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

Here's crazy idea: Instead of the US spending all this money on restraining the Iranian government through military build ups and sanctions, rather drop hundreds of thousands of Starlink kits by drones.

Firstly the protesters will be able to communicate in private.

And secondly, Iranians will continue to be reminded of the freedoms most other Muslims enjoy: As in free speech and free trade.

One of the reasons the Berlin wall fell was that East Europeans saw on TV that how prosperous Western Europe became.


One major difference is that it was extremely difficult to leave Eastern Europe. Borders with the West were fortified and even in the unlikely event of getting a visa issued, the government would make sure that your loved ones were left behind, forcing you to eventually come back.

The citizens of Iran, in turn, are free to leave the country as they wish. In fact, the official policy is that if you don't like it here, then you are are supposed to move out.


What good is the free Internet when the government can use it push false narratives and obvious lies and the people just believe it (talking about America in this case).

Starlink was also blocked by radio frequency interference.

Granted that can't possibly cover the entire area of the country.


What? No. There are countless reasons why the wall fell but TV wasn't one of them. East Europeans didn't 'see' anything 'on TV' that would suggest anything other than what was endorsed by local authorities.

Trade was a big factor though. As the collective quality of life in the East was deteriorating, efforts were made by authorities to save the dire situation by opening trade and some degree of freedom of movement with the West. As this plan failed economically, a side effect was that it only became common knowledge across society how big the gap in quality of life really was.

The idea that free internet access will magically change the situation for Iranians on it's own is naive.


Some changes to the algorithms and implementations will allow cheaper commodity hardware to be used.


There will always be an incentive to scale data centers. Better algorithms just mean more bang per gpu, not that “well, that’s enough now, we’ve done it”.


In 2023 I stayed in a capsule hotel in Bilbao. There I was told at check in that no talking or loudspeakers of any kind is allow in the capsules. That can only be done in the lounge area.

I spent 3 nights and got much better sleep than I would have at a hostel.


Could there be a motif unrelated to ICE ? That Home Depot does not like that day labourers are loitering and approaching customers entering and leaving the store.


I believe Home Depot offers a similar service now so in a way they are directly competing


Likely because they contrast with many of its own employees' lack of helpfulness, knowledge, or work ethic.


if so, you wouldn't expect this to be a new policy


What studies ? What data ? David Bessis basically says that there are so few twins reared apart that scientists can't make definitive conclusions.


I don't understand why you are challenging me here?

Isn't your question exactly that addressed by the (admittedly too long) article? That the graph Paul Graham presented proving the dominance of inheritance wasn't based on any science or data?


Your comment mentioned "studies" plural.

There are many studies of twins that try to determine if genes influence intelligence.

Some look at twins who are raised together. One [1] concludes that "MZ (identical) twins differ on average by 6 IQ points, while DZ (fraternal) twins differ on average by 10 IQ points".

[1]: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6202166/


> Your comment mentioned "studies" plural.

Yes? I mentioned them because the article was about a bunch of studies? I was asking the poster why you would not be interested in the validity of such studies and just decide that "common sense" was enough to make a decision?

The question was asked with genuine curiosity as this forum is mostly filled with people who appreciate science and empiricism. And I was hoping there could be a reasonable discussion.

But I'm out. An interesting discussion should be possible here purely based on data and statistics but clearly - from the downvotes - that I've stepped into some toxic American identity politic minefield.

I learned quite a time ago that it's risky to raise certain scientific subjects with USAians including my US relatives: biological evolution, the science of climate change, renewable energy or justifications for gun control - without the conversation getting emotional and heated. But I still find it weird.


The article only asks the question of scientists have data to conclude that IQ is inherited. The author is only saying that there are so many problems with the little data we have, that he cannot rule out correlation without causation.


So you point to one instance of highly targeted sabotage aka sanctions. But Snowden and others exposed many instances of espionage dragnets.


You can buy (go long) a BTC future with only $10,000 or less of collateral. So you can get lots of leverage.

Another reason is that the future may be trading slightly below the spot price of BTC due to lots of traders shorting.


Here's a fairly fast algorithm: Look for a number that appears in both { j⁵+k⁵+l⁵ } and { i⁵-n⁵ } where 0 < j <= k <= l and 0 < n < i

If we only consider l and i under 250, then the sets would contain less than 3 million integers each.

Strength reduction can be used to replace all the multiplications with additions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strength_reduction


It's likely that the original search also used strength reduction to save a lot of cycles (effectively replacing all multiplications with additions):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strength_reduction


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

Search: