Jacob Singh

The evidence is clear, this is not a Tomahawk Iran alleged that an American Tomahawk Cruise Missile hit a school (buried in an IRGC compound) in southern Iran, killing 165 people. Analysis of a newly released video tells a different story. ANALYSIS: A-I analysis confirms the wings of the munition in question sit about 40%-45% down the body of the munition. On a Tomahawk, the wings sit roughly 49%-50% down the body of the munition. The wing to body ratio of the munition in question matches an Iranian Kh-55–derived Land Attack Cruise Missile. Further, the video shows the munition in a steep dive angle for the final attack phase. This places the attack angle at approximately 70%, which is the max attack angle for a Tomahawk. The attack angle does not match the KH-55. That angle maxes out at about 55 degrees. So what would have caused this? CONCLUSION: The wing positioning alone makes the munition impossible to be a Tomahawk. The attack angle is at the max of the Tomahawk's capabilities. The typical attack angle for a Tomahawk is much lower than 70 degrees. The typical angle is between 20-45 degrees. This is due to the flight pattern of Tomahawks. They fly very low horizontally to the ground, often only 50-100 meters AGL to avoid detection and interception. In order to achieve that attack angle, the missile would have had to gain altitude several kilometers away, this would leave it vulnerable for interception. This is highly unlikely on the first day of US attacks. So what could have caused this? Simply put, GPS jamming of an Iranian KH-55. The USA and Israel were, and continue to actively jam the Iranian airspace. If the KH-55's signal was jammed, this could result in an uncontrollable dive. Think of GPS jamming more like disorienting the missile. On 03/07 President Trump stated: “No, in my opinion, based on what I’ve seen, that was done by Iran.” Today, I concur with the President.

Trump on Save Act: If we get this they probably won't win an election for 50 years, okay, and maybe longer.

I think it must be a very interesting time to be in programming languages and formal methods because LLMs change the whole constraints landscape of software completely. Hints of this can already be seen, e.g. in the rising momentum behind porting C to Rust or the growing interest in upgrading legacy code bases in COBOL or etc. In particular, LLMs are *especially* good at translation compared to de-novo generation because 1) the original code base acts as a kind of highly detailed prompt, and 2) as a reference to write concrete tests with respect to. That said, even Rust is nowhere near optimal for LLMs as a target language. What kind of language is optimal? What concessions (if any) are still carved out for humans? Incredibly interesting new questions and opportunities. It feels likely that we'll end up re-writing large fractions of all software ever written many times over.