It's just not with AI though. It's who they get their advise from. One of my friend was cribbing to me about his company management - apparently someone in management discovered that PostgresDB is a real good database and free, and so they authorised the IT department to migrate their application from Oracle Cloud to PostgresDB as it will "save a lot of money" (true, but...). However, they aren't willing to shell out for the commercial solutions (like EnterpriseDB, which would be still a lot cheaper than Oracle), and are insisting that the team also recreate "all and every" feature that Oracle DB has and is used by their application, but is lacking in PostgresDB - after all, "If Oracle can do it, why can't you!?".
Memories of me and my three developer team being told "we need to use Excel, but in a web browser. So just make an app that does everything like Excel"
47 years if you count from the first release. But now you have this super intelligent thing that enables anyone to create a billion dollar business - you have no excuse!
"Hey Opus, create me an fully tested code base for Oracle-like DB from scratch. Don't overcomplicate it, so it should be ready with when I get back from lunch"?
I had a similar experience but with MSSQL, was invited to join some meetings with MS Sales folks. I quickly learned the project was never meant to succeed, but was simply leverage to negotiate a better contract.
If I put on my tinfoil hat, it seems to be something deliberate, to push us all towards accepting hardware / software attestation and better "online id" stuff - "Don't you want to identify and stop the spammers and phishers?".
Email scanning and file scanning (on our computer) became acceptable when the level of spam and malware became intolerable. But it was at cost of our privacy. Today, Gmail scans all your mails and makes money from it. Both Windows and macOS have built-in anti-virus or malware scanners, and file indexers, and thus know all the applications and files in your system (which provides for more data on your profile with them). Now with both OSes, and even browsers like Chrome and Firefox, including AI, they will now use our own computers to not only collect our personal data, but even process it on our system and use it to build even better profiles to more profitably exploit us.
It doesn't have to be deliberate; it's just the economic incentives at work. AI providers are inclined to sell AI to everyone with a pulse, and it just so happens that a lot of its use will for towards spam generation.
It also just happens that they're the ones best positioned to provide attestation and identity services.
This is an interesting project - kudos for executing it. I have to admit that when I was starting out in this field, I too fantasised about, "Would this software be faster, smaller and better in assembly?". Ofcourse, assembly programming made some sense in embedded electronics, which can be very resource constrained and even specialised for one particular application. Thinking from that aspect, perhaps you should consider making this a specialised program that runs on something like a Raspberry Pi - running such a web server directly on it, without an OS (or a very minimal OS), would make for a real cool and interesting project.
I was thinking more of the memory usage. As another project posted on HN described, they were running the web server in the RAM of an RPi ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48064312 ). Without a full-fledged OS, and a tiny (and fast) webserver coded in Assembly, more RAM would be available for the webserver and they could serve more users.
I did actually make an attempt at that once for BGGP5 [0]. (That is, making a minimal, horribly insecure 'client' implementing just enough behavior to get a response from a server.) But I got demoralized by how much space the binary blobs for the crypto algorithms took up, in comparison to the actual machine code.
I'd really like to see a TCP/IP stack written in native forth (if anyone needs a really good therapist, that sounds like a _great_ project to try ;)
I mean, it doesn't look _that_ daunting, but the fact that noone seems to ever have release an open source version (there are rumours of proprietary stacks though) speaks for itself.
Yes, well aware of it, that's actually very nice for building higher levels of the webserver.
I'd really like to have a complete forth machine dealing with everything, say on an esp32. I guess there's FreeRTOS, so I could use that network layer, but bare metal would be so much cooler. I admit I don't even understand how it would work - would I have to bit-bang the ethernet lines?
I never interface with the peripheral in an ESP32 directly. I guess I really need to read the Free-RTOS code. Micropython just uses that, last I checked.
What on earth are you talking about? Assembly makes sense in desktop computing as well. Have you ever, for example, watched a video? What do you think powers the codecs, JSX?
The statistics reported by GitLab for the x264 repo (https://code.videolan.org/videolan/x264) report that the project is 13.5% assembly; common utilities used in the inner loops of the codec have optimized assembly implementations for several CPU architectures.
A lot of the encoding side on ffmpeg now uses hand-coded assembly optimizations to take advantage of avx512 instructions on newer x64 processors for "100x speed increase" since February 2025 in a stable form
Yes, I do know that some Assembly is used in systems programming and other niches where it makes sense. To be clear, I was talking about the phase some of us go through (as amateurs) when we think everything would be "faster, smaller, better" if written in assembly - Python is slow. What about C or Pascal? Wouldn't asm be faster? ... but, as we all realise sooner or later, there's a reason we prefer to code in high-level or very high-level languages, and why pre-mature optimisation can be a real handicap.
Ah yes, the niche that is video, audio, game and systems programming.
When those three to four amateurs still doing those niche things grow up they’ll move on to real programming, like putting together a solid skills.md file.
Your snide comments make me think that you are trying to create a parody account that matches your nick here (@hatefulheart). Just a heads up, unlike Reddit or other SMs, such things are not appreciated much here on HN.
Sounds like I was absolutely right alright, and so was @thisislife2. Just yet another pitiful case of falling for the "hard truths <-> hurt feelings" reversal.
Not even sure why. Something being niche is not a knock, not one way, not another. Such a weird thing to throw a sad fit like this about.
I interact with Assembly everyday and many of those around me do too. So I wouldn’t label it as niche. If there are thousands of people doing something in computing, it ain’t niche. It’s niche when the numbers are much smaller than that.
Judging by the downvotes that other guy got, he wasn’t “absolutely correct!” as you seem to claim.
> If there are thousands of people doing something in computing, it ain’t niche.
Quick web search suggests there are 4.4 million software developers in the US alone. For the record, I think a lot more people touch assembly weekly than your bellyfeel figure, but it's still nevertheless worlds apart. Such a weird thing to try and deny. Not even sure why you'd feel compelled to per se, it's not the coat that wears you.
> Judging by the downvotes that other guy got, he wasn’t “absolutely correct!” as you seem to claim.
I agree with you that war can easily become unpopular and turn people against their government. But is there any country, whose economy has been sanctioned by the foreigners and crippled by it, where the people then decided to overthrow their government? As far as I know my history, no. Foreign sanctions easily give every country an easy excuse to blame all economic problems on the foreigners. In every instance, they've actually united nations against their "common" enemy (i.e. the foreign sanctioner). They also provide an excuse to stifle criticism using state powers as any criticism on the government handling of the economy can be conveniently labelled as speaking the language of the "enemy" and / or supporting the "enemy".
While I understand that the true purpose of sanctions is to weaken a country's military, sometimes I do wonder if it is a war crime as it also ends up effectively "punishing the people".
I admit I don't know a huge amount about the history of sanctions. I would think it's a relatively modern phenomenon. In any case, yes I'd agree that people aren't going to cite them as a direct cause. Retrospectively they won't say that sanctions directly led to a political change. They add additional pressure.
I don't see the people in Russia overthrowing their government either. It seems more likely that internal public pressure would embolden a political change. It only takes the second layer collectively deciding it's politically expedient.
That doesn't necessarily mean the war stops though. Russia has been reshaping itself into a war economy to keep going, that might be hard to unwind.
No. While Iran is heavily sanctioned, the current "uprising" was foreign-instigated, and a poorly executed intelligence operation that tried to hijack what was otherwise a normal political protest (that is actually a usual occurrence in Iran, despite western media claims of "no democracy"). The hope was that just as in Ukraine, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Nepal, peaceful political protests could be transformed into violent ones through planted intelligence operatives in them, which would naturally force the government to use state violence to control it. Amidst a disinformation campaign, this would result in an escalation of violence from both sides, which could then be fanned further through foreign-controlled social media platforms to instigate young idiots to join the "mass" protest and foment a "revolution".
The reason it succeeded in Ukraine and Bangladesh was because of a clear polity divide amongst the population, and huge local support from one of the political sides (including, very importantly, the army), which meant the double goal of (1) getting rid of an "unfriendly" government and (2) installing a "friendly" government could easily succeed. In Sri Lanka and Nepal, it has meant a regime change, but it isn't clear if whoever fomented the "revolution" - the west or the Chinese - have managed to get the desired "friendly" government. However, in all 4 cases, the so-called "revolution" has replaced experienced democratically elected leaders with inexperienced politicians at the helm (which is the second-best option you could hope for, if you can't install a puppet, as inexperienced leaders are more susceptible to political manipulations).
In Iran, what went wrong with this "revolution" is that, first, there is no real local support for pro-west or pro-Israel polity. All those who remember the Shah's regime (when Iran was an ally of the west) and had fond perceptions of the west are now either old or dead. Most of Shah's political supporters were either purged or left with the Shah to the US (or elsewhere). The later, and current, generation has only grown up experiencing American and Israeli hostilities. Irrational western Islamophobia and Israeli-right's hostility to Islam also doesn't help. Along with an understanding of imperialistic history, they despise repeated western attempts of interference in their politics and thus, overall, have have no goodwill to either regimes. Thus, those hoping for a regime change and the installation of the Shah were always delusional that any hostility for the Ayatollah could be translated to support for the west and the Shah. (Moreover, the current "Shah" - the son of deposed Shah - who the west hope to install in power, chooses to stay in US or Europe and thus has no support or understanding of the domestic politics of Iran, and he largely perceived as a puppet of America and Israel amongst the local Iranians).
Second, Trump and Netanyahu's regime underestimated the Ayatollah regime. They figured that just as in Ukraine, Bangladesh, Nepal and Sri Lanka, the government would somehow cave-in under the violent protests rather than opt to suppress the political violence because of the high death toll. Perhaps they might have partially caved-in, if not, for Trump's and Netanyahu's very public "appeal" to the Iranians to "seize the moment" and overthrow the government. This immediately made the Ayatollah regime resolute that the revolution was foreign-instigated, and gave it a public excuse to unleash State violence as an emergency measure (that any State would normally do when faced with a foreign backed insurgency) against protestors. And as Trump's regime claims, the "revolution really failed because the guns that were supposed to be distributed amongst disgruntled Iranians never reached them. Moreover, Iran, that has been surrounded by west and western allies, that has repeatedly sought to undermine it, has been studying western imperialism and destabilisation strategies for decades now. After seeing what happened in Ukraine, Bangladesh, Nepal and Sri Lanka (who were genuinely unprepared for an unexpected violent political protests, in their political planning), it probably already had a contingency in place for a similar situation that the west never anticipated.
Also, if the Americans and Israelis had been more patient, and not immediately attacked Iran, the high death toll (around 3000 or so) of the Iranian protestors could have been used against the Ayotallah regime. The deaths (and arrests) had resulted in a rise of anger and hostility against the regime, which could have been tapped in by the local opposition (who have been demanding further reforms in Iran's pseudo-democracy). All that political potential has been forever lost now because of the rash decision to kill the Ayatollah (who is now considered a martyr, and even more revered) and invade Iran.
Everything that could go wrong, has gone wrong, with the current political strategy against Iran ...
> But is there any country, whose economy has been sanctioned by the foreigners and crippled by it, where the people then decided to overthrow their government?
Arguably the Soviet Union. There's also a fairly strong argument, I think, that apartheid South Africa jumped before it was pushed, here.
There was also an attempt in Belarus, but Belarus is imperfectly sanctioned; it has Russia propping it up. There is no super-Russia propping Russia up, however (China's support is fairly conditional and Putin would be foolish to depend on it.)
Can you share some sources for the claim on Soviet union disintegrating because of sanctions? As far as I am aware, the USSR collapsed because its economy was mismanaged and extended, and the planned US move to depress oil prices finally pushed it over the edge. Moreover, Gorbachev was also an important factor to this.
And this will then be used by the Apple and Google to make "security" on the OS "stronger" so that "we can protect the children" better (i.e. lock down the OS even more and take control away from us consumers). In this new idiocracy, this this is how corporates and government work together to take away our rights ...
"Reputational" crisis. Not the depravity of genocide and colonialism.
Also a good read - The West’s bubble of illusion about Israel - and about itself – is finally being burst - https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/west-bubble-illusion-i... - The genocide in Gaza and ethnic cleansing in Lebanon exhausted the West’s moral legitimacy. Now Iran is slowly exhausting the West’s military primacy.
For me the key point was how the frog is slowly being boiled and macOS is being converted slowly to ios / iPadOS with increasing restrictions. Case in point, now system developers cannot build and sell custom virtualisation solutions for Macs:
> For vendors like VMware and Parallels ... there’s no scope for either of them to engineer better or faster graphics support, as that’s determined by features provided in both guest and host operating systems, via Virtio or an equivalent. That puts Apple in charge of what hardware and features are supported by virtualisation on Apple silicon.
> The UAE may be the only Arab country where Jews are not only allowed to live, but can do so safely without fearing either their neighbors or their government.
That's not entirely true. Judaism is one of the legally recognised minority religions of Iran and Iran still retains an ancient Jewish community of 10,000 - 15,000 Iranian Jews that also have 30+ synagogues in Iran - Tehran’s embattled Jewish community endures despite Israeli bombing of synagogue - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/apr/22/tehran-embattl...:
> By the time he got up the next morning to get ready for work, an Israeli airstrike had completely destroyed the synagogue ... “We condemn this attack. It disrespects our faith. Iran’s Jewish community doesn’t have good relations with the Zionist Israeli government,” he said. Iran’s Jewish community is the largest and oldest in the Middle East outside Israel, dating back about 2,500 years to when Jews were exiled eastwards by Assyrian and Babylonian rulers ... About two decades ago, Israel encouraged Iranian Jews to emigrate, offering cash incentives in an attempt to prompt a mass migration. At the time, the Society of Iranian Jews dismissed the offer as “immature political enticements” and said their national identity was not for sale.
1. As another commenter already pointed out, Iran is not an Arab country
2. It is very true that the Iranian people absolutely does not hate Jews. In most Arab capitals, simply to walk around while visibly Jewish is either risky or downright suicidal. The same is true in other Muslim countries such as Pakistan, and increasingly in majority Muslim neighborhoods in Western cities. Iran does not have this problem. In fact the Iranian and Jewish peoples share a deep bond that goes back to the time of Cyrus the great, who famously freed the Jews of Babylon in 538 BCE, and allowed them to return to their homeland and rebuild their temple. To this day, Iranians and Israelis tend to get along. For example, the Iranian diaspora is conspicuously absent from anti-Israel protests in the US, and you will often see Israeli and pre-revolutionary Iranian flags flying together in anti-IRGC "Free Iran" protests (to the dismay and confusion of pro-IRGC protesters).
3. The current islamic government of Iran - the IRGC - has historically persecuted and executed Iranian Jews, especially in the early days of the revolution. There is a reason so many Iranian Jews live in the US... It is true that they have not implemented a Nazi-style policy of total eradication of their Jewish population, even though their foreign policy is entirely built on total eradication of Jews abroad. But let's be clear: Jews in Iran live in a state of submission and fear. In theory the IRGC is "anti-zionist" and not "anti-Jewish"; in practice the difference is blurry and arbitrary: Jews are eternally suspected of duplicity and disloyalty, and must continuously prove that they are not secretly "zionists". When Iranian Jews make public statements criticizing Israel, they are doing so because of this pressure from a totalitarian regime, and their safety depends on it. A statement by the Jewish community in Iran only reflects what the IRGC wants them to say. A useful comparison is Soviet anti-zionism, which followed similar patterns: Soviet Jews often denounced zionism loudly and publicly, and from the outside it appeared that Jews were a "protected minority" living peacefully. But ask Jews who actually lived in the Soviet Union at the time, and you will hear a very different story...
Yes, the Iranian government has indeed targeted Jews suspected of working against Iran, especially when things were in a turmoil post-revolution, and that did lead to around 70%-80% of the community migrating to US and Israel. But I don't believe it is just the fear of persecution that was their motivation in migrating - for some it was zionism, for others it was more of the political ideological difference with the revolutionaries (they were in the Shah's camp) and the real uncertainty and lack of political stability and violence during and after the revolution.
> the Iranian diaspora is conspicuously absent from anti-Israel protests in the US
Iranians who migrated to the west are largely supporters of the Shah, who was overthrown by the revolutionaries, and thus they despise the revolutionary government. Israel hates the Iranian revolutionaries too and so the Iranian diaspora found themselves in favour of Israel because of this shared sentiment of hate against the current Iranian government. However, anti-Israeli sentiments in Iranian diaspora has increased now because of Netanyahu's foolish genocide in Gaza, and the supporters of Shah (and Israel) have now increasingly have resort to intimidation to suppress many of them from speaking out for Palestinains and against Israel. As this MEE article outlines - How pro-Israel Iranian Americans are silencing Palestine supporters - https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/war-gaza-how-pro-israel-i... :
> Several Iranian-American activists who spoke to Middle East Eye on condition of anonymity have said they fear speaking out in support of Palestine, saying that anyone who does so publicly has been faced with doxxing campaigns and even threats to their lives. "It's one of those things where it's caused a huge divide in the community," said one Iranian activist ... They say the reason that it appears that most Iranians in the diaspora are pro-Israel is because most of the ones who do support Palestine are afraid to speak up. "The vocal presence of Iranian Zionists online and at rallies might create a misleading perception. In reality, many Iranians are afraid to speak out and do not align with this viewpoint," said one Iranian activist who spoke to MEE on condition of anonymity. "The loudness on social media doesn't accurately represent the broader sentiment."
> But let's be clear: Jews in Iran live in a state of submission and fear ... jews are eternally suspected of duplicity and disloyalty, and must continuously prove that they are not secretly "zionists".
This is a common propaganda for fear mongering amongst the minorities. Interestingly, Pakistanis say the same thing about Muslims living in India. And yes, while there are isolated incidents of minority violence against Muslims in India too (just as there are against the Jews in Iran), it is not a common occurrence in society driven by hate against these minorities.
Your entire argument is built on a single source: Middle East Eye. That source is a known Qatar propaganda outlet, they do not meet even the lowest bar of journalistic integrity or credibility. You might as well be quoting Russia Today about the war in Uraine.
A few facts about MEE:
1. During the 2017 diplomatic crisis with Qatar over their support of terrorism, Saudi Arabia and the UAE issued a list of demands to Qatar. One of these demands was to shutdown their propaganda outlets - including MEE. Other demands included the severing of ties with Hamas and Hezbollah, and the handing over of internationally wanted terrorists harbored by Qatar. Another demand was to cut off collaboration with Iran's REvolutionary Guards... [1]
2. MEE is entirely controlled by a single individual, Jamal Awn Jamal Bessasso - formerly director of planning and human resources at Al Jazeera in Qatar [2]. Bessasso was also a director at Samalink TV, a company that broadcasts Al-Quds TV - a Hamas-controlled station. [3][4] He has a history of social media posts praising Hamas and advocating for violence against the enemies of Islam.
3. Several other MEE employees have previously worked at Al-Jazeera. At least one MEE employee has previously worked for a Hamas-funded nonprofit.
4. Over the years, MEE has often gained exclusive access to Hamas leadership, and acted as their de facto PR arm.
5. MEE does not disclose its sources of funding. It is a complete black box.
In short: you are uncritically quoting a known propaganda outlet of Qatar, that was explicitly designated by several countries as part of Qatar's terrorism support network, has several links to Hamas, does not disclose its sources of funding, and is controlled by a known supporter of Hamas.
So, I hope you'll forgive me for not taking any of your derived arguments seriously. I took the time to share this information to make sure that nobody reading this exchange takes them seriously, either. This uncritical amplification of obvious propaganda has got to stop.
In my country, Qatar is not considered as a "terrorist" sponsor. Neither is Hamas considered a terrorist organisation (like in most parts of the Global South). Neither is RT nor MEE nor Al-Jazeera banned or considered a part of any "terrorism network" - I treat them the same as any State run media outlet (including the BBC, DW, or NPR).
India very much does consider Hamas a terrorist organization. Modi has clearly condemned its actions and repeatedly expressed support for Israel
against terrorism.
It's true that they have not publicly criticized Qatar for harboring Hamas or supporting terrorist groups.
We Indians, in general, despise political violence, and so we do sympathise with the Israeli victims of Palestinian violence. We however also recognize that the political violence is of Israeli-right's own making - one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. That is why PLO or Hamas is not officially recognized or banned as a terrorist organisation by India (or the most of the Global South). Israel's pursuit of being a settler-colonial state has been criticised since the time of Gandhi, who has never supported Zionism at the expense of Palestinian's right:
> “My sympathies are all with the Jews… They have been the untouchables of Christianity. The parallel between their treatment by Christians and the treatment of untouchables by Hindus is very close. Religious sanction has been invoked in both cases for the justification of the inhuman treatment meted out to them,” Gandhi wrote in the Harijan article ... “It is wrong and inhumane to impose the Jews on the Arabs…,” he wrote. “It would be a crime against humanity to reduce the proud Arabs so that Palestine can be restored to the Jews partly or wholly as their national home,” Gandhi said ... “A religious act [the act of Jews returning to Palestine] cannot be performed with the aid of the bayonet or the bomb,” he wrote ... “The Jews have a good cause. I told (British Zionist MP) Sidney Silverman that the Jews have a good case in Palestine. If the Arabs have a claim to Palestine, the Jews have a prior claim.” ... “But for their [the Jews’] heartless persecution, probably no question of return to Palestine would ever have arisen,” he wrote in “Jews And Palestine”. “They have erred grievously in seeking to impose themselves on Palestine with the aid of America and Britain and now with the aid of naked terrorism,” he wrote.
(Note that India's current one-sided bonhomie with Israel is an exception and based more on the rapport of shared political values between Modi, Netanayhu and their respective political parties - Sanghis, i.e. Hindu religious fundamentalists, in India, and religious fundamentalists Zionists in Israel share a common political ideology - https://youtu.be/mZhugTmSrMo?t=1696 ).
> That is why PLO or Hamas is not officially recognized or banned as a terrorist organisation by India (or the most of the Global South).
This is false. India does not have a list of named terrorist organizations, in the way that the US does for example. But there is zero indication anywhere that India specifically considers Hamas not to be a terrorist organization - you are making that up by projecting your own personal views.
You only speak for yourself, not for the Indian government or any other Indians. Your personal view is that Hamas is not a terrorist organization, and that they (and PLO before them) are justified in their use of violence. I strongly disagree with that view, and so do most people. Your view is a fringe view - and it better explains why you don't mind quoting propaganda outlets that openly align with Hamas - you yourself are aligned with Hamas.
The bottom line is that I believe Hamas is a terrorist organization, and you don't. So there's no valuable discussion to be had with you on this topic.
> But there is zero indication anywhere that India specifically considers Hamas not to be a terrorist organization - you are making that up ... Your view is a fringe view ...
Here you go - Former Hamas chief addresses pro-Palestine rally in Kerala - https://www.theweek.in/news/india/2023/10/28/hamas-leader-ad... (and it's not the first time a Palestinian leader was invited to speak in India). No action has been taken, despite the noise Modi's political party made because legally no law was broken as neither the Hamas speaker nor Hamas is banned in India ... And here's another example, of an opposition leader, showing solidarity with Palestine and even public rebuking the Netanyahu government for the Gaza genocide - Priyanka Gandhi expresses solidarity by carrying bag emblazoned with 'Palestine' to Parliament - https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/priyanka-gandhi-expre... ...
As an Indian, I support both Israel and Palestine, but not their right-wing extremism often laced with religious fundamentalism. Unfortunately, the Netanyahu regime is the worst of Israel-right and I do feel sorry that he is dragging all of Israel down with him.
You are however probably right that we don't see eye to eye here on Israel-Palestine politics.
No, way off on Egypt aligning with UAE. It is Turkey, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt who are considering forming a military alliance, specifically against Israel, because they don't trust today's deranged Israeli politicians and the American military when it comes to Israel - The Security Pact America Was Not Invited To - https://houseofsaud.com/turkey-saudi-egypt-pakistan-security... . And, according to a Pakistani journalist, UAE asked Pakistan to attack Iran (activate the Saudi-Pakistan defence pact) or pay back all it owes to UAE. Pakistan decided to pay back because it didn't really want to be seen joining Israel in attacking a muslim nation with which Pakistan has no enmity - https://www.tehrantimes.com/news/525590/Iran-s-military-stre... .
reply