Nazi Germany didn’t need Allied ships near its coast to invade Poland. Saddam Hussein didn’t need US aircraft nearby to invade Kuwait. Argentina didn’t need British naval pressure to seize the Falklands. Russia didn’t need NATO forces near Kyiv to annex Crimea in 2014 or launch a full invasion in 2022.

Tyrannies tend to frame any foreign presence as “provocation” after the fact, because it’s politically useful at home. Liberal democracies publish their movements precisely because they operate under scrutiny; authoritarian states act first and justify later.

Proximity makes for a convenient narrative, not a causal explanation.

does their claim of reaching 8 km/s in earth's atomsphere make sense? how is it possible without an insane amount of energy?

Besides, how are you going to deliver this energy in such a short time without frying the entire system, we're talking probably 1000A+ currents flowing in insane voltages.

You'd rather use TNT or some high explosive, that's what is usually done with artillery, and even then you don't get close to 8 km/s as far as i know.

We'll see. Or not.

It's really hard to tell from the press release, but it sounds as if they're talking about a railgun kinda thing. Which has been discussed before, and it keeps not working out. The strains on the object are too great.

Not saying Israeli soldiers have perfect values and obey all international laws, but every time I see a story in the Guardian , it's so one sided, one has to question their motives and objectives.

Saying 'Israeli soldiers' also leaves the readers to wonder - how many are there? 'soldiers' can also be 2-3 soldiers. Is there something about Israeli soldiers or society in general that is different than other soldiers of conflicting nations?

I live in the terminal, but most people in my company, including developers rather stay away from it

(1) Command lines lack the discoverability element of GUIs (and TUIs), where the available choices are typically laid out in front of you. Just look at the command "firm -c list contact" in the screenshot in the linked readme - no doubt it's sensible, but you wouldn't just type it in out of nowhere. You could argue that good docs fix this, but they'll never be a substitute. (Silly analogy: imagine if your toaster had buttons just labelled "1", "2", "3" and you had to refer to the manual for which meant toast, defrost, extra browning.)

(2) Command lines lack the visual persistence of the data you're operating on (like a list of files in a directory, or project/people data like in this program). If you rename a file and you then re-run ls and now everything appears in a slightly different place on the screen (because the previous listing had shifted up when you ran "mv") it's visually jarring in a way that just operating directly on the data isn't. Not-silly analogy: it's like how no-one today would dream of operating on a text file using a pure line editor like ed. (Even command-based editors like vim persist the file data in the main visual area.)

Command lines are much better than GUIs/TUIs for some applications, for example when called from a script, or where you might need to compose a complex command and then tweak and re-run it (in fairness, that might apply to OP's project). But I think techies sometimes get a bit carried away. GUIs are sometimes a legitimately better choice.

Allows for a GUI for tasks that need that better context or hand holding. But then the CLI is there when there is a workflow the GUI doesn't support comes up. Bonus of scripting being possible with the CLI too.

Challenges this approach has is that you have to have a test suite that exercises both workflows or due diligence to make sure they both work as development continues.

Also not all programs can be done acceptably with a CLI. Real time 3d games are an easy example of a GUI only task.

1. It tends to be bloated, with developers slapping framework upon framework, creating a mess of background wiring that is prone to a dictionary's worth of issues that will either frustrate the user or confound the person maintaining it.

2. UX Designers approach their jobs incorrectly; they assume they are smarter than the user. Interestingly, this might actually be true on paper in most cases, but the practical reality is that the user needs to do things the user's way, not the way the the developer wants them to.

If we could find ways to smooth those two glaring issues, I posit that we'd see a lot of problems with productivity and workflow melt away. Caveat; I'm not a software developer, so I'm sure anyone who is thinks I'm speaking out of school right now. Fact is, I've worked in a few different industries over 40 years, and one of the biggest thorns always seems to boil down to the software not being quite right for the team/application, so workarounds have to be invented, adding layers of complexity on what is already a decidedly fragile system.

This is just as true for CLIs.

In short, the system should be designed by people that despise the general state frontend development. It should still look good, I love a modern clean frontend (like Docmost for example), but not at the expense of snappiness and scalability.

To me, it’s obvious that if a certain command feels cumbersome (e.g., (1)), you can just create an alias, script, or panel to make it behave exactly how you want. In contrast, a GUI usually forces you to use the functionality as it was envisioned by the product team that designed it.

Ultimately, GUIs target the average user, providing a good experience on average across all users.

With terminal apps, if you are patient and willing to learn how to customize your shell, you can make an excellent environment which would offer a huge boost of productivity

- CLIs are powerful but hard, basically an exercise in mnemonics.

- GUIs are much friendlier, and can be faster than CLIs for certain use cases. While complex and bloated, they have their use cases to shine.

- TUIs are basically less expressive GUIs, since they're limited to text, but you must go out of your way to make them bloated and slow; they usually are very snappy.

All have their best and worst scenarios, no need to argue which is better. Use what fits best with your workflow, no size fits all.

People who lionize the terminal are silly, it's objectively bad and the fact we use it at all is just the inertia of TTY.

Trying to put GUIs in terminal, all this stuff, it's a hack, a sign of failure to make progress.

In an alternate universe Emacs wouldn't be culturally anti-human and we'd have a data first gui instead of app siloing. Some Emacs custom setups are the fucking future, context switching, everything is so perfect, but because the interop is so bad you can't use it in your day job.

But most OSS OS devs have spent all their time focused on the system part and not the operating part.

Human factors and human interfaces are still mostly ignored, and that's just from a sole user perspective, most developers of UI don't treat the networked/relational aspect as a first class UX issue for an OS.

And that's partly a failure of imagination, a failure of loving people as much as tech and also because distributed collaboration is fucking hard and most people just rewalk existing paths.

Maybe LORO is the only truly interesting open source project right now, but Ai can't write those algorithms so even their implementation is under explored.

My guess is that the console is a much better and natural UI because it goes in one direction and is less confusing and productive for humans.

In the end we seems to move back to it through the chatbot paradigm, because it is in the end a console...

If you want unfiltered street-level vibes from both sides, Corey Gil-Shuster’s YouTube channel is a gold mine of candid answers. You'd be surprised how many times the notion of palestinian "peace" is judenfrei Isreal (Saying basically, that jews should go back to europe) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xH1iV1fb2pg

For context, there was an Israeli volunteer organization called Road to Recovery, made up of citizens who drove patients/children, the elderly, and others—from the border crossings to hospitals across Israel for medical care. Many of the volunteers lived near Gaza themselves. On October 7th, when Hamas invaded Israel, those very volunteers were deliberately targeted and murdered. One of them was Vivian Silver, a remarkable woman who dedicated years to this mission.

The cruelty, hatred, and fanaticism of Hamas is almost impossible to grasp for those who don’t live with it. It’s easy to get swept up in narratives shaped by popular media, but those accounts are rarely impartial when it comes to this conflict.

Gaza had one, care to explain what happened to it. I would say it was before the October 7th.

Israel took control of Rafah border. And do not give full control to Egypt. Egypt, under the tripartite agreement with US and Israel is restricted heavily to be subservient to Israel. Stop the lies please.

>they could only leave through Egypt or Israel.

Gaza has, you know, a sea? Into Mediterranean. But ITF shoots down Palestinians, and detains anyone who goes there, par for the rogue nation it is. Yes, before Oct 7th.

That is is no way a proper structured way to evacuate. When evaluating the suitability of evacuation, put yourself in their shoes, and think: "would that have worked for you and your family?" Hamas would presumably have the tunnels to Egypt under tight control, preventing their use for evacuation. People and families need a structured way to evacuate, like being offered free buses that drive them to a country that will accept them. If this cannot be done, at least help them establish tunnels into Egypt with open access.

As I see it, the cruelty/hatred/genociding is on both sides, both Palestine and Israel; there is no difference.

Don't get me wrong because I do want Israel to thrive, but in a civilized way, not by being despicable. A point of existence is civilization, not barbarism.

I completely agree with your last statement. The issue here is that there's an organization which doesn't value life and wishes for martyrdom for its members and the entire society that it governs. For this sake - every act is justified and even praised.

(A note to Ubuntu users that browsh is incompatible with the default snap distribution of Firefox; you'll have to install it from a PPA.)

For example, snakemake makes it very difficult if not impossible to create pipelines that deviate from a DAG architecture. In cases where you need loops, conditionals and so on, Nextflow is a better option.

One thing that I didn't like about nextflow is that all processes can either run under apptainer or docker, you can mix and match docker/apptainer like you do in snakemake rules.

1. A process that "generates" protein sequences

2. A collection of processes that perform computationally intensive downstream computations

3. A filter that decides, based on some calculation an a threshold whether the output from process (1) should move to process (2).

Furthermore, assume you'd like process (1) to continue generating new candidates continously and independently until N number of candidates pass the filter for downstream processing.

That's not something that you can do easily with snakemake since it generates the DAG before computation starts. Sure, you can create some hack or use checkpoints that forces snakemake to reevaluate the DAG and so on, and maybe --keep-going=true so that it won't end the other processes from failing, but with nextflow you just set a few channels as queues and connect them to processes, which is much easier.

you meant "CAN'T", right?