Israel has a track record with the coincidentally anti-journalist ordinance. At some point you land a coin on heads twenty times and have to think maybe the coin is weighted.
"The Shajareh Tayyebeh school in Minab is part of a broad network of schools structurally and administratively affiliated with the IRGC Navy.
These schools are classified as nonprofit institutions and are primarily intended to provide educational services to the sons and daughters of members of the IRGC Navy."
IRGC means leadership (I did not said highest leadership, they would be in Teheran)
Say the goal is to get rid of the regime by giving the protesters an opening to rebel. Then Trump blew the metaphorical load too early by encouraging the protesters on truth social. Tens of thousands of them being killed destroyed the momentum. Smarter people would have tried to arm them first, or discouraged the protests until we could hit them at the same time.
Say the goal is to "do the right thing." Then we shoudn't be tag-teaming with a country doing a genocide, clearly. We'd probably be hesitant to help them destroy their enemy or realize their interests in general. We've had endless opportunity to reign them in and done nothing about it. "Oh, but we need them to project force in the middle east for us." Well then why the fuck are we starting a war? Let's force that ally to reform before starting the war. There was no fucking rush man.
Say the goal is to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Well, Iran isn't (wasn't) run by stupid people. They knew we could likely set back their nuclear program before it completed and they knew the best-case-scenario in building nukes would be to get some leverage. They therefore opted to take a deal, using the threat of becoming armed to have some leverage. For us this is a great deal because we don't need to pay the costs of fighting Iran and we don't need to give them a better deal at nuke-point, and for them it's pretty solid because it's less risky. There's no evidence the terms were violated before WE ripped up the deal.
"Well however we got into this situation, we're here now and they could have nukes within seconds, I mean minutes, I mean hours, I mean days, I mean months, I mean years..." Maybe before creating an international energy crisis, just bomb the damn nuclear program again. Worst case scenario they get a nuke and what? The whole point of a nuke is leverage, when you use it you lose the leverage. We would be forced to cut another deal with better terms for Iran. Whatever dude, maybe that's not worth fighting another middle eastern war idk maybe I'm crazy.
I'm not a big war guy who just loves killing for the fun of it or whatever but even a war of aggression can be competent. I can admit when competence is exhibited and when something I otherwise dislike at least works out well. This shit is the most monumental blunder in decades. It wasn't planned, it has no goal, it will either end in a pointless withdrawal or (most likely) a Vietnam-esque quagmire. Every single problem was foreseeable and foreseen, that's why we didn't do this before. But some fucking moron pedophile gets blackmailed hard enough by a genocidal war criminal to say "what's one more, for old times sake?" and I'm supposed to want to shout hurrah and put my goddamn body and soul on the line for absolutely literally jack shit? Utterly ridiculous.
Israel's actions horrify me, but I still disagree when people totalize Israelis. They assume the entire citizenry signs on to the atrocities, easy to do but it's bullshit. It's not good when random Israelis get hit by an Iranian missile, same when a US soldier gets hit, or when an Iranian one does, or an Iranian civilian, or an IDF soldier, and so on. Totalization is always a lie. If the world wants to blame me for some crazies I despise making the world worse then that's what it is, but it's just another case of the world being stupid. No better than when those crazies in my own country totalize Iranians to justify their own bloodlust.
There's an assumption underlying what you said that datacenters are gonna get built one way or another. But these aren't sewage plants or power plants or desalination plants or whatever, they aren't particularly important for the quality of life of most people. We could just kinda... not build them? How about we don't let them get built most places so it becomes fairly expensive. Make it so expensive that only say 1/5 of the amount get built. The rich techbros still have their videogen toys and nobody deals with noise pollution. It's not cheap to generate a picture of trump riding a frog, ya know, but like everyone's lives are no different from how they are now.
I don't assume that! There's nothing wrong with a local government deciding that they just don't like big projects and won't approve any that aren't strictly necessary for the needs of local residents.
The flip side is that residents of a place where people want to do more business and make big investments will have a lot more economic opportunity, which is important to quality of life. So unless you're in an area where people feel they already have all the opportunity they need, figuring out how to get businesses investing in your community in some way is important. And datacenters are often more pleasant to have nearby than warehouses or manufacturing.
It's bad for my quality of life if some of the economic inputs to things I use (like "the internet", writ large) get made deliberately more expensive to build via regulatory fiat. Indeed, this is basically deliberate NIMBYism, and NIMBYism is why housing is scarce and expensive where I live. I don't want policymakers to be able to assert that the only possible use of a datacenter is something they find silly and then change the law to make them more expensive to build.
What portion of datacenters being built in the next five years go towards the existing Internet and why do we need more datacenters for the internet right now? I could point to a bunch of issues with the internet and more datacenters would fix none of them.
reply