The history of middle East for the last 5000 years (since Sargon of Akkad) is replete with 'the king X "pacified" (the most commonly used euphemism) the people in the conquered territory'. It has never gone well for the victors under successors of king X, often within a generation or two.

In today's age when access to technology and information is such that any small sufficiently competent and motivated group can cause massive destruction, is it wise to keep creating motivated enemies and expect they will somehow never become competent or that the competent won't become motivated? It is doubly ironic given Israel's own defense industrial complex is filled with such small motivated and competent groups and the evidence of Ukraine/Russia conflict is staring in the face. This situation will blow up I fear within a generation unless Israeli society chooses different leaders.

https://github.com/antirez/ds4

I think there's possibly value to try fine tuning Qwen 3.5 on my OpenClaw turns log to see if performance improves. The one recent model I haven't tested yet is Nemotron 3 Super which I might bench soon.

[1] https://srinathh.medium.com/mid-size-local-models-are-now-co...

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48345470

Points: 3

# Comments: 0

The present US President is smart enough to realise that now. In this case he let himself be misled by Israelis & their supporters that Iranians would rise up and replace their own Government. That indeed might have happened if the US had intervened when the Iranians were actually protesting some months before the present crisis. Now the US administration is looking for a way out without putting boots on the ground and Iran is looking to haggle on the price and for the US. this very business like cutting of ones losses is almost certainly the right move.

This is also why historically companies have preferred being vertically integrated to avoid having their supply chains exposed until American economists and brokerages started pushing the cult of specialization. Outside of the US, big conglomerates still operate this way.

1. Would have much lower sonic booms thanks to recent research (quite a bit of it by NASA on wing geometry) and more importantly computer simulation available now

2. The engines would be far more fuel efficient

3. The flights would be able to have better efficiency in the subsonic regime as well. Just see what winglets and the like have done to fuel economy .

I fly 14 to 18 hour routes maybe 4-5 times a year on business paying 5x the economy cost and it still sucks. Breaking the flight with a connection (IMO) sucks more. My management flies such routes every month. There is a lot of revenue headroom in that fare gap for something that flies maybe 3x-4x as fast which military aircraft already do.

What will hold back the idea is conservatism among the business managers in aircraft manufactures and incumbent airlines who will "draw lessons" from a 50 year old experiment

BTW form my benchmarking, open weigh models are good enough for many agentic tasks starting with Qwen 3.5/6 family and Deepseek v4 family, so it's likely we'll see displacement of api usage from the premium priced providers. Yes trainingis expensive, this isn't training

This. The gross margin on inference is at least 95% if not higher - several open weight models on my tiny consumer DGX Spark easily replace the 15 dollars a day I was paying in tokens for Claw usage with a dollar a day electricity. You add data centre overhead and depreciation, the theoretical net margin will trend lower but depreciation is always far more aggressive than actual product degradation. The old NVIDIA GPU on a 9 year old second hand gaming PC I bought still serves up a small Gemma 4 variant quite reasonably.