Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | christkv's commentslogin

Im the EU there is Intel Ireland at least.

Im always surprised people forget that Intel exists and still has high performance nodes (just release panther lake on their newest node). They even have a plant in Ireland.

No one forgets that. Intel will get some customers. It's inevitable because according to the article, TSMC had severely underestimated AI demand in 2023 and 2024 by not drastically increasing capex in those years.

you also need submarines to have a "credible" second strike deterrent. It's not enough to just have a bomb.

Submarines are one of several options for this.

Rockets, submarines, aircraft, or even a nuke in a container ship parked in a big harbor work.


China's recent container ship weaponization efforts are .. interesting - https://www.twz.com/sea/chinese-cargo-ship-packed-full-of-mo...

Reminds me of the Rapid Dragon missile system the US uses to weaponize cargo planes - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid_Dragon_(missile_system)


Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poseidon_(unmanned_underwater_...

I'd fully expect China and the US to be working on such things.


Delivery of nuclear weapon via shipping container might seem like a deterrent but it's kind of the opposite thing.

For something to be a deterrent it must have a few properties. Delivery taking a non-zero amount of time and producing a gigantic visible ordeal from outer space is a feature here. A container bomb going off somewhere in a civilian logistics chain is a surprise. Surprises cannot be deterrent by their very definition. The inability to ~instantly attribute the attack to some party would only invite additional instability.


The deterrence aspect is having nukes your adversary can't be certain of getting rid of on a preemptive strike.

You don't have to have them on a container ship. You need the credible threat of being able to do so.


Container ships tend to be fairly slow to respond and may not function as expected during a nuclear war.

The only way for this to work as a retaliatory measure is to have the weapons already in place at the target locations. Now, imagine if someone were to discover the weapon and trace it back to whomever installed it. This is effectively a slow motion nuclear exchange that was initiated by the "defender".


The point of this particular sort of deterrence is to prevent a decapitation strike by an opponent who thinks they can knock them all out.

"Yeah, you can drop bunker busters on the silos you know about, but six months later one of your cities evaporates."

The five big nuclear powers use subs for this, but it's hardly the only option.


Or missile systems constantly moved around on roads, railroads, or underground tunnels. And there’s also “launch on warning.”

Or just a big enough nuke in the frozen northern tundra, one large enough to cause nuclear winter for the whole world.

Or a fleet of TELs roaming the uninhabited regions.


Also used to run a nuclear weapons program back in the day[1]. Though, to be honest, I think it'd be politically impossible to revive today. There's barely political will to build new nuclear power.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_nuclear_weapons_progra...


I do not think that nuclear power is viewed same as nuclear war heads. One is perceived as potentional ecological catasprophe and the second one as a weapon of retaliation.

I honestly don't think most people understand either. Younger generations are a bit more open minded, but for a lot of people who lived through the news reports of Cs137-fallout from Chernobyl raining down on them, nuclear anything is represents an invisible and scary boogyman.

And launch vehicles.

We actually have had 4 train accidents and incidents in a week.

https://people.com/train-collides-with-crane-arm-in-4th-rail...

It's clear some of them are probably caused by neglect in maintenance, others are freak accidents.

It's pretty crazy the statistical probabilities involved for something like this.


5!

An Asturias Circanías train collided with debris from a collapsed tunnel wall on Thursday afternoon in Olloniego. No injured though


Some more info from Spanish media. The track that broke was from 1989 and had not been maintained properly.

No, the claim is that the broken rail was the new one but it happened at the transition from old to new.

Jupp you are right I had not read up on the news today.

Got a link?

And how does it accord with the many statements made early on about the track being renewed recently?


Apparently the weld that broke joined an old segment with a new one installed last year as the tracks are renovated piecemeal.

Still the media in question, "El Mundo", is a mouthpiece for the opposition parties, seeking to create indignation against the government and scoring the head of the Transport Minister in particular.

They also want to make a parallel with the situation of the former President of the Valencian Community, from their party, who had to finally resign one year after being unreachable for hours on a date while hundreds of valencians drowned as his administration waffled aimlessly.

Of course the government is ultimately responsible for the state of the infrastructure, so the Minister well might have to resign after all is said and done, but the innuendo in that piece is pure politicking, not serious journalism.


I have one in Spanish. Seems the latest info is that it broke where the new rails meet the old rail.

https://www.elmundo.es/economia/2026/01/25/697635e8fc6c83c42...


I enjoy running these kind of articles through an analysis using chatgpt. Language matters and this is a pretty terribly slanted article trying to hype up fear.

Sometimes I wonder if we would be better having a plugin that did this kind of analysis to give you a pointer towards if the writer is even trying to do their job of being objective or think they need to "make the news" to save the world.

The Smithsonian article uses a well-known set of high-impact narrative devices—catastrophic metaphor, point-of-no-return language, scale shock, authority stacking, vivid exemplars, moralization, and fear-to-action solution framing—to intensify perceived urgency and motivate concern.


You have no idea how that would destroy the Norwegian State. They are addicted to money from that fund. A collapse in it's value would have direct impact on the finances of the state. Nearly 1/4 of the budget is funded from that found a year.

That's got to be a tiny amount relative to the fund size though.

Anyway, how would that destroy the fund? They'd be selling it not giving it away.


> That's got to be a tiny amount relative to the fund size though.

Current total market value is about $2136B, of which ~$912B is invested in the US[1].

[1]: https://www.nbim.no/en/investments/the-funds-value/ (see map at bottom for regional figures)


No, I mean the 25% of the Norway Government Budget must be a tiny amount of the fund.

The politicians have set a self-imposed limit[1] on how much they can use per year. It's currently 3% of the funds value, to ensure we don't need to reign in too much during hard times[2].

However politicians have tried to use less, for 2026 they plan[3] to use 452B NOK which is roughly 2.13%.

However as OP points out, the total budget is around 2100B NOK, so the oil money pays for roughly a quarter. And that's becoming a bit of a problem in my view as well.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_budgetary_rule

[2]: https://www.regjeringen.no/no/tema/okonomi-og-budsjett/norsk...

[2]: https://www.regjeringen.no/no/statsbudsjett/2026/statsbudsje...


The contribution of the State Fund to national pensions is around 20-25% to the state expenses

And increasing year after year.

When I hitchhiked around Japan in 1999 snackbars were our goto places to have a drink as there was always some affordable home cooking (I was pretty broke) and decently priced drinks. We also had such a great time meeting locales.

Have people completely missed the stable coin move that will ensure there is a massive continuing market for USD. The prognosis is 2 trillion USD around 2028. Thats a lot of bonds that will need to be purchased to back the coin.

Yes. The Frecciarossa 1000 (ETR 1000) is an EMU, and the trainset’s coaches/cars are equipped with braking equipment as part of the integrated braking system—so it’s not “only the power cars” doing the braking.

So my first gut instinct is that one wagons breaks malfunctioned and suddenly applied breaking power since it was the last two wagons that went off.


That’s how every train works since this system was made mandatory in the US in 1893(!). Asymmetric breaking does not cause cars to come off. The joint is stronger than the breaking force. Anyway, we know it was a portion of the track that had a weld fracture.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: