Customary law is not formal law. Trump flies above the bedrock.
The thing to realize is that US could have destroyed 10-100x more civilian infrastructure. Instead it only gave Iran a small taste of what it's capable of. In undertaking this action, just as with the nukes in WWII, the gambit is to end the war quickly, not to prolong it. I am not saying whether the gambit will work, but why is prolonging war not illegal?
Spatial whataboutism is perfectly fair in war. A tit-for-tat strategy forms a highly stabilizing bedrock.
Just guessing, but I assume because it’s arguably off-topic as defined by the HN guidelines. I don’t think it should be flagged, though.
“Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.”
This being evidence of an interesting new phenomenon is literally the entire premise of the blog post though. And it sure as hell didn't look like it was covered on the main news headlines; I know I only heard about it because of HN. The author is pretty clearly claiming this is a new phenomenon literally in the title itself!
It's new, but is it "interesting?" Does it "satisfy intellectual curiosity?"
Many people here will consider this categorically off topic and flag accordingly because politics doesn't satisfy theirs. Even if it's a good article, and even if the discussion is on-topic and civil.
What is "intellectual curiosity" that doesn't include curiosity about whether, when, and how often the world superpower commits a war crime? For reference just the other day we had [1] on the front page. Was knowing the consumer price index for the month really all that much more satisfying of "intellectual curiosity" than this?
Infrastructure/platform engineer with 3+ years of experience on Uber's Compute Platform team (though I was sadly laid off in late 2025.) I work on large-scale fleet orchestration and the reliability/observability tooling around it.
Looking for: Series A/B infrastructure or compute teams... AI/GPU infra, developer platforms, or climate/energy/space especially!
I'm not saying it's AI. But founder build a platform around this issue and then discovered that this issue is hard?
If it's not an AI-slop, it still shows a sloppy reasoning.
He claims anyone can build what he build, and furthermore that he doesn't know how to actually solve the outreach problem. So essentially he did nothing and achieved nothing and instead only moving on, he decides to double down.
Site menu doesn't work, half of pages are missing, I tried to learn what his plans are moving forward, and couldn't find anything.
Even with AI, if you want to sell people on the idea that you personally can make a site, you should present a site that works.
If you claim that there is a solution, you should present an evidence.
It's not enough to say "everyone can do it with AI". I wouldn't trust a site like that not to leak my info.
Even if it's not AI, it still sloppy.
I understand if it was a blog rant, but it's not.
Regarding your last point, I personally find it insulting when I receive an AI response because of the subtle deception involved. When I am talking with another human via Slack/email/etc., I am under the impression that the messages I am receiving are written by the coworker/person in question. When instead I receive an LLM's output, that trust is broken, especially if it is not made transparent that AI was used to generate the message.
> “better than carpet bombing”
The lawful alternative is attacking military targets, not worse civilian targets.
> “why is it legal for Iran to bomb oil tankers?”
Iran’s conduct being illegal doesn’t legalize this strike. Whataboutism is a scourge.
reply