No. First, even enriched uranium is not particularly radioactive without human intervention (with a half-life of 704 million years). Second, the uranium stockpile may be buried under a mountain of rubble, rather than dispersed by the explosion. Third, who knows if the Iranian government is telling the truth; they have good reason to claim that their stockpile is intact even if it isn’t.

Here’s an incident that is only tangentially related to what we’re talking about, but it’s one that I found memorable. My grandmother was reading a tabloid newspaper (which she tends to believe) and it apparently had an article about UFOs. She turned to me and told me that, according to the newspaper, space aliens were real and visiting Earth. Then she went about her ordinary business - the thing about the aliens was simply an interesting bit of trivia for her.

I think her reaction was not in fact particularly unusual, but I found it baffling. The arrival of space aliens would be perhaps the most important thing that has ever happened to humanity. The entire future of the species would hang in the balance, and everything would hinge on what the aliens want. I know my grandmother very well but I still don’t really understand how she thinks about things like this. The best I can come up with is that she believes in many fantastical things and therefore just one more fantastical thing changes little for her.

This isn’t a direct response to what you’re describing but I think it’s relevant as an illustration of one way how the fantastical can be less important than the mundane for people.

I think people’s behavior is determined much more by social conventions and the expectations of their community (in addition to pragmatic self-interest) than it is by logical reasoning. I’ll risk being the preachy vegetarian by discussing people’s attitudes towards eating meat. Most people sincerely believe that cruelty to animals is wrong, and also that factory farming (if not all killing) is cruel. Yet they eat meat. I even know some people who started eating meat again after being ethical vegetarians. Did they change their minds about whether or not harming animals is bad? No. If pressed, they feel guilty but they don’t like to talk about it. The reason they’re eating meat is because it’s convenient and almost everyone expects them to, not because they reasoned from first principles. Likewise with religion - if no one else is giving everything away to the poor and everyone will think you’re crazy if you do rather than praising you, you’re not going to give everything away to the poor even if it would make sense to do so given what you believe.

Edit: Kidney donation is another example. I met a woman once who donated a kidney to a friend of her mother’s. This person wasn’t someone particularly dear to her, but she found out that he needed a kidney to live and she gave him hers. I think that what she did is commendable, but I still have both my kidneys. This is despite the fact that I sincerely believe that if, for example, I saw a drowning child then I would risk my life to save him. People would think I was a hero if I saved the child, or that I was a coward if I didn’t try. Meanwhile almost everyone I know would think I went crazy if I donated a kidney to a stranger. My relatives would be extremely worried, and they would try to talk me out of it. I’m not going to do something difficult, painful, and (to an extent) dangerous when everyone I know would disapprove, even if in principle I think risking my life to save another’s is a good thing to do.

I’m upset by many things going on in the world but I’m not overwhelmed because there are no relevant decisions for me to make. Look at it this way: what’s the difference between reading a book that says Genghis Khan killed a hundred more people than you thought he did centuries ago and reading a newspaper that says a hundred people died in some catastrophe yesterday? In both cases, you’ve learned that total strangers died in the past, there was nothing you could have done, and there will be no direct effect on your own life. It’s natural to be more upset by the more recent deaths (and I admit that I would be) but I think it isn’t logical.

The exception to that is AI. I think I do need to change my own life in order to increase my chance of thriving in an AI-dominated future, at least because if some jobs will still exist then I’ll need to be able to do one of them.

(I suppose “Do I flee the country?” is another decision I technically need to consider, but the answer is “No unless things get dramatically worse.” Thus there isn’t much to think about on a daily basis.)

The intent is presumably to force Iran to accept that it cannot be safe, and that the best it can do is to appease its enemies. That is, as a matter of fact, currently true if the USA decides to see things through. It’s a situation that many countries have been forced to accept over the course of history (and one that Iran has been eager to impose on is neighbors).

I know that there are religious scientists and I think humans often compartmentalize beliefs in such a way that their belief about the supernatural doesn’t affect their assessment of real-world situations. I’ll even go further and say that often it seems like their belief affects their behavior much less than it logically ought to, with some (but not all) people who apparently sincerely believe in an all-seeing God and an afterlife still acting just like atheists in relevant situations. In this context, the fanatics are sometimes technically the more rational ones - I disagree with their premises, but their actions make sense if those premises are considered true.

I’m an atheist. I dated a woman once who believed in spirits. I think she experienced night terrors among other things and interpreted them as supernatural phenomena. It didn’t cause problems then but I was a lot younger and I think now I’m less tolerant of that sort of thing. But who knows - I was crazy about her so maybe if I meet a woman I’m crazy about like that again then I’ll tolerate anything.

More recently I’ve dated people who believe in a vague sort of life after death but never someone who practiced any religion. I think I would immediately rule out practicing religious people if I were going through a list (as when dating online) but if I met someone in person, really liked her, and then found out she was religious then I’m not sure what I would do. It would definitely be off-putting.

The problem for me isn’t the lifestyle differences but rather my impression that religious people are missing the point about the basic nature of existence, when it really should be obvious. It makes me feel like I’m patronizing them, because to be frank I don’t tend to think of them as my intellectual equals. (And I know that makes me sound like a pompous jerk.)

I completely quit reddit in protest after using it for over ten years when it threatened to replace the moderators of a small subreddit I participated in after that subreddit shut down during the API protests. I don’t actually care about the API myself (I never used anything other than old reddit) but I thought that reddit had no moral (as opposed to merely legal) right to take over something the mods had built and it merely hosted.

Lemmy is worse, but at least I’m following my principles.

I don’t think that Iran is going to get much useful sympathy from any country not already on its side (and of those, Russia has other priorities). Iran’s ambitions have put it at odds with both Western countries and the Arab world and international law (even if it is on Iran’s side - I don’t know) is never going to lead countries to act against the dictates of realpolitik.

I also don’t think that failing to destroy these facilities necessarily makes a nuclear-armed Iran inevitable, given that Israel and the USA apparently have total air dominance. The infrastructure needed to deploy nuclear ICBMs can’t all be kept deep underground and Iran’s dependence on oil exports makes its economy particularly vulnerable to strategic bombing. I just don’t trust Trump to see things through if his initial attempts fail - he’s too impulsive. (And I’m not sure the moral calculus remains the same either - it’s one thing to blow up a few underground weapons labs and quite another to engage in a strategic bombing campaign against the entire country.)

I hope the bunker-buster bombs worked. Whether the costs of war are worth paying in order to destroy Iran’s nuclear program is debatable, but they’re definitely paid in vain if the program survives.

Israel is an ally of the USA but Iran is violently hostile to the USA.

I interpret this as a way for Trump to position himself as the “good cop” rather than as a factual description of something that actually happened, or else I would be concerned about how such sensitive secret information is apparently being casually given away to news agencies.

I think many people learned the wrong lesson from GWB’s Iraq War. It was presented as (among other things) a way to stop an enemy of the USA from obtaining nuclear weapons and it was a mistake, so they conclude that using force to stop enemies of the USA from obtaining nuclear weapons is a mistake. However, using force (if necessary) to stop enemies of the USA from obtaining nuclear weapons is a prudent idea and the problem with that Iraq War was that it was not actually fought for that purpose. GWB was the boy who cried wolf but real wolves still exist.

How can the war realistically end?

1. A return to the pre-war status quo. The withdrawal of Israeli troops, presumably in return for the hostages, with either Hamas or another group equally hostile to Israel in control of Gaza. This is the worst-case scenario for Israel, because it represents a total failure to eliminate the source of more potential October 7 attacks. I suspect it’s the worst-case scenario for Gaza too, since future attacks on Israel would lead to future destruction in Gaza.

2. The destruction of Hamas and the establishment of a Gazan government friendly towards Israel, perhaps by the Palestinian authority or a coalition of Arab states. Very difficult and failure-prone, but a pathway to peace in the long term. I had hoped that this would be the outcome when the war started but it isn’t what Netanyahu is trying to accomplish and by now I’m not sure there’s enough goodwill left for it to still be possible.

3. Permanent Israeli occupation. I don’t think Israel can maintain such an occupation - it would be extremely expensive in money, lives, and international goodwill. Netanyahu and his supporters seem to think that Israel can, but many of them seem to make plans reliant on divine intervention.

4. Expulsion of the population of Gaza. Egypt wouldn’t accept that without a war. Maybe Trump thinks he can find another country that would, but even if he did (unlikely) then the logistics of moving two million people would be extremely challenging. I think this outcome is effectively impossible - another one of the “divine intervention required” plans. However, it would be a best-case scenario for Israel. The gain in territory means little, but no longer having Gazans as neighbors immediately ends the conflict for good, which no other outcome does.

If (2) isn’t going to happen then (4) may be the best case scenario for everyone. Even the people being expelled and their descendants would probably be better off than they would be if they remain in Gaza for for many more decades of conflict. However, I very much doubt that it can happen.

A woman I know worked as an escort on and off and spent most of her time traveling, but I don’t think most people have the looks and the charisma to do that even if they want to. I’m not sure what other careers both pay enough and let you quit and then start again easily, but presumably there are some.

Yes, they’re threatening to withhold it but unless there’s something I missed, they haven’t declared that they are withholding it.

The article appears to contradict itself - it says they’re withholding her diploma but also that they’re mailing it to her and simply not allowing her to participate in the graduation ceremony. I hope she does get the diploma mailed to her so she can put this behind her.

The school is apparently not claiming that it’s against the rules for her to come out as gay, but rather that her mention of “ruthless Trump supporting ‘Jesus’ mfs" is vulgar and disrespectful. That seems like quite a stretch.

This is a private school so I don’t see how that’s relevant.

[subsidiary protection status] is for people who do not meet the specific criteria for refugee status under the Geneva Convention but who face a risk of serious harm in their country of origin, including the death penalty, torture, inhuman or degrading treatment, or indiscriminate violence in the context of an armed conflict.

The title is somewhat misleading. It’s not refugee status as defined in international law and It’s also apparently not a permanent status?