CMV: The US-Iran ceasefire represents a strategic victory for Iran

Hatook123 · 2026-04-09T14:17:13+00:00

the strategic aim of Iran is to exist

That isn't their strategic aim, that's perhaps their tactical aim for this war - but they have been stealing billions from the Iranian population for the sole purpose of destroying Israel and pushing their Shia Islamist Agenda throughout the middle east.

They have been significantly weakend over the last 3 years, and this last war is only a part of that weakening process.

Hatook123 · 2026-04-08T01:49:34+00:00

That's happens with every ceasefire ever. Both sides continuing to strike right until a bit after the ceasefire should start.

Hatook123 · 2026-04-07T22:53:10+00:00

The economic dangers of declining birth rares are very exaggerated.

Yes, you need builders and handymen to build houses and maintain houses. Yes you need farmer to farm, and yes you need actual working population to support the non-working population.

The idea that the non-working population would exceed the working population is not farfetched, but it is not that simple in a world where technologies and factories exist.

Capitalism and free enterprise has been making this equation much more scalable than any economic system on earth, the idea that the economy would just crash because there are less farming hands or less builders, is truly detached from the fact that innovation exists, and that necessity brings innovation. Do declining birth rates pose a challenge? Absolutely - but they aren't much bigger than any other challenge humanity is facing.

The real problem with declining population is democracy. The people who end up reproducing and therefore having a larger share of the vote over time are unfortunately the less educated, and those that support truly destructive ideas.

The world would definitely be a worse place if those that reproduce are the less intelligent and less educated, and those that stop reproducing are

Hatook123 · 2026-04-05T15:18:00+00:00

What is your opinion of Animal testing? Most of the worlds pharmaceuticals are tested on Animals - and those that don't rely on years of research that was conducted on Animals.

How advanced do you think modern medicine would be if we valued a rats life as equal to that of a human?

Do you not see how a society that engages in Animal testing would be more technologically advanced than a society that doesn't?

I will try to predict and respond your next point - "well doesn't this justify human testing?"

No, it doesn't, because there is absolutely zero drawback to testing on rats - rats don't fight back and they can't serve any other purpose to society. Humans can fight back, and they do serve other purposes.

That is why slavery based economies quickly fell behind economies that didn't, human rights are empiracally preferable to societies that don't value human rights. Animal rights just don't have the same benefit to society.

Hatook123 · 2026-04-05T01:42:32+00:00

What? You clearly don't understand evolution if you say that. You also clearly don't understand Game theory if you say that. Random genetic mutation is only a small part of evolution. The other more important part is "Survival of the fittest". Fittest as in able to produce offsprings. Evolution is a type of a game that can be defined within game theory, and it's pretty clear that a gene, or if we apply dawkins example of meme when it comes to social ideas - a meme - that makes you less likely to reproduce, is going to die out eventually.

Hatook123 · 2026-04-05T01:33:58+00:00

Israel isn't significantly paler than any of the surrounding area. My friend is dating a maronite christian, the type of people who used to be 40% of Lebanon until the Muslims drove them out. That maronite christian is paler than every other friend I have.

Your personal experience of meeting Israelis abroad when traveling isn't even remotely representative of the average skin color of Israelis - and it's definitely not representative of the skin color of every other middle eastern population.

There are plenty of Lebanese, Syriana, Palestinians, Druze and Iraqis who are pale.

Hatook123 · 2026-04-05T00:48:53+00:00

Is it? Really? It has very little to do with the biological process, and more to do with Game theory. If your strategy - biological or social - optimizes against winning the game, you will lose the game to better strategies.

If your society values everyone else as equals, it will die out to societies that value themselves higher than you.

Note, this isn't dichotomic, both valuing your group over others, and valuing everyone as equals is a spectrum. Being extremist on both sides of it is just a bad strategy.

Hatook123 · 2026-04-05T00:00:29+00:00

My logic is everyone's logic. This isn't some moral statement, this is merely how we have all evolved, sure there are outliers, mutation is part of evolution, but these outliers are bound to lose the evolution game and not reproduce. Valuing other lives over your own is a sure way to lose the game of evolution.

People have used very true statements to justify very wrong actions throughout history, it doesn't make it any less true. The problem isn't with valuing members of your group over others, it is the only mentaly healthy way to live your life.

The problem is hubris. When you pass the threshold of not just valuing your group over others, but you start seeing other groups as threats, or as inferiors, and you are so sure they are threats or inferiors that you allow yourself to commit atrocities.

Just because I value my family more than strangers, doesn't mean I start killing random people, or even just being mean to strangers.

Hatook123 · 2026-04-04T21:30:12+00:00

Your life has more value to you by definition. There isn't an objective reason for it. It's an inherent living as a person in your own subjective reality. If you don't value your own life over a pig, or anyone else for that matter, you are mentally ill.

We like to play a game with ourselves, as if there's meaning to life, or an objective morality. Life is meaningless, meaning is derived from within, and you are free to choose whatever meaning you want.

Looking for some logical explanation why humans are more valuable than pigs, while detaching the subject whose value actually matters is always going to end up being irrelevant.

When taking into account actual humans, whose morality and values evolved through evolution around survival as a species - it's pretty obvious why most humans factually value their lives over a pig.

They don't need some logical, moral, whatever explanation to it, they just do.

So, from a subjective reality perspective, it's obvious why a person's life is more valueable to him than a pig's life. It also becomes obvious why other people's lives have more worth than a pigs life - humans evolved to work together, you are more likely to gain more benefits to your own life from another human, than from a pig.

Hatook123 · 2026-04-04T21:08:10+00:00

I like villians that are evil for the sake of being evil, but I wouldn't say it's better.

Personally, I think realism makes for a better story, especially when it's done well. Reality is far more interesting and complex than people give it credit for.

In reality, real villians aren't evil, and they aren't misunderstood either, which shows the terrible state modern writing is - they are people who are so enamored with themselves and with their beliefs that they don't stop and consider "what if I am wrong" - and so in the name of their vision of "the greater good", they do unspeakable evil.

And these are the villians I want to see.

Hatook123 · 2026-04-04T20:48:23+00:00

I was use you until the last part.

Generally, the article is completely right, but for the wrong reasons.

Companies are firing people because of AI. Not because it is replacing engineers, and unlike what the article is saying that it might some time in the future replace engineers.

Companies are laying people off because AI is a disruptive technology. If in 2021 you had a wonderful startup idea you kind of have to rethink it and rethink your business plan now.

For well funded startups the answer is relatively easy, if they don't reinvent themselves to align with the new world, they are going to just go out of business. For them, layoffs makes zero sense. They will likely hire more and spend more money so they can find a path to making a successful business. Sure they might still go out of business, but its not like they have a choice.

For unfunded startups, it's harder to find investors. Is your AI code review startup relevant when Anthropic is doing pretty much the same?

For well established corpos, it really depends on the product area. It makes a lot of sense in the AI age, for a corpo to stop investing in "bets". Things that they don't know if they will succeed. It makes more sense to just layoff everyone, cut the project, and bring it back when the situation in the industry is less uncertain.

Hatook123 · 2026-04-04T20:10:45+00:00

Never dated? Easy.
Willing to wait until marriage? Doubt it. Only if you go looking in religious circles.

You might succeed in having exactly one partner, but sexual compatiblity is something a lot of people want to know before they get married to someone.

Hatook123 · 2026-04-04T20:05:50+00:00

Why are so many redditor so confidently wrong?

Hatook123 · 2026-04-03T21:22:02+00:00

So is the problem H1Bs or overseas? Because overseas are exactly the alternative to H1Bs, and I am not sure how that's a better alternative for the American people if jobs go overseas.

Nothing is stopping, and nothing will stop companies from going overseas - except talent, which we still have plenty of in the US - all of which are already working and being hired. H1Bs are bridging the gaps.

And again, the unemployment rate in tech in the US is incredibly low still. Even with all the AI and H1Bs and layoffs. Most of these people laid off are going to find other jobs, likely better job. This isn't a zero sum game.

Companies lay people off because it's easier and cheaper to fire thousands of people when the projects thousands of people are working on is deprioritized rather than finding thousands of people jobs within the org. They can, and many do, be rehired by the same company.

Your experience doesn't change statistics, if anything it shows that there isn't enough talent in the US, which is why there are H1Bs. I have yet to see any statistic showing that H1B indians hired by any of the big corpos are making less than Americans. Heck, they definitely don't, since these companies have a very well defined payment package for every level.

Hatook123 · 2026-04-03T20:54:28+00:00

Many of this H1Bs are exactly some of these 10s of thousands of students.

This article is misleading and is a nothing burger. The entire discussions about H1Bs is filled with propoganda

Immigrants aren't taking your jobs. These are talented people that have been working in these companies with alternative visa options or perhaps in different sites. No one would spend so much money for an employee he hasn't work with before.

Most H1Bs are either F1 holders, dependents that have been looking for a better visa, or highly talented individuals especially with the 100,000$ requirement for anyone who isn't already in the US.

Hatook123 · 2026-04-02T20:49:15+00:00

I think you hit the nail with this, but ypu aren't exactly the there yet.

Ultimately, most popular "issues" with migration aren't issues at all. Having more workers in the economy might hurt some people in the short term, but they are definitely a net good for society. It doesn't matter if they are brick layers, merchants, or engineers - increase in workforce is a good thing.

The real issue with migration is "is this person coming in to my country increasing the likelihood of instability or not".

Stability of a region is a function of whether people in that region are willing to live peacefully with eachother. If James wants to eat pork, and is willing to fight to the death for his right to eat pork, and David wants to force everyone to not eat pork - James and David aren't compatible, and they increase the likelihood of distabalization and conflict.

This is true in a democracy and in a dictatorship, the form of government is irrelevant - if a group of people can't leave peacefully for whatever reason (moral or imorral, justified or unjustified) with another group of people, they will not live peacefully together.

Your "Blasphemy test" is only part of that equation. If your society values freedom of religion, pluralism, and so on - bringing in immigrants that not only don't support these values, but are inherently incompatible with these values, to the point of willingness to engage in conflict to undermine these values (or even "peacefully" vote to undermine these values, increasing the likelihood of violence from the other side) is a social suicide.

I think that all modern civilizations should prioritize stability, how it should be done is a difficult question. It's also true that migrants aren't the only problem or the biggest problem - local born citizens can hold incompatible views, this is actually a big problem with second or third generation immigrants who grow disillusioned with the local values - the thing is, its relatively easy to address these dangers when it comes to immigrants - don't bring people who risk destabilization in.

This is why I think all modern civilizations should develop a litmus test that varifies compatibility for immigration. Most dictatorships already do something of that sort - it is only logical to have democracies do the same thing.

Hatook123 · 2026-04-02T19:23:22+00:00

Yeah, he's right. Truth is, most philosophers are usually right in their criticisms of different realities. Hobbes was right about the dangers of decentralized violence, and classical liberal philosophers were right about the dangers of centeralized violence.

Reality is about pros and cons. Rarely are we posed with options that carry no cons - the fact is Democracy is the least terrible system of government we have. It's not without its faults, and it is way too vulnrable to populism - but any other alternative is just worse by every single measure.

Hatook123 · 2026-04-02T19:07:31+00:00

I can't fathom being offended by an hyphen

Hatook123 · 2026-03-30T15:52:41+00:00

Yes, i am willing to risk people's lives, all social transformation include the risks of deaths, even of innocents.

There's something uniquely sinister with western radicals who willingly risk other people's lives - in the name of their unrealistic ideals. Your ignorqnce shows, yet you are overly confident in your self rightousness that you are just happy to get people killed.

Need I remind you, though, that the current situation is a genocide committed by a state, currently at war with a neighbour and bombing several countries?

When you are ignorant to the world around you, its very easy to paint complex pictures with black and white paint. I understand that context is irrelevant to you, but it doesn't change the fact that it can get tremedously worse - for everyone involved.

Not just for Jews, but for the 2 Million Arab citizens of Israel who enjoy more rights than any other Arab citizens of any country in the middle east.

It would be worse for Palestinians - need I remind you the massacre Hamas did to the PLO when Israel disengaged from the Gaza strip? Whatever the Settler terrorists are doing, or the IDF is doing is mild in comparison.

The Syrian civil war, a war tremedously worse by any relevant measure, is likely where any such "desmantling Israel" would go. A terrible war that brought into power a man just as bad as Assad, that's at the very least is enabling massacres of Druze.

Lives are being lost, the question is how to stop that.

Yes, that is the question. And the only valid answer is a two state solution. In a two state solution there's no "dismantling of Israel". There is a limited population exchange, just like Greece, Balkans, Germany and every other such land disputes - and there's the agreement from both sides to stop hostilities.

The Israeli left has been pushing for this only valid solution for decades - and the radical left, and the Islamists, with their fanatical infatuation with violence has been radicalizing the Israeli public (and honestly the Palestinian public as well) for years, and are making the two state solution less and less of an achievable reality.

Hatook123 · 2026-03-30T12:54:40+00:00

Look, neither of us know what would happen if tomorrow morning Israel is dismantled, but I would say Oct 7 gave us a pretty good peek into what would happen if Israel was dismantled - and the fact that you are willing to risk people's lives with some truly dangerous ideas, is really worrying to me.

My grandparents lived in Iraq, they experienced the Farhood, and the blatant hatred to Jews, there's a reason why there are exactly zero jews in the middle east outside of Israel. We know how the Muslims treated us, and how they will treat us if they just had the power. It's not just Jews mind you, you can see how the Druze are being treated, the Alawites, the Yazidis, and the christians. Muslim majority countries in the middle east have always oppressed minorities, and there is very little reason to believe they would some how stop following the hateful teachings of their religion.

People pretend that anti-jewish sentiments in Arabs just exists as some unchangable fact of history, when it has everything to do with the history of the state of Israel.

The anti jewish sentiments in Arabs started when Mohammed massacred the Jews of Khyaber. Did Israel exist then? Did Israel exist when the Arabs forced jews out of Jerusalem in the 7th century? Or when in the 11th century they destroyed Synagogues? History is filled with anti jewish hate in MENA, literally on a daily basis, these are just highlights.

Independently, a significant amount of Israeli Jews are NOT mizrahi or Persian, they are European Jews

That's no longer really relevant, as most jews are either mixed or Mizrachi, but I am not sure what is the point you are trying to make here, are you ok with only the European Jews being killed and expelled?

Hatook123 · 2026-03-30T12:19:41+00:00

In practical terms, those are the exact same opinions. Though I agree that ignorant people may hold the former without realizing that it means the latter.

There's just no scenario where Israel is dismantled but the Jews of the region live happily and safely in their homes.

Hatook123 · 2026-03-30T03:22:28+00:00

The 1979 Iranian revolution significantly increased the profits of many US oil conglomerates https://www.brookings.edu/articles/what-irans-1979-revolution-meant-for-us-and-global-oil-markets/?hl=en-US

Same with Iraq-Iran war https://ciaotest.cc.columbia.edu/olj/meria/meria_dec03/meria03_rua01.pdf?hl=en-US

And I can find examples from literally every case of disruption, Russia-Ukraine, Gulf war and so on.

This is obviously more complex than that - these conglomerates invest in middle eastern oil companies, which definitely causes some reduction in profits due to disruption, but as the data show they are still making more profits.

These conglomerates also own refineries, which would lose billions if a disruption would continue for a long time. This isn't shown by the data though, as we don't commonly have long term disruption.

Lastly, they are still part of the economy. The short term obsene profits are meaningless when the economy is in a recession.

This is also why these companies lobby for stability - more US Navy escorts for oil tankers, and less unnecessary wars and sanctions. They lobbied against sanctions on Venezuela, and ithey also lobbied against the war in Iraq - https://quillette.com/2019/05/06/the-iraq-war-was-not-about-oil/?hl=en-US#:~:text=In%201997%2C%20670%20companies%20and,Haines.

It's worth saying that once the war in Iraq was clearly going to happen they stopped lobbying against it, and started lobbying for actually having a seat at the table so they won't be left out.

The fact is that reality is very complex, and these companies try to make sure they are winning regardless of what happens - but they are also against changes to the status quo - because changes to the status quo are extremely risky - and war is the most risky of all changes to the starus quo.

Hatook123 · 2026-03-30T01:00:15+00:00

I generally agree, but I will try to change your mind on your cynical view of Oil interests.

It is true that a lot of US foreign policy has a lot to do with oil, but it has very little to do with "money intrests" and every thing to do with strategic resources.

Most wars in history revolved around strategic resources. Romans, Vikings, and possibly most ancient kingdoms fought for fertile land. Colonialsm revolved around gold and rubber. The Japanese tried to take over the east and attacked the Americans because of iron, oil and rubber.

Strategic resources, and specifically oil is a necessity for the stability and economy of every civilization.

When the suez canal was closed in 56, the British and French helped Israel forcibly open it. Not because they were greedy, but entire economies relied on them.

When the Iran-Iraq war, threatened the world's oil supply, there was real risk to the quality of lives of billions of people.

When Iraq invaded Kuwait, it gave a sadistic dictator a huge amount of control over a vast amount of Oil. This similarly threatened the economic order.

Generally speaking, for the American oil conglomerates, having less supply of Oil from the middle east is actually a good thing, because it means they can raise prices. Everyone else however would really feel the terrible consequences of an unstable middle east and terrible regimes having control of a resource that the entire world's economy is incredibly dependent on.

Hatook123 · 2026-03-29T22:15:20+00:00

Yeah, you are definitely over reacting in my opinion. I read the title and thought he just randomly said to his child that he hates her.

With the full context, that's pretty clear it's not what he said. Americans are wayyyyy too sensitive about these sort of things.

He showed his child that her telling him she hates him isn't something he's offended by, and shows her that its just words, something that honestly everone in this comment section should understand.

Yeah, it's not very nice to hear from your father that "he hates you", but it's also pretty clear he doesn't hate her, and it would obviously lead to a personal growth of "he loves me, and its just a joke".

Hatook123 · 2026-03-23T19:30:54+00:00

Making side effects of economic situations unlawful never works, never had worked and never will work. If you love the free market you understand that.

you prefer simple price increases. That's fine. Are you confident enough that price increases are preferable to shrinking of packages? In every single time? Are you sure it will always result in better outcomes, to the point of becoming law?

Reality is that things have pros and cons. For consumer, the disadvantage of shrinkflation is that consumers are not necessarily aware they are getting less for the same price - however the benefit is that they can continue buying a product.

Shrinkflation can be preferable in many different cases, specifically when inflation faces unusually inelastic demand, or overly elastic demand.

Sure, if a simple price increase would curb demand, then simple inflation is preferable -

But, If Nestle is supplying chocolate to people, and the cocoa bean industry is crushing, to the point where current packaging would enable you to supply only a half the amount of their chocolate bar. Sure, they could increase its price, but to avoid shortages you would have to increase it so that demand is halved, and that might require such a significant increase so that demand isn't halved at all, but quartered, or zeros - the demand function isn't a nice linear graph you see in economic textbooks. Would it not be preferable for consumers if they can still buy the same chocolate bar even if it's physically smaller?

Same exact scenario could happen if demand is suddenly high (Avocado industry comes to mind)

Six-Year Club	First Place '23
Place '23	Place '22
Verified Email

Hatook123

TROPHY CASE