This is why the winning disturbed systems optimize for CP. It's worth preserving consistency at the expense of rare availability losses particularly on cloud infrastructure
Also, giving up on availability doesnt imply we will be down for a longtime. It’s just some requests might get dropped. As long as the client knows the request was rejected they can try later.
Mehdi Hasssan worked for Al Jazeera which is funded by Qatar and is an arm of the Muslim Brotherhood with a very specific political agenda. You'll notice they barely are covering the Iran News
That's like saying that Hamas and the IRGC aren't affiliates because they're from different religious sects. What binds them is an interest in political religion and a shared antipathy to the west.
It is a source run by expatriate Iranians of the diaspora.. the fact that so many people just discount their point of view it's pretty frustrating. If you speak to Iranians that you work with it's pretty illuminating
The “Iranians that you work with” in the west are highly self-selecting. They’re like Cubans in Florida or Vietnamese—people who fled in the aftermath of the revolution and are extremely antagonistic towards the regime. My family left Bangladesh the year after the dictator made Islam the official religion. My dad is apoplectic about the Islamist parties being unbanned recently after the government was overthrown. By contrast many of my extended family, who came much later for economic reasons, are happy about that. The people who disliked the Islamization of the country and had the financial means to do so left while the people who were fine with it stayed.
My daughter’s hair stylist is Iranian (she was an accountant in old country). When Jimmy Carter’s wife died, she said “I’m happy she’s dead.” I’ve never seen anyone else say a negative thing about the Carters personally. Even die hard Republicans who think he was a weak President don’t hate him as a person. But this is not an uncommon sentiment among the Iranian diaspora.
> people who fled in the aftermath of the revolution and are extremely antagonistic towards the regime
Iranian who left Iran here. Do you have stats or reference for this critical piece of information?
It’s as if someone’s says, since Bangladesh is predominantly muslim, the majority aligns with what the Islamic regime does for ideological reasons and would try to undermine the account of atrocities.
But one shouldn’t believe this before seeing some polls, stats, etc.
Anecdotally this does seem to be true in US. I know several Iranians in US, from completely different social circles, but all of them strongly anti-clerical and not shy about it.
Also, as a Russian who left Russia, it's certainly a familiar pattern.
Note, by the way, that this doesn't really imply anything about whether those people are wrong to be antagonistic.
I've noticed there's two distinct 20th century Russian diaspora groups in the US. Those who came here prior to the fall of the USSR, and those who came after.
In talking with the ones who came after the fall, life wasn't glamorous but got truly unlivable in the wake of the collapse.
In talking with the ones who came before the fall, they wanted to make money.
There's a group here, largely those expats kids in my experience, that swears they had things better back in Russia and ravenously consume Russian media. I used to encounter them a lot in Sheepshead Bay.
Most immigration in 00-10s was economical, and yes, for that group of people it's often the case that they are very much still enmeshed in Russian imperial agitprop. It's common enough that there are memes about this: https://lurkmore.media/%D0%9F%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%91%...
However there was a smallish wave of political immigration after the 2011 protests and 2014 conflict with Ukraine, and a much larger one since the invasion of Ukraine in 2022. And those people tend to be very anti-Russian-government for obvious reasons.
I really do not understand immigrants who still love their home country. I’m going to die 12 thousand miles away from where my ancestors are buried going back tens of thousands of years. After spending most of my life with ashy dry skin because I’m somewhere I’m not designed to be. All because my ancestors fucked everything up! Fuck those people.
You are looking at this from the perspective of someone to whom "my ancestors fucked everything up" is obvious and self-evident. Many people don't see it this way.
FWIW when it comes to Russia specifically, I would broadly agree that the problem there is not just the government but the culture as a whole (although we'd probably disagree about the specific things in that culture that are problematic). It is not obvious, though, and I think it always behooves one to be careful when making sweeping generalizations like that and carefully rationalize them.
> FWIW when it comes to Russia specifically, I would broadly agree that the problem there is not just the government but the culture as a whole
You’re correct about Russia. And the same observation applies to the Indian subcontinent, where I’m from, as well. And, while you’re correct that each place requires a separate analysis, I would guess it applies to most places people leave.
People’s emotions and tribalism often make them romanticize the places they left. They attribute the good things about their society to the people and their culture, but externalize the bad things about their society. That’s usually self-deception.
Poor guy seems to be going through some self hating racism crisis after reading too many twitter posts. He’s probably a nice guy and all but this online thing can get way too much.
I know you're just saying that because you've never met my parents. But consider that my dad packed us all up, left a country where we were rich, and moved us to the most stereotypical 1950s-style red-state suburb he could find.[1] But no, I'm sure it was Twitter...
Joking aside, we are on opposite sides of a sociological debate. Is Bangladesh a crappy country because of external factors, or because of the culture and choices of the people who live there? It's not crazy to ask that question, and stop pretending that it is. What's ironic is that most Bangladeshis (not the ones raised in the west) fall in the "culture" camp. My family is particularly negative on Bangladeshi culture--especially my mom (growing up as a woman in a Muslim country will do that)--but none of my views are remarkable in my extended family. Or even in Asia more generally. One of the greatest success stories in third world development is Singapore. Lee Kuan Yew adamantly believed that "culture is destiny" and that principle guided the incredible results he achieved in Singapore: https://paulbacon.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/z....
[1] I was at a cousin's wedding a few years ago, and I complained that I couldn't find anyone on Facebook because in our culture we don't have family names. Everyone has two given names, but goes by a nickname which is completely unrelated to either given name. My dad responded, "Bangladeshis don't know how to name their children." I reflexively tried to say, "no, they just do it differently." Then I stopped myself, because why the fuck should I whitesplain the merits of naming conventions to my father.
I have, or rather, had, a friend that lost it. He was the nicest guy. Then 9/11 happened and both him and his wife got into this 'it's all special effects' (they worked in special effects) thing and there wasn't anything you could do about it. Intelligent, creative, very skilled. But on that subject they were completely dug in and any evidence to the contrary was dismissed. Their parting words were that I must be 'one of them' and we are no longer friends.
There are a couple of subjects that seem to do this to people, immigration is one of them, 9/11 is another. Then there are holocaust deniers and people who seem to - without any kind of prompting - find it in them to be defending the actions of the various strong-arm government components in the United States.
I have no idea if there is something in the water or not but it is very scary to see otherwise intelligent people completely lose it over such objectively simple things. Once dug in the only solution seems to be to dig further and to cut off all input to that might lead to introspection.
I’m sure it’s Twitter, and not the fact I had to go to the airport with an armed escort the last time I visited, or that I had to cancel my most recent trip because they overthrew the government, again.
> I used to encounter them a lot in Sheepshead Bay.
My friend is one but wasn't always like that. He was never critical of Russia or the USA and was pretty quiet until befriending some Russian dude in his apt building during the blackout of hurricane Sandy. Now he frequently criticizes and rants about capitalist USA then sings praise of Russia. We keep telling him to go back but he doesn't. He's unfortunately "that guy" in our group of friends now -_-
> It’s as if someone’s says, since Bangladesh is predominantly muslim, the majority aligns with what the Islamic regime does for ideological reasons and would try to undermine the account of atrocities
That’s true. Bangladeshi people strongly supported amending the constitution to make Islam the official religion. Islamization of the country has accelerated since we left, and now it looks like the Islamist parties will get a seat at the table in a coalition government.
My spouse (Bangladeshi) and I (not) went to a rally in Jackson Heights when the first protests were going on and we were surprised by how pro-Islamist the crowd leaned, from their signs and chants. We jumped on video with my in-laws at one point and they were even like "oh no you guys should leave, these young people are Islamists".
It seems to be true across the Muslim world. My father is from North Africa, and any time we've been back there over the past decades it's very clear a large swath of the youth are embracing the more religious political movements.
I have family around Jackson Heights and one is reposting stuff from Jamaat-e-Islami (the main Islamist party) on FB.
It’s very odd. I saw lots of younger Bangladeshis supporting the overthrow of the Awami League government (the most secular of the parties). I wasn’t sure if it was people who just didn’t realize it would leave a vacuum for Islamists, or or people who wanted that. It seems there’s some of both.
He always told me he didn't support any one party outright but he also told me Pakistan was a great country so I could put two and two together. He also called Prothom Alo communists.
All I can do is throw my anecdotes into the pool: I mostly have met two types of Iranians: Those that fled in the 80's post-revolution, and those that come to the US for university (90's, 00's, and 10's).
All of them have been anti-regime.
I have met a few that came for other reasons (not education and not the 80's stock). Yes, those are either pro-regime or neutral.
My guess is that what rayiner says is correct: The majority of the Iranian diaspora in the US is self selecting and not representative of the full population.
> The majority of the Iranian diaspora in the US is self selecting and not representative of the full population.
My guess as well. As an Iranian outside of Iran, I see that my folk in Iran are way angrier, more disappointed, braver and determined against this injustice than I (we outside) am. It’s common sense.
> But this is not an uncommon sentiment among the Iranian diaspora
Iranian-American here, I have never heard a single Iranian badmouth Carter or his family in my entire life. This is the first time I'm hearing of it.
> extremely antagonistic towards the regime
On the other hand, this point is very accurate, I can confirm. There's a reason we left, after all. To my earlier point: this is consistently the direction of our anger - towards the regime - not the Carter administration.
> After 12 years of varying media attention, both houses of the United States Congress held separate inquiries and concluded that credible evidence supporting the allegation was absent or insufficient
President Nixon was an outspoken friend of the Shah. It was Carter administration that stabbed him in the back and negotiated with Khomeini in the first place. The hostage crisis happened about 9-10 months after Khomeini was in power and only towards the end of that crisis you could argue Reagan was in the picture at all. The love for Islamists by the Democrats in power never ended and Clinton, Obama, and Biden all were desperate in appeasing the Mullah regime. It's the ousting of the Shah and appeasing the Mullahs that garners the hate.
Clinton using executive orders and legislation to keep Russia and Iran from cooperating on defense was a desperate act of "Mullah" appeasement? It was the iranians that called for the Negev summit?
Yes, it is all relative. It is appeasement compared to war and much heavier sanctions that ended up being necessary. Clinton and even Bush II administrations were hoping internal change would come up during Khatami era and hoping for him to be Gorbachev. Regardless of Bush II harsh rhetoric, the real animosity only really started after Ahmadinejad was installed in Iran. You are correct that Clinton was still not as friendly as the other two, who very explicitly played into their hands.
In any case I was simply responding to OP's "why" question and that their theory on blaming Reagan allegedly vs Carter on a narrow point, highlighting that particular case is temporally much later, and has no relevance to the underlying reason Carter is hated over there.
I don't think them acknowledging anything in public is either necessary or relevant to the discussion. None of this is germane to the original question posed and I have no intention to change the narrative in your head so I'm out of here.
What "narrative"? You made a claim about "desperate appeasement", and if that was true, I imagine that iranian politicians and twelver clergy would brag about it incessantly.
> The people who disliked the Islamization of the country and had the financial means to do so left while the people who were fine with it stayed.
You say it yourself, the ones who "had the financial means to do so left" - so it's very disingenuous to then state "the people who were fine with it stayed." What about those who couldn't afford to leave?
Depends on what you want to hear. The Iranian family in my neighborhood whose father was a doctor fled after Islamist police cut their daughter to pieces in their own home for dressing inappropriately. That's the sort of non headscarf wearing Iranian elite you'll find with an opinion critical of the current regime. I don't know about ostentatious clothing.
Here you have women putting away men for 20 years with fake rape allegations. Last week a man committed suicide in a very public case where a woman falsely accused him of molestation on camera. Potayto potato. I’m going to be downvoted for this because it’s crass but there is truth in what I am saying.
There was no need for the 15 year old boy who told me this traumatic story of how his sister was killed in his own house to make that story up, because just the fact that they're a liberal family coming from Iran would have been enough information for them to get a visa to stay in The Netherlands based on political persecution.
This happened during Clinton, if you're counting history in US presidencies. And also it doesn't even matter if their sister really was killed. Islamic regimes like the one in Iran are despicable, and would have been even they didn't support goons killing girls for dumb religious regions.
The fact that the person you're responding to even still has a functioning HN account after their post history leaves me shocked and honestly appalled at the moderation of the site.
I've been told off repeatedly and threatened with all kinds of consequences by dang and I haven't come close to postings like this.
It’s similar to how so many people dismiss Cuban American views on Cuba just because the cuban americans were mostly the ownership class that had to flee the revolution.
On the other hand, there is the opposing side that's also tough to ignore where they're coming from.
Leftists, with Western pro-Khomeini protests, not just in Iran, with the usual involvement from the KGB, and the CIA opposing, brought Khomeini to power with claims that he would bring a communist revolution. As per tradition in a communist revolution, first thing he did once in power is execute communist allies. Of course, Iran is still allied with the KGB (now FSB) and Moscow, currently delivering weapons and weapon designs for use in the war against Ukraine.
You could also point out that Iran is kind-of socialist, in the sense that the state controls, at minimum, 70% of the economy, and all those "companies" are directly controlled by the government.
So socialists are still at it, supporting the ayatollah, for example:
Note: yes, I get what the title says, but read. IN the article you'll find an insane rant about how Israel and the US are really behind the revolution and how despite that the regime really held back, and this popular revolution, if it fails will bring back national Iranian pride, and the revolution failing will be the final push that ayatollah's need to actually bring the communist revolution to Iran
I read the whole thing and you are smoking crack. They are calling for the overthrow of the Islamic regime and (explicitly) for the death of the supreme leader. As far as their theoretical argument goes, it's that the masses in IRan are ready to have a revolution but that they lack the organizational skills and roadmaps that communists beleieve themselves to have. They also argue that external support of a revolution is strategically bad because the incumbent regime will use it to portray the Iranian students/working class as tools of foriegn powers.
If Ravid isn't even willing to say that someone told him on background, it sounds like bullshit or speculation. Guys like Ravid are intentionally or no part of the myth making around Mossad where they are simultaneously everywhere int he Middle East and nowhere at once.
There are not even 7,000 Mossad agents, period.
7,000 is the highest estimate publicly available for the TOTAL number of employees in the Mossad, and 95% of them are not agents - just like most US intel are not field agents. Real numbers for agents are far, far lower without a doubt.
Also - Israel got burned so bad with the idiotic Pollard affair, there is zero chance Israel would put so much of their assets in the US when they have a 7 front war. They are many things, but they are not idiots, and they clearly care far more about their immediate security interests than what the US thinks.
These theories make absolutely no sense, my dear fried.
> Someone who works for an intelligence agency: whether an officer or employee thereof or anyone else who agrees to help their efforts (for ideology, for money, as blackmailee, or otherwise).
That said, I also asked ChatGPT and it says you're right.
I think wiktionary will suffer from the fact that the "incorrect" usage of agent is indeed the more common one. 007 is an agent, even though in real life the MI6 would certainly call him an officer.
"Agent" is a term of art with a rather strict meaning, but that's obviously only true when used in conversations within that specific field.
What's special about how they are doing it that makes the theory centered around Mossad? If it's happening, that seems like it would be business as usual for all intelligence agencies operating in all countries.
"It is a source run by expatriate Iranians of the diaspora.. the fact that so many people just discount their point of view it's pretty frustrating. If you speak to Iranians that you work with it's pretty illuminating"
Well - the data they publish can be correct; or it can be a made-up lie. We simply don't know.
So why should we assume the data they publish should be correct? How did they reach that number? And why is that number more precise than earlier reported numbers? And, why is that number so different to the other numbers told before?
Given the veracity of the current administration, the repeated history of the US government lying to justify military interventions (Vietnam Tonkin Gulf incident looks fake going back a little further), I think people who know a little bit of history and are paying attention have legitimate reason to want more than just one source. Whatever the number is in Iran it's terrible but there's no military intervention outside countries can do that's going to change that given Iran is already sanctioned to the gills and it's a huge country that presents many challenges - the people there are going to have to do it themselves.
Cool to see this but also check out voyage-4 embeddings including the open weights nano
https://blog.voyageai.com/2026/01/15/voyage-4/ The fact that the different sizes on the 4 series share an embeddings space is awesome
Is there an example of a company that rewrote something popular in a faster / better language and built a successful business on that? I can think of ScyllaDB and Redpanda but aren't they struggling for the same reasons: not the default, faster horse, costly to maintain, hard to reach escape velocity
You could make the case uv falls in this category (I just prefix all my pip commands with uv) though we have yet to see if astral will become a "successful business"; I'm hoping they pull it off.
I feel like there's numerous database companies that rewrote an existing database faster/with slightly better features and turned it into a successful product. Just about all of the successful ones really. It's a market where "build a faster horse" has been a successful strategy.
Certainly some of the newer succesful database companies are written in more modern languages (for example go with cockroachdb, go originally and now rust with influxdb) but it's wrong to call these (or really any language) faster than C/C++ just more productive languages to develop reliable software in...
I agree you see there's a lot in the database space I just don't know many have reached escape velocity more often they've raised a bunch of venture capital funding and plateau and then have a big problem
I'm not sure how big of a factor it is, but scylla and red-panda are both source available, and VC funded, while the projects they are trying to replace are fully open source, and owned by a non-profit foundation. That probably isn't the only reason they are struggling, but it is a potential reason not to switch.
Granted, scylla used to be open source. And turso is VC funded and potentially vulnerable to a license change in the future.
It's a mix of savvy and diplomacy to neither attack a competitor in the open nor be forced to reveal their strategic way of thinking into your way of viewing things. This is not a winner take all space. Corporate yes but you can be more self aware yourself.
reply