Would you say that blocking the strait is more unacceptable than bombing the US and killing the President and most high-ranking government officials? Just trying to establish a scale on what's acceptable in terms of war crimes, international law and such.
I don't think reasonable people are going to defend the Iranian government on moral grounds. The president is fine, btw. It was the "supreme leader" that got killed, and he is known to have ordered the extermination of 600,000 Syrian muslims. Hell, he ordered the extermination of thousands of dissidents over the past years AND the execution of tens of thousands of protestors in his last weeks.
So ... this guy and his cronies that got killed. They had it coming.
I'm not defending what the Iranian government did to their people. I suppose I am defending their reaction (closing the strait) to the assassination of their head of state and other government officials.
The reaction was predictable and very much understandable from a human psychology perspective. So in my mind the responsibility for the strait being closed rests mostly with the US.
> The president is fine, btw. It was the "supreme leader" that got killed
In Iran the supreme leader is the head of state. In the US it's the president.
> he is known to have ordered the extermination of 600,000 Syrian muslims
Do you mean the Syrian civil war? According to Wikipedia it's 650,000 deaths on all sides together (more than half being combatants). I'm not sure it's fair to attribute all these deaths to Iran. By the way these numbers are similar to those of the Iraq War of GWB.
> I'm not defending what the Iranian government did to their people. I suppose I am defending their reaction (closing the strait) to the assassination of their head of state and other government officials.
First, the Iranian state was (and is) collapsing. In other words: even though Trump changed the timing of their closing of the strait (not by much), he did not cause it. Iran's government has no choice but to continue the war. Which is another way of saying: the west has no choice but to destroy them. This is just a bunch of little kids arguing: "that's hard! you do it".
Iran is, by the way, not just closing the strait. They are holding Lebanon hostage. They are trying to hold Syria hostage. They are holding the Bab El-Mandeb strait hostage. They are holding (and executing) people as hostages. They are looking to hold internet cables and satellites hostage. They are only limited by their capabilities, which are increasing. Obviously, ignoring the Iran problem will not work even in the medium term.
Plus I hate it when people defend the indefensible, such as Iran's government. Besides, you care about 1 thing: that the oil price rose a bit. As I said, unless the US left the middle east, conflict with Iran was and is unavoidable. US presence was always going to lead to conflict with Iran, only the timing was in question. Iran holding the strait hostage was unavoidable, and the oil price rise was unavoidable.
So what will you do when the inevitable happens? The problem Iran has with Israel, aside from Iran being murderous racists, is that, as the supreme leader has put it, "it is a US military base in the middle east". In other words: Iran's problem with Israel is that Israel prevents Iran from holding Europe hostage (notice that Iran's rockets can obviously reach Israel ... and they're continuing to extend the range, why is that, you think? They are looking to target Europe with nukes). This will mean other countries will have no choice but to do the same. Indonesia, China, they must attack and take control of the Malacca strait if the US retreats. They must conquer oil sources.
You do realize that if a country like Iran acquires ICBMs, nuclear war is the next step, right? That is also what Trump is trying to prevent (in fact that's what the US created the UN for all the way back in 1945, when all that existed of Donald Trump was his father looking very interested at his mother)
In other words, what you're advocating for, US retreat, will not cause a local conflict in the middle east. Let's just call it what it is: you are advocating for is WW3, a nuclear WW3. You're calling in doubt it will be WW3, because it's so much easier and cheaper to let a German dictator run rampant (sorry, I mean Iranian) than it is to deal with the problem ...
And yes, I'm very sorry how inconvenient it is that the rest of the world does not just let you live in peace.
Much speculation here. It could well be that Iran's hard-line government will become stronger because of the war. People that were not specially pro- or anti-government probably didn't like seeing the US and Israel bomb their country and kill their government officials. On the other hand Iran is taking a big economic hit indeed... We'll see.
Regarding the nuclear threat posed by Iran: the deal Obama made with Iran was not perfect but it was working, at least on that aspect. Quoting the New York Times[1]: "Under the deal, Iran shipped 98 percent of its uranium stockpile out of the country. Iran previously had enough uranium to fashion eight to 10 atomic bombs once fully processed; afterward it was left without enough for even one". It also enabled an unprecedented level of inspections by the IAEA.
Compare that with what Trump has achieved so far... It's really sad that he had to tank that deal because he couldn't stand Obama having a great lasting diplomatic achievement. So Trump effectively manufactured the conditions for Iran to be a nuclear threat again.
I also don't see evidence that Iran wants to target Europe. The Iranian government does have a despicable rhetoric (mostly against Israel) but their actions have been limited. Israel talks less but inflicts far more harm. Iran has indeed been messing around the region and in particular "holding Lebanon hostage" to some extent with the Hezbollah... We'll see if that gets better after this war.
As for holding internet cables hostage and such: they are just playing the only cards they have, as they are being forced to, by the US.
> Besides, you care about 1 thing: that the oil price rose a bit.
I'm personally rather happy that oil prices are rising. We should get off oil as fast as possible for geopolitical and ecological reasons.
> And yes, I'm very sorry how inconvenient it is that the rest of the world does not just let you live in peace.
Not sure what you mean. We had international institutions and international law to try and avoid conflicts. The UN is a beautiful project created by the US at a time when they had good thinking people in charge. Trump hates and tries to dismantle international institutions. He likes the law of the jungle. It puts us all closer to WW3.
Well I don't understand how one can accept this argument. I mean if you believe in mind-body dualism it can make sense. But AFAIK Searle doesn't, instead he holds that there's something special about the brain biology that enables consciousness and that you won't find in a computer. I don't see why that would be the case if the computer can simulate the real world, and I find Searle's argument against simulation, that simulating rain doesn't make you wet, falls flat: it can make things wet in simulation, and if you connect it to sprinklers it will make you wet.
I mean you can connect the computer to sprinklers that activate when the system detects rain in the simulation if that's what you're after (that was just an aside to note that of course you don't get wet from a simulation disconnected from the real world).
But I guess that was a distraction from the main point: If consciousness emerges from biological processes in the brain connected to the world with a body, why would it not emerge from a simulation of these processes connected to the real world with sensors and actuators?
It seems like circular reasoning to me: The simulation is not like the real thing because it lacks the special thing that enables consciousness (that's Searle's biological naturalism). And it lacks what enables consciousness because it's not the real thing (that's the weather analogy).
> My only complaint is that all functions are pure functions; there is not a way (that I know of) to share state from one function invocation to the next.
Indeed user-defined functions are pure. You can work around it like the suiji package[1] does: have the function return a value that you pass as argument to the next call.
For what's it's worth you can render Jupyter notebooks directly from Typst using the Callisto package. You can then style the notebook content as if it was written in Typst, using show rules, etc:
I'm curious what would be a good example of something where this falls short of what you need?
I mean this Typst package just lets you import the notebook content in your Typst document. All the formatting is done in Typst which is also what you use for your final output...
Front matter would be fine I think. The static parts you would write directly in Typst. For the outline you would call #outline() as usual in the Typst document: notebook content is converted to Typst content (using cmarker), including the headings which become Typst headings so they show up as expected in the outline.
For sidebars I guess you use pandoc-Markdown extensions such as Divs that you transform with a Lua filter? What I would do then is use raw cells in the notebook to define sidebars (using Typst code in the raw cells) and configure Callisto to eval the raw cells.
For index entries, for example using the in-dexter package you could use HTML comments to insert index references where appropriate:
<!--raw-typst #index[Entry]!-->
but I would just write #index[Entry] directly in the Markdown text, and use a show rule in the Typst document to convert them:
#show regex("#index\[.*\]"): it => eval(it.text, mode: "markup", scope: in-dexter)
Overall, I think pandoc-Markdown + filters + Typst template is powerful and conceptually straightforward: you define the data structure with Markdown, you transform it with filters and render with Typst. Having the document as a well-defined data structure you can manipulate is especially powerful and something I wish we had in Typst.
In practice though it often feels overly complicated for little gains, when you can get things done with one tool and a single language (well, two since we're talking about including Jupyter notebooks).
Also working directly in Typst has advantages like live preview (also for content imported from notebooks), and some things that are a bit involved with pandoc, like maybe showing a cell output in a sidebar, become super easy: just add "#| label: my-cell" and "#| output: false" in the cell header, and #output("my-cell") in the side bar.
It looks like a prime, but can be caught with the second-simplest test: sum of the digits is 12, which is divisible by 3. Hence it's divisible by 3.
(The simplest test being of course if the number is even and bigger than 2)
Edit: now that I think about it, probably should not have tried to impose ordering to the simplicity of tests. There's of course the divisibility by 5 test, which is even simpler.
In fact, most 2 digit numbers not divisible by 2, 3, or 5 are prime. [1] The only one that's likely to ruin your day is 7 * 13 == 91, but that's self-defeating because after you think about it long enough 91 falls victim to [2].
I just noticed that it's 60-3 without any divisibility tests.
Tao's 27 prime was much more embarassing but understandable as he's no a calculator.
Savants are for things like remembering the first million primes. Someone like Tao or Grothendieck can't remeber them beyond 20, but it doesn't mean they can't actuly reason about them.
I wonder if using Typst would be a viable solution: the compiler can be built into a wasm component that runs locally in the browser (that's what the Typst webapp does) and it generates good PDFs with working selection/copy/paste.
There's even a package (cmarker) than can translate Markdown to Typst which could be enough for a MVP.
The Swiss army knife for document conversion, Pandoc, supports compiling to WASM since 3.9 [1]. It supports Markdown, in a wide variety of flavours, and Typst. Their official demo page provides a PDF output via Typst, all done client-side [2]. Furthermore, you get .docx and other output formats as well
"I wish to participate in a global telecommunications network and I wish to connect immediately to all my friends and be available to them 24/7 and I wish to play games with strangers across the country and I wish to receive all my email within 300ms with no spam and I wish to watch the latest news from Iran in 4K streaming Dolby"... but priiiiivacy!
reply