CharonY

The Islamic countries have very different histories and power structures, not to mention ethnic and religious rifts. Many have been at odds for a long time. Iran, specifically has is projecting power asymmetrically by funding terror groups and militias, which destabilize a number of Arabic countries. Also, after figuring out that you can simply bribe the leader of the Western world, and that folks do not care that much for human rights after all, quite a few Islamic countries are on pretty good terms with parts of the west now. Certainly on better terms than with Iran. Israel is a bit of a different issue, but Lebanon is just not rich enough to pay everyone off. A lot of very clever folks have been spending decades dissecting Iran's each and every action, in an effort to figure how rational the government is (or not). While there is a lot if spin, pretty much all serious papers seem to argue that the bottom goal that underpins all action is survival of the regime. Some derive rationality from there, others explain that this is irrational, though I have to admit I did not follow the logic one the first read and didn't want to invest the time to figure out all the steps how they arrived there. Of course things are not black and white, but I am pretty sure that folks invested all that effort specifically to avoid going up against a caricature (which, to be fair, has been a Western doctrine for a fair bit of history).

I think that goes towards Iran as a theocratic irrational actor doctrine. I do not think that internal violence is necessarily a good predictor regarding nuclear use. The Soviet Union is a good example, to that effect. One could make a similar argument where many more lives than since the start of the Ukraine war, for no obviously good reasons. Yet they have refrained from nuking the region. While they might have little regard for human lives, they are interested in maintaining power. Nuclear annihilation does not achieve that. That being said, any authoritarian structure might be vulnerable to irrational actions of the leader, the question then is whether there are internal elements to stop it (a question that is increasingly relevant also for the US). The former Supreme Leader seemed to have reservations to fully commit to the final steps of nuclear armament, though with the current situation the rational calculus would actually favour a more aggressive program. However, the willingness to use those weapons are a different matter. At least historically, expert analysts seem to frame Iran's actions as mostly pragmatic and rational, though couched in a religious ideology. Thus, based on historic evidence at least, it is more likely that WMDs will only be used if it somehow secures their power structure, but I cannot see a scenario for that. As a means of deterrent, however, it makes much more sense.

Also, alcoholism The AtlanticThe FBI Director Is MIAKash Patel has alarmed colleagues with episodes of excessive drinking and unexplained absences.

For the most part, yest. But it is also a matter of how we (as humans) like to name, define and categorize things. The term evolution is often filled with meaning, but mechanistically speaking it really just refers to the fact that gene pools rarely stay constant. So from that definition, the how does not really come into play. In terms of mechanics, we like to categorize how the pool shifts and have created categories like natural and artificial selection (as well as stochastic processes), though often these are more judgement calls. Mathematically, one would rather use terms like directional, stabilizing and disruptive selection as they can be used to model gene pool shifts. But yes, from a biological standpoint any biological entity falls under the same bracket and it doesn't really matter for the process whether we get extinguished by an asteroid or AI killer drones.

Except that makes no sense. Anything that an organism has built or is capable of building is part of the whole tapestry of evolution. Ants do not cheat evolution or death by being social and building homes, they are because of it. And so are we. Many aspects of selection are determined in a non-intuitive way. Sexual selection, for example determines who passes on their genes, but sometimes at the cost of being less able to survive due to expansive plumage, fore example. Or coupling reproduction with death. The distinction between natural and unnatural is purely a human construct and as long as our gene pool varies over time, there is still evolution. It doesn't matter if the factor is medicine or an asteroid.

I am saying that applying a bit of critical thinking would be helpful. What is more likely, we found skeletons of giants but don't document it anywhere and keep it a secret everywhere except for some reasons on the internet. Or perhaps, it is something that someone built? Funny bit is the very internet also helps you to figure out what the source of the image is. But clearly, someone opts not to invest that particular time.

Yeah, it is a bit tricky. Everything resulting in change, regardless of direction is the "normal" process. There is really no definition for a deviation. The only would be the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, which a condition where evolution stops.

That argument suggests that evolution follows some kind of determined path, but it doesn't. It is a random walk where stuff along the way nudges steps sometimes in one, or the other direction. Callings some natural and an perversion of it, is a value judgement, which is not baked into the system. I disagree that extinctions are perversions of sorts. They are just part of the process. Some genes persist, other vanish. Sometimes because of selective pressures, sometimes just by chance. There is not perversion in the common sense here.

Is this a serious question? I hope you are aware that this is a sculpture, yes?

From what I have read, this is highly unlikely. Effectively, the Iranian government has deep roots and is not exclusively shaped around specific figures like for example Venezuela. I.e. even if citizens protest (as they did recently) there are multiple systems that can and have suppressed them effectively. Even while some more muted protests are still ongoing, there does not seem a good path for that to get more organized and gain traction. Often, decentralized powers are prone to infighting and self-destabilization. And as a matter of fact, one Iran strategy prior to the US actions, was to simply wait for the last Supreme leader to die as there was a decent chance that the more moderate forces would be able to gain power. This, of course went out of the window after the US attacks. Those attacks had a galvanizing effect on the hardliners and although Ali Khameini himself didn't want his son to succeed him, this is how it turned out. Also, Ali Khamenei was reportedly reluctant to finalize the steps to build nuclear weapons, but the current events have emboldened those in favor of it. In fact, now some see it as a prerequisite to ensure the existence of Iran, which, after the genocidal threats of Trump, unfortunately seems like a rational conclusion.

Good point. Good old Eisenhower, eh?

Maybe, though the question is who can absorb more pain. And even in a collapsed economy, I am not entirely sure what the scenario would look like in which the Iranian government would capitulate. Also, I am wondering how much that would actually change. While Iran had been able to get some revenue from the Strait, I do wonder how much this actually will meaningfully add. Also, would they actually seize Russian, Chinese or Indian ships? There is also a report that Trump wants to block all ports, which seems to be a bit of a tall order (but could also just bluster again). Either way, China will watch that with extreme interest, I am sure.

There is a third possibility. One that is based on a mix of stupidity and dementia, where there the logical calculus is based on what happened 5 minutes ago on Fox News. Don't get me wrong, I don't want to entirely trivialize it, but many of the explanations of decisions on that level generally follow some sort of logical framework that one might follow. Even if it is a value question (e.g. following the tabulation of cost and benefits) there would at least be some foundation for the discussion, even if there are fundamental disagreements. However, the foundation for Trump (less so for Netanyahu) are just not based on reality. I rather think, for example, that Trump did not really understand how tariffs work, and basically once he committed to them, he largely flayed around to see how he can leverages stuff. Perhaps he wanted to initiate a conflict as a distraction from political woes, but his "model" was basically that simply that the weaker one will not do anything to impede the stronger party. After all, that was his personal experience. I sincerely doubt that there was any deeper strategy and he likely simply didn't understand how an inferior party could exact pain by closing the Strait. What might be true with the Go analogy is mostly that he is very reactive. He tends to react in the moment, based on how things appear on media and just goes with it. But Go has an internal logic and you generally don't just mimic what the opponent is doing. Rather, he is demanding that the opponent concedes, without counting the score or even looking at the board.

Honestly, framing it around Go moves make it seem that there is a some sort of standard or acceptable strategic framework. But considering the flailing throughout the operation, I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't another spur-of-the-moment decision. "Hey, they are taking the world hostage, why don't we?" The maddening thing is that the US military knew that this was going to happen, but in this case the folks in charge decide to treat it like a literal game. I fear we had a small time frame in human history where we actually took war seriously and as a net negative. Now we get desensitized just by keeping wars going in the background and then even folks like Hegseth glorifying gore and carnage. The dumbest timeline just got a major lobotomy.

To quote a famous strategist and deal-maker: No doubt. I am moderately certain that Trump is strategically not talking to Hegseth so that that one can take the fall. Also a lot of folks apparently were women and people of color, so we can see the true worth of DEI.

Fair. I guess my envy comes from the fact that there many unscrupulous folks out there making money tapping into that. My life would be so much easier if I could just getting paid for making stuff up. Heck, students telling me that with their degree they aspire to become youtubers and influencers is incredibly depressing.

Ain't that convenient, though. "Here is a product that we want to use for all kind of things so that we can train it to be better. However, if there is any liability of any sort that is entirely on you". For sure, that is the strategy of most large companies, but especially tech has been interwoven so strongly with society via things that folks interact daily, such as social media and now AI, so that the reward/harm balance is way out of whack.

He does. And doesn't care. That is the superpower of the new right. I am frankly a bit envious of that ability. There are ongoing EU investigations into interference by Musk/Twitter and other US companies into European election interference (which are not really subtle, considering that Musk virtually joined far-right party rallies). So of course it makes sense for them to characterize the interference with the interference as interference...

Did someone make any bets again just before the announcement? Asking for a friend.

I don't think that a better understanding of the history excuses the atrocities of the current government. What it does explain, however, is deep-rooted support in parts of the population that, at least originally were not based on irrational fanaticism as sometimes characterized. Historically, it led to different power structures within the regime, that were not exclusively tied to one person (like for example in Iraq). Some articles are discussing that Trump might have thought that Iran is pretty much set up like Venezuela, where decapitation could make sense in order to force compliance. But as he learned in real-time, the power structures in Iran actually run deep and the loss of the leader does in fact not cripple the system.

One of the things that folks tend to forget is that the uprising against the Shah was a popular one, and not really one driven by religion (initially). Quite a few folks that would be considered progressives were part of it, in an effort to overthrow the Shah. As part of this alliance, Kohomeini then promised things like equal rights, freedom of expression, democratization and even agreed to ensure that religious leaders wouldn't be in position of political power. Of course, that never happened, and when he realized that he was able to consolidate power, he did. And perhaps different to some other autocracies, who are very much focused on the person, he did create a deep system, that is holding on to power even now. But folks have to recognize how badly folks wanted to get rid of the Shah and it is not simply religious fanaticism that caused and sustained the current regime.

Nothing like threatening/conducting war crimes to hold on to power. Worked for Netanyahu.

While we are at variations on how surnames can be formed, I always found the Spanish one to be fun. There, folks have two surnames, based on the first surname of each parent. This can be interesting if the surnames are composites. Or if Basque names are intermingled, where the surname is based on the father's surname and the family town.

How do you define the "as we know" part? I think the oldest evidence of the custom will likely depend on how long written records have survived. My wild guess is that the development of surnames will coincide with the formation of sufficient large settlements which made it more relevant to distinguish membership to different families and might predate a lot of the written records (those that survived, at least). With regard to the earliest documented surnames, I randomly googled the Uruk period and found this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kushim_(Uruk_period)

Take away where? The white House is where all the crazies aggregate.