Change imposed by force never works. Iranian people need to overwhelmingly decide to do it. Providing help is fine, but bombing them into "freedom" never works. It actually has the opposite effect, when you feel in danger (because for example bombs are falling around you) you'll less likely to start a revolution.

People from some cultures (typically those where Islam is dominant, but not exclusively) are more prone to behavior like this. Probably due to a system of values they have adopted in their environment and upbringing.
Call it Islamophobia or something else it does lend itself to the idea that some people should be regarded with more default suspicion than others, based on their origins. As long as each individual is treated as just that - individual, and not blamed for the crimes of others, a higher base level of suspicion is unfortunate but a normal human reaction that shouldn't be treated as some kind of horrible sin.

Um, why would they attack a prison? People locked up there are presumably not friends with the Iranian government, and it's not a likely place to keep any military supplies.

Yes but he did it the wrong way South America -> Polynesia.

Turns out it actually happened the other way around Asia -> Polynesia -> South America. Most likely, still a lot to be determined.

PhD overproduction (and subsequently devaluation) is a real thing. The intention of PhDs was to reward and recognize major original contributions to a specific field of science. It turned into another academic "level" that you have to grind towards by producing a large quantity of articles. Even before AI the academic slop was a real thing.

Sound like a standard case of misaligned incentives in a planned economy. As far as those go this is quite benign.

Central government sets targets for selling cars domestically, so of course every car is going to be sold domestically. Even those sold internationally.

Part of it makes sense. We live longer and longer, retirement age is something that needs to be adjusted with the human lifespan.

The problem is that our idea of what "work" should be is so awful that people look forward to retiring, and logically complain if they are denied the opportunity.

I've seen claims both ways, and it's too much debate about semantics.

Those facilities are damaged enough to be useless in the short term (few months at least). In the long term Iran can build new facilities regardless if these ones are completely destroyed or merely damaged.

The headline is somewhat misleading. Iran said US personnel are legitimate targets (meaning those employed by the US government. Not all US citizens.

Although if I were American I would not risk depending on the judgment of a random Iranian soldier.

Milei understands money. He might fail to understand many other things, he might cause more harm than good in other ways, but he understands money. If you want to stop inflation, Milei is your man.

Almost like prison is not a good way to deal with most crime.

By default property crimes should be dealt with by full confiscation of stolen property and 6 months of community service (or prison if the convicted so chooses). Each time they do it. With full effort of police to resolve every single case and express trials. No sentencing to harsh penalties as a deterrence, just a 99% chance you'll be caught.

Isolated cases of violence, like a bar fight etc. Some counseling and community service again.

Consistently violent people are a different story. Say murders or multiple assaults. They should be kept locked indefinitely with annual review, until they pass some test to determine they are unlikely to be violent again.

Continue the war. Doesn't matter too much when and against who. Constant war is the only thing keeping Netanyahu in power. They're going to keep doing it as long as they can.

BRICSV? VBRICS? BRVICS?

I disagree with the conclusion of the article, although the contents do touch on some important points.

The article itself claims there aren't enough resources for everyone to live a "developed country lifestyle", which is connected to higher emissions per capita.
One way forward is to reduce the consumption. But the other way is to reduce the population so there is enough for everyone to be at least somewhat wasteful. Imo, the best would be both.

We do need to reduce the human population. About 4-5 billion would be ideal.
On the negative side, we don't know how to handle this situation of declining population. The entire human history is one of non-stop growth interrupted only by catastrophic pandemics, which were the only way the population dropped so far.

That's true. My argument is that before, when people had more children, they didn't care about bringing them into a bad world. Even 100 years ago it was expected some of your children will die.

Now, children dying is not a nice thing. Luckily we solved it and these days if you behave like our ancestors you will have too many children for society to be sustainable.

But if you're in a situation where there are too few children for a sustainable society, encouraging risk would help.

All being said, I actually believe we need to reduce the human population. But we don't know how to handle a sudden decline, or if we can level it out later. So a gradual decrease would be preferable.

I'm noticing a pattern here. Not just about Japanese society but many others as well.

It's never "we want to have a child so we will"
It's always "this is a series of rules, procedures and conditions to fulfill before you can have a child"

It took much longer than it should have.

One of the greatest successes of Netanyahu (and catastrophic failing of pro-Gaza activists who accepted the narrative) is to equalize "support for Israel existing" and "support for genocide".

Gig economy coming to disrupt the terrorism market