Oh, didn't you hear, we actually _triple tapped_ the school, so after the first wave of rescuers was also hit, anyone who came to help was also attacked.
Even if true, it's legally incorrect, btw. There are 2 kinds of warcrimes: Rome treaty (the only legal definition) and Geneva convention. The Rome treaty allows countries to opt-out of the treaty, and then nothing on their territory qualifies as a war crime. Iran has opted out of the Rome treaty, and so when it comes to international law, nothing that happens on Iranian soil is a war crime.
And we all know WHY islamists want it that way. But of course they will confuse matters as propaganda ...
Second, "colloquial" definition of a war crime are Geneva convention violations. And ignoring that EVERY attack Iran executed in the 2 days was a warcrime in that definition. Every last one. They didn't even try to go after military targets for days. But ignoring that.
What warcrimes do, in the sense of the Geneva convention, is that they are justifications for the UNSC to intervene, should it want to. Well, Russia, China and France have just declared that the UNSC does not follow the reasoning that these are warcrimes. Not because they don't believe Geneva convention violations aren't heinous crimes (of course Iran has violated it constantly for 50+ years with constant heinous crimes), but that these states don't see any reason to act.
"According to witness accounts verified by satellite-based analyses, the school was triple tapped by three distinct strikes."
War crime isn't just a legal definition, just like the world was genocide-free before WW2. And by your reasoning it's totally fine to genocide people as long as no treaty/law prevents it. Of course it isn't.
Most people would agree to say that bombing a school or a dessalination plant is a war crime, whatever the convention was signed before. Schoolchildren are not responsible for the IRGC's actions.
> Second, "colloquial" definition of a war crime are Geneva convention violations.
The other "colloquial" definition of a war crime is "things we prosecuted the Nazis for at Nuremberg".
One side here is playing "world's police", so this "but those people (that we've painted as fundamentalist extremist terrorists) are committing war crimes so why shouldn't we get to, too?" isn't exactly the fine upstanding argument that you seem to think it is, just as it's not when the IDF responds to children throwing rocks at main battle tanks with live ammunition and turning off the power to a country for three days.
Name one country that made September 11 a public holiday.
A lot of "celebrated misfortune" is a byproduct of arrogance and the pretense that the US is "smarter" (witness how often the US likes to play "world police"... and how often it correlates to US self-interest. There's nothing wrong with self-interest, but no-one's buying some noble "world police" bullshit when it only seems to happen when the US has something to gain). Certainly not limited to, but also certainly amplified hugely by the present administration.
In the product space... I get that this is a seller's market, but it's frustrating to see job applications that have (in Aha's) case "write 14 paragraphs of detailed and specific breakdowns of x and y and z before we'll even decide if we'll speak to you".
We all want to get away from AI slop, etc., but after having been burned one too many times by "perform an hour or more of work in applying for this job to not even get anything more than acknowledgment of receipt followed by crickets", I see that, and I turn away.
I've seen this company advertise this job every place they can and I applied to them a bunch and never once heard back. These guys are a certified Fake Job Poster.
I have thoughts on WellFound (formerly AngelList)...
Is Wellfound a scam? Or has it become one?
I'd been on the job market four months. Every day I did the rounds: Levels, Wellfound, YC/jobs, Glassdoor, Indeed, LinkedIn.
It is what it is, as a crappy jobs market.
Wellfound? I didn't ever hear from anything from their job ads.
And I'm pretty certain that whatever Wellfound/AngelList was, it has become a company that just markets resume writing, resume review, all sorts of other services that draw in your money somehow.
Why do I say that?
80+ applications on Wellfound since then. Crickets.
One day I got an email, "Your profile has been viewed!". Weird, never seen an email like that from Wellfound. Indeed, "You have 1 profile view in the last 90 days".
Huh. 80+ applications, 80+ times me answering content questions on "why you would be a good fit for this role", "tell us about x and y and z", no interviews, no contact, only ONE company has ever even viewed my profile (and for what it's worth, it's not a company that has any positions open).
Well, maybe my answers suck, you say. Maybe my resume isn't as impressive as I think it is.
But similar answers and the same resume get me fairly steady hits on every other site I mentioned, I've got to multiple final rounds, I've been explicitly told I was hirable, I was just the number two, I was "in the top three".
And to be clear, many of the companies I see on WF are advertising on other sites too.
My suspicion? WF does take job listings, but they also harvest them from other sites - the job is real, but there's no-one from the employer reviewing the applications to their "phantom" job... and meanwhile all people like me are doing are providing content for WF to harvest for their AI-driven resume writing and review service and other products.
Thanks for this comment, I've applied a couple of times through WF and the results were the same (not as many times as you did but still). However, I did find a couple of companies through WF but then contacted a recruiter on Linkedin and that did lead to a call or two. YMMV.
> To apply, first run BetterDB and use your email as the license key for npm/docker, for cloud just register with the same email you are applying.
I get why people want someone to use their product to see if they'd want to work on it, but as an observation, see this as an increasing trend and seeing half of a "I'm hiring" post dedicated to "Hey, install our product, here's how" gives hints of companies who are basically harvesting potential job candidates for DAUs...
I get you but I think it's fair to ask. You have no idea how enraging it is to dedicate a whole hour to someone for interview only to ask at the end (you know at this stage) if they used the product and they say "no" and look slightly ashamed and retarded.
Every single place I've ever applied to, I've used their product DEEPLY
But like, you can't ask - you just gotta wade through a million retards.
I definitely do feel that. And I think it's fair to ask/check in, and I agree, there's potentially a big value unlocked when someone is a deeply passionate user of the product.
But when the bulk of your ostensible job ad is making sure you've installed the product, then hmm.
I completely understand your point and have had similar feelings when I've applied to previous companies.
There are 2 points I can make to try and make it make sense (a lot of makes...)
1 - The moment a job post goes live, there are hundreds of applicants. It is an absolute spam. Several have been honest enough to admit they used an AI automation to apply everywhere. This aims to both filter some of the spammers, and also legitimately give people the option to see what they'd work on. Everyone running our product with an email as a license key is assumed a job applicant, and removed from all statistics.
2 - The last time we hired was in February. The moment the role was filled, I left a comment for transparency - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47075520 We are now looking to expand a bit more, so I posted again. I know that the filtering might be frustrating, but try to be on the other side too.
And also, since I am the hiring, interviewing, and everything else person, I don't ghost. It's not much, but it is honest work as the old meme went
1.) All the image generation models will do that, xAI is just the one that caught flak for it
2.) SpaceX made $16B in profit last year, despite its enormous R&D costs and is on track for $20B this year, despite the losses from AI. People still wise to invest in Google despite their AI business still being a huge loss
> 1.) All the image generation models will do that, xAI is just the one that caught flak for it
Perhaps. But that's a huge undersell. "just the one that caught flak"? No. The one with nearly zero guardrails. Where users could trivially create underage porn, bestiality, etc., using prompts that you could put into any other AI and just say "does this image generation prompt seem likely to create legally problematic content?"
Not that I approve of that, but when image generation was hot and new, the insane amount of refusals I got from the major ones for apparently no reason, exacerabated by the general slowness, quotas and inherent trial and error workflow has completely soured me on them.
Fucking with DP 1.4 was how they managed to drive the ProDisplay XDR.
If your monitor could downgrade to DP 1.2 you got better refresh rates than 1.4 (mine could do 95Hz SDR, 60Hz HDR, but if my monitor said it could only do 1.2, that went to 120/95 on Big Sur and above, when they could do 144Hz HDR with Catalina).
I would be absolutely unsurprised if their fix was to lie to the monitor in negotiation if it was non-Apple and say that the GPU only supported 1.2, and further, I would be also unsurprised to learn that this is related to the current issue.
Ahh, true, I now have 120Hz top, but it's fine, why I said fixed :) I now recall in Catalina I had full 144Hz and VRR options! Monitor is Dell G3223Q via Caldigit TS4 DP.
I was using 2 27" LG 27GM950-Bs (IIRC), that could do up to 165Hz and VRR on a 2019 cheesegrater Mac Pro, wasn't the cables, or the monitors, or the card.
People at the time were trying to figure out the math of "How did Apple manage to make 6K HDR work over that bandwidth?" and the answer was simply "by completely fucking the DP 1.4 DSC spec" (it was broken in Big Sur, which was released at the same time). The ProDisplay XDR worked great (for added irony, I ended up with one about a year later), but at the cost of Apple saying "we don't care how much money you've spent on your display hardware if you didn't spend it with us" (which tracks perfectly with, I think, Craig Federighi spending so much time and effort shooting down iMessage on Android and RCS for a long time saying, quote, "It would remove obstacles towards iPhone families being able to give their kids Android phones").
reply