It was a good idea if it was also timed during the popular uprisings. But the 20,000+ die-hard citizens that would have effected regime change were slaughtered months ago. So now it's just a scared populace hunkering in place while USA warships and jets dominate their country.
And the Iranians fire off the occasional drone swarm on UAE.
It was also a bad idea then. They could never have effected regime change. That’s a fantasy that Israel included in its pressure on the US, but which US intelligence deemed highly implausible.
There was never a world where this was a good idea. We had a diplomatic agreement that worked, nuked it for no gain, and now there isn’t a viable way to influence Iran.
Diplomacy can’t function again because they don’t trust the US (fair, correct.)
The IRGC cannot be replaced without a ground invasion, which the US won’t do (fair, correct.)
The US can’t unilaterally remove one ton of buried nuclear material from the middle of a hostile state.
>It was also a bad idea then. They could never have effected regime change
They could have if they'd done what Israel wanted and destroyed all the oil infrastructure. The IRGC is heavily dependent on oil revenue for funding its oppressive apparatus; without it hundreds of thousands of militia would go without pay and eventually desert. For whatever reason Trump didn't want to do this; likely not for humanitarian reasons given his nature, but for some reason he seemed to really care what Turkey and Pakistan think, both of whom don't want to be flooded with refugees.
> if they'd done what Israel wanted and destroyed all the oil infrastructure.
That would have worked. But it is still a stupid idea if you don't cripple and destroy Iran's military capability first as Iran would have also retaliated and destroyed all its Arab neighbour's oil infrastructure too, plunging the world into an economic depression because of the energy crisis it would cause - The Iran War Is Destroying Something More Valuable Than Oil - https://houseofsaud.com/iran-war-refinery-crisis-saudi-aramc...
> Iran would have also retaliated and destroyed all its Arab neighbour's oil infrastructure too
Iran probably couldn't have, not without being intercepted and having its launchers neutralised every time it fired. But Tehran would have kept on credibly threatening to, which would have meant America essentially taking on air defence responsibility for the entire Gulf.
> We had a diplomatic agreement that worked, nuked it for no gain, and now there isn’t a viable way to influence Iran.
I see this repeateded a lot but it doesn't follow to me that the facility that was bombed in midnight hammer was created and begun operating after that agreement was cancelled. It seems clear to me that Iran never stopped using that facility.
It seems to me that Iran's goal is to develop a nuclear weapon and there isn't a piece of paper that will stop them. I don't really fault them, it's a very sane thing to do to secure your border a la North Korea.
I'm not sure there is a non-military way to influence Iran to not develop a nuclear weapon.
That facility was a nuclear research facility for civilian, military and medical use. Note that military doesn't mean weapons. Iran getting nuclear submarine would increase their threat level. In any case, Iran have a fatwa against developing nuclear bombs (a fatwa is a law edicted by a religious leader, and not respecting it would make you sinful and rebellious, and in a theocratic regime, often end in prison). The fatwa isn't reversed yet afaik, but the US killed the mufti who declared it, so I don't know how it applies.
But anybody saying Iran was working on a bomb is probably misinformed or lying imho.
There isn't a non-military, non bomb use for the amount of Uranium that Iran was enriching up to the levels that they were doing so.
All the things that you talked about do not require doing what Iran was doing. Meaning that... the only motivation left would be the 1 single thing that does require that much enrichment to those levels.
Hitting this from another angle, it doesn't make any strategic sense as for why Iran would sacrifice all that it is throwing away, just to get some medical research benefits. That would be a poor deal, and Iran isn't stupid.
You might be right on the regime change being fantasy but those things are not predictable and we don't know the details.
Where you're definitely wrong is on the "diplomatic agreement that worked". Iran continued to enrich violating the agreement, the agreement was time bound and not indefinite (and would have already expired anyways), and it enabled them to sell oil and raise a lot of money to fuel their wars, missile programs, nuclear programs and other ambitions.
> Where you're definitely wrong is on the "diplomatic agreement that worked". Iran continued to enrich violating the agreement...
No, actually it is you who is wrong. Iran absolutely complied with the JCPOA. It is after US withdrew from the agreement that they pursued enrichment further.
Yup. "The U.S. certified in April 2017 and in July 2017 that Iran was complying with the deal. On 13 October 2017, President Trump announced that he would not make the certification required under the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, accusing Iran of violating the spirit of the deal..." [1].
Wrong. That is not the question. It came to light later that Iran hid sites, activities and materials. The 2017 certification is not relevant. They were still violating it either in letter or in spirit, they had no intent of stopping the pursuit of nuclear weapons, and at the most charitable interpretation (and no way the Iranian regime deserves that) the agreement was time bound and would have expired already.
Why was Iran under sanctions in the first place? Sponsor of terrorism. Oppression of its own people. Messing with Yemen, Syria, Lebanon (and the list goes on). Only in Syria they helped Assad murder 100's of thousands of Syrians. The Yemen civil war. The murder and abuse of their own citizens.
Iran had an easy way of not getting sanctioned. We didn't need the JCPOA. What we needed is Iran to cease the activities for which it was getting sanctioned.
We had a "diplomatic solution for Iran" is total nonsense. Obama messed this up just like he totally messed up the entire middle east. Iran trained and supplied Hamas which led to Oct 7th. Iran trained and supplied Hezbollah. Iran developed and built their ballistic missile program to attack all their neighbors. With what money/resources? With the money Obama gave them in for cheating on this agreement. If you have western interests in mind than the Iranians are laughing at you for being a fool.
> No Active Bomb-Making (2016–2019): Neither the U.S. intelligence community nor the IAEA found evidence that Iran was spinning secret centrifuges or actively manufacturing a weapon at these sites while the JCPOA was in effect. The traces found were leftover from the pre-2003 weapons program.
Thanks. You proved my point. Did you even read the first article you posted?
> "...the material in question is probably from a clandestine project that was first discovered in 2005 and reported by the IAEA the next year. ... If the material was from that time period, it would be a safeguards violation but not a violation of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which regulates nuclear activity from 2016. The green salt project was halted in 2004, and while all the documentation was carefully preserved ... there has been no indication of it having been resumed"
Your second article is from 2025 and it probably refers to last couple of years.. The US withdrew in 2018... Of course they continued enrichment after that withdrawal.
Let me add a bit more:
"The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) released its quarterly report on Iran’s nuclear program June 6 [2018], and, unsurprisingly, the report found that Iran is complying with its commitments under the multilateral deal known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)." [1]
Again. You are wrong on this one! Iran adhered to JCPOA. US pulled out. Iran continued enrichment beyond limits defined by JCPOA as the agreement was dead by then.
> between 2009 and 2018, it said." -> this is smack in the middle of the JCPOA period.
The US withdrew in the 2018, so it is actually not "smack in the middle".
> And yes, this is from 2025, but it's about non-compliance during the period where the JCPOA was active.
It is actually not. You are not reading the material you are providing.
> The findings in the "comprehensive" ... pave the way for a push by the United States, Britain, France and Germany for the board to declare Iran in violation of its non-proliferation obligations.
> It would be the first time in almost 20 years Iran has formally been found in non-compliance.
Please read that last quote one more time.
> It would be the first time in almost 20 years Iran has formally been found in non-compliance.
But also this is about "violation of its non-proliferation obligations" not JCPOA.
You are going against the IAEA and US intel community which are both in agreement that Iran was compliant during that period. I think you have biases for which you are misinterpreting the facts. Either that or you are purposely spreading misinformation. In any case I will not purse this thread anymore.
"The finale of the PMD controversy has been a long time coming. In November 2011, IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano issued a detailed report — based on “overall credible” information from a “wide variety of independent sources” and the Agency’s own investigations — which concluded that, at least until 2003 and possibly beyond, “Iran has carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device.”
In the years following the report, the IAEA actively sought to gain a better understanding of those activities, but its efforts were stymied by Iranian stonewalling and obfuscation. Tehran repeatedly claimed that the evidence on which the IAEA was relying was fabricated and based on forgeries. It denied that Iran was ever interested in nuclear weapons or that it had engaged in nuclear weapons-related research and experimentation."
...
"This may come as an unpleasant surprise to American observers, many of whom probably assumed that sanctions relief would depend on Iran credibly disclosing its past activities, not simply fulfilling the undemanding, largely procedural requirements of the “roadmap.” Critics can be expected to attack the JCPOA anew for permitting sanctions to be relieved despite the December IAEA report having concluded that Iran has not made a full accounting of its past nuclear work"
So terrible agreement and Iran not acting in good faith. And we can debate technicalities and I'll even acknowledge that "technically" you're right but it's irrelevant.
So interrogating Gemini further to clarify the ground truth about the 2016-2019 period gets me to:
The Final Verdict
So, was Iran in compliance? Under the strict text of the JCPOA (2016–2019): Yes. They met the mathematical limits on active enrichment, which is why the UN, the IAEA, and the US State Department repeatedly certified their compliance during that period.
Under the spirit of the deal and international law: No. The premise of the JCPOA was that Iran had to come clean so the IAEA had a baseline to measure against. By hiding the Atomic Archive and keeping secret contaminated sites on standby, Iran proved they negotiated the deal in bad faith and violated their foundational NPT Safeguards.
I can live with that. So if you want to be "technical" sure. Either the agreement was bad and was upheld or it was good and was violated. Either way, Iran has acted in bad faith is the bottom line.
I will add that we don't have evidence that Iran was enriching Uranium in those secret sites during this period (one could even say we have some evidence they weren't). But that still doesn't change that they acted in bad faith and/or the agreement was bad.
Since my other reply was flagged, and I'm past the edit window, and I learnt a little more about the nuance:
- Technically Iran was considered to be meeting the requirements of the JCPOA during the 2016-2018 period in reports issued at the time.
- Iran failed to declare all its sites and programs before entering the JCPOA. This is known now, after the fact.
- Technically some argue that because Iran participated in meetings and filed papers they met the PMD requirements which were the preliminary requirement for the JCPOA to take effect. The nuance here is whether they technically fulfilled the requirements despite lying and hiding and then "only" violated the NPT or whether they violated the PMD.
- That Iran hid sites, material and equipment came into light after the Mossad stole Iran's nuclear archive. This is fact and was confirmed by IAEA inspections despite Iran's attempts to prevent that.
- When the IAEA asked to inspect those sites Iran engaged in a cover up operation and delayed access. After the sites were inspected there was evidence of nuclear material made by human activities.
- That material discovered by IAEA was not farther enriched which the supporters of the agreement claim is evidence that Iran didn't enrich more material. In reality Iran lied and hid facilities and so despite the samples taken by the IAEA not finding evidence of more enrichment the basic fact is that Iran acted in bad faith and so we just don't know. Maybe they only hid sites, equipment, and nuclear material but did not pursue further enrichment during this period. Maybe they did in other sites.
- Officially Iran was never found to be in violation of the JCPOA.
- The JCPOA was set to expire in October 18, 2025 after which there would have been no restriction on Iran anyways. That's another part of the argument that this was a bad agreement.
While it’s difficult to say to what extent they were going beyond there agreement, it’s clear that they were. I’m not aware of any evidence that it was to the level of, “they’re continuing to make quick progress towards a bomb.” Which is what happened when the US decided to reneg.
There were another seven years to negotiate what’s next and real progress made from both sides trusting each other. That’s the type of momentum needed for further diplomacy (e.g. counteracting more bellicose members of the IRGC.) Instead, we got the opposite. And for what?
I would love to see an agreement on the supposed number of (unarmed) civilians killed. Over the course of the past few months, I have heard claims of thousands up to 50k.
You would think the traffic and surveillance cams hacked by the Israelis would’ve shown the extent of this bloodbath.
Ah, so now none of the protesters were gunned down in the streets? How convenient.
> As many as 30,000 people could have been killed in the streets of Iran on Jan. 8 and 9 alone, two senior officials of the country’s Ministry of Health told TIME—indicating a dramatic surge in the death toll.
Imagine infiltrating the Iranian surveillance camera network and being unable to produce footage of 30k people massacred across two days.
I do not like Iran because of its actions in Syria and Yemen, but even with my bias, I could hear the bullshit Western elitist consent manufacturing engine starting up from miles away.
Yeah, the 30k number is hogwash, but HR NGOs and OSINT volunteers worked up 7k dead in protest over 50 days, including 200 police/military forces, and a maximum of 18k death if you count the fights against separatist/freedom fighter/terrorists (depending on who you are aligned with, choose the description you like more)
Hogwash? More like state-backed propaganda disseminated by so-called objective and professional media organizations in order to justify an offensive war against Iran; a war that has achieved virtually none of its stated aims.
I personally trust OSINT sources more than NGOs these days. I would wager that the security forces numbers are higher. I would also wager that the majority of the deaths were CIA and Mossad backed insurgents operating in the context of a wider, legitimate, civilian-led protest movement.
> I would also wager that the majority of the deaths were CIA and Mossad backed insurgents operating in the context of a wider, legitimate, civilian-led protest movement.
This seems far less likely than the most plausible scenarios, which is that most deaths were the result of IRGC terrorists opening fire into crowds of protesters for the purposes of ensuring they remain in power.
The absolute maximum number of deaths imputable to the IRGC during the winter revolt is 18k. Of that, only 7k have been verified, and of that, only 6k have been from protesters. The reason the 11k have been harder to verify is that most of them were in the fringe of the country, far from hospital, in rural area, and the fighting there was intense. A good part of the unverified 11k might have been civilians caught in the crossfire (an element of propaganda from the IRGC in Baluchistan is that separatists are terrorists targeting civilians, which is 'funny' (very relatively) because it looks a lot like western usual propaganda)
It's even better documentation that i thought, they added the methodology now.
If I remember correctly, the methodology from the NYT and other western MSM was 'the last time, IRGC said 80 death and HRANA said 800, so now since the IRGC recognise 3k death, it should be 30k!' which was then amplified to 40, 50 and even 60k from an Israeli outlet, in 3 days, when the protests and insurgency lasted over 50 days. Honestly I don't trust any numbers if it's published in an American outlet anymore. I now trust 'house of Saoud' more than WaPo or NYT.
isn't it obvious that the "popular uprisings" were part of a scheme to overthrow the government to install some US-friendly puppet (or better: Israel-friendly, since that's the only thing that counts), and that the supposedly slaughtered protesters are exactly the reason that is normally put forward to justify an attack on an enemy country?
Israeli newspaper quoting NYT article with sources within Israel intelligence confirms this:
> The Times reported that Barnea’s predecessor, Yossi Cohen, viewed regime change in Iran as unlikely and deemphasized the Mossad’s work on that project, instead working on ways to weaken the regime through sanctions and targeted assassinations of nuclear scientists.
> But Barnea has adopted the opposite approach, directing the agency’s energies toward regime change over the past year
It was not and never was a good idea. The US and Europe need to stay out of the Middle East, including Israel and Palestine, and let the Jews, Christians, Muslims, and all other indigenous peoples of the area live there peacefully like that had for over a thousand years until each and every single time Europeans and Americans entered militarily causing chaos and havoc.
Was it 100% peaceful prior to the Crusades? Of course not. But not anymore so than anywhere else in the world. Did it become a mess once they arrived? Yes, and they slaughtered everyone, including Christians, when they came, let alone Jews and Muslims and everyone else that wasn't them.
So, we need to stop pretending like the US and European colonizing entities do any kind of good wherever they go. It's just about enriching the elites through military contracts while subverting any peoples' attempts to have autonomy for themselves.
> let the Jews, Christians, Muslims, and all other indigenous peoples of the area live there peacefully like that had for over a thousand years
What. Like actually, what? Bronze Age geopolitics weren't peaceful. The Romans and Parthians made going after each other, including through proxy wars, a sport. We even get a Jewish client state to the Romans in Judea [1].
The Levant is a fertile stretch with maritime access directly to the west of where human civilisation was born; one could argue it's one of the first pieces of land that's been constantly fought over over the entirety of human history.
You must be joking re: peaceful before US and Europe. The first crusade was in 1099 for those who don't know the details. We had the Byzantine-Arab wars, Fatimid civil wars, Turkish invasions... Ofcourse we had the whole spread of Islam "by sword". Don't forget it was the Roman invasion of the region in 63 BCE that resulted in the mass murder and expulsion of Jewish people from Israel after the Bar Kokhba Revolt...
Are you talking about the Ottoman Empire? Pretty violent.
Anyways, I can't cover the history of the region in an HN comment...
So you're arguing the crusaders brought peace to the middle east?
This history is so vast I can't even begin to think about how to compare. But one thing that feels odd to me is how people think of the middle east as somehow separate/far from Europe when in fact it's basically the same neighborhood. The Greek and the Romans were there. Under the Ottoman Empire, Muslims from present day Bosnia moved to present day Israel: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushnak
Don't forget that Christianity came from the middle east and ofcourse Islam.
The Ottoman Empire ruled vast swaths of present day Europe. Spain was under Muslim rule until 1492.
It's all one big mesh. Just yesterday I learnt that many present day Yemeni trace their roots to the Levant. Very different than farther regions like Afria, China, India and ofcourse the Americas, Australia etc.
Why would we go halfway around the world to create conflict when we could just make money somewhere where there is already conflict? Seems like a lot of extra work, no?
>let the Jews, Christians, Muslims, and all other indigenous peoples of the area live there peacefully like that had for over a thousand years
That's an extremely historically ignorant take. Turkey alone genocided 2-3 million Christians in the 20th century (Armenians, Assyrians and Greeks), well before Israel existed.
They sure do, but looking at recent events, you can make an educated guess on which country has more influence over the other. Part of it can be attributed to spying and knowing dark? secrets.
As much as they don’t, that’s why it’s spying. But given the budget for spying agencies the guess is they might be doing something and it wouldn’t be intelligent not to spy on Israel, something I don’t believe to be true even for this administration.
Trump publicly prohibited various Israeli operations (at end of 2025 op and 2026 Iran war), publicly badmouthed Nethanyahu repeatedly (via Barak Ravid), and had various diplomatic initiatives Nethanyahu didn't like. It's pretty obvious who has more influence here.
It's hilarious listening to CIA insiders talk about spying.
John Kiriakou [1] will spend 3 hours talking about the CIA's torture program (illegal) and NSA spying on Americans (illegal). In the same conversation, he will insist that the US would never spy on Israel because it is illegal.
Who is this fooling ?
[1] Senior ex-CIA official, whistleblower & internet meme phenomenon.
Since the 1951 Angleton-Harel Secret Pact, there has been an unwritten agreement that CIA and Mossad will not spy on each others countries. Kiriakou (who is a wonk) confirmed as much in recent remarks.
That speaks to my comment (which was not sufficiently specified I guess) but it does not speak to “the USA spies on Israel” which is what I was replying to
Okay, but I don't think Kiriakou would explicitly admit if the US spied specifically on Israel.
I think at most we get a indirect "confession" like Andrew Bustamante gave in some podcasts like here, where he answers to the question if the US spies on the Mossad that everybody spies on everybody and than distract to the case were the US was caught spying on (it's ally) Germany:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZklvHVsaT4
PS: I guess at the end you didn't spy until you were caught spying.
By all reports, the USA only has agreements not to spy on Five Eyes (plus secretly, Israel). Germany is not in that group. Ally has nothing to do with it.
And it sounds like you are setting up an untestable claim. Can’t help you there. Believe what you want.
He has CIA experience but his word shouldn't just be taken at face value. The man has unsettling views on buying pardons and excuses some other things away as well. Kiriakou shouldn't be trusted, IMO.
That said, he probably isn't wrong at all about this particular thing.
I think he said in that interview that the CIA does not spy on Israel. It does not apply the other way around. Based on policy decisions, this seems very believable to me.
The EU fines are not enough to get the US tech companies to change, or even leave completely. But they are enough to continually fund the EU regulatory bureaucracy itself. So this arm of the government really only exists to preserve itself.
I would be interested to see how many EU government jobs the US tech fines are supporting. Maybe Meta or Google is indirectly the largest employer in Brussels?
Incorrect. Plenty of changes made because of that, they just apply only to EU member countries coz they still want to sell the data about other country's citizens
> But they are enough to continually fund the EU regulatory bureaucracy itself
Why do people keep repeating this falsehood? The EU budget is hundreds of billions of Euros. Even the largest fines so far would be a drop in the bucket compared to that. But more importantly it's the individual member states that invoke those fines (like Ireland with the €1.2B GDPR fine on Meta) not the EU itself.
Another way to read this is the tech companies are stupidly bankrolling the EU by not complying with the laws of the lands (EU states voluntarily enact their own implementations of EU directions in return for a slice). That’s far too good a cash cow to pass up. Keep it coming.
> Yes, the EU “cloud providers” are lagging behind but they’re catching up. Scaleway, Herzner, and others are there, and you should check them out if you’re starting a business in the EU.
I would argue that these aren't even "cloud providers", they are just VPS providers. Which is fine, but it's not the same thing.
There really isn't any European "cloud" service at all, which is a huge part of the problem. And I doubt there ever will be because who would even build it?
It would cost billions and billions of euros just to be "not AWS" (but worse in every way except location). Who is investing in that?
Are we really bringing back this debate from 10 or may be 15 years when we started? Is Digital Ocean, Linode not a cloud provider. They were the VPS provider at the time.
I think in the end I agree with one of the argument, as long as these VPS providers give you a VPS that is charged per hour or per seconds, then they are cloud. Which ultimately is a server that is easily scaled up or down and charged on a time usage basis, when VPS at the time were a fixed monthly price.
But why would the Europeans want to copy the US "cloud" model of micro-compartmentalizing services into hundreds of abstracted products carefully designed to have circular dependencies between each other ..... And all shipped with price sheets billed in invented unit metrics and more small-print than a packet of prescription drugs that makes it completely impossible to predict how much you're going to pay.
I'll take the cleaner approach with predictable billing offered by the EU providers. Even if it means using my brain to RTFM and edit a couple of config files (which can then be rolled into automation via images or Ansible or whatever).
If Europe copy winner takes fraud is allowed and price transparency higwash ideology, then it will also end up with exact copy of current American dysfunction - ultimately including loss of democracy, Trump figure with unchecked power and failing constitution.
Europe can fail on its own, but recreating the exact billionaires are able to scam everything will make it fail faster.
You cannot possibly with a straight face claim that Scaleway is a VPS provider. Hetzner, sure, but Scaleway offers compute and database services in the same way that AWS does - just fewer.
This. I'm presently running serverless containers, serverless jobs, managed container registry, managed database, virtual private network, IAM policies, DNS, managed Grafana and object storage on Scaleway for a project I'm working on. Doesn't get more cloud than that.
Sure, Scaleway still lags behind the big three cloud providers in the US. But the US providers have a lot more money and been around much longer. Scaleway is quickly expanding its feature set though. They've recently introduced managed Clickhouse and OpenSearch among other things.
A lot of people actually are. I am running multiple apps on EU-based clouds offers (most PaaS rather than VPS), to the tune of multiple billion queries per year.
The offer really has moved, and people are taking it seriously.
Also: not worst in every dimension at all. For instance, you actually get serious support, no matter your size, a much better version of what premium accounts give you at AWS/GCP etc.
US clouds offer are featureful not first because it is useful, but because it is the best way to ensure vendor lock-in. A lot of implementors are now realizing that you can achieve the same level of service, or better, with less cloud features.
I disagree, "cloud" is extracting basic Linux functions into as many proprietary services as possible because businesses would rather deal with obscure YAML configurations than ever having to touch Linux-proper.
I'm sure the vast majority of businesses can handle ~10 min of scheduled downtime per week necessary to restart everything.
Now, database replication, not having to waste time to run/maintain clusters (be it Kubernetes or Elastic stack or something else), that I believe is well worth the money to offload to someone else, but even there you can get a much cheaper deal with someone that's not one of the three big cloud providers. I will also concede that Firebase is genuinely nicer to work with than its alternatives (Supabase very much included).
It's frequently simplifying things so that you don't have to worry about managing a server at all.
I run a PowerShell script once a day at noon, and I have no idea what kind of server it's running on, where in the world that server is, how much memory it has, or any other details. I get about a CPU, a dozen MB of memory, and a tiny amount of network capacity for about 5 seconds.
This is a very different experience from "We will rent you a VPS by the month".
That's like saying "Cars are a marketing term for internal combustion engines."
Clouds give you software-definable load balancers, networking, clustering, integrated systemwide security, and a boatload of managed services like message queues, databases, AI training and inference, etc. etc.
No-one sane implements all that using a collection of VPSes, because of a simple principle of business: it's more profitable to focus investment on your core competencies, and for almost all companies, managing a non-trivial computing infrastructure is decidedly not a core competency.
Big companies that see the opportunity to be "Not AWS"?
A VPS provider who wants to grow their marketshare?
Nation states?
Not saying it'll be a small effort, but if the US continues to wield national laws to coerce American companies to negatively affect European citizens, it's possible.
> There really isn't any European "cloud" service at all, which is a huge part of the problem. And I doubt there ever will be because who would even build it?
The French are second to everything + they strip naked the CEOs they hate (the Air France event and the series of CEOs taken hostage in the 1990ies) = They would never align themselves to build something that makes money. DailyMotion is 1/1000th what Youtube is; Mistral is 1/1000th what OpenAI is, nothing has changed in 20 years.
Sure France would spend the money. We’d see none of the results.
I know Cyso Cloud (previously Fuga Cloud - still Netherlands-hosted) lets you host K8S applications, and has S3-compatible storage. Is that what you mean with "cloud"?
Clearly you have never worked in heavy industry, or you would know that the word "build" is used at all levels, all the way up to architect and real estate development level. Example:
USA has had 3 different presidents from opposing parties just in the last 15 years. Putin hasn't allowed a challenger in nearly 30 years and he actively bans them, imprisons them, or kills them. It's a big difference.
> I'm not sure what difference there is between them.
Woof. That sounds very complicated. If you need that kind of write concurrency, use an unlogged table in postgres [0]. Then you don't have to invent a whole sharded thing yourself.
1. If postgres shutsdowns uncleanly, your entire table is truncated; you lose everything.
2. You should check if your backup method backs up unlogged tables. For example, RDS Snapshots on AWS do not backup unlogged tables.
These 2 are a double whammy where if you aren't aware of these tradeoffs you can find that a bad restart has deleted all your data, plus your unlogged tables were never backed up.
Running postgresql is an order of magnitude more complicated than sqlite.
130k tps even with unlogged is not always super easy especially if getting hit concurrently. Postgresql connection overhead alone can be pretty brutal if you are setting up and tearing down connections or have 1,000 writers etc.
Postgresql generally requires good network connectivity. Folks doing sqlite distributed tend to have everything independent, you literally don't need to worry about connection / security / firewall / permissioning / internode escape or data leaking etc, can even have problems in local side networking and services can still serve.
That was per container, with 16 containers per data center, so would be a lot of DBA tickets to get something that large; SQLite scaled with the horizontal scaling of the app; and we did have a flaky network - something like one in 100,000 tcp connections would fail. And occasionally the whole network would just go away for a number seconds. And the persistent container storage was managed by the same storage team that managed storage for the DB team, so base scalability and availability high.
SQLite is able to handle tens of thousands of write transactions per second on modern hardware. That is probably similar to or more than your real, multi-user, concurrent RDBMS.
> Abanca is using agent orchestration to handle sensitive customer information at a huge scale (2 million customers in their app).
Maybe my perspective is skewed on what "huge scale" means, but 2 million users? That's like a few hundred megabytes of data? Or a couple GBs if there's a lot of per-user data?
Maybe, but using state-of-the-art large language models to solve customer support queries with agentic can quickly use a lot of tokens. What I understood from the talk is that they used agents with limited responsibility and (assumption from me) smaller models, to the make sure the answers were quick, reliable and not too costly.
There are several payments processing companies that are already largely using AI for customer support queries. They still have an escape hatch to a human but at least one of those companies (on the smaller side) is reporting a ~99% success rate, they are down to a handful of human customer service employees now for cases where the customer can't find/produce the transaction ID.
European consumer focused businesses do not scale easily the same way US ones do, which is a major contributor to their problems developing tech businesses generally.
OTOH such things can be quite defensible, they just rarely become anything like as profitable.
I think civic workers are generally aware of how much waste exists in their departments, but what is the motivation to change it? Any attempt at "efficiency" could very well backfire and mean the end of their own job.
It was a good idea if it was also timed during the popular uprisings. But the 20,000+ die-hard citizens that would have effected regime change were slaughtered months ago. So now it's just a scared populace hunkering in place while USA warships and jets dominate their country.
And the Iranians fire off the occasional drone swarm on UAE.
reply