Well Reduce is really more "Why do you need this (device/pair of shoes/car/shirt/whatever) in the first place?"

But the Reuse part is definitely served, at least in part, through repair.

The equivalent reduction would be device consolidation, with the folding iPhone having the greatest capacity since it could replace an iPad and with cheap peripherals be at least as good a computer as a MacBook Neo. Of course, being Apple, it's reportedly only able to run iPhone apps heh.

Not throwing it away is a win though.

It's the throwing it away that is the problem.

Not having a phone in the first place is the best for the environment. Failing that, having someone else reuse that phone is best. Only if all else fails is recycling the preferred option.

So of course people are going to concentrate on the problem of people just throwing these things away. And that's for anything. Not just phones.

Sticking in a drawer "just in case" is throwing it away while it takes up space in your house and can't be recycled.

In fairness, the claim is that all the Iranians are offering their own lives for the poster's goals.

Of course, that only brings us to, "It's easy to claim others are offering their lives for your goals."

I guess it's probably best to just realize everything you see on the subject of any given war is probably propaganda. And judge the value of it through that lens.

I think a lot of people can apply common sense and realize that no real person is rooting for their family getting bombed to bits. And hopefully realize that posters who make up such persons are spreading vile propaganda that dehumanizes them so that there won’t be too much opposition to the massacre of civilians.

But everyone still pays them right? I mean that's the deal.

Why would I want to be paying them if you're, at the same time, telling me they don't have the muscle to make me pay?

Why is anyone paying Iran anything if we won? Someone's gonna need to explain that to me.

Where are you getting this idea that anyone is paying Iran? Genuinely confused about this. The only thing that has happened is that the US made Iran open the Straight up for two weeks in exchange for a pause in bombing. Nothing else has been agreed to. What source are you looking at that says anyone is paying them and that is has been agreed to?

------------

Via BBC:

-Complete cessation of the war on Iraq, Lebanon, and Yemen

-Complete and permanent cessation of the war on Iran with no time limit

-Ending all conflicts in the region in their entirety

-Reopening the Strait of Hormuz

-Establishing a protocol and conditions to ensure freedom and security of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz

-Full payment of compensation for reconstruction costs to Iran (via reparations in the form of USD2 Million per ship Hormuz fee to be shared with Oman[?] for some reason? Again, I don't understand why anyone is paying anything to anyone else?)

-Full commitment to lifting sanctions on Iran

-Release of Iranian funds and frozen assets held by the United States (Also to be used as reparations to Iran. Again, why?)

-Iran fully commits to not seeking possession of any nuclear weapons (More on this below. And it's a doozy.)

-Immediate ceasefire takes effect on all fronts immediately upon approval of the above conditions

------------

OK. Now that is the english language version. The Farsi version, which is not being reported in the media, contains the following language as well: "acceptance of enrichment". (Which again, to me, seems like it would be a non-starter.) The idea being that enrichment is a dual use technology I assume?

The full version isn't being reported in English language media, but the Administration has it. When asked about what's in the plan, the White House will only confirm that "yes", it is 15 points and not just the 10 we know about. So that answer at least confirms there are additional points. Which, again, even if there weren't added points, the 10 we know about mean that everyone still pays Iran for passage through the straits.

I'm gonna be honest here, this seems totally unworkable. I'll even go further, and characterize this as Iran giving us a list of conditions for our surrender. This is not acceptable. This is materially worse than the status quo that existed 2 months ago.

Jeez. Just do nothing!

Doing nothing would have been better than this.

> Via BBC:

This isn't answering what I asked though. This is a statement of Iranian talking points but there is no agreement, the US hasn't "capitulated", nor have further talks taken place. Nobody has agreed to pay Iran anything. It doesn't matter what they say.

When you write things like this:

> Which, again, even if there weren't added points, the 10 we know about mean that everyone still pays Iran for passage through the straits.

It's like who cares what they wrote in these 10 points? They can demand the moon be made of cheese too. There will be no paying to use the Strait because like other points in these 10 demands the US and Gulf States won't agree to it.

When Iran wrote this did you like, think that they made these demands and then other countries are trying to comply with them or something? It doesn't matter what Iran writes. It only matters what the US says will happen as we see fit.

> Doing nothing would have been better than this.

Doing nothing means the following:

- Iran continues to stock pile missiles - Iran gets to a point where they have so many missiles that it becomes untenable for the US to stop them from buying and building more missiles because the destruction they would create for Gulf States and others that they hold hostage aren't worth the risk - Because Iran can't be stopped they would continue their pursuit of a nuclear weapon

Then Iran can enact whatever toll they want on the Straight and there's nothing anyone can do about it and we're right here where we are now except the US has pulled out of the region and Iran's crazy regime is making billions from Gulf States and the international community by taxing trade. That's why the US struck now instead of waiting - if we wait there's nothing we can reasonably do!

Sit down and think this through for yourself. Of course you can argue "Iran wouldn't do that" but you have to take them at their word and through their activities which indicate that is indeed what they planned on doing. Doing nothing means we have a much, much bigger problem down the line. Doing something now means we can likely prevent that bigger problem from occurring in the first place.

Maybe I should have been more clear? These are the points in the proposal that the Iranians/pakistanis sent to Trump that Trump said formed the basis for the ceasefire. Which it doesn’t. There is nothing there for us.

It doesn’t matter anymore in any case as Israel just launched a massive barrage. So there will be no ceasefire now anyway.

No worries, sorry if I wasn't clear as well. To your point, I didn't really think a ceasefire would last long anyway because neither side has any interest in changing their perspective and at the end of the day the US holds the upper hand and the folks they are "negotiating" with are, well, rather delusional.

I'm likely misunderstanding what you're trying to say.

Can you elaborate on how, exactly, ships would be able to evade the toll booth, if they have to pay the toll in any case?

Because on the surface of it, it sounds to me like Iran is tolling the straits. Which is fine. The fee is small enough that I'm not opposed to paying it given the alternative. I understand why the world is willing to pay. Ok. I get it.

But it's hard for me to view this as a win for us. So I'm probably missing something? (Or at least, I hope I'm missing something.)

That's awesome for consumers in China.

What about the rest of us?

That kind of fraud is oftentimes only a fine in many other nations.

Maybe we should get our governments to execute corporate criminals?

And stock holders. Too long they have gotten the profits, but suffered none of the losses personally from their own bank accounts.

The Chinese fly internationally too. So there's some motivation to not have these in other countries.

Not really worried about the Chinese. As was pointed out, they just hang a sword of damocles over the head of every entrepreneur and engineer who even thinks about doing something like that.

What about power banks from India? Vietnam? Malaysia? Korea?

That's what I'm saying. If there are nations where you can get away with it, then those power banks can end up in Western, African or South American markets.

(I'm counting getting a fine, or paying a bribe, as getting away with it. I don't really consider those punishments that will provide sufficient deterrent.)

> What about power banks from India? Vietnam? Malaysia? Korea?

90% of powerbanks made are from mainland china. Worrying about powerbanks made outside of China is like worrying about guns made outside of the USA, theoretically possible, but those countries are so dominant and efficient in those fields that it is more of a "what if" rather than a real concern.

You can get away with it in the US, if you can get regulators to approve it.

This.

The belief of business users that this will remain true is grounded more in hope than in cold, dispassionate, business based decision making.

If it's not life or death, encrypt every byte of data you send to the cloud.

If it is life or death, you should probably not be letting that data traverse the open internet in any form.

To be fair, we don't really have the capacity to run satellite surveillance on each and every target we select to engage in a sneak attack.

I think sometimes people watch hollywood movies and get the impression that it represents a kind of cataloging of our military capabilities. A demonstration of what we can do to our enemies. With the underlying subtext being "don't mess with us."

I just want to gently suggest that not everything we see in movies is factual with respect to military or intelligence capabilities.

I'm an old timer. I got off the bus at Quantico in 1991. But even though I'm not in right now, I'd feel confident in betting that we don't have the capacity to surveil that many targets via satellite for, say, 1 week, prior to our attack.

(Of course, when I got off the bus at Quantico in '91 I also would have been just as confident in betting that the US would never engage in a first strike. So what do I know?)

That is true for an active war but I don't believe it is true if you have literally months and months to plan an attack. Unless of course there was no plan until just a few days before and you stupidly threw a ton of your advantage right into the trash.

So don’t sneak attack. Easy solution.

>Like it or not, there really isn't any other company at this scale capable of doing the sort of work Palantir

That’s only making European entrepreneurs salivate at all of that sweet EU funding they can suck up to replicate PLTR in service of their sovereignty initiatives.

They only have to replicate Palantir marketing and garnish it with a bit of nationalism. Not like the government is good at getting its money's worth in the end.

Trust me, they can't even do that.

And not forget hardware. All they have is meaningless leaders with zero vision. My dumb AI claw tool has better view of the world than they do. They might as well be replaced by those AI agents. Probably better outcome that current

This analysis is insane.

No one is invading China. Coupled or de-coupled is a completely irrelevant consideration. People think MAGA are crazy, but no one is suicidal. A war with China would be over in a matter of hours. And anyone who did not manage to get to Africa or extreme South America before the outbreak of hostilities would have a great chance of dying. The only question is will death be quick in a blast, or slow as you try to walk out of the US.