> Coding agents had collapsed the barrier to entry for launching a delivery app. A competent developer could deploy a functional competitor in weeks, and dozens did, enticing drivers away from DoorDash and Uber Eats by passing 90-95% of the delivery fee through to the driver. Multi-app dashboards let gig workers track incoming jobs from twenty or thirty platforms at once, eliminating the lock-in that the incumbents depended on. The market fragmented overnight and margins compressed to nearly nothing.
This doesn't make a ton of sense to me. The barrier to entry isn't the app, it's the network of drivers and restaurants, and all the money that apps like DoorDash poured into marketing. Just having a functioning app doesn't really do very much.
I believe you're referring to Syria, not Iran. And I don't think you're describing the situation accurately at all. The Syrian civil war is incredibly complex, and there are many parties involved. The groups that led the offensive were supported by Turkey at various points, but not by the United States. US forces in Syria didn't really have much to do with that offensive.
> Islamists and communists. Guess which one was helped by USA? :-)
Neither was helped by the USA. The Shah was helped by the USA.
What the USA did is the same thing it does in all of the Islamic dictatorships that it props up - it used its intelligence and its cash to help its dictator exterminate all of his secular opposition. Actually kill. What was left was religious fundamentalist opposition that it couldn't touch, and that the Shah himself partially relied on to stay in power. That meant that when the general population was finally at the point of exasperation, the only institutions that were 1) prepared to be the vehicle of that exasperation and 2) had an government in waiting that could take charge after the government had fallen were the religious ones.
Same thing that happened in Egypt after decades of helping Mubarak kill members of the secular opposition and destroy their organizations. When the government was overthrown spontaneously by a public driven to their limit, the only people prepared to take over, and supported by the public, were fundamentalists. The US saw another Iran coming and quickly stepped in to destroy the popular will and install another dictator that they could control.
There's some truth to what you're saying, but it's a huge exaggeration. It's absolutely incorrect to say that the US helped the Shah kill all of his secular political opponents. It's generally true that SAVAK had neutered the communist opposition, but there were many secular opponents of the Shah who contributed to the Iranian Revolution. Many of them had been imprisoned at various points, but not killed. Take Shapour Bakhtiar or Mehdi Bazargan for example. There were many, many secular people or moderate Islamists who opposed the Shah during the Iranian Revolution.
What happened is that Khomeini consolidated power after the revolution and eliminated these people.
I've actually read quite a lot about the fall of the shah and what you are saying is bullshit. See, for instance, Scott Anderson's recent book King of Kings which goes into a great deal of detail about the US government's understanding and decision-making during the Iranian Revolution.
There's an old interview on C-SPAN's BookTV with a CIA polygrapher. He seems to genuinely believe in the validity of the polygraph, but watching the interview, I was convinced that the only value comes from intimidation and stress.
(all-caps bad transcription)
> THE ESSENCE OF A POLYGRAPH TEST IS IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO LOSE BY FAILING A POLYGRAPH TEST IF YOU WILL, OR SOMETHING TO GAIN BY PASSING IT, THAT IS WHAT MAKES THE POLYGRAPH EFFECTIVE. WITHOUT THE FEAR OF DETECTION IT IN A SIMPLE WAY AS I CAN PUT IT THAT IS WHAT MAKES IT WORK. YOU HAVE TO BE AFRAID. IF YOU HAVE NOTHING TO LOSE BY TAKING THE POLYGRAPH TEST THAN THE PRESSURE IS NOT ON YOU. BUT AS I SAID THAT IS WHAT MAKES YOU WORK. IT HAS TO BE PROTECTION MORE THAN GILTS. NOW YOU MAY FEEL GUILTY, BUT FEAR OF DETECTION IS THE OVERRIDING CONCERN IN IN A POLYGRAPH TEST
Maybe Reformation religions require belief, but the paganism was a set of rituals known to work (by virtue of having worked before), sort of a like a spiritual experimental science. Belief was not required.
Religions don't necessarily work because people believe in it, either. There are a number of religious sects that started with end of the world prophecies.
I think that religions work the opposite way: people believe in them because they work. Since the purpose of religion is generally to explain the nature of reality and how to flourish in it, it needs to work for you. If it doesn't, you either just go through the motions, or quit and find a different religion (or swear off religion, which is sort of the same thing).
Reminds me of Julius Caesar describing the druids. Part of his political career meant precisely performing important orthopraxy. He probably didn’t meet a druid, but amazingly described them playing the same role he did as Pontifex Maximus.
The orthopraxy requiring those precision rituals, take Rome and Greece, had little or maybe no mandatory beliefs. City-state-sized gods in Mesopotamia probably functioned the same way. Traditions still have precise orthopraxy today. But we talk about differences in belief whereas Caesar doesn’t even acknowledge any.
Charitable read, would suggest slight touch of tongue in a cheek.
A bit of spelling it out
Point-1. People just interpreted that paganism works.
E.g. Somebody made offering to gods, and year later won a war - proof.
Point-2 paganism had this transactional notion with gods giving and taking based on your offerings.
While christianity on the other hand does not promise anything good in this life (the only promise being: bear all the bad things in this life, you will be rewarded in the afterlife), so there can’t be proof.
That's the point though. The testers wouldn't actually abuse their victims without the conviction of doing something righteous. Or they would, accidentally or intentionally, spill the secrets.
But if you make even the instruction material lie, then there is nothing that could be leaked and "expose" the system.
I'll second this. An external recruiter was under the (incorrect) impression that we are a 996 company. We found out because she said that no senior people she talked to were willing to work those hours.
Ultimately you can make a lot of short-term progress with 23-year-olds who are willing to live 5 minutes away from the office, have no life outside of work, and work 72 hour weeks. But you also end up with a product that was built by people who have no idea what they're doing.
I am only seeing that if the person writing the prompts knows what a quality solution looks like at a technical level and is reviewing the output as they go. Otherwise you end up with an absolute mess that may work at least for "happy path" cases but completely breaks down as the product needs change. I've described a case of this in some detail in another comment.
> the person writing the prompts knows what a quality solution looks like at a technical level and is reviewing the output as they go
That is exactly what I recommend, and it works like a charm. The person also has to have realistic expectations for the LLM, and be willing to work with a simulacrum that never learns (as frustrating as it seems at first glance).
I'm trying to work with vibe-coded applications and it's a nightmare. I am trying to make one application multi-tenant by moving a bunch of code that's custom to a single customer into config. There are 200+ line methods, dead code everywhere, tons of unnecessary complexity (for instance, extra mapping layers that were introduced to resolve discrepancies between keys, instead of just using the same key everywhere). No unit tests, of course, so it's very difficult to tell if anything broke. When the system requirements change, the LLM isn't removing old code, it's just adding new branches and keeping the dead code around.
I ask the developer the simplest questions, like "which of the multiple entry-points do you use to test this code locally", or "you have a 'mode' parameter here that determines which branch of the code executes, which of these modes are actually used? and I get a bunch of babble, because he has no idea how any of it works.
Of course, since everyone is expected to use Cursor for everything and move at warp speed, I have no time to actually untangle this crap.
The LLM is amazing at some things - I can get it to one-shot adding a page to a react app for instance. But if you don't know what good code looks like, you're not going to get a maintainable result.
One wonders if a German in 1600 would have cursed the invention of the printing press. The printing press accelerated the reformation, which led to over a century of bloody religious wars. Something like a third of the German population died as a result. From the perspective of 2025, the printing press was undoubtedly positive for humanity. But millions of people suffered.
I think this is something that a lot of supporters of the Gaza protests tell themselves, but I am not sure that it's actually true. The US and other Western countries sell weapons to Saudi Arabia and have extensive economic ties to that country. Saudi Arabia recently engaged in a bombing campaign in Yemen that looked very similar to Israel's campaign in Gaza. And yet there were no protests. Also, you can influence your country's policies towards another country whether or not the two countries are allies. Years ago, there was a mass protest movement in the west against the genocide in Darfur for example. Nobody said "we don't have a lot of economic or diplomatic ties to Sudan so there's no point in protesting".
I think the real reason has to do with 1) there was an existing, organized pro-Palestinian movement that had experience protesting; 2) many organizations on the left saw the Israel-Gaza conflict as fitting very nicely into their larger anti-imperialist ideology in a way that other conflicts don't; 3) everyone more-or-less knows where Israel is on the map and has some familiarity with it; 4) there were a lot of really shocking images and video from Gaza
Fair enough, I did not know that. Maybe add to your list of reasons that attention is divided over so many conflicts nowadays. Probably there have been conflicts all the time, but with Ukraine, Greenland, Minnesota, Gaza and Venezuela getting a lot of attention it feels like a lot. Note that I don't think the conflicts are remotely comparable with each other, but they each take up a lot of mindspace at least for me.
If you look at some of the most active groups in the pro-Palestinian left, like the PSL in the United States, you'll see that they have a very long history of praising horrific, oppressive regimes (even North Korea!) that oppose the United States, and dismissing accusations of crimes against humanity when perpetrated by those regimes. The PSL is a minuscule political party, but they're highly involved in organizing these protests.
This doesn't make a ton of sense to me. The barrier to entry isn't the app, it's the network of drivers and restaurants, and all the money that apps like DoorDash poured into marketing. Just having a functioning app doesn't really do very much.
reply