conservative old boomers say about Vietnam. So I would say you're about equal in terms of adding to the discussion. It is, unfortunately, divorced from reality.
The critical thing about hidden missiles that you seem to be missing is: you can't bomb them if you don't know where they are.
We've already seen a 4 week bombing campaign that has included everything from a children's school to a chemotherapy company to bunkers under Tehran, so I don't think there's a lack of "bloodlust" or "gumption" from any of the so-called leaders at the DoD. Rather, it seems that they simply - don't know where the missiles and drones are. Which as I pointed out earlier, makes it rather hard to bomb them.
> It's perfectly normal for contracts in different jurisdictions to use different wording and include different clauses.
Before signing, yes, but once signed the contract stays constant. Mutating terms of service are weird - I would expect them to be locked to a canonical URL at least, like "https://.../tos?region=eu" or ideally something that locks the version too, like "https://.../tos?version=eu-002".
Let me pose a question from a different angle - these are legal contracts we are talking about, and the version they present to the user apparently changes based only on the client IP address. So if the terms in the EU ToS are better than in the US ToS, what would prevent me from signing up with an EU IP Address the first time? I would expect to be bound to the contract I actually agree to, not just the one they "intended" to show me.
I find most home inspectors fall into one of two camps:
1. You treat the house as a means to an end to make a living space for a person.
2. You treat the building construction itself as your craft, with the house being a vector for your craft.
The people who typically have the most negative things to say about buildings fall into camp #2 where cheap unskilled labor is streamlining a large part of what they considered their art while enabling people in group #1 to iterate on their developments faster.
Personally, I fall into the first camp.
No one has ever made a purchasing decision based on how good the pipes inside the walls are.
The general public does not care about anything other than the square footage and color of your house. Sure, if you mess up and one of the houses collapses then that'll manifest as an outcome that impacts the home owner negatively.
With that said, I do have respect for people in the latter camp. But they're generally best fit for homes where that level of craftsmanship is actually useful (think: mansions, bridges, roads, things I use, etc).
I just feel like it's hard to talk about this stuff if we're not clear on which types of construction we're talking about.
The general public does not know how to identify or care about the pipes in the walls. They do care when they bust and cause tens of thousands of dollars of damage. Thats why they hire someone with a keen eye to it to act on their behalf.
The general public does not know how to identify or care about good code. They do care when their data gets leaked or their computer gets hacked or their phone gets ransomware. That’s why they hire software engineers, who are supposed to care about the quality of the code they ship.
Agreed. No one need care about obsessively neat and orderly code, but there becomes a point where very real world issues surface that users actually care about. Contrary to some of the opinions here. Rushing out vibeslop at rapid pace will eventually have consequences.
Seen this game played before, at AWS working on the control plane for outposts. The correct solution here is dedicated operations staff to coordinate with the team and let the developers fast track issues that are resulting in high call volumes, not lowering the hiring bar for the entire team. The problem you run into with high call volumes and small teams is that it disrupts most developers enough that they can't build solutions and deal with the maintenance burden at the same time. You bleed talent because it places way more stress than necessary on the team.
reply