The buried lede: Israel did an unprovoked attack on Pars and Iran immediately retaliated by attacking QatarEnergy, which has major LNG partnerships with US oil companies.
And it's important to not that until that point, both the US and Israel had not been attacking any of the Iranian production and export infrastructure, only some depots (and refineries?) for domestic use.
A basic chronological analysis makes it abundantly clear who is provoking and who is retaliating in each of these situations (none of which are located in Israel, by the way).
There are vague allegations of Iran being the "leading state sponsor of terror" on one scale, and then Israel openly doing a genocide and starting wars of aggression and assassinating countless civilian and military leaders on the other scale, with a growing number of American bodies as cannon fodder.
Nah, there's nothing vague around their funding and training of various militaries and militias in the area. There's more than enough war crimes on both sides to go around, and any concept of justice that is predicated on prosecuting one side exclusively is simply bankrupt. If Israeli civilians are fair game because of Israel's war crimes, then American civilians are fair game for the same reason. And I reject any theory of justice that bites that particular bullet.
No one denies that Iran has strategic partnerships in the region. The question comes down to whether you believe armed resistance is ever legitimate or you blanket-dismiss it as "terrorism", in order to justify the territorial encroachment, ethnic cleansing, or mass murder that is brazenly perpetrated by Israel.
Alas, both sides are very much engaged in their own brands of terrorism, and both sides' propogandists will attempt to crucify you if you call what they do terrorism.
This is a valid question, and the answer is unfortunately no. There's a lot to unpack there but basically the president is acting unilaterally and in a manner which advance the interests of foreign nations.
War? Time will tell, but I'm not hopeful. I have no clue what Trump could have done instead that would work out, but war isn't looking like a good answer (no surprise to me - though I didn't expect it to get this bad so fast)
Iran has been funding a lot of the "attack Israel" groups in the area. When your income depends on hating Israel it is hard to see a more moderate view. In turn this gives the extremists in Israel a better line of why elect them over someone more moderate. (Lets me clear I'm not trying to clear Israel of their crimes here, only suggesting that Iran bares some blame for those crimes).
The above, but applied to other countries and not as extreem. Iran is funding many anti-democracy groups in the region.
Iran has a lot of smart, well educated people - who can't get enough water to drink. If Iran had a better government those people could develop things of use to improve the world, but instead many are stuck as poor despite having the ability to not be.
Changing Iran would not solve all the problems, but it would ease a large share and maybe leave room for a better world. The only question is how to do this - world history doesn't have a good record for changing evil governments.
These "decapitation" strikes can't be much more than narcissistic projection. Trump and Netanyahu are "unilateralists" (de facto dictators) and narcissists, and think everyone else must be as well, ergo decapitation strikes must be successful.
It may have been true in the case of Maduro, but the jury is out (we also "decapitated" Hugo Chavez in the early 2000s but he came roaring back).
It is emphatically not true in the case of Iran, Russia, China, DPRK or any state that has been truly sovereign for a couple generations. These states have deep political power structures that don't rely on the whims of one individual.
It really feels like we need to re-read or Orwell to understand how these countries operate. Trump believes the narrative you spelled out above because it's simple and reinforces his personal view, but it's just not true of these long-lived autocratic states. You may see power concentrated in a single individual but the entire system behaves the same way. "Kill the body and the head will die" takes a lot more work & discipline then lopping off a few necks of the hydra and hoping they don't multiply.
It has less to do with a quote and more to do with CS education (and the market) rewarding minimal functionality over performance, security, fault-tolerance, etc.
The average university CS student in USA (and India I presume) is taught to "hack it" at any cost, and we see the results.
It would have to integrate with some kind of official government ID, so that there can be extremely serious criminal penalties for ID theft. But that's something for the next republic, because the current one's justice system is unlikely to be up to the task.
There's a vast gulf between "having" superior firepower as a deterrent and "using" superior firepower for mass murder, particularly against elementary schools and desalination plants. The latter is war, at its worst.
128 random bits in some random format aren't a uuid. 0.2ml of water isn't a raindrop. If I say "you can provide me with a uuid" and you give me a base64-encoded string, it's getting rejected by validation. If I say "this text needs to be a Unicode string" and you give me a base64-encoded Unicode string's byte array, it's not going to go well.
Why are you implying that converting from base64 to and from standard UUID representation (hyphen-delimited hexadecimal) is more than a trivial operation? Either client or server can do this at any point.
Does Postgres not truly support UUID because it internally represents it as 128 bits instead of a huge number of encoded bytes in the standard representation? Of course not.
The "underlying problem" here, for Blizzard, is shareholder value, and they understand it well. The decision to dedicate developer resources to re-releasing old content is driven by careful assessment.
In most cases it's probably driven by falling new player acquisition numbers, and so the equation switches to favoring player retention or luring back veteran players.
Every profile of player has their own preferences (some just want to see big boob textures, etc.) but that doesn't mean they are driving product decisions, except in the case that this demographic becomes core to the business model. But it has nothing to do with the particular preference.
reply