The web is excellent! It loses lots of native abilities though, even as we move forward with file system and USB web APIs.
It's also generally resource intensive, compared to a solid native UI.
I would say that, if you don't need more native control, the web is the best cross platform interface we have, by far. But not having those system API really starts to limit it for certain tasks IMO.
When I just want a graphical utility, I build a single HTML file that includes all of the assets required, and all of the JavaScript so I can run it offline (but generally host them on my site so I can get to them from anywhere). These tools are generally text in and text out that I want a GUI representation for and don't need in the terminal.
3 generations of wealth poured into the most expensive military in recorded history - the reason that we don't have health care, clean energy, decent social safety nets and so many other things... and they can't even control a small stretch of water. What a waste.
The health care issue in the USA isn't due to lack of funding, the US spends more on health care per person than any other country, double that of many European countries with single payer systems.
The costs of medicare, medicaid and CHIP to tax payers are about what most Europeans pay in tax for universal health care, but then they also need to pay for health insurance for themselves.
As for controlling Hormuz, the US military absolutely could control Hormuz. I'm confident it's quite capable of it. It's that the US public wouldn't support the immense cost in lives and treasure it would take to do it, and maintain that control. No other military could even try, but the the USA could. It's not a matter of lack of military capacity.
> the US military absolutely could control Hormuz. I'm confident it's quite capable of it. It's that the US public wouldn't support the immense cost in lives and treasure it would take to do it, and maintain that control
I never understood these kinds of arguments and they always come from those defending US military might.
Either they can do it or they cannot, if "the US public wouldn't support the immense cost in lives and treasure it would take to do it" is true, which it appears to be, then the US Military cannot control Hormuz.
The American public has shown willingness over decades and decades to commit to long term wars of choice. Not infinitely patient, but patient.
Of course, other Presidents have been willing to put in some sort of effort to make to make a case. And usually have some of theory of victory or purpose. And generally avoid making weird random claims about invading NATO allies.
The distinction between political resolve and military might is relevant specifically to the "what has all this money gotten us?"
All the money in the military has gotten us, almost certainly, the ability to conquer virtually any plot of land anywhere on the planet at any time.
But that does not (thankfully) intrinsically generate the political resolve required to do so.
Democracy and markets are beautiful things. It's fantastic that it can constrain even a military as mighty as the US and a commander in chief as braindead as Trump.
>As for controlling Hormuz, the US military absolutely could control Hormuz. I'm confident it's quite capable of it. It's that the US public wouldn't support the immense cost in lives and treasure it would take to do it, and maintain that control.
This is like saying "I could easily afford a Ferrari. It's just that I wouldn't be able to make the interest payments on the loan". Military conquest is more than just guns.
No, it's like saying "I can easily afford a ferrari but I won't be able to afford groceries for a year after that because I've emptied my savings account.
The military might be capable of a ground invasion and succeeding. It would be Pyrrhic. Even if Iran was a genuine nuclear threat (I am not convinced at this point that Iran would launch a nuke at anyone if they had it), is it worth 500k dead Americans?
There was never a path to victory that didn't involve ground troops. We aren't losing in Iran because of military incompetence, but policy incompetence. Previous administrations did not do this because the cost was well understood.
There has never existed a military who could win this conflict without ground invasion. This was understood when this administration started it.
>We aren't losing in Iran because of military incompetence, but policy incompetence.
My point is these two things are inseparable, and to conflate them is simply Call of Duty-esque military fantasy. It's a feel good war story that doesn't actually reflect the reality of actually winning a war.
If the US military does not have the ability to hold, occupy, and install allied regime change, then the US military cannot win a war with Iran. You cannot separate the short term wins from the long term objectives. No one looks at Imperial Japan and says "they easily bombed pearl harbor, but due to policy failures they couldn't keep control of the South West Pacific theatre.
The US winning WW2 wasn't just dropping the nukes and high fives. There was rebuilding the Japanese nation, aligned to the US, becoming a long term ally.
This is no different than Afghanistan. Future humans aren't going to look back and say "the US easily controlled Afghanistan for 12 years, and then just returned to the Taliban". The lessons learned will be the US failed to hold Afghanistan and the Taliban returned to power and it was a military failure.
No matter how you dress it up, I can't afford the ferrari.
The USA and its allies could sustain the Afghanistan occupation indefinitely, but chose not to(prematurely, in my opinion).
In Afghanistan, the west chose to lose, but victory was possible. We were(we, I was there in 2010) winning hearts and minds of the younger generation but abandoned them. Another Donald victory.
The reason the US can’t take the strait is that the war is unpopular and the American people don’t want it to happen. The US military could absolutely 100% invade and take the street, but it would be extremely unpopular and very expensive.
The argument echoes similar speculation about the USA's 20 years in Vietnam, the "military was held back" despite killing more than a million southeast Asians in the attempt.
Vietnam is more like asking the question, could the US Military occupy all of Iran? Which I think the answer is essentially No, just like Vietnam.
The strait is one small objective , and the US had lots of successes in Vietnam with capturing key strategic areas, they just couldn’t cover that into a successful occupation
Health insurance company margins are 3% to 5%. The book America’s Bitter Pill: Money, Politics, Back-Room Deals, and the Fight to Fix Our Broken Healthcare System (2015) by journalist Steven Brill blames mostly wasteful practices in hospitals, pharma and device manufacturers, government and corporate health administration costs.
Health insurance company margins are meaningless. All the large insurers are actually "pay-viders", meaning they own huge (and growing) chunks of the physicians (providers) they pay out.
Go read STAT's Colossus investigative series on the myriad ways UnitedHealth Group abuses this structure. All the other pay-viders do the same.
Pay-viders can "generate x% profit" for any value of x. They control all the relevant levers, which also by coincidence eliminates any incentive in the entire system to reduce costs.
They are required by law to only make a certain value of x, and so, surprise surprise, they all make x!
Not to dismiss your point, but the US healthcare system has one meta problem.
Complexity.
There are too many parties. There are too many bespoke party-party contract. There are too many new middle-parties being created, with their own contracts. There are too many systems. There's too much tech debt.
That's a reason improvements to the US healthcare system have generally been via HHS/CMS imposing standardization mandates ('or no Medicare payments').
But providers, facilities, and insurers (most operating on low margins) can't be collectively more meta-efficient without simplifying the system.
Single payer / Medicare for all is a critical start not because of coverage, but because of simplicity.
There are so many intractable problems with the current system simply by virtue that changing anything about them requires 100s of parties to update 10,000s of party-party contracts and interfaces.
That's the biggest source of waste in the current system: constant duplicative re-engineering.
US health insurance margins are thinner than European private insurance. Their administrative cost however are 9-10%, when in Europe (or really, France and Germany, I haven't looked elsewhere) they are 5-8%. The difference is probably in negotiating costs and audits. But that means that in total, for every 100 dollar paid, US insuree pay 4-10 dollar in efficiency+dividend that a European doesn't.
Dumb argument though when UHG owns the hospitals, pharmacy and the insurance company. They can make the "profit" of any one of them be anything they want really.
Right, they don’t “profit” much because they pay themselves so much. The CEO of united healthcare total compensation is $60 million a year.
Where do you think that money comes from?
You could just delete united healthcare and save bucketloads of money. They don’t actually do anything anyone wants, other than extract money as a middleman.
> The costs of medicare, medicaid and CHIP to tax payers are about what most Europeans pay in tax for universal health care, but then they also need to pay for health insurance for themselves.
People always say this, but I suspect Americans are more unhealthy in general and actually need more healthcare per person.
We have a development pattern where people barely walk, but less walk or cycle to work.
> As for controlling Hormuz, the US military absolutely could control Hormuz
I don't see how they could manage that without a full-scale invasion and control of Iran. It's far too easy for Iran to launch drones/torpedoes from small watercraft or from nearby land. I expect they could control Hormuz for a while, but it would be very expensive and I'd expect the logistics to break down fairly quickly if the economics doesn't stop it first.
"I don't see how they could manage that without a full-scale invasion and control of Iran" - that's precisely what they're saying, and that the domestic populace wouldn't put up with it.
I suppose "could" here is a bit of a stretch. Like technically, yes, you could if you whipped up your country into enough of a frenzy to support it. Hell, Iraq happened (twice), so I suppose it has historical precedent. And yes, a full-scale invasion of a fully committed US military should absolutely be able to conquer and hold Iran. But I can't imagine any circumstance where that's possibly going to happen in today's reality (outside of an Iranian terrorist event on USA soil, for instance).
> a full-scale invasion of a fully committed US military should absolutely be able to conquer and hold Iran
I doubt that - Iran is very large and would require something like conscription in the US to get anywhere near the required amount of troops. The US doesn't have a great track record with conquering and occupying other countries.
What are we even talking about here? Controlling the strait? This actually means controlling so much land around the strait that Iran can't launch missiles or drones at ships. Essentially conquering all of Iran by ground invasion. The USA could do this, sure, but we don't want to because its too stupid even for us.
Even if we threw everything at it and turned it into a war economy making everything to focus on this task, we'd lose most of our influence in the rest of the world at that time and then we'd end up in a Russia situation once we control the land where we are in a non stop war with people dying the entire time we are there. There's no situation where it makes sense for us to do this or to have attacked Iran in the first place.
Yeah it's stupid, though with this administration stupid seems to be the flavor they prefer.
Iran is on a level so much worse than even Afghanistan.
In Afghanistan, there are some mountains, but they are in the middle. The Taliban fucked off into the mountains and they couldn't do jack.
Iran on the other hand is a plateau fortress lined by mountains on all (accessible to US/western allies) sides. A land invasion of Iran means no supply lines and no way out. The words "one does not simply" come to mind. It is essentially the ultimate meat grinder unless you can win decisively in days, which is impossible because the entire apparatus you are trying to destroy is distributed within aforementioned mountains and operates with decentralised/autonomous command that has been preparing for this exact eventuality (being invaded by an opponent with vastly more firepower and overwhelming air superiority) for the last 40 years. Not to mention absolute fucking hellscape it will be for troops on the ground with FPV drones and Shahed flying into clusters of US marines and being broadcast on Telegram.
A land invasion of Iran is empire suicide. You can't win, you can't go home and you are left with just pouring an infinite amount of resources and lives into the most asymmetric and geographically hostile theatre of all time.
The land of Iran has changed hands many times throughout history. I think we need to avoid some level of historical / geographical determinism. The terrain is a problem but a solvable one for a sufficiently committed power / alliance. We can look back in history at e.g. the Anglo-Soviet invasion.
But the commitment does not exist at present. No one wanted this apart from a few hawks and the Israeli security establishment.
If the US were ruled by a dictator and had no market forces, the US could obviously conquer any of the above. It would just come at such immense cost and require such horrors that a voting public and a responsive market make it politically untenable to actually pursue. Which is good!
Soft power would have gone a long way towards furthering US interests in the Middle East. Unfortunately, it seems too late for that. By the time a new administration's diplomacy reverts the current antagonism and lack of trust, the dollar will have lost ground as the default reserve currency and financing US debt will become much more expensive than it is now, making military expenses prohibitive, but still a priority.
This is usually the point the economy is flipped around into a war-based economy where all output is directed to military equipment.
Leaders profit off the military industrial complex. Take away that complex and they would certainly look for the next opportunity so bleed the working class, but the sham would be far more visible and less efficient. Either way, a massive stepfoward -- at least it wouldn't be there to actively make the world a worse place, as it has done exclusively post 1945.
2. Running out of munitions is bad but it's the least bad possible problem. We know how to solve it, just pay for higher volume munition purchases. There's no suggestion the missiles don't work well. They actually are quite effective! We just spent the minimum on expendable purchases and bought new carrier groups instead.
Restocking at much much much higher volume than we just spent will cost $50-100 billion, which is not cheap, but is not THAT expensive compared to any other government program (it's like... 2% of our COVID spending). And it's actual effective reindustrialization unlike other uses of the money.
Jobs creation. That's another way to think about it. There are, of course, better jobs to be created than military though, but job creation is still a factor.
I think it's worth pointing out that the US almost certainly could have taken control of the strait. But it would have required boats in the water and boots on the ground. But that puts many more lives at risk, would have been very unpopular (much moreso then the current war situation), etc.
You can't win a war purely through air superiority and bombs. That's not a new lesson but it's one the administration failed to learn through history and is apparently now failing to learn through practice).
> You can't win a war purely through air superiority and bombs. That's not a new lesson but it's one the administration failed to learn through history and is apparently now failing to learn through practice.
This is a lesson that conservative administrations have refused to learn for decades. I hope Curtis Lemay is experiencing a toasty afterlife for all of the suffering he has caused humanity due to a zealous conviction that aerial bombing campaigns win wars, and his lasting legacy in conservative war strategy.
The delusion is somewhat over a century old now. It originates from factions within the military community (vs. politicians) and there's nothing particularly conservative about it -
I'd personally label the factions within the military that view aerial bombing as an effective strategy as "conservative", especially the ones that follow in the footsteps of Henry Kissinger and Curtis LeMay. It's hard not to see the direct line to Pete Hegseth's leadership, as well.
Notably, one of the largest "Liberal hawks", LBJ, often disagreed head on with Curtis LeMay because LeMay was too insane in his villainous disregard for human life. LeMay's dehumanization of the citizens of foreign nations was on par with Nazism, imo.
I'll give you that Obama and Biden are a black mark on leftwing politics in terms of aerial bombing as they continued the status quo instead of enacting positive change. But the both-sidesism is a bit too much here.
> I'd personally label the factions within the military that view aerial bombing as an effective strategy as "conservative"...
If "aerial bombing as an effective strategy" still means "you can win wars just by dropping enough bombs", I'll disagree. Because that use of "conservative" (simplistic maximum macho force) is equally applicable to Army leaders who want to occupy every square inch of the enemy's territory, or to Navy leaders who want to sink everything associated with the enemy and establish a water-tight blockade.
There's nothing liberal about a political leader reining in a nut case like LeMay. George Wallace quickly regretted his selection of LeMay as his '68 running mate. Or look at America's military actions during President Reagan's terms - for all the big talk and military build-ups, actual military actions were very carefully limited.
But in a very different sense of the word "Conservative", aerial bombing is often extremely Conservative. That sense is minimizing political commitment to a conflict. A leader (with effective air superiority) can drop some bombs or launch some missiles, talk tough about having "delivered a message" - then quietly drop the whole thing, having risked fairly little, and without giving the impression of having failed or retreated. From the PoV of a political leader managing risks, putting boots on the ground would be far less conservative.
> But in a very different sense of the word "Conservative", aerial bombing is often extremely Conservative. That sense is minimizing political commitment to a conflict. A leader (with effective air superiority) can drop some bombs or launch some missiles, talk tough about having "delivered a message" - then quietly drop the whole thing, having risked fairly little, and without giving the impression of having failed or retreated. From the PoV of a political leader managing risks, putting boots on the ground would be far less conservative.
Based on this paragraph, I think we are in agreement?
My point is basically that conservative leadership, both within and outside of the military, has sought (and implemented!) simple solutions to complex problems that end up backfiring immensely. In this case, the problem is “enemy country bad”, and the solution is “bomb them submission”. I’m not sure we need to go into details on how that’s a terrible idea?
That’s not to say that liberals don’t put forth simple solutions to complex problems, it’s just that conservatives have successfully implemented obstructionist strategy starting with Newt Gingrich in the 90s, and the closest we’ve come to anything on the national level to liberal policy has been the ACA, which was so hamstrung that it was nearly unrecognizable when compared to the Romneycare it was modeled after. It’s also the stated goal of Project 2025 to roll back nearly all of the progressive policy wins of the Obama and Trump 1 eras (the latter wins coming only via judicial decisions, not executive or legislative).
> But it would have required boats in the water and boots on the ground. But that puts many more lives at risk, would have been very unpopular (much moreso then the current war situation), etc.
Boats in the water and boots on the ground can be popular. But it needs a credible story, told by credible sources.
There's control and there's enough control so not a single missile can hit a cargo ship in the strait.
Maritime insurers are understandably conservative. If the ship stays trapped it continues to pay premiums (insurance company wins). If it risks passage it risks a $10M payout (insurance company loses). If there's risk of a single missile the insurers won't allow the ships through. How can an insurance company thousands of miles away stop a ship? "If you risk the passage you're not covered by insurance"
Pretty sure Iran has spent the last 30 years ensuring that they can mount gorilla attacks indefinitely in the face of overwhelming invasion.
That has been their deterrent strategy for decades. Intelligence analysts out front should have told ya.
(A massive invasion would also not open the strait.)
I mean, we could, the issue is that it would be politically untenable. Controlling the straight means controlling Iranian territory, which means a ground invasion and occupation, which means ~2 million deployed personnel until you set up a compliant regime (because Iran, is absolutely massive). Which is why literally every other president has chosen to negotiate with them or keep them at arms length.
Yes. It's called a "union". They were discovered around the turn of the 20th century, caused the greatest increase in prosperity and wealth for the greatest number of people of any idea in history but then we decided we were collectively too smart for all that so we're inexorably inching our way back towards children suffering in dangerous conditions to enrich a few warlords (and no, they won't pay you on time).
The police? Like you would call fir any crime. The union boss is also elected, so you don't vote for people that would do that. You have a lot more power/leverage in that situation than a CEO laying you off right before your options cliff, despite what the people funding whisper/fear campaigns and their shills in the media are desperate to convince you of. Point me to one example of a union boss stealing pensions and I'll bring you 100 cases of CEXs doing worse with no recourse for the victims.
It's gone the instant the CEO takes your options by laying you off a week before they vest.
^ that has happened to me. Along with a million other slights: health care reduced, vacation time reduced, etc. etc. A hypothetical union boss running off with dues never has.
Think very carefully about where this abstract fear of "bad union bosses" comes from.
Years of crime and corruption caused long perception and union density declines from the 50s to the late 80s, when hundreds of officials finally got RICO’d, some unions fell under government supervision, etc.
They still didn’t really give up on crime and corruption, but they never really recovered in the US.
What's the frequency of this happening in modern times and what are the recourses we've set in place? Are there any forms of recourse that you'd recommend be added? And what representatives are running on such platforms to add those forms of recourse for workers?
It's so hard to do that but it's really the only way. I had this idea that tech companies should organize _each others_ unions. Like Google employees should organize Meta's union and visa versa so no one is "sacrificing their career" by doing it.
At least this would give you the leverage of seeing that the role is or is not still posted. It would give you a job to do as a candidate in enforcing honesty and seeing that the company wasn't stringing others along with fake postings to create the impression of growth. I would much prefer this to a "no consequences" system for people actively wasting my time.
I've been thinking more lately about how to get "Basic Web" - just like normal HTML and maybe a little bit of CSS (No Service Workers, Background Sync, DRM, etc.) and make it work over a LORA/Meshtastic rig somehow.
It's becoming a dream and a curious or nearly unattainable goal, without being adjacent a very heavy software stack. But I think having a separate screen on a phone, like a flip phone with a screen on each side, would help separate the two software and OSes that could run them. One light, and one heavy.
reply