> Israel also ends up weaker here. The nuclear threat is unchanged. But the deaths in Iran will fuel enlistment in anti-Israel terrorist organizations for another generation.

I agree with everything else you wrote, but I'm not sure that this is considered a loss by Israel's current government.

1. Israel is used to having enemies all over the world, so by now, the population doesn't care all that much.

2. The Likoud and its far-right alliance actually needs enemies to remain in power.

Also, any reduction in the number of missiles that Iran can launch at Israel, and any reduction in the number of AA armament that prevents Israel from bombing Iran again is good for Israel.

Where Israel will feel the loss is the 2M$ levy, because this means that Iran will rearm that much faster.

True, if the presence of active terrorist organizations is beneficial then this is a win.

Politically it might suit Israel to have overt enemies. I'm not sure it's necessarily advantageous to the population, but that probably doesn't matter.

I suspect one clear outcome is that Iran now completely understands the importance of cheap, effective, munitions (drones and missiles) and so will likely build those up quickly. That might affect munitions targeted at Israel.

> I suspect one clear outcome is that Iran now completely understands the importance of cheap, effective, munitions (drones and missiles) and so will likely build those up quickly. That might affect munitions targeted at Israel.

I think that this has affected Israel for decades by now. See all the rocket factories in South Lebanon or Gaza. I imagine that this is the reason for which Israel demonstrated a few years ago prototypes of laser-based anti-missiles. I don't know if they will could work against drones, but I'd be very, very surprised if there weren't a dozen Israeli startups currently competing to come up with cheap anti-drone countermeasures.

My assumption is that, by now, Trump just wants to save face and move on to an easier target, one that can't strike back. He's been preparing the US opinion for Cuba.

So I wouldn't be surprised if negotiations just... stopped, without anything happening. Pretty much what happened, if I understand correctly, to the economic negotiations with Japan, EU, Canada, Mexico and anybody else regarding US import taxes.

But there's no oil to gain in Cuba, no stock market interests, and no pushing from Israel. So, why would he do that?

Because it feels like a quick win?

That's what I'm saying. There's nothing to win.

Still looking at the details, but this morning, one of the biggest French newspapers was basically headlining (a slightly more polite version of) TACO.

Not a good image for the US around the world, including its (former?) allies, I guess.

What's à good image of the US nowadays ? Artemis maybe. That's all.

Wait for re-entry.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47582043

Would a better image be destroying the power plants and water desalination of 90M people?

I personally would have a better image of the ongoing war if it had any objectives that felt achievable.

Out of curiosity, what do you think is the best realistic outcome for this war, from the US perspective?

One should never draw a redline they aren't willing to cross. Trump of all people should know this, he gave Obama shit for years over the uninforced redline with Syria over chemical weapon use.

To Trump, when someone else does something, it's worthy of reproach, but when Trump himself does it, it's the cleverest 4D chess anyone could ever imagine.

A more fundamental aspect of his character is that everything his enemies does is bad and stupid and everything he does is good and genius.

So if Obama allows red lines to be crossed, it's totally different. Trump has a long history of bluster and hyperbole and - look - we re-elected him so I guess it can be a winning strategy.

Or it was. Now that people are calling his bluff on tariffs and genocide, there isn't so much winning.

We are in an era of clickbait; mainstream media tends to be sycophantic to the views of its readers.

FWIW, this was the title around 6am. By 8am, they had changed it to something a little bit more respectable.

Yeah, I joined a project a couple of months ago, felt completely lost.

Last week, a colleague finally added for Claude all the documentation I'd have needed on day one. Meanwhile, I'm addressing issues from the other direction, writing custom linters to make sure that Claude progressively fixes its messes.

> I predict that in the future people will ditch LLMs in favor of AlphaGo style RL done on Lean syntax trees. These should be able to think on much larger timescales.

This is certainly my hope.

In my spare time, I'm slowly, very slowly, inching towards a prototype of something that could work like that.

> How many of you software engineers want to sign up for high taxes?

FWIW, I do. I don't live in the US, though.

Cheers, mate.

Note that it's hard for researchers in Europe, too.

But as far as I can tell, not nearly as hard as in the US. I don't think that any PhD student in Europe has been deported by masked agents, for instance.

Erm... security?

Seen from Europe, the current US administration doesn't want a Europe, end of story.

Trump 1.0 already tried to convince EU countries to exit the EU.

Trump 2.0 keeps insulting the EU, threatening the EU economically and threatening it militarily. To the point where even most of the far right EU candidates who were betting on being the ${EU COUNTRY} Trump are now doing their best to display how they're very much not Trump.

Good thing we're not in the US to terrorize us with the ICE.

Yes, I do, but it's not going to prevent me from doing so.

I believe that the current generation of GenAI (as a market, not necessarily as a tech) is going to crash and burn by 2027. I also believe that open-source will stay and will keep helping people and that, as the world becomes more lawless and free-for-all, we'll need all the help we can find.