Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | y0ssar1an's commentslogin


[flagged]


Some snake oil treatments are very expensive and cause more harm for you and your family. For example, this was (is?) popular for breast cancer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-dose_chemotherapy_and_bon...

Ivermectin is a very used cheap and safe drug, so I don't expect many nasty side effects, but IANAMD, so ask a real medical doctor before trying.


No drug does nothing. That's kinda implied by the word "drug".

Go smoke some crack

how do you know?

I know actual Iranians.

oh, you know Cyrus?

Khamenei and Pakpour?

I mean, that would be cool but no, just regular people.

If Taiwan is being invaded, the annexation is happening. There's no longer any reason to disincentivize annexation. Destroying the fabs is about denying China a major prize.

Destroying the fabs would hurt the West a lot more than China, which is rapidly playing catch up (while US and EU are not).

The other glaring flaw in this pop-geopolitics narrative is that China already has enormous economic leverage over the West, even without the chip supply chain.


> Destroying the fabs would hurt the West a lot more than China, which is rapidly playing catch up (while US and EU are not)

Is that true? My understanding is that Intel while somewhat behind TSMC, is (along with Samsung) still broadly keeping pace. Whereas SMIC while rapidly improving is still playing catch-up.


I doubt it’s something we could know without it happening.

US has intel and some other options, but it would be a colossal issue and adjustment.

China has its well funded, fast progressing Chinese chiplets, but it would be a colossal issue and adjustment.

All we can tea leaf is this: which party has a better history of making large fast industrial adjustments, and which economy is more reliant on cutting edge chips? I think china wins on both personally, so I would give them the edge, gun to head. But it’s an extremely messy process for either.


Did Hong Kong destroy its financial sector to deny China a "major prize"? If someone were going to invade and occupy your country, would you destroy your huge source of revenue so they couldn't claim it as a "major prize"? And then what? Stay poor? I feel like people who repeat this view (something they read somewhere) haven't really analyzed it in a social, economic, historical, and geopolitical context. Because if you do, there's zero logic to it, given the consequences for the 23 million people who would still be living on the island afterward.

Committing to threats/promises "illogically" gives you a better negotiating position.

Acting "illogically" to spite bad behavior leads to less bad behavior.


No one believes it, so it won't strengthen your negotiating position. It's an unconfirmed rumour of unknown origin, and nobody is taking it seriously. And you're missing the historical context, which makes TSMC irrelevant to China's claims.

Those are much better reasons. (Though I don't think the historical context cancels out a risk of losing TSMC. It just means the motivation wouldn't drop as much.)

somehow they chose to build their very complicated live service game with the Autodesk Stingray engine which was discontinued in 2018! Helldivers 2 was released in 2024.

https://www.autodesk.com/products/stingray/overview


Development of HellDivers 2 started in 2016. So they would have been 2 years into development with that engine. So they would have had to effectively start again in another engine.


Wow, that is a very long development cycle. It really shows in the level of polish this game has.


That's really strange. Perhaps they had a set of engineers that knew it very well or had built an engine in it for another game. Still... strange.


this site is filled with hypercaffeinated steve jobs wannabes, so of course they're gonna blame the victim. if you're not a future billionaire like them, then it's your fault for not hustling (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_o7qjN3KF8U).

don't sweat the cynics, bro. this AI shit is gonna come for them too. they won't be so smug after having their soul repeatedly annihilated by the job market.

i don't have anything to offer except "hang in there" and "don't let the bastards win". you're in a rut, but don't give in to despair. our brains are efficient irrationality machines, so it's gonna feel hopeless. the first battle you have to win is with our human tendency towards irrational doom and gloom. once you conquer that, you'll be unstoppable. i'll be rooting for you, bud!


They literally can't have an election until the war ends:

* millions of Ukrainians in the occupied territories * 1000km frontline that is extremely thin in places. should they pull troops off the line to vote, or run ballot boxes to the trenches? * their Constitution forbids it * the Russians will attack polling places, possibly killing hundreds

Britian didn't have an election for 10 years because of WWII, so it's not like it's unprecedented for a democracy to put elections on hold during an existential crisis.


Victory for Ukraine is surviving to the next day. Do you really think funding them is "fundamentally evil"? They don't have a choice about fighting. If they lose, Ukraine will be brutally "Russified". Their language and culture will be banned. Their poets and patriots killed. Their children will be brainwashed and turned into loyal soldiers for Putin's next war of conquest.

Nobody likes war, but letting your country be subjugated by an evil dictator is worse.


As if the Ukrainians had a choice about fighting. If Russia gives up, the war ends. If Ukraine gives up, Ukraine ends.


Appeasing nuclear bullies gets you more nuclear bullying, not less.

Because of Trump's betrayal of Ukraine, the whole world knows that US security guarantees don't mean anything. These security guarantees have prevented the spread of nuclear weapons. The US has treaties with dozens of countries promising a US nuclear response if the country is nuked. Therefore, those countries have not had to develop nuclear weapons.

They do now. Their trust has been completely shattered. I guarantee you that formerly non-nuclear countries like South Korea, Japan, and half of Europe are now full speed ahead on secret nuclear weapons programs. Trump has destroyed the US-led world order and we're now on a much scarier timeline. Nuclear war is more likely, not less.


I think we have completely different views of things, how did Russia become the nuclear bully?. Are you aware of several nuclear pre-emptive strike plans that have been floating around lately in the U.S against Russia, how can the whole Ukraine 'organic' uprising be a thing when Russia is next door. Imagine if Canada suddenly went through an 'organic' uprising and decided it wanted to join the Chinese NATO equivalent, would anyone believe that possible without prior assurances?, how would the U.S respond?.

The whole 51st state cannot be a Trump only thing, he is too stupid for that, more than likely its some plan that someone told him about it and he couldn't keep quiet about it. Take into account that the whole Ukraine owing the U.S half of its mineral wealth wasn't just a Trump thing, Biden was promoting it too but he was quiet about it.

From my pov China and Russia have been the rational actors, the U.S is acting irrationally as it sees their influence crumble. They are unwilling to compete with China and want to go back to the good ol days when 'organic' coups would just happen whenever a government decided not to take whatever deal they offered.

If anything, it is the U.S that is the nuclear bully.


> how did Russia become the nuclear bully

By routinely threatening to use their nuclear weapons.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/putin-issues-warning-us...

https://www.icanw.org/new_russian_doctrine_increases_possibl...

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-...

Politics is sometimes extremely simple, and the people seeking to complicate matters are the ones with ulterior motivates to do so.

> Are you aware of several nuclear pre-emptive strike plans that have been floating around lately in the U.S against Russia

Not true. Please provide a citation if I am wrong.

> Imagine if Canada suddenly went through an 'organic' uprising and decided it wanted to join the Chinese NATO equivalent, would anyone believe that possible without prior assurances?, how would the U.S respond?

Yes, good point. Trump's idiot empty threats aside, if Canada actually felt the need to get external security guarantees against a planned US invasion, they would have every right to do so. They don't, so they don't. Ukraine does, so they do.

> The whole 51st state cannot be a Trump only thing

It is. It was not spoken of before his victory, and won't be again after he is gone. Trump is a gift to anyone seeking to "both sides" Russia's aggression, but serious people see through that.

> Ukraine owing the U.S half of its mineral wealth wasn't just a Trump thing

Again, yes it was.

> If anything, it is the U.S that is the nuclear bully.

You have yet to offer any supporting evidence of this.


You know a language is dying when you start seeing articles like this.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: