Similar to the idea that electric cars are net worse for the environment because some of the materials used to make them. Worse than 20 years of burning gasoline in an ICE car? It's so ridiculous.
it depends where your electricity comes from actually. In west Virginia it comes from coal so is worse than a hybrid but still better than non-hybrid gas cars (in terms of CO2)
No it's not. The efficiency of an EV Motor > efficiency of ICEV motor. Even with 100% black coal. The carbon is reduced by about 30% IIRC (that number can and does improve as the grid greens).
It's kind of bizarre to see the far right and far left circle to the same misguided big oil conclusions, although for different reasons. The right doesn't want their traditional oil/coal industries threatened. The left is kind of... just against the continued growth of technology/industry/humanity.
It’s scary enough giving access just to my local database. Claude has found inventive ways to twice wipe out my tables this week, despite Claude.md instructions to the contrary.
If you're on postgres happy to have you try what we built at Ardent (https://tryardent.com). Our agent makes instant copies of your db for the agent to operate on so there's 0 risk for your db to ever get wiped.
email me -> vikram@tryardent.com
We're building support for snowflake too if that's something you use
Why are none of the people I saw posting non-stop about Palestine saying anything about Iranian freedom? Would honestly love to hear a genuine response from anyone who is against the movement in Iran. Or even conflicted about it.
1. Iran has frequent large protests that consistently get crushed. So while I assume the vast majority of Americans oppose the Iranian government, it’s hard to get worked up for the 5th, 6th time.
2. The US doesn’t support the Iranian government. We already sanction them. What additional support can US citizens lobby for? In the case of Israel, decreased US support would have a tangible effect. Unclear how increased US support for Iranian protestors would matter.
The US does support the Saudi government, though, and the collective response from the concerned citizens brigade about their relentless 10+ year pulverization of Yemen has been... nothing.
I’m not against the movement, but the last time Iran had protests this bad was in 1979. It didn’t get better afterwards. It’s a huge mess and I hope they figure something out to fix it, but I’m just pessimistic.
I've been curious myself about why the activist class seems weirdly quiet on this issue.
On a quick scan of media feeds I've seen a couple of things that stand out (I do not confirm or deny how true these claims are)
1) Current Iran is a enemy of the USA and thus activists can't support the destruction of the current regime. Iran is able to create nukes so can put pressure on the USA in Middle East Politics (esp. Palestine and Israel)
2) The uprising and the Shah are CIA/Western Backed and thus supporting the protestors is de-facto colonialism/imperialism.
3) Contrary to popular belief Iran is not actually a Muslim nation, only the leadership is. The population is significantly more varied and people do not want to be seen supporting the firebombing of Mosques because Islamphobia.
I don't know how widespread these opinions are, but it IS very strange how I don't see more outrage.
There's an alliance between the new left and islamism due to some ideological similarities.
Sure one side would march for pride and the other hangs gays on cranes.
However, in foreign policy both explain anything as some product of colonialism, a phenomena that essentially disappeared 60 years ago.
This is due to the effect Edward Said had on US humanities, which was in turn was influenced by Muslim Brotherhood thought in his home country of Egypt
I think the left-leaning activist people in the Americas are so against any position that could align with a Trump position, that they can’t think beyond those lines. If Trump supports the revolution it must be bad.
You are more right than you realize. Around the time the US and Israel bombed the Iranian nuclear sites, I personally witnessed our local pro-Hamas protesters add 'stop bombing Iran' signs to their repertoire.
Definitely part of it. But the Mexican leftists I know are equally silent. As they were on Ukraine too. It’s really only when then can root against the US or Jews, as far as I can tell.
There are a lot of signs that the leader being suggested would be a king, which is not something most citizens in democratic nations would feel natural fighting for.
I would say it's really about opposition to death and suffering.
The activists want the excessive death and suffering to end in Palestine, and they want to avoid death and suffering in Iran.
Many politicians want to use the protests as a pretext for military intervention in Iran, and my blunt opinion is that they don't actually have the interests of Iranians in mind. There are many reasons to believe it will end up worse for both America and the Iranians than our interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan.
A valid response would be to say that you think abuses in Iran are bad enough that a military intervention is justified and that it will lead to a better outcome for Iranians. My intuition would be to disagree with that, based on the results of past interventions, etc...
The problem is, I really do believe any kind of mass support for the Iranian protesters will in fact be co-opted to start a war with Iran--at least at this particular moment in time.
And the executed protesters are a bad thing. But I don't think military intervention will lead to a better outcome.
Supporters of Palestine had pretty specific requests, none of which apply to Iran (conditioning weapons sales, divestment, etc...)
> The activists want the excessive death and suffering to end in Palestine, and they want to avoid death and suffering in Iran.
And yet they are silent on the death and suffering in: Sudan, Yemen, Syria, Somalia, Ethiopia, Congo, Myanmar, Libya. Just to name current active conflicts where people are dying, to say nothing of all the others that have flared up and subsided in my decades on this earth as I've watched "activists" ignore them all so they could hyper-focus on whatever Israel was doing at the time to protect its citizens and the Jewish diaspora. The word "exhausting" doesn't even scratch the surface of how it feels to deal with otherwise smart, educated people who roll around in this hypocrisy-laden dogpile.
In none of those conflicts you mentioned does the US act as the main benefactor to the side causing excessive suffering. And in none of those conflicts do they lobby aggressively for the support of US politicians.
Considering that reality, does it not make sense that Americans would be more vocal when it comes to this conflict, because we actually have agency to affect it?
I genuinely want to know what your response is to that argument, because it's not a new one, and seems very obvious to me.
> In none of those conflicts you mentioned does the US act as the main benefactor to the side causing excessive suffering.
The United States is far and away the Saudis' most important and pivotal ally. We almost single-handedly ensure their security and and diplomatic standing. Now, many believe the "side causing excessive suffering" in that conflict is actually the Houthis. I would be interested to know if you fall in that camp, while (it would seem) not feeling the same way about Hamas, as that would do a better job of making my point than I could ever do on my own.
I think the impression most people have is that the United States is no longer dependent on Saudi oil. The main reason we're their most pivotal ally is to encourage normalization with Israel, and to make sure they help counter Iran. So kind of the same root cause.
Beyond that, the Houthi / Saudi conflict is a lot less asymmetric, which I think plays a factor in people's response to it. The Houthis have more territorial control, weapons, agency. It's closer to a state-state war. Gaza is quite literally boxed in--air, sea and land.
Respectfully, you're making things up and adding the words "I think the impression most people have". That's motivated reasoning.
If you're actually interested in the geopolitics of this I suggest you just spend some time tonight reading about these relationships and their history.
To be fair, I'll admit there's somewhat of a double standard when it comes to silence in regard to US support for Saudi Arabia vs Israel. But realistically, for me, I don't think the answer is to offer full-throated support to Israel and to be quiet about issues Americans have with it. Especially if it risks spiraling into a broader conflict.
I do think there are particular aspects about US support for Israel, outside of humanitarian concerns, that lead to people being more critical about US involvement in the conflict.
I have a less charitable and more direct answer. Right now there is a notion in Left that Israeli are the oppressor. In Iran large majority of population is Persian but MINO (Muslim in name only due to dictatorship). They are struggling to get freedom from the Islamic regime and getting some help from Israel. This flips the narrative in Left's mind (if they accept it) that Muslims can be oppressors too and that is untenable for them. especially because Left in Western nations has basically aligned themselves with muslims so its easier for them to just ignore it.
BTW its not just left here, I originally hail from India and you can feel the pin-drop silence from left on Iran there too. They just hope the rebellion gets crushed by regime like other ones and they'll pretend status quo.
My TLDR takeaway: Muslims only care about when they are oppressed & Left is completely aligned with them right now.
In certain subreddits I have seen the idea that there is no revolution, it's all mossad/CIA propaganda. It's quite conspiratorial but it's the same subs that typically love China, NK etc so it's not surprising.
However, I have seen these thoughts spread to more seemingly mainstream geopolitical subs as well. I am not sure how much astroturfing is going on here. Probably quite a lot.
Iranians are living under Islamic colonial dictatorship. Blaming this unrest on Israeli and US influence is absurd. And only exposes you as a sympathizer to the oppressive regime.
You're saying that the Brits should throw their colonizer and Christian king out of the island and return to their old Celtic traditions and deities, no? Or what exactly? Because the timeframes are very comparable, Saint Colombanus died in the early 600s, while the Arabs got all the way to Merv by the 670s-680s.
But it's in extremely difficult to disrupt the signals across the whole country? I person go go out with a battery and setup a starlink terminal in the middle of nowhere in 2 minutes (exactly how I'm writing this post right now from Boliva)
If your objective is to stop or at least slow coordination of protests and flow of information about things the regime is doing in the major cities of Tehran and Mashhad, you're a lot less worried that plenty of rural villages get completely unhindered signals, if anyone in them happens to have a Starlink terminal.
Agreed, the only way to get starlink terminal is via smuggling it into the country and it costs 1000's of $ or 500$ or more which is more than many months of average iranian income let alone rural villages
I hope though that perhaps rural villages can shelter activists but who knows what happens in the ground level, perhaps news development from tehran doesn't reach the villages in the first case, maybe they block anyone entering and leaving the city I am not sure
This seems to be a really bad development for protestors. There were reports that some protestors were killed by the govt and now I am genuinely worried about them even more. This tyranny needs to be stopped.
This comment is so out of touch with the reality of Venezuelans. They are crying tears of joy. This is a society that knows what it wants, knows how to function as a democracy, but has not been able to for decades.
That pretty much sums it up. I think Zack covered it well too. [1] I do not understand what benefit there was to a dictator remaining in place and why so many on HN support him. Over a third of Venezuelans fled that country and lost everything to escape tyranny.
The GP didn't say changing Maduro to other president is bad, but that "periods of violent transition" can have dire consequences for the regular people. And US seems to be in it for the money, not to liberate the downtrodden.
They can and often become worse. Look at Saddam Hussein and his family. They were monsters, but the reason they engaged in torture and fearmongering was to keep the other monsters in place.
Collapsed states are the worst, these becomes breeding grounds for organizations like IS.
Most places often hold as failed states and by our standards, they look terrible. Law enforcement doesn't work, so gangs become enforcers. Money doesn't really work either. But it still beats total anarchy and especially anarchy of a region with a lot of natural resources. A few hundred billion dollars of oil may not be much to a country, but it's a hell lot to terrorist organizations who are waiting to come in once the US pulls out.
Venezuelan here. It’s not that simple: Maduro was an _absolutely_ horrible dictator and yes many Venezuelans (myself included, and likely many of the 8+ million that left) are overjoyed with him being ousted, we haven’t seen any change in over two decades. And yet, it is transparently clear that the Trump admin is here not to save Venezuela, or Venezuelans… it’s here to line its pockets and that of its shareholders.
There was a very evident omission during Trump’s press conference: Any mention of Edmundo Gonzalez Urrutia, the duly elected president-elect of Venezuela (who won with a super majority last July - backed by Maria Corina Machado). Instead, Trump bad mouthed Maria Corina saying that “she does not have the support or respect of the country to run it”. They ousted Maduro, but they kept his VP (Delcy Rodriguez - which along other things is in charge of running the torture centers for political prisoners) as “she will do anything we ask her”. Trump doesn’t care about democracy or regime change - these things take time and are a long, thorny road (this wouldn’t be the US’ first rodeo). Instead they’ve chosen to keep the regime obedient with the threat of force, and instead just come in and extract as many riches as humanly possible…
Dark times ahead for Venezuela and the Venezuelan people
Many of the replies to my comment ascribe support for Maduro where there is none. However, I’m still sorry for what we have done. I don’t think there was a single motivation behind it aside from acquiring Venezuelan oil and gold reserves through thinly veiled piracy. Anyone who says we did it to topple a dictator is a rube or myrmidon. Too many unpredictable outcomes have been birthed from government foolishness like this in the past for me to believe it will end any differently.
All the best to you and your family and friends. For what it’s worth (not much I’m sure) many of us didn’t vote for this and are aghast.
> All the best to you and your family and friends. For what it’s worth (not much I’m sure) many of us didn’t vote for this and are aghast.
This white knighting is getting rather tiresome. Why does the _why_ of why it happened matter besides virtue signalling? What matters is the end effect of the action. And the end effect here is better for EVERYONE (or at the worst neutral) involved other than Maduro and his cronies.
Funny how no one listens to real Venezuelans speaking. As a chinese I understand you fully. Everyone hates dictators, but sometimes the alternative isn’t just necessarily better as people might hope. Transition is gonna be long and painful.
What we’ve been living through in the last 28 years is Chavismo and yet Chavez is not around. When Chavez died in 2013 we celebrated that he was gone, and what we got after was much, _much_ worse. Now Maduro is gone, and we can celebrate it too. That said, Trump has signaled that he’s not interested in removing Chavismo: he’s keeping Delcy, Diosdado, et al, as they continue to be the brokers of power as long as he gets access to oil. This is just Chavismo aligned to American interests. Time will tell whether this is better or worse.
PS: As an aside, since I was a child growing up in 90’s Venezuela, the overall political mentality of people was that things were so bad that they couldn’t get any worse - and yet they continued to worsen. A lesson that I’ve learned is that in politics things need to be intentionally built - there is no “rock bottom”, the fact that things have been horrible doesn’t mean that they can’t get even worse. Thus my hesitation with what’s going on. There are no guarantees that this isn’t going to be a deal with the devil that leaves us in an even worse state…
> That said, Trump has signaled that he’s not interested in removing Chavismo
I think you're jumping to conclusions. What Trump has said is that he wants the demands of the US satisfied. One of those is ultimately elections in Venezuela. You're mistaking taking a case-by-case approach for "non-interest".
Thanks for the reply. I hope the Trump admin does what’s right and puts the people of Venezuela in a position to choose their own leadership. Maybe the remaining Chavismos will be removed from power before too long.
And that’s where my hopes vanish. A dictator-wannabe that has a track record of not respecting the peaceful transition of power in _his own_ country and has run his entire campaign on hatred for immigrants and more recently Venezuelans in particular, is going to, all of a sudden, grow a conscience and do what’s right for the Venezuelan people? Let’s call it what it is: this is about oil. I don’t have to say it, because he already did in front of the cameras. He doesn’t care what happens to Venezuela or Venezuelans.
> > This is a society that knows what it wants, knows how to function as a democracy, but has not been able to for decades.
Really? The Venezuelan community online (eg. /r/Vzla and /r/Venezuela) communicate using memes and rather unintelligent discourse.
It's not enough to want democracy, democracy and stability happens when there is an engagement in collective thinking , whereas disorder and chaos happens when people don't want to work and don't think things through
> The social media posts of on a web forum represent the ideological position of an entire nation.
I believe it’s naive to assign Reddit and social media “discourse” any importance. Anything else is an exercise is confirming your already held bias.
Why does the post on a website by some people (who says they are even Venezuelan?) allow you to make the claim a nation “ doesn’t think thing through”?
It’s interesting to see how Americans assume Venezuelans aren’t happy about this. People are so clueless. I’m in South America right now and everyone is happy for the Venezuelans. Especially the Venezuelans. It’s been 25 years of hell. They don’t really care at the moment if Trump did it for oil. You think Russia and China just wanted the recipe for Arepas? That’s the common saying. Venezuelans just wanted a chance to live a normal life. This is not a society like Afghanistan that cannot function as a democracy when autocrats are removed.
The world failed to solve this problem for decades. Trump is a loose cannon, but this shot was a good one. Of course it’s TBD how things play out. But at least there is hope.
Americans may lack theory of mind of Venezuelans, but that doesn't invalidate thethe concerns of outsiders, as you yourself says it's TBD how things play out, especially with global ramifications and in the long run for all nations affected by this American action.
Agreed. But… the other alternative is continued repression and suffering of millions of people. Iranians are wishing their captors would fall next. Not that people will see those posts on blue sky.
>It’s interesting to see how Americans assume Venezuelans aren’t happy about this. People are so clueless. I’m in South America right now and everyone is happy for the Venezuelans.
It doesn't matter at all. Venezuelans may be over the moon about this, but the fact remains that Trump broke international law and committed an act of war without the authorization of Congress. You don't see the problem with that? This is the slippery slope of authoritarianism. They start by doing illegal things that seem like they're good things, but which break down the rule of law. Once they've normalized this, they start doing it with less popular things.
Humans are so stupid with their ideas of "my team won so it's OK!". It's not ok. This is how the system begins to implode, and it's by design.
reply