I guess you could make a web app or app clip but I think this is a cool project. would be good to have a theme engine.
Look at NetNewsWire how good a native app of this kind can be. NNW in particular has great shortcuts, like or opening links in the native browser, and read/unread functionality
idk if OpenAI knew that Prism is already a very popular desktop app for scientists and that it's one of the last great pieces of optimized native software?
"Grok" was a term used in my undergrad CS courses in the early 2010s. It's been a pretty common word in computing for a while now, though the current generation of young programmers and computer scientists seem not to know it as readily, so it may be falling out of fashion in those spaces.
> Groklaw was a website that covered legal news of interest to the free and open source software community. Started as a law blog on May 16, 2003, by paralegal Pamela Jones ("PJ"), it covered issues such as the SCO-Linux lawsuits, the EU antitrust case against Microsoft, and the standardization of Office Open XML.
> Its name derives from "grok", roughly meaning "to understand completely", which had previously entered geek slang.
Grok was specifically coined by Heinlein in _Stranger in a Strange Land_. It's been used in nerd circles for decades before your undergrad times but was never broadly known.
I'm aware of the provenance; I was specifically addressing the parent comment's assertion that it is not "a common word". It's a well-known word in the realm of computing, though perhaps less these days as the upcoming generation seems less inclined to learn archaic pop culture.
Grok has been nerd slang for a while. I bet it's in that ESR list of hacker lingo. And hell if every company in silicon valley gets to name their company after something from Lord of the Rings why can't he pay homage to an author he likes
That bothers more than it should. Every single time I see a new post about Twitter, I think that there's some update for X11 or X Server or something, only to be reminded that Twitter has been changed.
I don't think there's really clear evidence. They're geopolitical adversaries, but Iran's ability to project force has been decimated over the last 2 years, to the point where Israel literally controls Iran's airspace. They have not much more to gain from further injury to the Iranian regime, and something to lose from regional instability.
(I don't think this analysis speaks well of Israel, for what it's worth, but I don't really think about countries in those terms anyways.)
What is the point of attacking a TV station and a prison, if not for regime change?
For the record, I agree with you that Israel has little "to gain from further injury to the Iranian regime, and something to lose from regional instability." I just don't think the people in charge of Israel see it that way. I think they feel they have a short window to achieve certain objectives they've wanted for a long time while Trump is in power).
And I think they prefer to have regional instability - a bunch of weaker chess pieces that they can play against each other - like how they supported both sides of the Iran-Iraq war in the 80's, funded Hamas, ISIS, and ISIS-derived militias to achieve short-term goals etc..
In case you didn't know about the last few points, here are some links:
“Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas,” Netanyahu told his Likud party’s Knesset members in March 2019. “This is part of our strategy"
https://x.com/haaretzcom/status/1711329340804186619?s=46&t=s...
By the way, regarding "Israel literally controls Iran's airspace" - Iran don't really have an air force. Their deliberate strategy given their limited resources was to focus on a ballistic missile program and all things considered this has worked ok. By the way, Israel failed to deliver a knock-out blow to Iran even when they had the element of surprise with an attack that was planned 18 months in advance (drafted during the Biden administration) yet somehow Iran was able to begin answering within 48 hours and do enough damage (which required penetrating anti-missile defenses of several major powers) that Israel agreed to a cease-fire.
After the 12-day war, China immediately sold Iran a number of J10-C fighters and air defense options, but it takes months to deliver/train all of them. So Israel is incentivized to deliver a knock-out blow to Iran before this window closes as well. In other words, Israel's war is the 'cause its own necessity' (1).
I agree, Iran doesn't really have an air force. In fact, they don't really even have a military --- by deliberate design. Iran will never field a competitive air force and I think it's actually pretty unlikely that they'll ever even field a seriously deterrent air defense system. I think that apart from lobbing MRBMs at Israel they simply aren't a serious regional threat anymore. They bet big on the IRGC Axis and it collapsed.
I'm not as convinced as you (and the Economist) are about Israel's interests in the total collapse of the Iranian regime. Either way, the protest movement is far too large for it to plausibly be a product of foreign intervention. I don't think we have to convince each other on this point, even if we don't agree.
I think you're constantly making non sequiturs around details that aren't central to the point. I could answer these, but I don't want to get distracted. At the end of the day, given everything you know, you don't believe that Netanyahu wants the Iranian regime toppled?
Revolutions can have some component of foreign intervention without necessarily negating the will of the people. The French aided the US, for example. So I don't know why the idea that the Iran protests are not foreign backed is so important to you.
There is plenty of public evidence of foreign backing of Iranian opposition (which interestingly might actually play right into the Mullahs' hands https://www.meforum.org/mef-observer/has-reza-pahlavi-become...) but it would make sense for there to be orders of magnitude more activity behind the scenes vs. what is publicly stated. For example, the US didn't admit participating in the 1953 coup of Mossadegh until 2013.
So please tell me how you are so sure that there is no foreign intervention today..
It’s your choice to claim a negative in the first place. But yes, make an attempt to prove what you are saying and extraordinary claims require some evidence. Foreign countries have been meddling with Iran for over 200 years at the very least. The idea that now they aren’t is laughable.
I opened by showing how your statements are in direct contradiction, by the way.
There's a huge difference - in previous protests, they were begging the regime to hear their voices, to do the right thing - to reform, or change policy.
This time, there's no calls for conciliation or change, it's outright "death to the tyrants" and an astonishing number of people hitting the streets. They're burning down mosques, tearing down statues, burning out police stations, lynching regime officials, going to officials houses and dragging them out, and so on.
Also, it's been going on for 16 days at this point, and for some reason, is noticeably absent from world media. That feels significant, somehow.
Well, where are you getting this information if the internet's been cut off in Iran? All sides are spreading their propaganda so it's hard to say what's actually happening.
There are reports of hospitals, banks and other institutional buildings being burned, even fire engines - but does it make sense for iranians to burn those?
The question remains - after everything is burned to the ground, what opposition or leader is going to take control, if not the IRGC or military?
> it's been going on for 16 days at this point, and for some reason, is noticeably absent from world media. That feels significant, somehow
somehow, yes, but in a good or bad way? what is the significance? maybe the US/israel was gearing up to bomb Iran and the revolts would endear Iranian people to the Western public in a way that powers that be don't want? just thinking out loud here
Edit: chanced on an article which kind of supports this idea
A national security expert said President Donald Trump may already be prepared to act against Iran, suggesting a widely reported upcoming briefing on U.S. options could be intentional "deception" as deadly protests intensify in the country.
Agreed, I’m saying the regime will pass reforms (or try to, given sanctions). I would love for the end of the regime, but who tell me who will take its place?
Realistic best case scenario right now is a situation like England where there is technically a monarch (who also heads the church) but they practically hold no power (less and less over time).
We're seeing what looks to be a full blown economic collapse. People don't have money to buy food right now.
I don't see what reforms they could implement that can quickly fix this as they need to radically alter trust in the government for currency reforms to work.
But who knows? Maybe they'll muddy their way through or rely on force to stay in power. Certainly large protests have happened before, but this is the first time in decades where all 5 conditions of a successful revolution are present at the same time.
It's from Jack's Goldstone's Revolutions: A Very Short Introduction.
Nicole Bauer did a better job paraphrasing than I can, so I'll just quote her:
> [Goldstone] notes that a revolution requires lack of support from or alienation of elites, a crisis such as a fiscal strain, mass mobilization and popular anger against perceived injustices, an ideology of resistance, and favorable international relations. Most important, Goldstone debunks the common misconception that revolutions spring from an excess of injustice and poverty leading to frustration and eventual resistance. Poverty and frustration are not enough to ignite a revolution as countless examples, such as the Irish Potato Famine, have shown. What is needed is widespread belief that change is both desirable and possible, as well as a convergence of the factors mentioned above.
I don't understand, how is your "We're seeing what looks to be a full blown economic collapse. People don't have money to buy food right now" compatible with "Goldstone debunks the common misconception that revolutions spring from an excess of injustice and poverty leading to frustration and eventual resistance"
All I'm saying is that I don't see the regime falling currently, and even if it does, there is no obvious replacement. which might mean civil war or something even worse than now. There is also no indication that a new regime, chosen by actual Iranian people (not the shah's son) would give up its nuclear ambitions (which were actually started by the shah). So what is even the point of doing regime change? My guess is regime change is not what the US and Israel are even trying for, but just chaos to weaken a local power and a source of fuel for China, etc..
I wasn't able to get into your 'startup ideas' site.
Signing in with google led to internal server error, and signing in with a password, I never received the verification email.
Thought I would let you know. Can't wait to get those sweet startup ideas....!
reply