Every once in a while I search for something I need in Python and find that it only exists in Python 3, but I'm not quite convinced it's worth the effort to transition from 2.
However... I've just learned about Python 3's f-strings and they gave me a big smile, and probably the final push I needed :)
(Yes, I do know that sounds silly and there are probably much better reasons to transition to Python 3 ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ )
The non-Python-specific term is string interpolation, and it should be in every language.
From a language design perspective, the problem is that the compiler needs to know about it, so it's a core feature, but for maximal efficiency it might require some feature that isn't part of a language's core, like string streams. Another possibility would be a powerful macro system that allows the transformation of a format string into code, but few languages offer that.
f-strings really are great. As someone who has to do a lot of string manipulation, they're both easier to maintain and easier to read than any other Python alternative.
Thanks for pointing f-strings out. I'm transitioning a script with a lot of string manipulation from Python 2 to 3 and this is better than concatenation, % formatting, or str.format().
I’m far from the top expert on the history of C++, but here’s my understanding:
C++ aims to be the high level language which leaves no room for another high level language to be even more optimized below it - “pay for what you use”.
Having its roots in C, while having high level abstractions, C++ also has a lot of low level functionality which is hard to use correctly and safely unless you have a lot of experience (e.g. raw pointers). This low level functionality is sometimes needed, but definitely not always, and the recent iterations of the language over the last decade try to both add new abstractions which make the language easier to use, and deprecate the most tricky parts which are not really needed anymore and which have better, modern alternatives (this being limited by the need to maintain sane backwards compatibility) - all the while maintaining C++’s design goal described above.
An example of an addition is unique_ptr and shared_ptr added in C++11 and which make managing ownership and correct lifetime of allocated objects much easier.
An example of a deprecation is eliminating gotcha uses of the ‘volatile’ keyword, and thus simplify the language. (I believe this one is still undergoing approval.)
There is a big difference between modern and “classic” C++, but it’s mostly a good difference - C++ is much easier to start using and to teach than it was 15 years. It still has a way to go, and the standardization committee makes a lot of effort in that direction.
As for keeping up - it’s definitely a lot of work. Learning C++ isn’t something you start and finish - it’s more like culture. You spend some part of your life studying and enjoying it, and there’s always something new.
We can hope for a future in which learning C++ is something you just start and finish, but we’re not there yet (if ever). I’m not sure if that’s a good or a bad thing :)
Funny, I don't see similar moral outrage at talented engineers working in Facebook and Google, doing no evil. (I do see such outrage at the companies themselves - but rarely at the developers working for them).
Yes, these companies do make useful products. But they have real negative effects on the world, which would have been better off if all those engineers had made these products for companies other than these lobbyist, competition-stifling, aggressive monopolies.
There's no real moral difference between selling your talents to the highest bidder and this specific case of running a spam service to make money.
Really? It seems moral outrage against engineers working at Facebook and Google has been pretty popular for the last ten years. First it was because they are displacing long term residents in places like San Francisco, and now it's because they are responsible for building giant surveillance machines.
For one thing, facilitating spam is some distance further down on the benefits to harms scale than facilitating Facebook or Google. Google, especially, has created a enormous amount of value, and continues to do so^; spam, not so much.
^Which isn't to say that it's perfect, of course. Or even necessarily a net good, although my personal belief in the case of Google is that it still is.
Is an arms manufacturer at fault when there's war?
China is always going to censor. Google facilitating it or not make no difference. Might as well make the money, and also hope to influence the system from a position of power rather than a position of weakness (i.e, not involved at all)
That's like saying theft will always exist, so you might as well go steal things. Tools like this actively add to the quantity of spam out there, making it worse for everyone.
Although this spamblaster is terrible, I consider Instagram to be a clear net negative for humanity. It has almost no redeeming traits, it just makes people insecure, envious and wastes their time.
I can tell you it's a net positive in my life. I rarely use facebook proper, but I quite enjoy instagram. I keep it to a small number of actual friends (I think I have about 20 contacts, or whatever they're called on Instagram.) And I enjoy opening it and seeing what they're up to once or twice a day.
I think you and I are the very, VERY small minority. I muted everyone I didn't care about too, and it works for me, but young people especially are very affected by it.
This should be completely backend agnostic. I was never a Django person, but you’d just put that script tag in your main template so it loads on every page.
I'm growing increasingly weary of this type of offensive programming. I've never felt or understood the need to actively make something as hard to consume and process as possible. Again though, it really speaks to Facebook's view of their users: 'Look, but don't touch!'
Then again, I tend to build by the maxim 'it is vain to do with more what can be done with less'.
> I hope we stop buying in. When a politician tells us a country is evil, we need to start asking for receipts.
Well, there’s the minor issue of Iran’s totalitarian regime consistently announcing their intent to destroy Israel and devestate the U.S.A, and taking actual steps to support the same.
I am Israeli and completely left-wing by the way, and believe there are many steps both Israel and the U.S. could take to mitigate the threat from Iran without war, such as strengthening moderate forces in the middle-east, which they do not take. I consider our own prime minister a thoroughly evil man.
But the fact remains that Iran’s own statements and actions are extreme.
Israel was the country that convinced the US to refuse to reintegrate Iran after the 1991 war. Clinton adopted the absurd (and unprecedented) policy of dual containment where both ME powers were consistently suppressed and isolated.
Israel did this because they understood that once Iraq was gone, Iran was their direct geopolitical rival before that Israel and Iran (even Post-Revolution) were all buddy buddy.
The fact is, Iran is a country compliant with international nuclear guidelines and agreements, to a stronger extend then literally every other country in the world. Israel is a rouge state that stole nuclear secrets and built nuclear weapons.
The US supporting Israel against Iran by claiming the crimes that everybody knows Israel has actually perpetrated.
> Well, there’s the minor issue of Iran’s totalitarian regime consistently announcing their intent to destroy Israel and devestate the U.S.A, and taking actual steps to support the same.
You do realize this rhetoric goes both ways, right? Israeli politicians often make genocidal statements towards other countries including Lebanon, Palestine and Iran, so spare me this crying.
Iran may have rhetoric, but Iran isn't occupying anyone. The same cannot be said for Israel.
In fact when there is a terrorist attack in the US, Iran tends to condemn it, despite the non-existent relations, whereas US lawmakers say "Iran deserves it", when the same happens over there.
As for sponsoring terrorism; Israel has been proven to be shipping weapons to Islamic radicals in Syria, is increasingly buddy buddy with Saudi Arabia & the UAE, commits regular war crimes, including in other countries etc., so again, spare me.
> I am Israeli and completely left-wing by the way
That's great, however from my personal observation, what "left-wing" means in Israel is much more to the right than in other parts of the world. In fact you've fallen for right-wing talking points, it seems.
> there are many steps both Israel and the U.S. could take to mitigate the threat from Iran without war, such as strengthening moderate forces in the middle-east
There's no threat from Iran to other nations that I could see, do they perhaps have some proxy forces? Sure. Does Israel? Sure. Does the U.S. Sure, exponentially more. Do the Saudis and Emiratis? You bet.
As an European, I just don't get the Israeli fixation with Iran, apart for deflection purposes, it's not a great regime, but not worse than the 75% of the world's dictatorships the U.S. does support.
For the US I at least get it more; control of their resources, for the Saudis and to a lesser extent the Emiratis, it also has a religious angle, but for Israel, it seems to be purely for propaganda purposes.
P.S. Am not even going to get into Israelis smearing anyone critical of Israeli policies as an anti-Semite, which is not only reprehensible, but it also assumes that the Israeli government speaks for all Jews, which is itself rather anti-Semitic if you ask me.
Please do not engage in political or ideological or nationalistic flamewar on HN. This is the sort of discussion that starts out bad ("spare me this crying"), can only get worse, and leads to hell.
I dont'agree with the Israeli occupation of foreign territories but I don't see what that has to do with the US's sanctions against Iran. Are you trying to say that the sanctions against Iran are bad, because there are no US sanctions against Israel?
>> As an European, I just don't get the Israeli fixation with Iran,
Well I'm a European too but I can completely understand that a country which repeatedly has announced its intention to wipe Israel of the earth gets more than usual attention from the Israeli's.
> I dont'agree with the Israeli occupation of foreign territories but I don't see what that has to do with the US's sanctions against Iran.
If, as an Israeli, one makes claims that the sanctions are justified because Iran is sponsoring terrorism, perhaps it's justified to look at whether Israel is not only sponsoring, but committing terrorist acts on its neighbors, unless Israel is somehow justified to do so, while Iran isn't.
> I can completely understand that a country which repeatedly has announced its intention to wipe Israel of the earth gets more than usual attention from the Israeli's.
Right, but my point is that isn't nor really a one-sided thing. Israel does it too towards not only Iran, but its closest neighbors, they regularly threaten to "bomb Lebanon back to the stone age", as an example.
> If, as an Israeli, one makes claims that the sanctions are justified because Iran is sponsoring terrorism, perhaps it's justified to look at whether Israel is not only sponsoring, but committing terrorist acts on its neighbors, unless Israel is somehow justified to do so, while Iran isn't.
You must have a very broad definition of "terrorism" if you consider Israeli military operations to be "terrorist acts". Iran sponsors an out-and-proud terrorist organization called Hezbollah. They've committed textbook terrorist attacks around the world.
> Right, but my point is that isn't nor really a one-sided thing. Israel does it too towards not only Iran, but its closest neighbors, they regularly threaten to "bomb Lebanon back to the stone age", as an example.
...as a response to legitimate threats made by Hezbollah in Lebanon. Don't forget that Hezbollah started and escalated the war in Lebanon in 2006. Israel does not threaten Egypt, or Jordan, or even Syria itself except for Hezbollah's presence therein.
> As an European, I just don't get the Israeli fixation with Iran,
I agree, but let's not forget also the ridiculous fixation of Iran with Israel, which is even more senseless. I do not understand where the Irani animosity towards Israel comes from. Both countries are surrounded by arabs that hate them, wouldn't they all be better of as best buddies?
> I do not understand where the Irani animosity towards Israel comes from. Both countries are surrounded by arabs that hate them, wouldn't they all be better of as best buddies?
I have studied this very question previously and it's a bit more complex than that.
Iran had a democratically elected government, but in the early 50s, the UK & US orchestrated a coup that ousted that government, since they wanted to nationalize their natural resources and kick foreign oil firms out of the country.
The U.S. the installed the King of Iran as their puppet dictator. The King was a close ally of Israel and Saudi Arabia as well.
After some 20+ years, the dictator was overthrown in the Iranian Revolution of 1979.
Part of Iran's national defense strategy since then, is to have allied forces in some neighboring countries like Lebanon, Iraq etc. These forces are not occupying the territories, they're native to the land, but just ideologically align more with Iran than other countries in the region.
This strategy exists because Iran knows it would not be able to defeat an invasion on its own, were that to ever happen.
Part of how Iran was able to attract their support was by positioning itself as the force to stand against Western abuses in the region, (including Israel).
Because Israel was an ally of the old Iranian dictator, who was hated in Iran and because their abuses against the Palestinians, it was natural for Iran to position itself as against Israeli abuses, both because of its own history and because it strengthened its image as an alternative in the region against Western abuse.
It is therefore far from true that "arabs hate them". Some Arabs hate Iranians, mostly Sunni gulf states, who supported the previous Iranian regime, but some consider them an ally, including a significant portion of Lebanon, Syria, portions of Yemen and the Palestinians.
Looking at it this way, it does at least make some sense.
> I have studied this very question previously and it's a bit more complex than that.
It's in fact far more complex that what you describe and I strongly urge readers to do their own research.
> Iran had a democratically elected government, but in the early 50s, the UK & US orchestrated a coup that ousted that government, since they wanted to nationalize their natural resources and kick foreign oil firms out of the country.
Iran had had a monarchy for 2500 years. Then, after a brief power struggle, Mohammed Mossadegh (previously appointed prime minister by the Shah himself) became a leader for two years. He did later win an election. Indeed, he was ousted by that coup and monarchy was restored.
> The U.S. the installed the King of Iran as their puppet dictator. The King was a close ally of Israel and Saudi Arabia as well.
Characterizing Reza Pahlavi as a dictator or a "close ally" of Israel is an exaggeration. He was a monarch - and a reluctant one at that.
> These forces are not occupying the territories, they're native to the land, but just ideologically align more with Iran than other countries in the region.
By these "forces", you must be referring to Hezbollah, the terrorist organization that killed over 300 peacekeeping forces in the Beirut bombing during the Lebanese civil war, or the Houthi rebels that played a major role in causing the ongoing the civil war in Yemen.
> Part of how Iran was able to attract their support was by positioning itself as the force to stand against Western abuses in the region, (including Israel).
Almost every Arab country in the region stands against Iran, to the point of covertly cooperating with Israel. Those who align with Iran are virtually all part of the Shia/Alawite religious minority.
I'm not so sure Arabs hate Israel anymore. Saudi Arabia for instance has been working on improving relations. Could be "enemy of my enemy is my friend" though.
This sort of flamewar will get you banned here. Please do not do it again.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19045708 is also bad. Tedious, nasty political back-and-forths are both off topic (on topic is gratification of intellectual curiosity, and there's none of that here) and against the spirit of the site. If this is what you want to do, please find somewhere else on the internet to do it. Here it's necessary to resist the bait when others do it, not respond in kind.
Yes, but half the world isn't actively trying to destroy most people/nations.
And yes I do recognize it must suck ass to live in Gaza and I feel for them, and hope for a better future where their lives don't suck ass. I have no idea what to do about it though.
I know it's inconvenient for Europeans and progressives who think they can just lift the blockade and stop operations in Syria and everyone will live happily ever after, but when that filters through my ears it becomes "we don't give a fuck if you live or die."
Why should I care about the opinions of people who don't give a fuck if I live or die?
> half the world isn't actively trying to destroy most people/nations
True, including Israel.
You do realize that the occupation and abuse of Palestinians by Israel is what drives those Arabs that hate Israel, right? It's a rallying call, if you will.
As for genocidal rhetoric, it's been done both by Israeli neighbors and Israel itself.
As for military might, Israel is clearly on top.
> I do recognize it must suck ass to live in Gaza and I feel for them, and hope for a better future where their lives don't suck ass. I have no idea what to do about it though.
> I know it's inconvenient for Europeans and progressives who think they can just lift the blockade and stop operations in Syria and everyone will live happily ever after
As for Syria, is a sovereign country that you have no right to operate in, nor do you have the right to constantly violate Lebanese airspace.
How do you expect other countries to respect you, when you don't even respect international law?
As for Palestinians, there's always the rhetoric that they will never become peaceful etc. but how about you stop thinking of 'Greater Israel' and stop building illegal settlements as a first step? You can't continue jacking their land and somehow come to an agreement with them.
As for Gaza, yes, lifting the blockade, at least for essential supplies, lifting fishing restrictions, not targeting civilians and perhaps sponsoring targeted programs to build infrastructure there etc. would help. Stop sniping nurses and journalists as you did with the great match of return, that would be nice.
Build some goodwill, allows Gazans to leave and study abroad, sponsor some targeted infrastructure projects...
> but when that filters through my ears it becomes "we don't give a fuck if you live or die."
> Why should I care about the opinions of people who don't give a fuck if I live or die?
For my part, I absolutely care for you to live, but it could be said that it is what comes out of Israel is to my ears as if you don't care whether Palestinians live or die indeed.
There's much talk about their violence etc. but from what I've studied, it is driven by desperation. There's no prospects there, no future, no joy, no nothing. When there's such a situation, resisting what they, (and the international community btw), see as occupation is pretty much the only thing that occurs to many of them.
I realize the issue isn't simple, but as I said, outreach and show of goodwill go a long way. Stop building settlements for one, enforce security in their areas from settler attacks as well, build infrastructure, come to the table and most importantly stop dreaming of 'Greater Israel' and you may get somewhere.
> Naive. I'm sure they'll find another excuse to restore the Muslim lands.
So it's ok for you to continue, because you're sure they'll find another reason? What if am sure they won't? That's a lousy argument if I ever saw one.
> This is where the 'get fucked' comes in.
So you approve of violating international law? Why should Israel have any extra rights as a state, compared to others, or the Palestinians for that matter?
> What's your point? It's ok if they shoot missiles at me because ours our bigger and fancier?
It's not ok, but so it's acting that your bombardment is a proportional response to their home-made rockets. It mostly kills civilians.
> Noted. Both sides are negotiating in bad faith so some degree here. There is no indication that Palestinians will ever consider one square inch of Israel to not be 'jacking their lands'
The Palestinians have said that they're OK with the '67 borders, that's certainly giving up on some land allocated to them by the UN to Israel.
> any more than there is of settlers giving up hope for 'greater Israel.'
So is this the justification for continuing the status quo of the occupation? That's not a good look if I may say so myself. How are the settlers different then than the extreme Islamic factions of the Palestinians? Because their settlements are protected by Israel and thus make Israel at least partially responsible for them.
> So they can use fishing boats to smuggle weapons and concrete for tunnels? Which IS what would happen. but still..
Am sure there would a percentage used that way, so do inspections or whatever. You don't make an argument like this for anything other. "There should be no cars, because someone may have an accident".
> You do realize that the occupation and abuse of Palestinians by Israel is what drives those Arabs that hate Israel, right? It's a rallying call, if you will.
You do realize that it's the other way around, in that "Palestinians" have always hated Israel (aided and abetted by Israel's Arab neighboring states) since it's lawful establishment by the UN? Palestinians are still failing to acknowledge Israel's right to exist.
> You do realize that it's the other way around, in that "Palestinians" have always hated Israel (aided and abetted by Israel's Arab neighboring states) since it's lawful establishment by the UN?
If you're giving the historical context, it's worth noting that Israel was indeed established by the UN, but only after years of massive migration to the territory and committing significant terrorism when the British were there(in fact the IDF is a result of the merger of several terrorist factions), the kind of terrorism that is often used by Israelis to pain the Palestinians as uncivilized savages.
The UN also established what should be the Palestinian territory, which is today occupied by Israel.
The Arab states did in fact invade, the Palestinians saw it as eroding on their land, (and the British agreed to a large extent at the time), however I do agree that they should have accepted the UN ruling. It was wrong not to do so, regardless of how Israel came to be.
This does however not justify the present occupation of even the few remaining Palestinian territories, especially because the very UN that you cite considers them illegal and Israel is regularly condemned at the UN for it. Yet it continues to ignore international law with impunity because of U.S. support.
> Palestinians are still failing to acknowledge Israel's right to exist.
They largely do acknowledge it, the PA certainly does and even Hamas has amended their charter in 2017 to that direction as far as I know.
The fact is, Israel has a state in any case. Do you acknowledge the right for Palestine to exist? Because Israeli continued expansion of illegal settlements on the ground does not suggest so and it certainly does not help the peace process in any way.
"Iran may have rhetoric, but Iran isn't occupying anyone"
Well, Iraq and Syria would be two countries.
And if they could, they would be occupying many more.
Iran is not some entity trying to protect themselves from invaders, they are a theocratic dictatorship and they want to spread their specific brand of revolution throughout the region and the world.
Nukes involve us all so it's less a matter of sovereignty.
Nobody wants Iran to have nukes - not Britain, Germany, France, Russia, China etc which is why they are all signatories to the treaty!
If Iran tried to get nukes in the eyes of the above, they would pull out as well!
The issue here is more or less one of 'what Iran is doing' - not an issue of 'what we should do if Iran is cheating'.
So the headline of 3 major countries doing trade with Iran is not an abnegation of the nuclear issue, it's just a difference of opinion on what is actually going on inside Iran.
No, they wouldn't, Iran is in both countries with the explicit permission of the local governments, (like them or not). That's not what occupation means.
> And if they could, they would be occupying many more.
Given you first statement isn't true, I doubt this one is, beyond the cynical, "who wouldn't"?
> Iran is not some entity trying to protect themselves from invaders, they are a theocratic dictatorship and they want to spread their specific brand of revolution throughout the region and the world.
Look, am not a fan of Iran, but am also trying to be rational about them. Their strategy of having some proxy forces in strategic places is part of their defense strategy, this has been studied.
As for them trying to spread their ideology, sure, that alone doesn't seem to warrant sanctions, given the Gulf states and our relationship with them.
> Nobody wants Iran to have nukes - not Britain, Germany, France, Russia, China etc which is why they are all signatories to the treaty!
Right, and Iran has been complying with the deal, so what's your point? It's the U.S. that pulled out of it.
(For the record, am not sure why Israel should have unacknowledged nukes either.)
"Their strategy of having some proxy forces in strategic places is part of their defence strategy, this has been studied."
Iran's sponsorship of Hezbollah towards attacking Israel is part of their defence strategy?
Iran's passing of Hadouthi missiles to targeted at cilivian areas in Saudia Arabia is part of their defence strategy.
Yes 'this has been studied' and I'm afraid you're wrong.
Iran is a antagonistic entity, and they want nukes so they can point them at Turkey, Saudi, Israel, Europe and further embolden themselves.
The reason that 'UK/France/Germany' issue is important is because it undermines almost all of the arguments being made here i.e. that 'Iran is sovereign, a victim, and shouldn't be subject to sanctions'.
The fact that 'the entire world' wants to sanction Iran for pursuing nukes fairly points to their bad acting.
The only reason that trade is possibly going to happen - is because of the belief that they are not pursuing nuclear weapons.
> Iran's sponsorship of Hezbollah towards attacking Israel is part of their defence strategy?
Iran's sponsorship of Hezbollah is absolutely part of their defense strategy, so is antagonism towards Israel, not that I agree with it, but it's worth noting that Israel has been regularly threatening to "bomb Lebanon back into the stone age" and attacking Iranians in Syria, so Israel is clearly an antagonizing force as well.
> they want nukes so they can point them at Turkey, Saudi, Israel, Europe and further embolden themselves
There's no particular reason to think that if they wanted nukes, they'd do so for any other reason, than as a deterrent against an invasion, similarly to the reasons North Korea develops them.
> The only reason that trade is possibly going to happen - is because of the belief that they are not pursuing nuclear weapons.
It is not just a 'belief' as you call it, it has been verified regularly by the International Atomic Agency and Iran is in compliance with the deal. The U.S. is not.
Since the end of Saddam - there is no entity in the region that has any material ability to pose any real threat to Iran.
Moreover, there are no entities with the ability to even 'cause meaningful harm' (ie Israel) without significant reciprocal damage and serious political blowback.
So the notion of 'attacking neighbours as part of a defence' doesn't hold any water.
Consider that Iran has the open and public position that they want to 'wipe Israel of the map', that they are sending missiles that end up landing over the heads of Saudis and Israelis - it's clear that Iran poses an existential threat to some of their neighbours, not the other way around.
Palestinian issues aside (which will never be resolved through war anyhow) - Israel has proven they maintain very peaceful relations with any neighbours not trying to destroy it, ergo, the very easy path to peace with Israel is just to not antagonize them. Jordan, Egypt, Saudi etc. have zero to fear from Israel.
If Iran wanted peace they would just make peace, but it's clear they do not.
The Saudis are not the nicest bunch, and their funding of extremist activities should draw more ire, but they have no real military capabilities more than a few miles beyond their borders.
> Since the end of Saddam - there is no entity in the region that has any material ability to pose any real threat to Iran
Not without allying with and outside power like the United States to do so (which, incidentally, was critical to Saddam’s ability to do so); Iran's influence with dissatisfied groups, which its visible active opposition to Israel is a key component of, is key to it's ability to credibly threaten to impose a high cost for that.
It's also, beyond defence against existing local regimes, a key component of it's strategy to prevent the US from securing a stronger foothold in the region to threaten Iran by displacing or subverting an existing regime both by establishing Iran's positive influence and by poisoning the week against the US.
> Well, there’s the minor issue of Iran’s totalitarian regime consistently announcing their intent to destroy Israel and devestate the U.S.A, and taking actual steps to support the same.
Be wary of the narrative the media feeds you. There is a lot of spin on what is actually said in Iran and what is reported. For example:
The first article is mostly an opinion piece on the illegitimacy of Israel as a Jewish state.
> So the UN resolution was actually legally compromised and the partition plan was also completely unfair, giving out 70 percent of the land to the immigrant Jews who made up only 30 percent of the population at the time! (See 1947 UN Partition Proposal)
> So people only need to use their common sense to see how wrong this radical and bloody demographic implantation in the Arab world, called Israel, has been!
therefore, I would take whatever other factual claims this writer makes with a grain of salt, since anyone who reads his article can see a clear anti-Israeli agenda.
But even assuming his factutal statements regarding what Ahmadinejad said: that the occupation will vanish from the face of time, and not actually Israel, which is not the same as the occupation - anyone who is a bit versed in Middle-Eastern media knows that “the occupation” is just the way Israel is referred to. In very much the same way that the Iranian regime calls Israel and the U.S. “the small and big devils”. The writer’s point is moot. Any threat about the vanishing of the occupation is the same as the threat of the vanishing of Israel as a state.
The second article is a bit weird, as it seems to argue the finer points of translation:
> Khomeini gave a speech in which he said in Persian “Een rezhim-i eshghalgar-i Quds bayad az sahneh-i ruzgar mahv shaved.” This means, “This occupation regime over Jerusalem must vanish from the arena of time.” But then anonymous wire service translators rendered Khomeini as saying that Israel “must be wiped off the face of the map,” which Cole and Nourouzi say is inaccurate.
and
> In 2000, Khamenei stated, “Iran’s position, which was first expressed by the Imam [Khomeini] and stated several times by those responsible, is that the cancerous tumor called Israel must be uprooted from the region.” He went on to say in the same speech that “Palestinian refugees should return and Muslims, Christians and Jews could choose a government for themselves, excluding immigrant Jews.”
Wow, I’m so glad the Iranian regime only says that Israel along with the Jews living in it must vanish and be uprooted, but not wiped out.
To make things clear: I am against the control of Israeli military of territories with a Palestenian civilian majority in the West Bank, and I myself call that “occupation”. I believe Israel is very much at fault, even if it is not exclusive fault.
But that doesn’t excuse ignoring or defending actual threats to the very existence of Israel, which Iran does make, and act upon.
Stating that a country should not exist vs stating a country should be wiped off the map are drastically different things.
It's long been known that Iran doesn't recognize Israel as a country, just like Israel doesn't recognize Palestine, so there should be no surprise here.
I really don't understand why others really think the people of Iran have some overarching goal of attacking Israel and the US versus just trying to live their lives. What will that accomplish them?
Iran is a republic and must answer to it's people, which is why they participate in the international community by e.g. following the Non Proliferation Treaty and making trade deals with the rest of the international community. At the end of the day they don't want to be isolated and straddled with hyper inflation from sanctions just like most countries.
> Stating that a country should not exist vs stating a country should be wiped off the map are drastically different things.
You make the first sound very sterile. Aggressively saying one (a person or country) must not exist is not that far off from saying he must be wiped off, especially if you’re taking actual military steps against that subject.
> It's long been known that Iran doesn't recognize Israel as a country just like Israel doesn't recognize Palestine, so there should be no surprise here.
Who’s surprised? I just demonstrated the so-called receipts the parent OP said one must show.
Regardless, not recognizing something is very different from saying it must not exist and taking steps to advance that desired non-existence.
I think the Israeli regime is also evil in not allowing a Palestenian state to exist, even if it’s not Israel’s exclusive fault.
> I really don't understand why others really think the people of Iran have some overarching goal of attacking Israel and the US versus just trying to live their lives. What will that accomplish them?
I think it’s clear we are talking about the regimes here, not “the people”. Especially in autocratic Iran.
> Iran is a republic and must answer to it's people
False. [1]
> de jure:
Unitary Khomeinist presidential Islamic republic
> de facto:
Theocratic-republican authoritarian unitary presidential republic subject to a Supreme Leader
Anyone who has filed a few rdars knows it is thankless work. The amount of work you have to invest for anyone to even look at your bug is high. In the instance of this particular bug, I wouldn’t be surprised if at least part of the reason it took a week and a half to handle since it was reported was that the initial reply to the reporter was “please send us the exact steps to reproduce” and then nothing was done until the bug reporter replied back. I wouldn’t be surprised to learn there were even a few iterations of this, since I personally experienced it.
Then, your bug gets looked at. But you don’t know anything about its status. Until anything from a few days to a few months later, it gets closed as a duplicate. Of course there is no way to know in advance that the bug was already opened, and that you could save an hour of work time instead of making a minimal reproducible version of your app which reproduces the bug.
