DHG

@Noahpinion To you.

I guess this is a good time to point out that Inception was boring

@mdubowitz Ridiculous. I support Israel. But Smotrich and Ben-G’vir are Israelis. And they are not decent, generous people by anyone’s measure.

I’ve spent decades with both Israelis and Israel’s critics. The contrast is breathtaking. Israelis are among the finest people I’ve ever known—decent, resilient, generous, warm, loving and so courageous. Their critics are resentful, hypocritical, cowardly and morally bankrupt.

@DKThomp Waymo’s do not seem normal to me, and they’ve been around for a couple years here in the SF area. To see them navigate the streets of SF and San Jose so well is a marvel. It’s only the first manifestation of robotic AI, like the Wright Bros flying machine was for air travel.

I think a reasonably fair question to ask AI ppl these days is something like, “If the models are so powerful, why does the world seem so normal?”

@MHerskovitz Dems need to marginalize Piker. If that’s what a “sister souljah” moment is, then make it happen. A Big Tent cannot include Maoists and Shining Path supporters.

This looks like an SNL skit, but it’s real. Too many Americans failed to realize Trump was an obvious authoritarian, and now too many on the left fail to realize Piker and the DSA are authoritarians. Authoritarianism is what America was founded to vanquish. We must not fail now.

@ratlpolicy You forgot the part about protecting our regional allies from continuous attacks by Iran. Why do some many armchair analysts forget that Iran has some cards to play of their own? Isn’t knowing your enemy’s strengths just as important as knowing their weaknesses?

And we need not ramp back up to the pace of strikes we had in March to be more serious & consistent in our pursuit of victory. We just need to be resolute, hit them when needed, maintain maximum pressure, & enforce a full blockade against Iranian ports. Then we just need to wait.

@JewishWarrior13 Tacitly admitting that Israel is not allowed to resume attacking Iran unless it is hit first. Please note that this restriction was not in place previously.

🚨Israel Defense Minister Katz: "We have made it clear that if Iran fires missiles at Israel, we will strike it with force, without any outside approval or conditions."

@arash_tehran @pourfairelevide Right. No people at any place and at any time were fundamentally different from us. We all have the same genome that defines our species, and that exercises an enormous influence on all of us. And it’s not just instincts. It’s also telling stories - like the Odyssey.

@pourfairelevide They weren’t profoundly different from us

I want an Odyssey adaptation (and an Odyssey translation) that makes you feel in your bones how profoundly different the archaic Greeks were from us. Basically space aliens. Nolan is just fundamentally not interested in that kind of estrangement.

@rich_goldberg In other words, an “op”

This should be a relentless communications line of effort.

@JonBakerPharmD @lucaberta @bscholl Those numbers make readers’ eyes glaze over. It’s much more convincing to look at the MoU Trump signed and conclude: Iran won this thing.

Inefficient DoW procurement processes and supply chain inefficiencies do not mean the cruise missiles, JDAMs and ASMs weren’t efficiently deployed and Iran’s major military platforms and infrastructure weren’t severely degraded. •Overall campaign totals: Over 15,000 military targets struck by 1000+ sorties (US plus Israeli strikes) with hundreds of military sites struck overall: command centers, airfields, nuclear sites, and storage heavily targeted plus hundreds of defense industry factories, >3,000 production lines hit). Over 20,000 munitions utilized. •12-day intense war period: At least 154 heavy strike waves on military targets across 28 provinces (average >12 targets/day); Tehran saw 42 attacks; included peaks like 31 strikes on June 18 and major hits on missile depots, garrisons, nuclear-related sites (e.g., Natanz, Fordow, Isfahan). •Defense/missile/drone industry: 80–90%+ of facilities and production capacity degraded/destroyed (ballistic missile and long-range drone output functionally eliminated). •Naval assets: 155 large vessels damaged or destroyed (major warships, submarines, minelayers), plus large numbers of IRGC fast attack boats •Air defenses: 92% of advanced systems and ~80% of older radars/networks degraded. •Missile launchers: Hundreds of mobile TELs destroyed •Nuclear sites: Significant damage to Natanz, Fordow, Isfahan and related facilities (80%+ setback) •Leadership eliminations: Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and dozens of senior officials/commanders killed, including 47+ senior IRGC commanders. •Recent July strikes (US): Multiple nights of 80–140 targets per wave (air defenses, coastal/missile/drone/naval/logistics); >300 in one three-night period with hundreds more not yet assessed.

Why did POTUS suddenly pivot from "unconditional surrender" to a deal at any cost in Iran? TL/DR it's the interceptors, stupid. - it takes Lockheed >two years and $5-15m to make a missile interceptor - i.e., $10k drones take a $5m missile to defeat - our forecast was that a) the population was going to rebel and b) we’d quickly take out the missile launchers - But: Iran murdered 50k protesting citizens before our forces were in place; we didn’t defeat the launch capability as fast as expected - we were facing down dwindling interceptor supplies - 50% of patriots are gone and 80% of Thaad interceptors are gone. They cannot be replaced in a relevant timeframe - if we actually ran out of defenses, US and allies in the region would be slaughtered— and the US would be facing a historic defeat - we're already rationing interceptors, which is why our soldiers died in Jordan last night and why there are no more Patriots in Ukraine. - in this context we try to make any deal you can — regardless of cost. Pretend it’s about gas prices if we must. So we are losing this war. Badly. And what really lost the war was the fucked up defense supply chain that can’t make munitions in a relevant cost or timeframe — and we have no technology that defeats the enemy in an economically sustainable way. This is why advanced anti drone and advanced missile defense is so critical. Personally I am bullish on directed energy intercept, particularly space-based directed energy. Regardless of specific technology, we must be able to build interceptors faster and cheaper than any enemy can build offensive weapons. Against China right now we lose. Badly. It isn’t even close. Fortunately we are learning this lesson against Iran not against China—and there is still time to pivot and fix the US industrial base, but only barely.

@ratlpolicy So you think we had enough munitions, both offensive and defensive to keep that asymmetrical war going for four months? I seriously doubt it.

The reason why Iran is still able to hit American bases is that we *didn't* bomb the hell out of them for 4 months! We bombed them for one month, then let them recover for 4. The error here isn't in restarting kinetic action; it was in stopping that action in the first place.

@lxeagle17 Thank you. I’ll be following you for the remainder of the campaigns until the elections. What Trump is trying to do right now in Iran will not play well with the electorate. Will it still be a major issue in October and November? Nobody knows “how it plays out” yet.

With Troy Jackson set to be the Democratic nominee in Maine, the new matchup starts at a D+1.1 margin in our model, with Democrats at a 57% chance to win Maine's Senate seat — and a 37% chance to flip the Senate. We'll see how it plays out. theargumentmag.com/p/split-ticket…

@tejas_rojas @HistoryBoomer @TheBARPod @mattyglesias Bingo! The Covid vaccine was a major achievement. Can we agree on that? If so, I rest my case.

@gedawei @HistoryBoomer @TheBARPod @mattyglesias Absolutely see Ioannidis, an actual old school liberal. He's not a vaccine skeptic you GD moron. He approaches each question with humility and acknowledges uncertainty. A practitioner of the scientific method. Contrast to Fauci et al., who turned institutions fraud factories.

I think about this a lot. This began as an anti-woke account. I had watched parts of the lefty world get wackier from 2014 to 2020, and then explode after the George Floyd murder. Then I joined Twitter in 2020 (and paid for @TheBARPod and @mattyglesias's Slow Boring, etc., etc.) because I was desperate to talk to people who didn't think all cops were evil or that white supremacy defined America or that JK Rowling was a monster. And it wasn't just mean words. Real stuff happened. Top editors were fired from major papers. Professors were forced to issue groveling apologies after non-crimes. And DEI departments popped everywhere to enforce ill-defined social justice codes. I felt a chill in my classroom. It was a moral panic with nasty fallout. But like all moral panics, this one ended, partly because brave people pushed back (shoutout to @thomaschattwill and the Harper's Letter), partly because regular people just got tired of hearing the shrill screams. And maybe even partly because some of the participants (the less fanatic ones) began to feel they'd gone too far (or they might be the next victims of the mob). So, what to do now? It seems bad to always live in that anti-social justice mindset, seeing woke under every bed and in every Hollywood blockbuster. You don't want to become one of those Japanese soldiers, hidden in the jungle, carrying on a war years after it's ended. (Hiroo Onodo only surrendered in 1974, twenty-nine years after WW2 ended!) Is it ok to just forget all the people who formed the mobs? Especially the leaders who pointed fingers and tried to ruin lives? Whether it's right or not, I think it's impossible. There are certain names I will probably never forgive. And justice seems to require not forgetting that crimes were committed (and who did them). However, moving on, as much as one can, seems the best choice. Moving on doesn't preclude folks from writing a few dozen more books that try to capture the essence of that mad half-decade or now and then reminding the world that so-and-so wrote this awful thing back in 2019, but for our own well-being, we don't want to get stuck in the rut of resentment.

@JohnWSCarpente1 @daughterofaggie @nfergus “An history” does not meet the sound test to these American ears. Maybe in England, but not here. “An historian” does sound okay, but so does “a historian.” There are usages where more than one convention works. “Neether” and “nither” are both okay for “neither” right?

"An history" was also considered to be correct. My admittedly imperfect recollection is that any word that started with the letter "h" required an "an" instead of an "a" in the preceding word. Of course, this being the English language, one should expect exceptions to the rule. I was no English major but this was drilled into me in my youth.

The goal of my entire career as an historian was to ensure that citizens learned the lessons of history—including the vital lesson that antisemitic rhetoric can be translated into genocidal reality if it is adopted by a modern state. Yet today, as AI permeates social networks, anti-history is spreading like a cancer. The Holocaust is either denied or derided. I have to admit: I failed utterly.

@tejas_rojas @HistoryBoomer @TheBARPod @mattyglesias See Ionnides, a Stanford Prof and Covid/Vaccine skeptic, who decided to lead a group to assess whether the vaccine did in fact save lives. His study concluded the vaccines saved over 2 million lives worldwide. Show me a scientific, peer-reviewed paper that contradicts that. 🤷🏻‍♂️

@gedawei @HistoryBoomer @TheBARPod @mattyglesias The only thing pertinent here is that your BS meter is completely dysfunctional. You posted a study with preposterous assumptions that can only come to one conclusion. It's baked in. Data from the DOD show it to be BS. And you chatting up GPT attempting to confirm your priors.

@DonaldClark @nfergus That’s what I would’ve said. But I take his point that AI has contributed to intellectual laziness - for most people, especially students. Compare and contrast the Nazi movement with the Italian fascist movement in the 1930’s? I can get that from AI and be ready for the exam.

@nfergus The 1 billion and rising AI users often use it for historical curiosity & research. The current models deliver fairly robust and detailed accounts of history, with analysis, in readable language. You're confusing AI with social media.

@JohnWSCarpente1 @daughterofaggie @nfergus So it’s “an historian” for you, but “a history” (of something)? How does that make sense?

I did a little digging into this. I am 64. For my entire K-12, graduate, and post-graduate education "an historian" was the correct usage. The time of transition is unclear but appears to be somewhere around the 1990s. Apparently, enough young people never learned the correct pronunciation and just started using "a historian." Because it became so widely used American English educational literature was updated to include that usage. This has happened with a number of words and phrases over time. To me it will always be "an historian." My current pet peeve is the pronunciation of the word "nuclear" as "nucular." The correct pronunciation of "nuclear" is phonetic, just as it is spelled. That should be easy for people. Yet today more and more people pronounce it as "nucular," which drives me nuts. It's like 'white ebonics' to me. Common, but wrong. It hurts my ears. I wonder when the American English dictionary will update the spelling to match the widely used mispronunciation. 🫤

@DanDePetris Agreed. Syria might be considered a winner, as the prospect of pipelines through their territory grows. Seems like they’ll be a key ally for Arab states committed to resisting Iran. It’s very likely that the fall of Assad will be viewed as one of the key events of the decade.

Some random Saturday morning observations on the U.S.-Iran War: (1) Trump is stuck and doesn’t know what to do. He could escalate further but this would bring more material, human, economic and political costs. He can walk away from the war but that would vindicate Iran’s war-time strategy and amount to de-facto U.S. acceptance of Iran’s control over the Strait of Hormuz. He can continue doing what’s he doing, bombing everyday in a failed attempt to coerce Iran into re-opening the strait. Or he can resume negotiations, which will be long, frustrating, drawn-out and inevitably require some tough U.S. concessions. Pick your poison. (2) From the U.S. perspective, the war is no longer about Iran’s nuclear program—it’s about opening up a waterway that was already open before the war. So Trump is now effectively fighting to get back to where he was before the war started. If this isn’t a sign of complete and total failure at the strategic level, then I don’t know what is. (3) The U.S. has the advantage in military and latent power, but Iran has the advantage in geography and resolve. By “resolve,” I mean the incentive to continue fighting. Ultimately this comes down to the stakes. For the U.S., the war is an overseas mission of choice; for Iran, it’s existential. (4) If there’s a silver-lining in any of this, it’s that the war—and America’s recklessness—forces Washington’s traditional partners in the Middle East to diversify their security relationships and do more for themselves (granted, we’re already seeing some of this play out, although how real the shift is remains to be seen). This would not only be better for the region but also give the U.S. the opportunity to stop playing the policeman in the region, which it’s not great at doing anyway. (5) Nobody is going to be satisfied with how this war ends. There are no clean, clear victories here. Pre-war assumptions have been dead wrong. And the people who made them so brazenly and confidently shouldn’t be treated as serious people anymore (unless they repent).

@tejas_rojas @HistoryBoomer @TheBARPod @mattyglesias Chat explained the slides and explained their context. Just read it.

@gedawei @HistoryBoomer @TheBARPod @mattyglesias Yet you posted a study that uses a simple SIR model that assumes 100% absolute risk reduction to make your case. Why don't you ask chat GPT what the possible context of those two slides I posted could be in response?

@BrettErickson28 I think you’re missing a “nod” to the reality that there are sharp divisions with the regime, and a person like Qalibaf may - or may not - be in his current position for long. We just don’t know, and we don’t know how intensified real divisions may affect the Iranian position.

I see many people making the assertion that the Iranian’s will now refuse to negotiate with the United States until at least after the midterms in order to torch President Trump out of hate and retribution. And while there is absolutely a very real likelihood that happens… it’s also fairly inconsistent with the level of pragmatism the Iranian regime has displayed throughout this conflict, and in direct contrast with the very statements Qalibaf himself made just this past week. By all indications, the Iranian regime is remarkably pragmatic when it comes to this war. There are exceptionally few instances, none that I frankly can identify myself, where the regime acted purely driven by emotion compared to strategy and logic. Qalibaf himself made clear that if they received a deal that was commensurate with the current strategic realities… they would be inclined to take it. Just as they did the first Memorandum of Understanding. It’s not in Iran’s best interest to drag out this war unnecessarily, to be bombed relentlessly, and be forced to escalate aggressively against their neighboring countries. It’s in their best interest to establish a sufficient deterrent against future war against the United States and Israel, ensure that they are handsomely compensated for their victory, and then move on from this conflict. So while yes, one can certainly argue that the more global economic devastation is caused by Iran here, the less likely there is to be a renewed conflict in the future, that logic only stands up to a certain point. At some threshold, it is better for Iran to take a deal than it is to continue the war just to spite Trump. Would that be the MOU +$25B? Would that be the MOU + $50B + Explicit fees and control of the Strait? Would that be the MOU + $150B + explicit fees and control of the Strait + extensive secondary sanction rollbacks? Would that be the MOU + $350B + fees + Strait + Secondary Sanctions + Primary Sanctions? At SOME POINT, there is a threshold that is reached. Nothing indicates to me thus far that the Iranian regime is willing to forego a significantly advantageous deal purely due to hate, revenge, and anger. Everything points to an Iranian regime that is pragmatic, clear-eyed, and looking to establish a meaningful deterrent against future US aggression. If they can secure those outcomes with a deal before the midterms… I see no indication that they would refuse to do so purely out of revenge.

@tejas_rojas @HistoryBoomer @TheBARPod @mattyglesias I found out from ChatGPT what your two graphics were. They don’t say what you think they say. The report it comes from (Salus) concluded that the vaccine reduced hospitalizations by 62%. Pretty good! chatgpt.com/s/t_6a5ad3675a…

@tejas_rojas @HistoryBoomer @TheBARPod @mattyglesias And don’t offer the links?