> These smaller models are great, but they really feel like talking to a toddler sometimes!
You're using the toddler and the model wrong. I love talking to my toddler, probably more valuable conversations than I've had with any other person. But it's not the same use case as asking a professor a question in their field
| Gemma 3 270M embodies this "right tool for the job" philosophy. It's a high-quality foundation model that follows instructions well out of the box, and its true power is unlocked through fine-tuning. Once specialized, it can execute tasks like text classification and data extraction with remarkable accuracy, speed, and cost-effectiveness.
huh? I'm saying adding rules and regulations reduces competition yes, by definition it adds barriers to entry. We can argue how high those barriers ought to be.
I think it's actually a fantastic intro to electronics. There's nothing you can really do with "just arduino programming", the whole point is it lets you interface with the real world and therefor encounter electronics problems by default
The article even touches on that in the first hello world
> This simple exercise it by itself incredibly interesting that opened a series of questions:
> Q: Why is a resistor needed? A: High current and increased temperature damage its delicate heterojunction structures, which eventually cause it to burnout
> Q: What happens if the polarity is inverted? A: Similar to a normal diode, current will not flow and the LED will not light up. As long as this reverse power is not high, the LED will not burn and can still be used with correct polarity afterwards
> Q: How to interpret its data sheet? A: There are several interesting aspects its datasheet, like the LED’s wavelength curve, operating current and voltage, etc
I had a look at the document of the kit, and it's like the one I have: it doesn't even explain what is a current and a tension, or what is the relation between resistance, tension and current, althought it is the basic of the basic of electronics
The fact that the author uses the word heterojunction that is at the same time not useful at the first level for a beginner and not used or explained in the document shows that he was either already knowledgeable or spent a lot of time with other ressources to learn.
I'm not saying that these kits are bad, or that nowaday you cannot do many great thing with just an arduino and plug and play components, but they don't teach electronics.
The official arduino starter kit teaches some beginner level information, but it is very rudimentary. It is really hard to penetrate the next level of electronics—electronic engineers will stress the importance of precise calculations where previously I was just used to putting together whatever components I had from a kit, with few caveats.
It was not until I tried buying extra transistors that I realized I didn’t understand anything—-and this was after taking the Georgia Tech introduction to electronics free online course. Suddenly there were data sheets and graphs, and not to mention prices. The Build Your PCB course I found myself similarly in over my head, as it felt geared towards EE’s. But I learned about KiCAD. Maybe I will give Ben Eater another try
I'll let you in on a secret: engineering the world over is mainly about rules of thumb and knowing when you need to actually do some math.
e.g., when I started my EE career, if you wanted to light up a red LED from 5V, you'd put a 330ohm resistor in series. If it was driven from 12V, then you'd use a 1kohm. Standard values that everyone has in inventory and you don't need to think about it. Similar "rules" would apply if you wanted to use an NPN transistor as a switch and so on.
Actual calculations would only come into play if I needed to e.g., make sure that the LED always had a constant 15mA through it whether the drive voltage was 5V or 24V.
I see it more like the goal is to build cool stuff, learning electronics is the happy unintentional side effect as you're exposed to concepts relevant to what you want to do.
e.g. I want to build a cool robot with my kid -> oh why can't you just wire the motors directly to arduino output pins -> oh motors need a lot of current to run ...
(btw have never heard voltage be called tension, TIL)
> (btw have never heard voltage be called tension, TIL)
It's the main word for voltage in french and I checked wiki before posting. It was listed as an alternative to voltage so I kept it, but I should have realized it wasn't common
Hopefully helpful comment: "tension" is sometimes used as an alternative to "voltage" in English, but it's typically only in the case of power delivery. e.g, "high-tension 50kV power lines." I don't think I've ever seen it applied to common control panel voltages like 5V or 24V.
The feedback loop on novel/genuine breakthroughs is too long and the training data is too small.
Another reason is that there's plenty of incentive to go after the majority of the economy which relies on routine knowledge and maybe judgement, a narrow slice actually requires novel/genuine breakthroughs.
really great, would make for a great tower defense style game as well. Start with few resources and learn what each capability can do. Defend against more complex/advanced threats over time.
Is the equipment efficiency meant to capture e.g. using a $1M missile to shoot down a $1k uav/rocket
A lot of people saying this, what would this actually entail? My money is much more on this being a "1 and done" exchange. Iran poses very little threat now, launchers being taken out everyday, leadership chain wiped out, seemingly no other Iran allies getting pulled into the fold
Iran has a population of 92mil and an economy vastly stronger than iraq 2003 -- it also has extremely motivated backers in China, who are eagar to use it the way the US uses Ukraine: a means to deplete a peer competitor of their military resources. The best outcome for China here is the US blowing its assets in Iran.
The propaganda at the moment is israel is winning, iran isnt using missiles because of "air superiority", and the US is able and willing to detroy the nuclear capacity via the air. All of these claims are false. Iran's capacity to strike back remains vast using only its own resources.
What the US has been dragged into by israel is an amazing opportunity for a US peer competitor (china) to grind down its arms -- it would be remarkable if China doesn't take it. It can hardly afford the US to be a well-armed protector of Taiwan.
The iranian regieme's apparent hesitation at the moment is not as extreme as russia's on the first days of the ukraine war, and look at where we are now. This apparent hesitation is waiting for israel to deplete its missile defense, waiting for a more stable intelligence environment (presumably moving assets, etc. around out of uncovered israeli operations), and most of all, waiting for a moment to strike off-guard.
Even if its an israeli ground invasion only, that's still a massive arms injection --- at the same time the US is supplying a ground war in europe.
A ground war in europe, one in the middle east -- all of the US assets in distant seas, its bombs in distant lands. Pretty good time to be a china on tour.
Procuring two landing craft means Israel has the capability to sustain a sea invasion of the scale required to subdue a 92 million population? It would require something like a modern day Normandy to pull this off.
As far as I can tell, israel is doing everything it can to escalate the situation to a place where the US is forced into it. We'll have to see if it can be avoided.
The problem for iran is that while they may believe the US is unwilling to escalate, and so be happier to go "arms down" -- they won't be allowed to by israel. So they're being forced up the escalation ladder.
There are very many things that they can do which would destabilise US military and economic interests directly. One imagines israel will do everything i can to provoke such a response.
What do you mean by "in a position"? Do i think it would be successful? of course not, that's mad.
Do I think israel is inclined to try, or otherwise, risk failure on the back of US blood and treasure? More or less, yes -- i think that's quite likely.
The US invasion and occupation of vietnam, afganistan, iraq, etc. were all mad. The US foreign policy elite are not very competent because america doesnt receive any real blowback from its failures -- so there's no conditioning mechanism to force it into instutitonal competence.
Do I think such an elite would do one more stupid thing? yes, its actually far more improbable that they'd learn caution
They've bankrupted america, caused half the world to turn against them -- all the while presiding over the rise and enrichment of a peer competitor (china). You could not describe a more incompent, warmongering, self-destructive set of foreign policy institutions.
It's what happens when you are isolated on your own continent and rarely have to pay for your decisions.
Operations are defined by goals. If you want to invade or launch a special forces op into your enemy territory, you need a small and attainable goal. Not "eliminate all nuclear threats" but more like "clear this area of nuclear materiel" in any areas you consider suspect. Otherwise you end up deploying troops that never come home.
Israel's state government is absolutely filled to the brim with war hawks - but they're not stupid. The situation they want to contain is too large to fix with IDF ground forces, they necessarily have to involve US force structures to seriously challenge Iran. And even then, it feels likely that we'd be looking at an Afghan War situation where guerrilla combat absolutely shreds the modern forces the further they push in.
Look, I don't want to get pissy because your track-record in this comment chain is mostly on-point. Boots are about to deploy on Iranian soil, and it's going to be a deliberate bloodbath for the first few days. Israel is going to piss and moan until America sends over more assets and materiel, at which point we'll be firmly in WWIII territory. It's downright bad, and you're not at all hyperbolic to lay things out like this.
...but I will repeat myself - this is an attack of opportunity for Israel, not a desperate scramble to destroy nuclear assets. Israel's long-term goal is to become the unquestioned geopolitical power of the Levant, even outside America's auspices. They can do that by leveraging the dumb-as-a-brick administration to provoke Iran into a response, at which point they will fight until attrition forces them both to retreat. Now Israeli forces are the de-facto security guarantor in the region, and we already know they draw their borders however they like.
Mind you, this isn't the last you'll hear about "Iran's nuclear program" - it hasn't outlived it's usefulness, quite yet. Israel will continue targeting them not until nuclear assets are destroyed, but until America perceives itself to be backed into a corner with no choice but to search Iran door-to-door for a hidden bomb. (Stretch Goal - +100 Brownie Points: get America to launch a tactical nuclear weapon on Iran and increase the escalation ladder beyond what any peer power can compete with.)
No, nor have I said a ground invasion will happen. It's also an inherently ridiculous thing to say -- if I am wrong about highly complex geostrategic outcomes then i should never think about them again? By that logic, the entire US foreign policy establishment would likewise have to suspend its activities.
In any case, I'm talking about inferred goals, capacity, strategy. I'm constructing a viable theory of what their strategy would be if they achieved their aims.
The goals of israel are regime change and nuclear disarmament -- these cannot be achieved from the air. It might be that israel is content to lose on these objectives, and so be it.
I expected that most of my comments here would be heavily downvoted, and its somewhat suprising that they arent. Most people are operating from a profoundly heavily propagandized view of foreign policy, and of their own countries -- and whenever one raises thinking about these issues in ways which suspend this propaganda one gets a very angry reaction: everyone one is a nationalist, either midly or extermely, but a nationalist never the less. Asking people to thinking critically about their nation is tantamount to asking them to thinking critically about their mother.
Either way, I comment regardless for the few who are able to think clearly on these matters.
> No, nor have I said a ground invasion will happen
Oof, OK, I suppose not, you only said "The [my emphasis] ground invasion hasn't started yet". There is some degree of ambiguity there. Forgive me for thinking you were saying one will happen.
> The goals of israel are regime change and nuclear disarmament -- these cannot be achieved from the air.
Ah! Is that a prediction you insist will happen? That there will be no regime change and no end to Iran's military nuclear programme without a ground invasion? Great! That's a testable hypothesis. Let's see.
> It's also an inherently ridiculous thing to say -- if I am wrong about highly complex geostrategic outcomes then i should never think about them again?
No, not at all (and I certainly didn't say "think", I said "speculate"). It's just a way of seeing if you put your money where your mouth is. If there is an incentive to someone predicting wrongly I'm more likely to take them seriously!
> The goals of israel are regime change and nuclear disarmament -- these cannot be achieved from the air. It might be that israel is content to lose on these objectives, and so be it.
This is key. The only way for this set of actions to go well is if there is regime change, otherwise the most likely outcome is that Iran's resolve to acquire nuclear weapons as quickly as possible has been dramatically solidified.
Like you though, I struggle to see any clear path for positive regime change to occur. The nearest attempt would be boots (but whose?) on the ground, but even that seems unlikely to work out well. Maybe there could be some sort of internal resistance, but I don't see how they could operate successfully while the country is under external attack.
My assumption with how things are at the moment is that the actions by Israel and the USA have all but guaranteed that Iran acquires a nuclear weapon in the next few decades, and so have dramatically increased the risk of Israel being attacked with one. One has to assume that radical Islamist terrorism in western countries will increase too.
sure it can. First, bomb the crap out of anything reachable and destroy normal economy. Then pull a Syria, a "democratic uprising of the freedom-loving people", perhaps get some help from friends at Al Qaeda or wherever the current Syrian freak is from, and Bob's your uncle.
We dropped a dozen highly specialized bombs in a single, closed-end operation, and you're arguing that this meaningfully depleted the USAF magazine enough to move the needle on a conflict in Taiwan?
I'd be arguing first that the operation failed, and has made no meaningful impact on the mountain and esp. the nuclear facilities over 100m under granite.
Generous estimates place relevant bomb capacity in the US at 100, though I believe only ~1/3 of that is confirmed. Reports say ~10 were used. So, speculatively, the US has used 25% of its capacity to bust deep fortifications -- and, imv, failed to make a dent.
Credible estimates I'm aware of talk about dozens of bombs (per similar deep fortification), seriously depleting US capacity. It's unlikely the US would be willing to use up more than 50% of its bombing capacity here -- since a very large number of bombs are required for deep fortifications of this kind.
ie., US capacity is about "destroying two mountains", and it really needs at least to retain capacity to destroy one.
A well-designed nuke could take out the mountain, that's really the best air-supplied shot at taking the thing out.
Either way, none of this can be confirmed without ground forces. So one wonders if at least some of this theatre is to provoke iran enough to react in a way that justifies a ground invasion.
To your point, yes, china would absolutely love the US to degrade as much capacity as it possibly can. One images, even, they'd spin up a nuclear programme in iran very quickly again, just to try to drag the US back in. The US has done much worse.
China's geostrategic goal at the moment is stamp on the rope-pins around the US elephant: ukraine, iran, israel, and so on. Have the US blow as much as possible of its rapidly depleting military arsenal everywhere but around china.
Trump was the first president to really take this problem seriously, it's a little unfortunate that he's found himself in the same trap as every US president for the last 25 years.
I stopped reading after 100 bombs capacity. They are purpose built bombs, we don’t stockpile them as we don’t hit iranian mountain target regularly enough.
The US spends more on military than most of the rest of the world combined. Every conflict there’s a contingent of people claiming the US will soon be out of munitions and can’t continue. Now the statement is made on the first attack. The US is oddly perceived as weak by this contingent, which flies in the face of reason.
The US' military supremacy "illusion" comes from an era when the US had no peer competitors of a similar size -- waging wars in this era is really cheap.
It's highly debatable whether the US can contain china at its present size, let alone in a few years. China is vastly large than the soviet union, in comparison to the US, at the height of the cold war -- and merely to contain a smaller adversary, the US had to significantly outspend it.
The US can dominate its region relatively cheaply (ie., the western hemisphere); but if it wants to retain the ability to project power across the world, and be the primary power in theatres of interest (middle east and china esp.) then it's woefully underspending.
The US is armed to take on a world without peer competitors. If it had to fight a proxy war with china, dominate the middle east, and supply a land war in ukraine -- it would loose all three.
The asymmetry of power needed for the US to dominate the world is enourmous -- this was only cheap when the single adversary was a much smaller russia.
The US does not have the manufacturing capacity to replace 50% of its bunker-buster arms "suddenly". It simply cannot do it. So if a war breaks out tomorrow, where it needs these arms, they're gone.
The west is simply not equipped to wars with peer competitors. It's equipped for the taliban, not nations with fleets of air craft carriers.
> It's equipped for the taliban, not nations with fleets of air craft carriers.
The US has more carriers than all other nations combined, times 2.
> The US does not have the manufacturing capacity to replace 50% of its bunker-buster arms "suddenly". It simply cannot do it. So if a war breaks out tomorrow, where it needs these arms, they're gone.
During a time of war every manufacturing plant capable of being reconfigured to make arms or vehicles is. Just like in WW2.
The rest of this is just silly. The US “owns” the oceans. We go where we want when we want any call it “freedom of navigation“ and nobody stops us.
I’m sorry I offended your country’s capabilities vs the US, but there’s a reason the US hasn’t been invaded yet and it’s because it’s an impossible feat.
> but there’s a reason the US hasn’t been invaded yet and it’s because it’s an impossible feat.
This is so irrelevant to the conversation, that it indicates you don't understand what's at issue or the basic geopoltical terms in which to evaluate US strategic capabilities.
The US isnt trying to prevent invasion, it's trying to dominate every region of the world. It's military is extremely over-sized to merely defend america. It's extremely undersized to dominate every region of the world in 2025. This is why comparing sizes of militaries is irrelevant and extremely misleading. Essentially all other militaries are concerned with only local defence and power projection.
From ~90s to 00s the US military was big enough to dominate the world, because it had no rivals. When you have rivals even half your size, to dominate them, you need massively out-class them. Consider that during the cold war the US spent 10% of its GDP, vastly more in real terms than the soviet union.
China can dominate its region of the world very cheaply compare to the US dominating *china* ! because defence is vastly cheaper than offence and geographically local power projection is relatively cheap. China is not designing a military to contain all of south america -- the US *is*
The US is trying to maintain arms to entirely ensure its own defence under any possible threat *AND* dominate russia in eastern europe, china in the south china sea, the middle east, ensure all shipping lanes are open, staff miltiary bases throughout europe, asia, etc. -- and the vast array of proxy countries in which it maintains a military pretence. There are 100k troops in europe, 40k+ in japan, and so on.
The US doesn't evaluate its military capability in terms of "what happens if mexico invades"
> The US spends more on military than most of the rest of the world combined.
In absolute numbers yes, as a fraction of GDP that is currently not true (US ranks 8th place there). US doesn't even spend the 5% Trump demands other allies should spend.
What propaganda ? I’ve seen the footage of Iran firing flak cannons somewhere in the direction of f35s. Not a single Israeli plane has been lost…where is the lie ?
Iran has a population of 92mil and an economy vastly stronger than iraq 2003* why assume they want the current leadership to remain in charge? Why assume they wanted nukes ?
You mention China grinding down its enemy ? What about the fact the air force is actually performing real missions being and gaining real experience ? Is a few bunker busters going to grind down the USAF ?
Neither you or I, and esp. not the media, have any access to facts on the ground. All photographs or videos you have seen have been placed there for you to see them.
All we can work backwards from are the most reliable facts we have before the war, about capabilities on the ground. We know the rough size of the iranian missile programme, of the country, economic, various military assets and similar.
We can work backwards from this to ask, "what would we be able to see had Israel achieved its claim re iran" -- and we're talking extraordinary levels of destruction in iran, across the country, and so on. We don't have any evidence of operations of that scale even taking place, let alone having been successful.
It is most likely, at the moment, that at least some alleged air force victories by israel are actual missiles they've issued from neighbouring states on the land.
However, either way, all of this is speculation. What can be stated with near certainty is that any picture presented in the media is an extremely careful creation of the propaganda arms of our states, and not a credible military briefing.
Our only access to reliable inferences is purely rational and hypothetical: what are X's aims, what are their claims, what are they claimed strategies, what are their capabilities and so on.. and then what would we see *if*...
> All photographs or videos you have seen have been placed there for you to see them.
For those reading the above, wondering about this phenomenon, read Baudrilliard's The Gulf War Did Not Take Place. Even if you don't agree with Baudrilliard's overall thesis, the facts he brings up are still cogent (e.g. a photo from the Exon Valdez spill was used instead of an actual photo of the Iraqi military's destruction of Kuwaiti oil fields). The media has been a critical aspect of war since at least the Falklands War.
I’m sorry in all this noise I’m failing to get to your point. Are you claiming that Iran is shooting down F-35s? Because that would be a pretty important piece of information that a lot of countries who have staked their Air Forces on the F-35 would like to know. It would also be a hard piece of information (damn near impossible) to keep under wraps, given the stakes, and the number of interested parties.
I'm claiming that the alleged air superiority is most likely partial and temporary.
I can make no specific claims as to any actions by any one involved in the conflict, if iran had shot down f35s presently, it'd be highly likely covered up by both sides. Iran to protect knowledge of its capability, and israel to ensure domestic morale is maintained.
I think you make a good point about the facts being heavily skewed in the reporting on the attacks in Iran. But this seems very unlikely to me:
> Iran to protect knowledge of its capability
Protect knowledge against who? Israel will know if one of their planes were shot down, US will know. Besides, Iran claims to have shot down f35s, so they clearly want people to think they have that capability.
Definitely propaganda, but they were so laughable I'm not sure who they were fooling.
You had a hilariously large F-35 in one picture, like 5x normal size. In another picture, you had a downed F-35 was blown to pieces yet somehow the afterburners were still lit.
I guess they convinced some of the very lowest-information members of the populace, but damn.
I was merely giving a reason why Iran may not offer evidence of any given success --ie., , in doing so, it would reveal sensitive military information .
I was not making a claim about F35s anyway, I have no specific information nor have I considered any, on relevant claims about F35s
> I'm claiming that the alleged air superiority is most likely partial and temporary.
This is rich. It took minutes to claim the air over Iran, what exactly gives you the impression of strength? Two US carriers parked off the coast is enough to not only maintain that superiority, but to down the entirety of their very aged air force.
> Iran to protect knowledge of its capability
Let’s think this through. You could announce that you’ve downed an advanced fighter without explaining how and unless the US or Israel gets a hold of the wreckage to do an investigation, nobody but the pilot will know how it was downed. This logic that Iran is trying to protect some super secret method of downing advanced fighters doesn’t pass the smell check.
>All photographs or videos you have seen have been placed there for you to see them
The source of most of the videos from both sides is random social media users.
Even the videos and info from the IDF I would regard as credible, since they released similar videos and info from the Lebanon operation last year that was consistently corroborated by evidence from social media (there was no internet blackout in Lebanon so every IDF strike on an urban area had multiple videos from different perspectives).
Social media users placed by iran's full missile defense systems? Social media users at the bottom of 100m of granite? Social media users amongst the iranian barracks?
I called the war for Russia ~2 years ago, just as the "counter offensive" by Ukraine was starting. Go back, if you wish, to that time in the news and find exactly what english-speaking western median, and social media, was saying.
What is the picture you get, of Ukraine and its counteroffensive, delivered to you from these sources?
It's always a little stunning just how easy it is for publics to be manipulated. Oh what a world.
Anyway why don’t we see videos from Iran of Israeli jets being shot down ? Why is there no footage of Irans airforce engaging Israel ? Why didn’t the B-2 spirits get attacked ? You can say it’s all lies and propaganda , but it’s not because there is no evidence to the contrary being presented.
I wonder if the regime is holding back so as to not piss off the remaining JCPOA signatories. They only have until October [1], and after that it's not clear if they can agree on a renewed set of sanctions.
This is serious cope. Iran has never held back, they always go full tilt. They simply are the same paper tiger that Russia is, just now without the ability to produce nukes.
You always know an enemy is a paper tiger if it is at the same time weak and practically defeated and really dangerous and unhinged. Literally propaganda 101.
Just like foreigners who are lazy leeches on the social system and at the same how somehow steal our jobs.
> Iran poses very little threat now, launchers being taken out everyday
What do Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, UAE, and Dubai have in common?
All of their oil tankers sail through a 20mi strip of water called the Straight of Hormuz, completely bordered by Iran on one side. Saudi Arabia has access to the Red Sea and a bunch of pipelines to take some of their oil there, but most of their maritime ports are in the Persian Gulf.
You don't need hypersonic ballistic missiles to take out an oil tanker. Save those for Israel, all you need is a few drones, speedboats, and mines.
Oh, what's that, a good chunk of attack drones undergoing "field trials" in Ukranian population centers are Iranian-made purchased by Russia? And those drones are designed to be launched from mobile trucks in any non-descript garage instead of static missile silos?
We've seen what a rag-tag group of Yemeni rebels with some light rockets have done to ocean shipping at the chokepoint to the Red Sea, now we're gonna see what the people supplying the Houthi's can do at the chokepoint to the Oil Sea.
WASHINGTON, June 22 (Reuters) - U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Sunday called on China to encourage Iran to not shut down the Strait of Hormuz after Washington carried out strikes on Iranian nuclear sites.
Rubio's comments on Fox News' "Sunday Morning Futures with Maria Bartiromo" show came after Iran's Press TV reported that the Iranian parliament approved a measure to close the Strait of Hormuz, through which around 20% of global oil and gas flows.
> My money is much more on this being a "1 and done" exchange
For as long as I've been alive, every action from the US in the middle east been a "1 and done" exchange, and Bush famously hosted a "Mission Accomplished" party two months after the start of the invasion of Iraq.
I'd be surprised if this was the only action from the US' side during this war, based on history, but maybe things are different today, seems highly unlikely though.
This. The Iran "nuclear" thing is Iraq "WMDs" MacGuffins all over again, but it's the saber rattling Netanyahu is using to maintain popular and power, and Trump is going along for it, imperiling America's security for decades by asking for more terror attacks in the homeland.
"Fun" fact: Same guy lied in his congressional testimony, claiming that Saddam Hussein is building nuclear weapons which was the reason for the Iraq invasion.
Shame politicians always seem to lack a spine when it matters.
Reports are that if Iran keeps things going on, Israel is going to run out of interceptors in 10 days or so, at which point they are gonna be seriously damaged. Some missiles are already getting through, there's speculation of hyper-sonic missiles from Iran or just failure to shoot them down.
Either way: This doesn't stop here, and it was never about these bogus nuclear weapons (which are just around the corner since the 80's) just like Iraq was not about weapons of mass destruction. They want to place a puppet government...what could go wrong?
This isn’t accurate. The thing that’s going to possibly be depleted is “Arrow 3” - the first line of aerial defense (excluding operations that target the launchers within Iran). They still have plenty of Arrow 2 and David’s’ slingshot missiles.
This episode has demonstrated that diplomacy is not a credible option. So with that off the table, the only two options now are 1. A series of "1 and done" engagements every few years or months, as the regime tries to race toward a bomb, or 2. Regime change.
It's possible that #2 will happen via domestic uprising, but not at all clear whether the result of that would be a friendlier regime that is less interested in going nuclear. It could very plausibly instead be hardliners who are pissed the regime failed to put up a strong enough fight. (I think that would be what would predictably happen in the US in this scenario, for instance!)
And if it's not a domestic uprising, it's a bloody regime change war like the ones fought in the 00s, which ... didn't turn out great, if you recall!
Possibly #1 is a better outcome. But I'm very skeptical that "we'll just bomb a big country periodically" is a strategy that will never escalate into protracted war.
I have mixed feelings about the current state but is that a legitimate question. I imagine Iran would fire once on the US and then all heck would reign down on them from the skies. I don’t see a situation where Iran can hold on. Most of the people do not support the government.
What if they hit US bases using 'plausibly deniable' cutouts?
The Glorious Revolutionary Militia of country X, using Iranian built and supplied drones or missiles, blows up young American soldiers in a country half the electorate didn't even know there was a presence in. Iran disclaims all involvement, but says they sympathise with the legitimate frustration of the locals. Do you think the United States gets involved in a hot war against Iran based on that?
Remember the Beirut truck bombings. The biggest single day US Marine loss of life since Iwo Jima. Reagan (and Mitterand) immediately says there will be no withdrawal. They shoot a lot of artillery in the general direction of Hezbollah from a boat, then immediately withdraw all troops.
Which hostile forces? The US has attacked nuclear sites which they're using to build Nuclear bombs, not sent a warhead into Tehran. I think you're underestimating the dissatisfaction of the Iranian people people with the death cult in charge.
What would happen to American patriotism if China "pre-emptively" attacked its military research facilities? It would be the only thing on the news, and the only thing people would want would be revenge.
Yeah but the difference is that America isn't a fundamentalist theocratic death cult hell bent on eradicating an entire religion and anyone associated with it. There's a stark difference there isn't there? Or are you trying to put Iran and America on the same plane?
Of course, but it's not a death cult though is it?
There's a difference between a calculated killer and an utterly mindless collective build upon the idea that everyone else should literally be dead.
Do you see my position? Should we just give these maniacs some nuclear bombs and hope for the best?
> Yeah but the difference is that America isn't a fundamentalist theocratic death cult hell bent on eradicating an entire religion and anyone associated with it.
Are you sure about that now? Did you miss the part where your president was openly discussing plans on annexing territories from it's allies?
How about you Google SAVAK and then get back to me on how receptive you think Iranian citizens are of American "guidance" under "democratic leadership" and all that jazz.
I think you're underestimating how many Iranians the CIA allowed to be tortured and raped in the Shahist regime. Agree to disagree?
Yes. Iran did have a democratically-elected Prime Minister before they were removed in a joint US-Israeli coup d'état. Iranians are perfectly justified in viewing America as the enemy of democratic reform. They are also justified in their worry over Israel installing a worse theocratic death cult, as I argued above.
Ah well, let's just leave them be then. The people are upset. You're right. We should just let them enrich a little more uranium and hope for the best.
Compared to khomeini, who started out by killing (mostly after torture) about 3800, mostly his own allies, some of which hadn't even finished primary school?
Can I ask you an honest question? Why would this be humiliating?
I get that the whole world likes to blame the CIA for Iran ... despite of course socialists (by which I mean the socialist international, as well as socialists in the sense of worldwide protests) of course having much more to do with the rise of the Iranian regime, and indeed supporting the Iranian regime even after it became clear that they like to attack, even kill, their own people just for propaganda. That does not make the Sha's actions ok ... I get that, but the point was that they do not compare. But more: even if I'm wrong, why would that be humiliating?
Also: I'm a geek. Perhaps a bit older but not (much) different. I do not really feel much if everyone disagrees with me. That happens regularly, and whilst I'm definitely wrong on occasion, I've done very well disagreeing with everyone too.
Being attacked boosts domestic support for leadership, even unpopular ones. If Iran actually attacked the US some how, you can bet Trump's approval rating goes up.
Definitely increases the fervor of the hardliners. Do I have a current pole for a good sample of folks in the country l? No. But have a pretty large number of friends who Iranian and also have been there a couple times. Most of the population do not like the government.
The power delta between The United Stated and Iran is lower than any of our other engagements since WW2, and look at how many resources were spent for questionable outcomes.
I can see this being true but I would be surprised this would ever be a boots on the ground situation for America. Don’t get me wrong, I have mixed feelings of the current state but I also don’t see how Iran would be able to hold any kind of air superiority. They are already being down by the tiny country of Israel.
Unless they find the location of the moved highly enriched uranium, there may be a few follow up bombings to handle that but I suspect Israel would take that on.
You missed the point: this was entirely for show, may not have accomplished any or all of the mission objectives claimed, and, in all likelihood, setup thousands of American civilians for a series of 9/11-like terrorist attacks for the next 20 years. The reality show circus continues.
> I want an AI that I have similar opinions to, which is obviously tough. It's like working with someone on their first day.
Most of what you're describing does apply to humans on the first day, and ais on their first day. If you aren't capturing these preferences somewhere and giving it to either a human or the ai, then why would they somehow know your preferences? For ai, the standard thats forming is you create some markdown file(s) with these so they only need to be explained once, and auto provided as context.
You're using the toddler and the model wrong. I love talking to my toddler, probably more valuable conversations than I've had with any other person. But it's not the same use case as asking a professor a question in their field
| Gemma 3 270M embodies this "right tool for the job" philosophy. It's a high-quality foundation model that follows instructions well out of the box, and its true power is unlocked through fine-tuning. Once specialized, it can execute tasks like text classification and data extraction with remarkable accuracy, speed, and cost-effectiveness.