10,511 karma · joined November 19, 2011
> Nigeria says 2 nationals were killed during anti-migrant violence in South Africa
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/nigeria-ghana-malawi-fore...
> ‘Leave or return in a coffin’: The threat driving migrants out of South Africa
https://edition.cnn.com/2026/06/29/africa/south-africa-anti-...
e.g. his 2021 book " Modern Software Engineering"
> Software engineering is the application of an empirical, scientific approach to finding efficient, economic solutions to practical problems in software.
https://www.davefarley.net/?p=352
https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/57345270-modern-softw...
This is definably not engineering.
i.e. is there a symptom, question or quick, cost-effective and reliable test that can distinguish horses from Zebras in this situation.
It can't be much, since the Aranet 4 can run for years on 2 AA batteries.
Check out Zardoz: Connery with a ponytail, a pistol in hand, wearing thigh-high boots and a mankini.
And a giant flying stone head that vomits guns.
I am not joking.
1) https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/vance-says-wa...
What does that mean? Is this an excuse to dismiss his assessment? I don't necessarily value his opinion, but "oh, he's known to be a sceptic of it" is often dismissive rather than acknowledging that there are real reasons be be sceptical.
> Trump was warned protecting the strait would be difficult. Was it the military?
The other link that you were already given makes it clear that it was the military. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48708072
Common sense makes it clear that it was the miliary who know the score. Who else would have studied it in as much detail and wargamed possible scenarios? I refer you to my grandparent comment re "professional strategists who thought that this was an incredibly stupid idea"
> For years, the U.S. government has conducted war games dealing with potential conflicts with Iran, including ones at the Pentagon attended by dozens of military officials and policymakers. Over and over, participants say, they concluded that Iran would respond to a major American attack by closing the strait of Hormuz.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/02/us/politics/trump-iran-st...
NB: this is one of the links given above, and yet you ask the question "Was it the military?" that is answered therein. Why?
I can hit the window many times lightly, with zero damage at the end.
Or I could roll of of those taps into one big energetic swing and break it. There are thresholds below which no damage happens.
Every time the US shoots down a Shahed with a Patriot, the US is further from winning. The problem is that the USA is running out of US$4 million patriot missiles long before Iran runs out of $40K shaheed drones. And Iran can restock sooner.
https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/new-report-us-muni...
https://www.scmp.com/news/world/middle-east/article/3357037/...
it is widely known that Mr Netanyahu has suggested this same plan to every US administration from Bush onwards (1), and was rejected by them all until now.
It is widely known that the military analysts all made the obvious prediction that Iran would seize Hormuz (2)
I might be a bit off the mark with "professional strategists let go in the DOGE purges" but not by much (3) DOGE Cuts have affected the Pentagon as well (4), so it's less clear. What's your source that it had no effect?
Recent reporting on the decision to attack in 2026 includes (5)
Trump attacked based on "a feeling" (6) not advice.
1) https://www.youtube.com/shorts/ED_096-xmEk
2) https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/02/us/politics/trump-iran-st...
3) https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic...
4) https://defensescoop.com/2026/06/23/pentagon-workforce-cuts-...
5)
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/07/us/politics/trump-iran-wa...
https://www.poynter.org/commentary/2026/nyt-haberman-swan-le...
and also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48708072
6) https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/vibes-over-intel-white-house...
It depends on who "they" is. The accounts seem to be that Mrs Trump and Hegseth and co thought like this.
But everyone else (including the professional strategists let go in the DOGE purges, and the remaining ones in the room) thought that this was an incredibly stupid idea that was bound to fail for obvious reasons.
They were overruled. Another case of "they said it couldn't be done. But we tried anyway, and what do you know, they were right." Hubris, incompetence and idiocy.
> The military has been planning to attack Iran for 50 years.
And Iran has been preparing for attack for a long time too. Hence the drone stockpiles.
The Iranian regime might be deeply unpleasant, but they do not appear to be stupid or incompetent at this.
> there’s a real military lesson here
Agreed, but I think the lesson is more about listening to the professional strategists who are stating the obvious.
The linked article above is literally Wikipedia. You are wasting everyone's time.
He said that it helped.
"You" ? Again, I ask you to do the reading and/or query the people advocating for such policies, and not me or the parent poster. Why do you persist in misunderstanding? We might be constrained by the bounds of law and making sense, but I do not think that the people advocating for such racist policies are.
> this whole talk is solely about immigration.
It is not, do not derail.
> is there any mechanism in the law ... If not
Are you ... are you seriously unaware that the party in power can literally make new laws? Or otherwise work around existing laws? Really?
This is answered in the first para of the linked Wikipedia article. "remigration" is not the parent poster's term, your misunderstanding of it is not on them at this point.
> Are you talking about immigrants (who are guests in the country)
No. and also, that statement about immigrants is false as a categorisation.
Why not Proton: https://pivot-to-ai.com/2024/07/25/proton-mail-adds-a-bitcoi...
so https://www.esrf.fr/home/UsersAndScience/Experiments/BM18.ht...
It is true that "there are ... libertarians who want gay rights and no social security" - they do exist. But are they a significant percentage of the voters, compared to the more regular right wing (e.g. UK Reform / Restore) who get double-digit percentages of the vote? No, they are not.
I see that you added this. There's a lot going on. "External factors" sounds like fixed facts of the world. But as I pointed out above, Immigration into the UK is steeply down (1), but this is not your perception or many other perception of the topic. It's not driven by facts.
Would you describe a mega-rich person in the USA using their social platform to stoke racial hatred in the UK and promote conspiracy theories as "external factors", fixed facts of the world? (1)
The far right engages in endless grievances and stoking of culture wars. It's what they do, they are not going to be satisfied with a minor concession, they will just be emboldened instead. And win or lose, if they have to abandon the current grievance, they will find something else to turn into the next grievance. Facts are secondary to this.
The idea that a rational centre-left party can meaningfully "get on the right side" of this escalation - and do so by agreeing with the hate-mongers - is not just wrong, it's nonsensical. Again, Mr Starmer tried it and got nothing.
If you think that's the "right side" then what you want is a right-wing party, no centre-left party is ever going to be the one for you - and this is in common with most voters as I said above.
> The alternative approach is to hope the issue will reduce in salience.
Nope. As they say, "Hope is not a strategy". The right is not going to stop stoking culture wars, as as it works for them, it's their main weapon. This is not a thing that will "naturally" reduce in salience by itself, as it was a political choice in the first place.
1) https://www.trtworld.com/article/18192985
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/elon...
Yes, the far right parties in the UK are trying to do most of that (1) as well as inciting race riots against immigrants. I don't think that you have a point here.
1) not so much on the free trade, they talk a good fight on potential global trade deals, but their record is not so great - spurning actual EU free trade, going along with the USA's attempted trade wars.
On that last point, the USA now is a counterexample to your criteria.
I do not agree. This is obviously an issue that the far right continually talk about. In racist terms.
In academic language from the linked study:
> Thus, accommodating the radical right on immigration could benefit the radical right by increasing the salience of an issue on which it has long been perceived as having a comparative advantage
> Every thing Starmer said indicated he was soft on immigration and he took no meaningful steps to stop it and send refugees back.
Immigration into the UK is steeply down (1), the "took no meaningful steps" is just not true. But this is not how the topic is reported. I do believe that Home Secretary Mahmood truly does believe the hard-line things that she says (2) and that it is in no way winning any votes for Labour. Again, actual Labour voters are repulsed, and Reform voters are not attracted.
This underscores my point that ceding this issue is not how centre-left parties win. I refer you to the study linked above as to how this backfired due to these perceptions.
1) https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clyp1ekd584o
2) https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/apr/21/shabana-mah...
This theory is false, it does not work. It was tested to destruction in the UK this year and tl;dr: it's how to annoy everyone. When the centre-left party chases the right-wing, they disillusion their base and lose votes there, without gaining any significant number or right-wingers, who still prefer what they see as the "real thing". And the right-wingers are emboldened, not collapsed - they take one step back for every step taken towards them.
The long version is here: https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/zbmp3_v2