> I am not the person you are asking, but (to me personally) it just says that Saudi Arabia had made massive strides to become a modern 21st century society, as opposed to some of their regional neighbors who still practice FGM on a notable scale.
That assumes that Saudis did use to do FGM.. and that's not true either.
> Let's call a cat: of these 230 mutilated women, a vast majority are muslims. There are 900 million muslim women on earth and nearly 1/4th of them have been mutilated by their community.
If the point here is that this is an Islamic/Muslim issue, then you'd find this in other Muslim populations. It's an Africa issue. Ethiopia is 60% Christian, yet had a 65 percent rate of FGM. Look at Pakistan, and the levant in general. Very Muslim populations yet very low levels of FGM.
The link you provided begins with the declaration:
Written by Amazon Staff
I am not a journalist and even I would question the "good journalism would include" assertion given the source provided.
> I find it somewhat overblown.
As I quoted in a peer comment:
Dave Treadwell, Amazon's SVP of e-commerce services, told
staff on Tuesday that a "trend of incidents" emerged since
the third quarter of 2025, including "several major"
incidents in the last few weeks, according to an internal
document obtained by Business Insider. At least one of
those disruptions were tied to Amazon's AI coding assistant
Q, while others exposed deeper issues, another internal
document explained.
Problems included what he described as "high blast radius
changes," where software updates propagated broadly because
control planes lacked suitable safeguards. (A control plane
guides how data flows across a computer network).
If the above is "overblown", then the SVP has done so. I have no evidence to believe this is the case however.
> I am not a journalist and even I would question the "good journalism would include" assertion given the source provided.
You've misunderstood. I was saying good journalism would include both sides, and hopefully primary sources alongside the reporting, so readers can evaluate both.
> If the above is "overblown", then the SVP has done so. I have no evidence to believe this is the case however.
It says "at least one of those disruptions were tied to Amazon's AI coding assistant Q, while others exposed deeper issues." You initially cited this article as evidence that coding agents don't produce working code. But the SVP is describing a broader trend of deployment and control plane failures, most of which are classic infrastructure problems that predate AI tooling entirely. You're attributing a systemic operational failure to AI code generation when even your own source doesn't support that.
More fundamentally, your original argument was that the premise "software can write working code" is flawed. One company having incidents, where some of those incidents involved AI tooling doesn't prove that. Humans cause production incidents every single day. By your logic, the existence of any bug would prove humans can't write working code either.
> Much of the coverage of the service incidents has focused on a weekly Amazon Stores operations meeting and a planned discussion of recent outages. Reviewing operational incidents is a routine part of these meetings, during which teams discuss root causes with the goal of continuing to improve reliability for customers.
This is something that's a part of every FAANG afaik. I know for a fact that there's no prohibition on pushing AI-assisted code. How would that even technically work? It'd basically mean banning Kiro/CC from the company.
> Only one of the incidents involved AI-assisted tooling, which related to an engineer following inaccurate advice that an AI tool inferred from an outdated internal wiki, and none involved AI-written code.
and this doesn't seem as "AI caused outage" as it was portrayed.
> the US military has made contingency plans for a decapitation strike and seizure or destruction of nuclear weapons in Pakistan in case the situation turns really bad there. Real deterrence requires a credible second-strike capability on survivable platforms such as submarines.
The existence of a plan does not equate to the feasibility of its execution. A submarine-based deterrent is indeed the "gold standard" for survivability, but it is not the only standard. There is enough pain for the US that they wouldn't actually attack Pakistan.
> There is enough pain for the US that they wouldn't actually attack Pakistan
These are the states whose Senators are in play this year [1].
Let's say Trump decides it's fuck-around-with-Islamabad-o'clock. He fucks around. Pakistan nukes at India. How many of those Senate seats flip as a result? I'm going to guess none.
Let's go one step further. Pakistan nukes Al Udeid and Camp Arifjan (both theoretically within range of their Shaheen-III). American troops are killed. Does the President's party lose any seats? At that point, I'd bet on a rally-'round-the-flag effect.
The truth is there isn't political downside to the President fucking around with Pakistan. Its nuclear deterrent isn't designed to contain America. And it can't threaten us with maybe the one thing that could make Trump suffer, a refugee crisis.
> Let's say Trump decides it's fuck-around-with-Islamabad-o'clock. He fucks around. Pakistan nukes at India. How many of those Senate seats flip as a result? I'm going to guess none.
If America does something to pakistan, then pakistan wouldn't bomb India but rather America
In your scenario India did literally nothing. I know the rivalry but even then India has its own nukes and if India wasn't part of the plan then case would be on America
A much more likely scenario is that Pakistan's military would take over (Pakistan has never been really stable after its independence) and their ties with china would grow and China would feel threatened as well and if things go the same as venezuela that is that Trump says that they would control pakistan for time being (similar to venezuela) then China would be genuinely pissed and a WW3 conflict can arise considering China could send their military there and the possibility of nuke could be a choice if the war really happens between America/China but the possibility of it is really really slim and depends on how the war goes.
>If America does something to pakistan, then pakistan wouldn't bomb India but rather America
This is a mistaken assumption. It is very likely that the nukes would always fly to India unless the US somehow communicated their intent before acting.
In a situation where you're launching nukes in retaliation, you're usually not waiting very long to think about where you're going to be sending them to.
> then pakistan wouldn't bomb India but rather America
This isn't an option. Not within a nuclear window. The only bases within range are Al Udeid and Camp Arifjan. Hence its inclusion in the above scenario.
> then China would be genuinely pissed and a WW3 conflict can arise
This is tantamount to saying Pakistan can't actually retaliate. Which is my point. Pakistan's nuclear deterrent doesn't actually deter America. China does.
Huh? How would Pakistan do that exactly? They have zero capability to strike the US homeland. In theory they might be able to hit a US military base in the region but even doing that successfully would require an extraordinary level of luck.
>but even doing that successfully would require an extraordinary level of luck.
On a normal day it'd probably not be a huge problem for Pakistani ballistic missiles to penetrate those bases’ own air defenses. However if the US was planning a strike, there'd certainly be Aegis BMD coverage there, which would be a problem. It's possible they'd even deploy THAAD to protect some bases.
Mainly because Islam has jurisprudence around hygiene in a sense. Ritual purification is an actual religious principle.
Islam requires Muslims to pray 5 times a day, and for those prayers, one has to be ritually clean. That involves washing the hands, rinsing the mouth and nose, washing the face, forearms, head, ears, and then the feet. That's effectively all the major parts of the body that are generally not covered by clothes. Your "cleanliness" is invalided if you use the toilet, pass flatulence, vomit, sleep and so on.
More so, for using the toilet, there are rules. You have to find a place that is away from standing water, people's pathways, shade etc ; granted, this generally doesn't apply in today's age. You have to be quiet on the toilet, and not look at anyone. Not allowed to eat any food while defecating. Lastly and most relevant in this case, you have to use water to wash yourself using the left hand, and then afterwards, you need to do the same for washing the front if you've urinated.
The reason why the "bidet spray" thing exists, is largely because of the rules in the religion around that practice. Calling them Arabic wouldn't make any sense because Indonesia, with the largest Muslim population, has similar tools in their facilities. Again, because they're mostly Muslims.
Printing isn't a catholic thing because the religious doctrine didn't emphasis "printing" itself.
Arabic numbers aren't "islamic numbers" because the religious doctrine didn't emphasise the numbers in some way.
That assumes that Saudis did use to do FGM.. and that's not true either.