Not to mention the multiple THAAD radars taken offline. Those are $500M assets - and only 8 exist in the world. 24,000 precise transceivers all liquid cooled… not available on Amazon for next day deliver either.
a single AN/FPS-132 radar costs $1.1 bln, not $500m. And Iran stuck 17 of the CENCCOM sites hosting radars of all kinds across Qarar, Bahrain, Iraq, UAE, Saudi, Jordan, Israel, etc).
Total cost is so much bigger, it is staggering. The whole CENTCOM is blind basically, as well as Iron Dome which relied on these radars - all blind now, in addition to long-range early nuke detection to protect CONUS is also blind.
in addition to cost, they all require Rare Earth Minerals, and China has banned the export of these (they own like 99% of the market).
So not only CENTCOM is blind and incurred damage in high single digit billions, but also will be unable to repair the damage any time soon (probably for decades) even if the funding were made to be available
Government obviously pretty silent on all these failures and media doesn't want to dig and ask hard questions
If we are speaking of interception/penetration, these are also solved by Iran using several strategies that Israel/CENTCOM did not expect:
1. use of cluster munitions
2. exhaustion of expensive interceptor inventory (exchanging $7000 shahed drone for $3-5 mln worth of PAC-3 interceptors)
3. Use of penetration aids
4. Changing trajectory at the terminal stage
5. coordinating swarm attacks (let AD to intercept SRBMs, while the real damage is caused by abundant cheap Shaheds that fly too slow and low to be detected)
that after 4 years of Ukraine war where those tactics have been widely used, in some cases by both sides, and where Russia has even been using the same Iranian drones
I've read that NATO radars in Turkey were equally important to provide early warning to Israel. It's not far-fetched to assume that US radars in the middle-east did too. US THAAD in Israel would definitely be networked into those.
I think that there is a problem here - you're talking about the firing of the defense system at targets, whereas knowing that that radar needs to be readied because missiles have been detected is what the other radar system provided.
>So not only CENTCOM is blind and incurred damage in high single digit billions, but also will be unable to repair the damage any time soon (probably for decades) even if the funding were made to be available
not just what i quoted, but your source does not say any of what you are saying.
your source says: Satellite images show damage near vital equipment on sites in at least five countrieshttps://archive.ph/QHNXW
No problem - Trump is asking for an FY 2027 1.5 TRILLION dollar military budget, and just said that Medicare and Medicare may need to be cut to afford it.
In a "rational" world the quagmire of Iran would make such a move unlikely, but with this administration the prospect of an "easy win" could have them just go for it.
After all, nobody's stopping them. The Constitution only remains so that the 2A fanatics can LARP at being patriots.
> Government obviously pretty silent on all these failures and media doesn't want to dig and ask hard questions
Some analysts are sure drumming up the severity [0]. In the fog of war, it is hard to tell what's exaggerated and what's not. The proposal by the current US Admin to increase defence spending by 40% to $1.5t is not a welcome sign for those opposed to heavy spending, for any number of reasons.
> In the fog of war, it is hard to tell what's exaggerated and what's not.
Honestly it's more than that. Propaganda and lies put out by ALL actors in this conflict. If you want to understand what's going on I think you have the expose yourself to as many competing sources as you can find. And still you're going to end up with a very shoddy picture. The term for this is epistemic collapse.
The multiple sources don't know either, the reason the picture is shoddy is it is necessarily composed of the primary information that is coming from ... people with the strongest incentive to lie. There aren't a lot of independent ways to assess the situation. And of course that is part of the fog of war - even the militairy struggles to put together a picture of what is going on. I'd imagine that defining where the front-line is presents a complex and uncertain exercise for the commanders involved.
The only thing I think can be said reliably is that this has been going on for weeks, the Strait seems to be more closed than open, Trump is clearly out of his depth and the US is sending more units to the area. All of those point to a serious problem for the US military.
One of the things I have disliked about the Iranian conflict is that their propaganda/messaging has been, by quite a margin, more reliable than what the US/Israel have been putting out.
I like to think that I live in a free/liberal democratic portion of the world, but seeing the "other side" being more honest really puts a dent in things.
> One of the things I have disliked about the Iranian conflict is that their propaganda/messaging has been, by quite a margin, more reliable than what the US/Israel have been putting out.
The most recent example - I have been seeing reels/tik toks fronted by young women, that push Iranian talking points, they were saying that Trump's announcements on the conflict were timed to manipulate markets, and to "watch tomorrow"
They were referring to a Sunday before the Markets opened, and right on cue President Trump started making announcements that had a massive effect on market movements
Previously the USA government were downplaying (then retaliatory) Iranian drone attacks on bases in the middle east, claiming zero damage, and laughing at the attackers, the Iranians provided footage that showed real damage, and the US military released statement(s) that agreed with the Iranian claims.
Now, I'm not going to pretend that the Iranian regime is anything but a steaming pile of ew, but the lesson we were supposed to learn from the Vietnam war, and the Iraq war (II), was that hearts and minds are the key to "winning", and that's built on trust, which is built on transparency and honesty.
Absolutely. A big part of the western Ukrainian defense was solely to drain the Russian military apparatus and drain they have. It will take Russia decades to rebuild their fighting force. Now Russia and China are doing it right back to us and the intelligence gained from this conflict is extremely valuable. Come to find out the US has been sitting on ego in its military more than actual might. The previously untouchable machines of war in the sky are now very much touchable. All that's left is for them to sink a battle ship. If Iran can shoot them down, you can bet China can inflict exponentially more harm. Drain our intercept missiles, destroy radars, corrode relationships, etc. At this point, China has the world on a silver platter if they want it.
Did a quick search, didn’t see confirmation that they’re blind/that all radars had been knocked out. Was asking whether others who know more about this topic than me would confirm.
This is the second time in 2 weeks I’ve seen a comment like this on HN. 37 years old. Been on here 16 years. Incredibly odd to me. Just announce “can someone else tell me if this is true?”
And it's worse than spam when someone is posting incorrect things and people are downvoting people questioning it. As another user has already posted, the Iron Dome does not use the same radar they are talking about and is not "blind"
IMHO, people making claims should provide the evidence for them. One link is behind a paywall and the other clearly states that it is making informed speculations.
I could make all sorts of claims on the spot here. It doesn't create a duty for people reading this thread to go investigate them.
You're so close, just one more step, and it's easy, just have to step away from keeping it hypothetical.
<SPOILER>
Then it certainly does not create a duty for people to go investigate, when the only difference is "someone replied telling someone to fact check"
</SPOILER>
You're the one in this thread claiming people are responsible for "going and finding the evidence" of other people's unsourced claims. You could have just not replied since you didn't have something to contribute.
Traveling with kids on spring break, I don’t have time to read all war related news, and it tends to set off my propaganda account alarm when someone registers a new account to drop a bunch of assertions on such a politically divisive topic. So I was asking whether someone could confirm things like “The whole CENTCOM is blind basically, as well as Iron Dome which relied on these radars - all blind now, in addition to long-range early nuke detection to protect CONUS is also blind.”
There’s a good reason new accounts are colored green.
For the United States, the government doesn't have the capability to extricate Israel from its political system, but the feds can create blowback for Israel which makes them less capable to influence the US in the future while achieving other strategic aims in the region. US war planners know plenty about blow back and I think this is being done on purpose. I am terrified for innocent Israelis, Iranians and Gulf state residents that have been led into this. Most of the states and peoples in the Middle East who have been destroyed used to be allies with the US. That isn't on accident.
Moved on how? Satellites are useful for launch detection and cueing but as far as we know there isn't a satellite constellation capable of tracking airborne targets with enough precision for targeting. And the military couldn't really keep such satellites secret: the emissions would be impossible to hide.
The price for a couple of 32GB sticks is now over $1200 after being stable at about $200 for several years until last September. That's not a blip; that's 6-fold hike and there is no sign it is slowing down any time soon.
Let's see, this is a low speed 2x16GB DDR4 kit for $300.
The closest option on the pcpartpicker chart was about $75 as a stable price. So that one's only a 4x increase.
Versus DDR5 where... it looks like a 5x increase to me? I'm seeing a jump from 200USD up to 1000USD. Edit: Oh there's an extra jump in the last month on the CAD version but not the USD version.
Did you not read what I said? I couldn't even get a replacement video card at any price during the height of COVID and believe you I had the money to pay for one. I couldn't even get a Raspberry PI (any model) for about a year. They were constantly out of stock.
> That's not a blip; that's 6-fold hike and there is no sign it is slowing down any time soon.
How does that invalidate anything I said? As states in the article this will change, it will take years but it isn't forever.
I find it hard to believe that people here cannot make do with whatever hardware they already have.
I also don't believe those small SBCs would have survived long term anyway. Most people just use a Raspberry PI. It is either a MiniPC or a Raspberry PI.
Discord groups that had real-time line counts and pictures of the line at most best buys across the country (US).
The only way I got one was overpaying and a lottery system that bundled it with other hardware because they knew everyone would still buy it. It was impossible to buy online normally as you needed some kind of automated way to buy it before stock zeroed the minute it was posted.
You could pay a scalper for a gfx card, but stores had none. Now, stores have RAM at least.
> Did you not read what I said? I couldn't even get a replacement video card at any price during the height of COVID and believe you I had the money to pay for one.
You're comparing to memory sticks that went up 6x. If you were offering anywhere near 6x MSRP and you couldn't get a video card... I don't believe you.
> If you were offering 5x MSRP and you couldn't get a video card... I don't believe you.
My 1080Ti had died. I had to use a 8800GTS from the late 2000s for about a year. As that was the only GPU I had. I have no iGPU on my CPU.
There was at one time, no stock available. Not on Amazon, Not on Overclockers, Not on Scan. They had some weird lotto system taking place on most sites.
Scalpers claimed to have cards. But I wouldn't risk sending a lot of money to some random seller on ebay.
> Unless this article is massively misleading, sure it was out of stock at 1x price but it wasn't out of stock at 2-3x price.
Again I am in the UK. You could not buy any PI other than 1GB model and maybe the zero. Both of which were useless to me.
> Scalpers claimed to have cards. But I wouldn't risk sending a lot of money to some random seller on ebay.
Ah, so you could have bought one, but you judged the available suppliers to be too risky.
Completely fair, but then it's not true that you couldn't buy one "at any price". It was just not a price+risk that you were willing to take.
Also, re: Raspberry Pis, you couldn't always get the exact RAM configuration you wanted, but they were pretty continuously available during COVID on Aliexpress. You did have to pay 3-5x normal price, but you could do it. I really needed one after one at home died, and paid the 3x markup, and it was annoying but fine. Not sure if Aliexpress is equally as available in the UK as it is here in the US, though.
> Completely fair, but then it's not true that you couldn't buy one "at any price". It was just not a price+risk that you were willing to take.
You are being pedantic. I find this type of discussion very tiresome. I've explained why in other forks of this thread. Quite honestly it pisses me off.
> Also, re: Raspberry Pis, you couldn't always get the exact RAM configuration you wanted, but they were pretty continuously available during COVID on Aliexpress. You did have to pay 3-5x normal price, but you could do it. I really needed one after one at home died, and paid the 3x markup, and it was annoying but fine. Not sure if Aliexpress is equally as available in the UK as it is here in the US, though.
Not in the UK. Someone was running a site with all the places that you could buy from. I was checking most days. Stock was extremely limited other than a few models.
This was my experience, too. Pis would disappear from online retailers before you noticed the stock alert email.
I only got hold of a Pi 4 by chance when Raspberry Pi did an official pop-up store in Southampton for one day only. The queue to get in was about 45 mins long.
Okay, UK, maybe that changes things more than I expected. But what about ebay and the sites that replaced classified ads? And is it unreasonable for me to say that you could have bought a US listing and had it reshipped?
Edit since you added: Scalpers claimed to have cards. But I wouldn't risk sending a lot of money to some random seller on ebay.
Even with ebay's buyer protection?
Well not to be mean but I think "I refused to use ebay" invalidates your claim that you couldn't buy a card.
I've had problems with it before (I can't remember specifics as it was a while ago). I'd rather not going through the hassle and/or risk in the first place.
There are still plenty of scams on ebay. During this era there were people scamming. e.g the box for a GPU. Listing the entire specs and then putting right at the bottom of the listing it was only the box and not the card.
> Well not to be mean but I think "I refused to use ebay" invalidates your claim that you couldn't buy a card.
What you are doing is being hyper-pedantic. It is fucking tiresome when people do this online.
If you are going to be a smart arse, I will modify my statement to say "I could not get a card from a reputable online store as they were all out of stock and did not wish to risk buying from a less reputable one".
I would be foolish to trust some overpriced (or underpriced) listing on ebay. I've had an ebay/paypal account now for 25+ years, I've learned to never do this because I got screwed every time I did.
> What you are doing is being hyper-pedantic. It is fucking tiresome when people do this online.
That's not pedantry. There's a huge difference between "they were unavailable and I couldn't get one at any price" and "I could have bought one from a scalper but I didn't trust them". Even if it's reasonable not to trust them (it is!), the first statement is sensational, and untrue, especially considering you emphasized "at any price" in your comment upthread.
> If you are going to be a smart arse, I will modify my statement to say "I could not get a card from a reputable online store as they were all out of stock and did not wish to risk buying from a less reputable one".
That's what you should have said in the first place; that would have been honest and correct.
And please, there's no need to call the other poster names. That's uncalled-for and childish. You seem to be new here (9-day-old account), so please read the site guidelines and turn it down a notch or three.
> That's not pedantry. There's a huge difference between "they were simply unavailable and I couldn't get one at any price" and "I could have bought one from a scalper but I didn't trust them". Even if it's reasonable not to trust them (it is!), the first statement is sensational, and untrue, especially considering you emphasized "at any price" in your original comment.
It is for any normal person in relatively normal setting.
Only amongst technical people is this sort of discourse tolerated where someone pretends that an unreasonable option (the scalper in this case as you admitted yourself) should be included in a statement when it is perfectly obvious it should not be included because it is not in any way reasonable.
I could have flown to the US and bought a card or China. Is that reasonable? For most people it isn't reasonable. It wasn't for me. Buying from an untrustworthy seller, is unreasonable.
> the first statement is sensational, and untrue, especially considering you emphasized "at any price" in your original comment.
They were out of stock on every reputable site. Therefore I could not buy a card at any price from them because they didn't exist.
> That's what you should have said in the first place; that would have been honest and correct.
I was honest and correct to begin with. The poster was using prices and availability in the US and not the UK.
> And please, there's no need to call the other poster names.
I never called them names. I expressed my annoyance at their behaviour.
You are being a pendant as far as I am concerned and arguing semantics with me is not going to convince me and many others.
So I suggest in future you should learn that using this line of logic (where you expect me to do something unreasonable to a huge number of people) is not something that people are going to put up with. It is really annoying to have to converse in this manner and in fact I believe that often that is wholly disingenuous and I no longer wish to speak to you.
If I categorized these situations the way you do, and I said what I'm saying, I would be a pedant.
But I see things a different way. The logic I'm actually using is not pedantic.
You calling me disingenuous over this is painful to look at. Get out of your own head for a second. We're using different premises, and we're reaching different conclusions because of that. My logic is fine, and your logic is fine.
> If I categorized these situations the way you do, and I said what I'm saying, I would be a pedant.
I am not categorising any situation. The vast majority of people would omit unreasonable options.
I could buy a racing bike that is £5000 new, for £200 when I live in London (back in 2000s). The bike would most likely would have been stolen. So technically I can buy a £5000 bike for £200. But most people wouldn't want to buy from a thief and consider it unethical.
People feel similarly about scalpers and other untrustworthy sellers.
> You calling me disingenuous over this is painful to look at. Get out of your own head for a second.
You started the conversation claiming I was outright lying. Then when I clarified to you what I meant you continued claiming I was lying/misstating. That is really annoying.
If you could have just said "okay that is fair, while you might have been doing X and Y, I can understand why you didn't want to do that". That would have been fine. But that didn't happen.
> You started the conversation claiming I was outright lying. Then when I clarified to you what I meant you continued claiming I was lying/misstating. That is really annoying.
I said "If you were offering anywhere near 6x MSRP" I didn't believe you, and it turns out you weren't offering 6x MSRP. So I wasn't calling you a liar.
> If you could have just said "okay that is fair, while you might have been doing X and Y, I can understand why you didn't want to do that". That would have been fine. But that didn't happen.
So if I had explicitly said "I think it's fine you didn't use ebay" that would have fixed everything? Because I never argued about your personal choice, I argued about you calling ebay "unreasonable".
Well for the record, I was going to say something like that in response to "If you are going to be a smart arse, I will modify my statement to say "I could not get a card from a reputable online store as they were all out of stock and did not wish to risk buying from a less reputable one"."
But then I saw you had called me "hyper-pedantic" and I focused on rebuffing that attack instead.
Edit: And it doesn't help that you never actually did that modification, and instead keep insisting that what you originally said means the same thing.
> So if I had explicitly said "I think it's fine you didn't use ebay" that would have fixed everything? Because I never argued about your personal choice, I argued about you calling ebay "unreasonable".
Ebay in itself isn't unreasonable.
Ebay is unreasonable when the only sellers are untrustworthy sellers, when there was a bunch of scams at the time. Which there were.
I've clarified this many times now. I don't care what interpretation is now of what I said.
> Well for the record, I was going to say something like that in response to "If you are going to be a smart arse, I will modify my statement to say "I could not get a card from a reputable online store as they were all out of stock and did not wish to risk buying from a less reputable one"."
I don't believe you. I've had plenty of stupid conversations like this, with plenty of tech nerds. Rarely happens with non-tech people. I spend some time in non-tech hobby spaces that are technical (Classic Car / Bike repairs) and this convo style never happens.
People like yourself think you are being clever buy poking holes in everything that said. I am quite happy to be quite obnoxious in pointing this out. I am tired of it. I am this cantankerous IRL about this btw.
The fact is that you could not buy a new graphics card in the UK for some time during COVID via almost every online retailers. I had conversations with other people in the UK that wanted to buy PC hardware and they were in the same situation. The same was true for the Pi 4 at the time. Making stupid semantic arguments doesn't change that fact.
> Edit: And it doesn't help that you never actually did that modification, and instead keep insisting that what you originally said means the same thing.
For all intents and purposes it is the same thing if you aren't engaging in pedantry and semantics. I try not to engage in it anymore (unless it is tit for tat), because I understand it pisses people off. You obviously don't care.
I like these many posts about how you, specifically, chose not to use any of the available systems to get a GPU that rapidly organized and became common globally during lockdown. The line from “I just didn’t feel like doing something once” through to “My predictions for the future about a different problem are obviously true” is clear as day. Can’t see why anyone would disagree
> I like these many posts about how you, specifically, chose not to use any of the available systems to get a GPU that rapidly organized and became common globally during lockdown.
You like the other people are was arguing with are pretending that the options were reasonable. They weren't at the time. Many other people I know thought the same.
There was no stock for any GPU except for absolute crap on any of the retail sites in the UK. There are not many options in the UK generally. It is not like the US.
As far as I am concerned what you are engaging is effectively gas-lighting.
> The line from “I just didn’t feel like doing something once” through to “My predictions for the future about a different problem are obviously true” is clear as day. Can’t see why anyone would disagree
If you deliberately want to misunderstand what is said you could draw that conclusion. Which is blatantly what you are doing.
The only thing I claimed about the current high price DRAM situation is:
1) It is likely to get worse before it gets better (due to supply chain issues due to current wars).
2) It resolve itself over time and you should be patient and just make your existing stuff last as long as possible.
That is how any crisis often plays out and I was actually telling people in my original statement not to be all doom and gloom and just be patient. It will sort itself out. It won't be this year for sure.
My favorite part would have to be where you can’t remember the actual, structurally crucial piece of information that your argument rests on and just said that you didn’t feel like getting a GPU off eBay.
>I've had problems with it before (I can't remember specifics as it was a while ago). I'd rather not going through the hassle and/or risk in the first place.
As your evidence that
> Doomers IMO are just click baiting.
Like you admitted that you _do not remember_ why it was entirely unreasonable or impossible and are arguing against people that do possess memory of it being possible and reasonable enough for them at the time. Amazing stuff.
> My favorite part would have to be where you can’t remember the actual, structurally crucial piece of information that your argument rests on and just said that you didn’t feel like getting a GPU off eBay.
You are misunderstanding what is being said. I suspect it is deliberate.
It is often said that "Prevention is often better than the cure". Similarly it is often better not to risk spending your money unwisely than to have to go through processes to recover your money. It matters not what the specifics of the situation was (it happened a decade or more ago)
I communicated that quite clearly. So you either didn't understand or you are deliberately misunderstanding what I said.
> Like you admitted that you _do not remember_ why it was entirely unreasonable or impossible and are arguing against people that do possess memory of it being possible and
reasonable enough for them at the time. Amazing stuff.
I bet you felt really clever constructing that. However as explained the specifics weren't the point. Avoiding the process entirely for funds recovery is the point.
I don’t know why you’re being so combative here. I said I liked your posts about vaguely feeling that a specific thing was probably worse during covid lockdown than everyone else remembers it and how that means that your are equipped to predict the impact of a completely different phenomenon on something else. I like these posts! Responding to “hmm this specific thing looks bad” with “alright I don’t actually remember what I’m basing this on but I saw a quote about economists that I think means it’s good and it feels like everyone that doesn’t vibe with me and my quote are wrong” is fantastic posting!
i would certainly consider "at any price" to mean that you'd be willing to pay the 5x price to 20 different scammers and still got no card.
there might be a cultural difference between the old world and new world for what "at any price" means, but id take it to mean that to be at least spending $1M for it
I wasn't trying to be a smart arse at all. "I couldn't get a new card from a store" and "I couldn't get a card at all" are extremely different claims in my mind.
I'd rate my pedantry level as quite low. From my point of view this is not a nitpick.
Especially because you emphasized "at any price". It's the scalpers and the used market that were selling at any price. Sticking to reputable stores means sticking close to MSRP.
Paying a scalper on ebay isn't. Which is what I said. Misstating what I said is disingenuous.
> You could have gotten another 1080Ti from a legitimate previous owner.
They were being scalped as well. Also people were holding onto their 10 series cards because the other cards were too expensive. So I would have had to buy an older card (which I had already had one fail) at an inflated price.
I could have bought a GT 710 or a GT1030, but that wouldn't have been any better than my 8800GTS really.
I could have flown to Taiwan and bought a card. I could have stolen one. I am sure you will invent another fantasy scenario where I could have gotten a graphics card that I didn't think about at the time.
The fact is that I could not buy a new card from an online retailer in the UK as they were out of stock. Even when they did come into stock there was a lotto system. So you couldn't really buy one then. That is a fact.
I am not a hardware guy, so I am asking this in good faith: excluding people with corporate backing, who actually needs DDR5 RAM? Gamers? Why is DDR4 or DDR3 not good enough?
Because modern CPUs are on platforms that support only DDR5.
If you are a gamer, chances are you want one of the AMD X3D CPUs. Whilst AMD did produce 5600X3D, 5700X3D and the highly sought after 5800X3D, these are effectively unobtainable now (outside of the Used Market, which is already about 2X MSRP).
You are effectively forced into AM5 (or whatever Intel is doing) and they require DDR5. You don't have the "choice" to use DDR4 anymore in most circumstances.
If your question is more of a hypothetical (assuming we could use newer CPUs with DDR4 or even DDR3) the answer is a bit more blurred, but at least in a lot of gaming workloads, you aren't memory speed bound. There is some performance regressions, sometimes up to 15%, but a lot of this is negated with the X3D chips anyways (:
If you only need DDR3-like throughput you can keep a minimum of RAM for booting and caching, and set up swap on an Intel Optane drive: they're widely available and cheap (at least cheaper than RAM) on the second-hand market.
(For read only workloads (no writes or only very rare writes) any ordinary SSD would suffice; the point of resorting to Optane is its unique wearout resistance.)
Street View nearby reveals this sign at the edge of the Street View area: "Forstarbeiter und Militär Frei," which means "Forestry Workers and Military [are free to enter]". The red circle around the sign implies that everyone else is forbidden to enter. So, it's some kind of military installation.
My old late friend Dan Kaminsky famously wrote the Perl module "Ozyman DNS", which allowed you to tunnel ssh session over the DNS, thus evading certain firewalls such as those controlling access to public WiFi. Modern public WiFi setups filter the DNS too, rendering this technique moot, but I remember using "Ozyman DNS" to get WiFi access on the Caltrain and that was highly satisfying.
Stars occasionally correlate with quality but more often it's timing and naming. I have a total of 40k stars on GitHub, and I know the code is shit in most of those repos (many written back when I was 16-18 as I was just learning to code). Jumping on hype trains before they start is how you get stars.
Self-reported studies are arguably weaker evidence, but are common in some areas for ethics reasons. In general, if errors are truly random, than they will cancel out over larger/frequent population samples.
The study conclusion inferred the skills needed to be effective at some task, are the same skills needed to correctly evaluate if you are actually proficient at the same tasks.
If the data infers another explanation is more applicable, than I'd be interested in the primary papers/studies the editorialized opinion seems to have omitted. =3
I guess you linking to it was a self fulfilling prophecy
If you read your own reference (not the picture, but where you took it from on Wikipedia) really really carefully, you might be able to tell why it so perfectly applies to you
The person with little knowledge overestimates they're capability, and the person which actually knows how complicated [the thing] is , usually isn't as confident they mastered it.
You’re talking about a confidence and ability gap. I have heard of the Dunning-Kruger effect. I accept all of that.
But the claim above was that having low confidence was correlated to higher skill. Ie, skill and confidence are anti correlated. The chart does not show that. The lowest data point for confidence is the point on the left of the chart. This is also the data point corresponding to people who have the least competence. Having low confidence is not evidence that you’re secretly an expert. Confidence and competence are still positively correlated according to that chart.
The Dunning-Kruger effect is not so strong that there are scores of novices convinced they are experts in a field. But in your case, I admit the data may not tell the full story.
That isn't what that shows, and the article you linked to even warns:
> In popular culture, the Dunning–Kruger effect is sometimes misunderstood as claiming that people with low intelligence are generally overconfident, instead of denoting specific overconfidence of people unskilled at particular areas.
Dunning-Kruger has also been discredited with suggestion they may have been over confident themselves:
Debunking the Dunning‑Kruger effect – the least skilled people know how much they don’t know, but everyone thinks they are better than average (2023)https://theconversation.com/debunking-the-dunning-kruger-eff... the Dunning‑Kruger effect – the least skilled people know how much they don’t know, but everyone thinks they are better than average
Self-reported studies are arguably weaker evidence, but are common in some areas for ethics reasons. In general, if errors are truly random, than they will cancel out over larger/frequent population samples.
The study conclusion inferred the skills needed to be effective at some task, are the same skills needed to correctly evaluate if you are actually proficient at the same tasks.
Or put another way, the <5% population of narcissists by their nature become evasive when their egos are perceived as threatened. Thus, often will pose a challenge in a team setting, as compulsive lying or LLM turd-polishing is orthogonal to most real world tasks.
People are not as unique as they like to believe, and spotting problems is trivial after you meet around 3000 people. Best to avoid the nonsense, and get outside to enjoy life. Have a great day =3
No idea why we all get negative karma on this thread, as I do respect a cited source opinion even if we disagree. Do have a look around for papers rather than editorialized content in the future, and note account LLM agent output is a violation of YC usage policy. Have a great day =3
Why would anyone settle for underpaid positions from an agency taking a 7% contract cut, and purging CVs from any external firm also contracting with their services.
Most people figure out this scam very early in life, but some cling to terrible jobs for unfathomable reasons. =3
If folks expect someone to solve problems for them, than 100% people end up unhappy. The old idea of loyalty buying a 30 year career with vertical movement died sometime in the 1990s.
Ikigai chart will help narrow down why people are unhappy:
> If folks expect someone to solve problems for them
In this type of situation, the fundamental issue is that making progress depends on many people acting in unison to increase their bargaining power, which is (a) hard to arrange even if everyone who acted this way would benefit, and (b) actually may be detrimental to some people (usually the high performers).
I agree it is nearly impossible to alter the inertia of existing firms. Most have entrenched process people that defend how things are done right up until a company enters insolvency. Fine if you sell soda or rubber tires, but a death knell for technology or media firms.
In my observations it is usually conditioned fear, personal debt-driven risk aversion, and or failure to even ask if the department above you is really necessary. These days, it is almost always easier to go to another firm if you want a promotion. =3
I hate to say it, but this looks like the sort of thing a CEO told their team to build on Monday morning in a panic because they are grasping for ways to participate in the AI craze. And the team did just that: they built it that morning using Claude Code.
There is truly nothing original here and the product doesn't have a chance in hell of earning money. Local LLMs on-device will be dominated by the device vendors, whose control of the hardware stack combined with their ability to subsidize billions of dollars of machine learning research gives them an unfair advantage. Apple knows what the next generation of silicon will deliver, and their ML engineers are already hard at work building models that will be highly optimized for that silicon a year or two ahead of time. Open source models are really great and are backed by well funded labs; however, delivering these models on-device in a way that pleases users will never be easier than it is for the vendors of the devices.
Plus, device vendors have ways of making money from local LLMs that third-party app providers do not. They can make their local LLM free and earn money on the hardware play, without skipping a beat on the billions of dollars of ongoing R&D. I don't see how third party app vendors make money here when they will be competing with the decent, totally free alternative that Apple and Google (and Samsung etc.) will load on in the next year or two.
I do find it quite funny how unless you're using one of the frontier labs interfaces, more or less all other 'model providers' are using small models that work on a macbook. Proton did something similar - I've tried their version and I find it pretty awful relative to just running Qwen 3.5 locally.
I write my comment with admiration for founders, because I am one. That being said, chasing trends without paying attention to the steamroller has killed more than one very good company and I have plenty of scar tissue as evidence...
Counter position (not sure it's better than yours): what are the chances that device makers would actually offer seriously local, and not just something that does work in airplane mode, but then still connects to their cloud later, if not for post-sale monetization then at least for features providing better brand lock-in? I mean just look at how well the market for TV sets that don't try to shove "services" down buyers' throats is developing...
But sure, making money with standalone "local first is our headline feature" will be incredibly hard against those, no doubt about that. In light of the limited quality of what local models can achieve, the privacy bonus just won't compel many to pay. But that only means that this "morning with Claude" you are suggesting might be just the right amount of investment for the result you'd realistically expect. But is that so bad? I'd argue the reverse: bundling up the low hanging fruit but not by some hobbyist who will lose interest two weeks on but by a company big enough the keep it going while small enough to not be a VC furnace that will inevitably turn on users once the runway runs out (*), that's an opportunity to fill a niche few others can. Valuable for users who don't want to roll their own deployment of open source models (can't, or unwilling to commit to keeping them up to date, assuming that Ente does keep that ball rolling), and also valuable for the company of the investment actually is so low that it pays by raising awareness for their other products that apparently do earn them money.
(*) I was googling around a little wondering if they actually are as close to bootstrapped as they seem on the surface, and yes, that's supposedly the core idea [0], but despite that they also took 100 kUSD in "non-diluting" (basically a gift then?) from Mozilla with the explicit goal "to promote independent AI and machine learning" [1]. So not a CEO whim but following up to a promise made earlier. If they actually did avoid spending all that money on a one-off but went smaller planning to keep it current for a longer time horizon, I'd congratulate them on an excellent choice.
The hn discussion for [1] seems to be completely missing the point, that Mozilla program isn't about funding an image host (yeah, I'd also prefer if Mozilla focused on the Browser and perhaps Thunderbird, but the foundation is what it is): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41681666
I agree with you, mostly. My read is that Twelver Shi’ism is not a unified hierarchy, and a marja’s fatwa normally binds that marja’s own followers rather than all Shi’a, so your institutional point is broadly right.[1][2] It is too strong, though, to say the anti-nuclear position was simply “invented for PR”: Khamenei did publicly describe it as a real fatwa.[3] At the same time, Iran’s enrichment posture _does_ fit the description of a threshold state, with large stocks of uranium enriched to 60%, so it is fair to say the ruling also had strategic and diplomatic value.[4]
The parts I would soften are the specific claim about Sistani having a significant following inside the IRGC, which MIGHT be true but is much harder to substantiate publicly (although, maybe you have some behind-the-scenes knowledge?), and the certainty of motive. Still, your last sentence is basically right: these rulings are not _immutable_. After Ali Khamenei’s death, Iran’s foreign minister said (quoting the Reuters article), “fatwas depend on the Islamic jurist issuing them,” and added he was “not yet in a position to judge the jurisprudential or political views of Mojtaba Khamenei…” This reinforces the point that doctrine can shift if the leadership chooses.[5]
[1] Encyclopaedia Britannica, “Twelver Shi’ah.”
[2] Al-Islam.org, “Question 49: Difference between hukm and fatwa.”
[3] Leader.ir, “Ayatollah Khamenei in the Eid al-Fitr congregational prayers” and “Leader’s remarks on anti-Iran sanctions and Yemen aggressions by Saudi Arabia.”
[4] Arms Control Association, “The Status of Iran’s Nuclear Program,” and ACA analysis citing the IAEA’s 440.9 kg figure.
[5] Reuters, “Iran says nuclear doctrine unlikely to change, Hormuz Strait needs new protocol” (March 18, 2026).
Strategically, it seems like a dumb move. Right now, Congress is unlikely to approve Trump’s request for $200B to fund the war effort. But if Americans can be convinced that Iran could somehow hit American cities, they would call their members of Congress in a heartbeat and that money would presumably flow without interruption.
Why time the medium range missiles now? It seems like yet another own-goal for this desperate and poorly coordinated regime.
I can't speak for Iran, but it may be a warning against attempting to land troops on Kharg Island. They're showing that they've been "nice" so far, but they have escalation paths America may not have considered. I think most people thought they were limited to short range missile strikes.
They just don't need to be convinced of anything. It's not like normal people have a say in this, just a few leaders doing what they want. A few fake news stories saying that there's so much support.
They certainly are. And this is likely to some degree a response to enterprise security desires. Enterprise endpoints are locked down already - no need for extra external API security if it’s just the user’s desktop communication as usual.
I feel like this is absolutely not the case. Our corporate infosec guys are freaking out, as developers and general users alike are finding all new ways to poke holes in literally everything.
We're finding out quickly that enterprise endpoints are not locked down anywhere near enough, and the stuff that users are creating on the local endpoints is quickly outpacing the rate at which SOC teams can investigate what's going on.
If you're using Claude via Anthropic's SaaS service it's near impossible to collect logs of what actually happened in a user's session. We happen to proxy Claude Code usage through Amazon Bedrock and the Bedrock logs have already proven to be instrumental in figuring out what led a user to having repeated attempts to install software that they wouldn't have otherwise attempted to install - all because they turned their brains off and started accepting every Claude Code prompt to install random stuff.
Sandboxing works to an extent, but it's a really difficult balance to strike between locking it down so much that you neuter the tool and having a reasonable security policy.
> If you're using Claude via Anthropic's SaaS service it's near impossible to collect logs of what actually happened in a user's session.
If you are big into logs, OpenAI might be more your speed. They've got an extremely good logging UI in their platform web app. I use it all the time to figure out what the hell copilot was thinking.
Look, as a software dev myself, I really like that my company lets us use our computers the way we see fit. Pre- or post-AI with no restrictive lockdown. Been there, hated that.
But I totally get the freaking out over "normal devs". The amount of stuff most people think is reasonable, AI or not, is mind boggling. For myself of course I like to just be able to be responsible myself. But as a security team I'd also be freaking out.
Like, the amount of people that find our super boring, totally corporate "security training videos", helpful and insightful and "oh dang I'd never have thought of that!" is mind boggling all by itself. Never mind any actual security training that'd be useful to someone with half a brain. You can literally just click through the 8+ hours of stuff you're supposed to watch / answer / do in 30 minutes.
reply