While it can very well be true, I wonder if we don't exagerate the will of the iranian regime and its ablity in the current time to think this far ahead. I see them more in survival mode, I'm not sure they fight for future deterence, maybe the goals align currently but seems to me to be happenstance. They seem resilient but I wonder how much they would be close of falling. Of course, I wouldn't have done this war, and I certainly would stop it now.
> They seem resilient but I wonder how much they would be close of falling
While neither of us have any special insight into that, and no-one has certainty, I urge you to read the essay linked, as this topic is in fact discussed with historic examples. "There is a frequent mistake, often from folks who deal in economics, to assume that countries will give up on wars when the economics turn bad ... There is a great deal of ruin in a nation."
You are right that the the Iranian regime's short and longer term goals align. But, happenstance or not, they are aligned and likely will stay that way.
> I wouldn't have done this war, and I certainly would stop it now.
That’s the thing there is no stopping it now. Trump walks away and Iran taxes every barrel that goes through the straight. There is no return to normal.
> That’s the thing there is no stopping it now. Trump walks away and ...
Right, Short of unconditional surrender, it is very hard for one party in a war to just end it without the other side also agreeing to cease. Otherwise, walking away just lets them target your back.
I feel you, I guess i succeeded in not being lost and keep reading by solving the conendrum in telling myself: it certainly should take time to grow the cows for the bags. Nonetheless I'm glad i finished reading it, it was a good essay.
Yes, and I'd say it's more true now than then. Best case, your fancy algorithms are super-sizing code that runs 1% of the time, always kicking more-often-run code out of the most critical CPU caches. Worst case, your fancy algorithms contain security bugs, and the bad guys cash in.
Is there a (real) shell whose code is relatively short and self contained and would be valuable to read? This was always something I wanted to do but never quite spent time to look for a good one to explore.
It depends on what you are looking for. My recommendation for learning "how is X done in a shell" is the OpenBSD ksh: https://github.com/ibara/oksh
It's what they use for /bin/sh, it has everything that a complete shell needs (including a mechanism for providing command completions) and has code that is much easier to read than bash or zsh.
Although not the same... Destroy All Software has videos on building your own shell using Ruby. I watched it to learn and it was a lot of fun to watch him basically building a shell, I'm not really a Ruby guy, but it was easy to grasp. It's not free, you would need a subscription, but its worth the watch otherwise.
I think there's a good one if you search around for "xv6 sh.c". Hard to tell immediately from a google search just now since there are many implementations (people do it in school) and github's currently blocking requests from my phone.
Also helpful may be running strace on your shell, then reviewing the output line by line to make sure you understand each. This is a VERY instructive exercise to do in general.
I don't understand all these sites with moving parts even with muted soon, like if everything was a collection of GIFs. NYT followed this path and started to insert muted clips preheminently on their page one, very very annoying.
It is like a guy seeing headlines "wapo is losing" money and feeling ashamed in its "genius entrepreneur's ego / could never be wrong" and taking revenge on whoever he can take revenge and inflict pain just for the sake of it.
For which France was helped by the UK, so it certainly would make sense if France helped the europe and uk to build its own nuclear deterrence.
reply