Based on a FIDO2 spec I used it to write a reasonably compliant security token implementation that runs on top of Linux USB gadget subsystem (xcept for attestation, because that's completely useless anyway). It also extracted tests from an messy proprietary electron based compliance testsuite that FIDO alliance uses and rewrote them in clean and much more understandable C without a shitton of dependencies that electron mess uses. Without any dependencies but openssl libcrypto, for that matter.
In like 4 hours. (and most of that was me copy pasting things around to feed it reasonable chunks of information, feature by feature)
It also wrote a real-time passive DTLS-SRTP decryptor in C in like 1 hour total based on just the DTLS-SRTP RFC and a sample code of how I write suckless things in C.
I mean people can believe whatever they want. But I believe LLMs can write a reasonably fine C.
I believe that coding LLMs are particularly nice for people who are into C and suckless.
LLMs are great at C, probably because C is historically the most popular language in the world, by far. It only declined slightly very recently. But there's insane amount of code written in it.
Docker is about containerization/sandboxing, you don't need to duplicate the OS. You can run your app as the init process for the sandbox with nothing else running in the background.
I think that on linux docker is not nearly as resource intensive as on Mac. Not sure of the actual (for example) memory pressures due to things like not sharing shared libs between processes, granted
Only Java qualifies under your arbitrary rules, and even then I imagine it's trying to catch up to .NET (after all.. blu-ray players execute Java).. which can run on embedded systems https://nanoframework.net/
I listed some popular languages that web applications I happened to run dockerised are using. They are not arbitrary.
If you run normal web applications they often take many hundreds of megabytes if they are built with some popular languages that I happened to list off the top of my head. That is a fact.
Comparing that to cut down frameworks with many limitations meant for embedded devices isn't a valid comparison.
"just as well"? lmao sure i guess i could just manually set up the environment and have differences from what im hoping to use in productio
> 1GiB machine can run a lot of server software,
this is naive
it really depends if you're crapping out some basic web app versus doing something that's actually complicated and has a need for higher performance than synchronous web calls :)
in addition, my mq pays attention to memory pressure and tunes its flow control based on that. so i have a test harness that tests both conditions to ensure that some of my backoff logic works
> if RAM is not wasted on having duplicate OSes on one machine.
A few, until their current stocks run out. Orange Pi already increased prices (their boards are similar price or more expensive than equivalent Pi's now), and Radxa seems to just stop selling certain models (at least in NA) once they run out of stock.
Arduino has one of the cheapest 4GB boards now, but I wonder if it's just because they made a ton and the demand for their strange board has been low?
Great, you can now help genocide defenseless children, and attack countries to cause massive disruptions to the rest of the world, without much worry. Sure great strategy to get HATED, as you should be.
Iran's relationhip to Russia is in no way strategic to EU. Overall trade between Russia and Iran is 1/400th of that of Russia <-> China trade. Breaking the relationship now would not lead to any noticeable effect on Ukraine war. Russia manufactures geran drones itself. And you will not bomb technology/knowledge transfers away anyway. Vast majority of the materials for Russia's war come from China and the rest of the world, incl. USA and Europe.
What is a complete strategic failure though is EU's support for Israel's impunity that created this war, which will negatively effect all of the EU. There should have been severe sanctions and travel bans on all Israelis long time ago, to force their government to act better. Economic losses this shithole country caused to the EU, will not be offset by any benefits Israel's<->EU trade could create for a looooong time.
The EU should have attacked Iran the moment Iran started providing defensive assistance to Russia. Initially it wasn't know how that they gave them but explicit shipments of drones. That would have been the moment to pounds but of course the EU did not have the strength to act in that moment. That weakness unfortunately persists but it will not forever. And in time, oncr strengthened again, the EU will be able to act where needed.
If you think this war is somehow negatively impacting the EU you're being very short sighted. Do you realize the level of impunity the IRGC has traditionally operated with in europe? Only the mass murderer of the Iranian civilians in January initiated a slow wake up call for europe. Still only a service level wake up call unfortunately
Yes, if you're smart. But most people asking it random questions and expecting it to read their minds and spit out the perfect answer are not so much. They don't know what a prompt is, and wouldn't be bothered to give it prior instructions either way.
Educated, not smart. This is a job for schools to include AI education into the basic curricula. Their pupils will use the tools anyway, so at least teach them to do it with proper expectations and prompting techniques/pitfalls.
I think that the type of people who can easily pick up subtext have come to rely on that channel of communication and don't realize they need to be more direct and verbose when chatting with language models.
Tit for tat usually. Dimona strike in particular was:
"Commander of the IRGC's Aerospace Force, Brigadier General Seyyed Majid Mousavi, says that every ultimatum given to Iran is an act of war. Adds that the Iranian strikes on the strategic points in Dimona and Haifa in recent hours were in response to the US' 2 and 5 day threats."
Missing the forest for the trees, are you? Wars of aggression are against UN rules, and US is in the wrong regardless of what it hit.
Feels like we're talking here about whether rapist should have known that the rapee was a child or an adult, and they had a good reason to believe it was an adult person (there was mother of the girl standing next to it, so, hard to distinguish...), so yeah, obviously a tragedy they raped a child instead, but it happens sometimes when you rape a lot of people at once. A tragedy, but let's get on with raping more...
Iran has been waging war since the Islamic Revolution and the US claims that there was a threat of attack on US bases and US interests and therefore the attack was in self defense. The body that decides is the UNSC and given the US has veto powers it's not going to obviously declare the US attack illegal.
From Israel's perspective there's an even stronger self defense argument given the amount of missiles aimed at Israel from Iran and the enrichment of nuclear material to military grades while constantly threatening the elimination of Israel. So the US argument that they knew Israel was planning the attack and they knew Iran would retaliate against US interests seems at least on the surface to bad valid.
What the US claims is really not a strong source of anything, and I'm saying that as an American. The most compelling reasoning is that Israel was going to do something so US decision makers decided joining was the best worst decision, and I'm being very bend over backwards generous with that. Anything else is just excuses trying to cover it up. It seems obvious now that there was no stopping Israel from their strike on Iranian leadership. It was too ripe of a target, they have been emboldened by current US admin, so at that point it was in for a penny, in for a pound mentality.
If the US thought an Iranian retaliation from an Israeli strike would be to attack US assets, then the world would possibly have some sympathy. No rational person could condone an outright first strike just because we thought something was going to happen. Yet the fact that in the "we think they will do something" spit balling never suggested shutting the down the strait seems very suspect as well.
> If the US thought an Iranian retaliation from an Israeli strike would be to attack US assets
A reasonable belief, because Iran in fact responded to the US+Israeli strikes by attacking US allies and even neutral nations like Qatar.
And why should we doubt that Iran would have closed the Strait of Hormuz even if the US had not attacked, leaving Israel to attack alone? The strategic calculation (threaten the world economy so other nations oppose the war) would have been the same.
But had the US not been part of the first strike, they could have applied much more diplomatic pressure to open the strait. As an active aggressor, they have no wiggle room. It might seem like semantics to you, but there's a huge difference diplomatically.
Pressure from most of the world isn't enough, why would additional pressure from the US (who Iran already regarded as an enemy) have made the difference?
Iran didn't really do anything last year after supposedly having their facilities "totally annihilated". But it used to be that the US was respected enough that public saber rattling and behind the scenes diplomatic efforts would avoid conflict. Sadly, we've done our damnedest to turn that respect into a joke. We used to make deals with people, but the greatest deal maker ripped up all of them and replaced them with nothing on the word better deals were for the taking.
> But it used to be that the US was respected enough that public saber rattling and behind the scenes diplomatic efforts would avoid conflict.
This is isn't true in practice, even if you want to argue it's technically true. Iran has been participating in conflict through proxies continually for decades. US sabre rattling has done nothing to quell that violence.
Houthis open adversaries, Saudi, are aware that they are not really Iranian proxies [0]. Sunnis in Lebanon are Persian Shi'a 'proxy' only since their leadership was assassinated during negotiations in 2024 (also by this very liberal definition of 'proxy', eastern Iranian clans are US/Israel proxies, and killed more Iranians than Hamas killed Israelis, so I'm not sure we really want to get into it). The only proxy Iran had were Iraki Shi'a paramilitary forces, who agreed for a ceasefire to let US troops and diplomats get out of Iraq, and once the evacuation was done, got their leaders bombed. Never trust the US.
Iran gives missiles to the houtis, houtis then use those to fire at American ships. Its the same kind of proxy war as Ukrain, and people call that a proxy.
Thank you, that's my point. If you think Houtis are a proxy, then you think Ukraine is a proxy for the US, as Houtis have to promise concessions to Iran in exchange for armaments. Better yet, they choose their target without iranian input, so they are even less of a proxy than Ukraine who has been forbidden by the US to use the weapons they were given outside of their borders.
If you think Hezbollah are an Iranian proxy, then Israel is an US proxy, and Hamas is a Qatar/Likud proxy (won't be the first time the far right pay agitators to kill their own citizen to stay/be in power, just look at Italy).
It's also been an ally of Iran. Qatar is not neutral in that it stays distant from both sides, it is neutral in that it attempts to maintain good relations with both sides.
Iran has attacked the US base in Qatar before. When they did so in 2025, Iran's Supreme National Security Council issued a statement: "this action does not pose any threat to the friendly and brotherly country, Qatar, and its noble people, and the Islamic Republic of Iran remains committed to maintaining and continuing warm and historic relations with Qatar".
This time Iran attacked Qatar itself, including the Ras Laffan gas facility and Hamad International Airport.
Qatar has never been allied with Iran. It has had economic partnerships, especially around the oil fields that Israel blew up, but that is not an alliance. Iran does not have military bases in Qatar.
Why would Iran need a base in Qatar? It's right next door.
Iran and Qatar do (did?) have military cooperation agreements, not only economic. [1] That's not a NATO style treaty but Qatar doesn't have a NATO style treaty with the US either.
> the enrichment of nuclear material to military grades while constantly threatening the elimination of Israel.
Iran has supported a treaty on elimination of weapons of mass destruction in the middle east, Israel has been the blocker of it, only actor in the region that has nukes, and isn't in the NPT.
As a non-signer of the NPT, military aid to Israel is also illegal under US law, so we play along with strategic ambiguity and pretend they don't have them.
At various times, and potentially via proxies:
Iraq
Saudi Arabia
Israel
Kurdish Rebels
The US
“All countries” via actions against shipping in the Red Sea and the Strait of Hormuz
Iran proxies were extremely active in Syria, as they were close allies of the Assad regime. They are responsible for countless exactions.
In 1992 there was a deadly car bomb attack in Argentina, killing 29 people and injuring 250 more. Then again in 1994 a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires was bombed, killing 87 people. Eventually the investigation demonstrated conclusively that Iran was responsible.
> You have better examples for Iran like Hezbollah and Hamas.
Yes but that was mostly covered already by the comment I was responded to. I was just filling a few gaps in the list.
> Albeit Hamas has been largely propped by Israel itself and Qatar.
Qatar has certainly financed and supported Hamas a great deal.
Israel has absolutely not "propped up" Hamas. I'm aware of the allegations to the contrary, but they are wildly inflated nonsense. Israel and Hamas have been enemies to the death for decades.
Yes it did, big time, there's even a dedicated page on wikipedia [1].
It's quite impressive how most people are unaware of this.
> "Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas…"
Benjamin Netanyahu on record. And there's plenty of such quotes.
Long story short: in order to delegitimize the Palestinian Authority various Israeli governments have legitimized and propped Hamas in order to have a scapegoat to not have to sit around the negotiating table.
Israeli actively armed and helped financing of Hamas while helping them suppress moderate Palestinian factions.
And that's only what we know. I wouldn't be surprised if one day we'll also get proof that Israeli intelligence knew about October 7th and still allowed it to happen to go on such an extensive military campaign and crush forever any hope for a Palestinian state at the same time.
> Benjamin Netanyahu on record. And there's plenty of such quotes.
If there are "plenty" of quotes like this, can you identify just one that we know he actually said? (Not the "thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state" quote, which is unverified and denied by him [1].)
In any case, actions speak louder than words. If we look past Wikipedians' spin and look the substance of what Israel actually did, they once facilitated Qatari aid to fund some basic civil services, to prevent societal collapse in Gaza. That's it, that's essentially the sole basis for all the misleading claims about Israel "supporting Hamas".
Correcting misinformation is “shilling”? What does my work have to do with anything?
Your claim was that Netanyahu was "on record" with "plenty" of quotes. If that's true, surely it must be very easy to identify two or three specific quotes that he definitely said? Your link doesn't do that. The first answer doesn't quote Netanyahu. The second says "well he didn't deny the unverified quote", which is obviously false/outdated per my link above.
In any case, is there some particular action Netanyahu took to "support Hamas" that you disagree with? Do you think Israel should have blocked the Qatari aid funds, which were ostensibly necessary to keep basic civil services running and prevent societal collapse?
The problem is that the language you're using—"propped up Hamas"—obscures the fact that for the bulk of the time when Israel was directly supporting Sheikh Ahmed Yassin's efforts, "Hamas" technically didn't exist.
Yes, those early contributions obviously facilitated its emergence, but this is probably why people are disagreeing with you.
On the other hand, that doesn't belie the argument that Israel/Netanyahu's tactics since 1989 (e.g. leveraging Qatari aid) have ulterior motives assigned.
Your original point about Hamas being used as a proxy for Iran was solid. It's a pity that it's since descended into an argument about a secondary remark. But the support that Hamas gets from Iran versus the support than Hamas gets from Qatar (with Israeli/American approval) shouldn't be conflated.
They've colonized the whole region with their proxies, from Lebanon to Yemen to Iraq, previously Syria which they attacked with Hezbollah to support the Russia-backed Assad. About 1 million dead people from all this proxy warfare. Lebanon in particular wants to be a normal liberal democracy but their proxy militia assassinates any politician who stands in their way.
Colonized? Are Hezbollah not Lebanese? Were assadists not Syrian? (assadists invited Hezbollah) And how did Hezbollah come to be?
I think you're simplifying quite a bit. And you're also omitting Israel and other near east countries or groups as a proxies of USA, simply by avoiding a clear and sensible non-discriminatory definition of what a proxy is.
Eg. USA's Israel "proxy" crucified (literally) a "Palestinian Christian poet, advocate of non-violence and PLO spokesman" in Lebanon and executed a random woman who stood in the way of their operation. This is one of hundreds a lot of the time political assasinations IL did all around the world.
Also Iraq attacked Iran during Iranian revolution in the past. You can hardly call Iraq a victim of Iranian proxy warfare.
You can't ignore history or the long-term USA and Russian meddling in the region.
Seems like significant subset of what you call proxies are locals who formed a group and tighter (Hezbollah) or very loose and inconsequential (Hamas) alliances with Iran, in response to either beligerent occupation/aggression or invasions by some other groups like Israel, Iraq, Saudis - basically in response to wars fought over land and resources.
This is irrelevant to the topic at hand. Not dismissing your point, but it's really not a useful follow up. The two things can be bad at the same time.
In like 4 hours. (and most of that was me copy pasting things around to feed it reasonable chunks of information, feature by feature)
It also wrote a real-time passive DTLS-SRTP decryptor in C in like 1 hour total based on just the DTLS-SRTP RFC and a sample code of how I write suckless things in C.
I mean people can believe whatever they want. But I believe LLMs can write a reasonably fine C.
I believe that coding LLMs are particularly nice for people who are into C and suckless.
reply