A lot of indie devs actually are fine with decompiling/viewing source. Even the STS2 devs have no issue with this. I think it is great and helps the indie dev community. Seeing this has actually made me excited about game dev to the point where I'm beginning to dig in myself.
Semi-related note:I learned this morning that there are companies that offer in-home (non-cellular) phone service via wifi/the internet. Think: classic cordless phone, however the base station connects via wifi. Some of those companies offer free unlimited service as well...and the one I was looking at has a companion app for iOS/Android that allows you to make calls from via home number from anywhere as long as you have an internet connection.
I'm assuming these numbers are flagged as VOIP (which limits their use as a lot of apps/sites/companies hate VOIP numbers), however the discover is interesting. I thought home phones were dead and buried.
I see a ton of bickering, however, I simply have to ask the question: how can anyone justify the United States of America and Israel attacking ANY country? It isn't our job, nor is it Israel's, to try and be the world police. People are dying, and because of a certain corpse-to-be controlling MY country, the world is beginning to suffer and it is going to get so much worse. Some economists are saying gas rationing will begin happening within the next 9-15 months. Iran has NO incentive to be diplomatic. On top of that, invisible damage that nobody is reporting about is being done...damage that could last years or possibly decades to very small, yet super important parts of the world supply chain that powers everything from fertilizer to pharmaceuticals. There is not a single person in the world that should be supporting this war. I don't care what your beliefs are. The results WILL affect you, and you won't get a bailout.
If you're asking in good faith, Israel isn't attacking Iran to play world police. Israel has been under constant attack from Iran-backed proxies. As for why Iran backs these proxies, the answer boils down to pure fanaticism. For a fanatic-led state to possess nukes is a dangerous situation and it's worth it for Israel to try and prevent it.
As for why America is involved in a conflict between Israel and Iran, it's because we have a Republican administration and a big segment of Republicans (Christian Evangelicals) want the US to ensure Israel as a state survives (also for purely fanatical reasons).
Israel has been under attacks by Iran backed proxies which all happen to have been attacked by Israel first.
1982, Israel invades Lebanon. Iran backs Hezbollah, which triggers its first killing of Israelis in 1983.
There would have been reasons to back the creation of Hamas long before 1982 but the revolution in Iran only took place in 1979, so through the decades of Palestinian oppression, massacres and occupation, Iran was aligned, so it started with a support for Lebanese resistance. Then much later the backing of Palestinian resistance, then Yemen via the Houthis.
It is true there has been constant funding, and of an increasing number of proxy groups, but Israel's invasion was the trigger. Backing nations, and paramilitary groups is pretty common: see U.S backing Ukraine regular army, and private mercenaries.
This is the flag of the Houthis [1], they are sponsored by Iran, as are the likes of Hezbollah, and Hamas. They have similar language in their charters.
That slogan has been around since 2002. The U.S. carried out a targeted strike against a leader of Al-Qaeda in Yemen, an enemy of the Houthi movement. Using U.S. foreign policy to somehow excuse a flag calling for "death to America, death to Israel, curse on the Jews" is a moral failure.
The 1979 Islamic Revolution was staged by Iranians, in response to the despotism of the Pahlavi dynasty, founded in 1925 by Iranians.
It is a disease of the Western mind - and particularly Western academia - to deny agency to others, especially people in the Middle East, as you're doing here with your painfully unsubtle attempt to link US support for the Pahlavis in 1956 to the 1979 Islamic Revolution 23 years later. Worth noting that the Pahlavi dynasty started out as autocratic as it ended, well before the US ever showed up.
This is a lazy reverse Orientalism, where people in the Middle East are othered and cast as a perennial victim incapable of taking any role in, or responsibility for, what happens in their own countries. It's disempowering racism in academic garb.
Iranians caused the Islamic Revolution and only the Iranians can undo it. I wish them the best of luck in doing so.
“Support”. Hah. The word you’re ham-fistedly avoiding there is “coup”. You got the year wrong as well. The US and UK self-admittedly engineered it to support their national interests.
If you believe not one but two superpowers can’t engineer a coup in a financially poor but resource rich nation then I’ve got a bridge to sell you.
Except we're not talking about the Pahlavi dynasty, we're talking about the Islamic Republic. You're trying to draw some direct causal link from the '56 coup to the '79 revolution, just because that's the conclusion your preconceptions demand, facts be damned.
Why stop there? France engineered and supported an anti-British coup in the underdeveloped but resource rich American colonies in the late 18th century, setting in motion the train of events that led to the Islamic Revolution!
And the Polish General Kosciusko fought valiantly for the Americans, on account of the partitions of Poland. Were it not for those partitions, he'd have been at home! So it is the Austrian, Prussian, and Russian Empires - the partitioning powers of 18th century Poland-Lithuania - to blame for the Islamic Revolution!
But why did Austria desire to get involved in the partitions of Poland, and what long game was it playing vis-a-vis the Shiite scholars of then-Persia...
Hold up, we need a corkboard and some pins. Where's Pepe Silvia in all of this? Who has the Jack Ruby?
You can draw the bowstring all the way to Mars if you want to, but the only people to blame for the monstrous regime of Iran are the people who put that regime in place, and that certainly wasn't the Americans. No amount of "well this encouraged that, which caused blowback to this, leading to that" Substack-level motivated reasoning is going to change that fact.
The gay kids being executed by Iran are not cursing the name of America, or Empress Maria Theresa of Austria, they're cursing the ghouls who are hanging them, who are their countrymen.
> but the only people to blame for the monstrous regime of Iran are the people who put that regime in place, and that certainly wasn't the Americans
Let’s put it this way: if we where to stack rank all the countries that where directly involved in the creation of the modern Iranian regime, Iran would be first and America would be second.
This isn’t some theory, it’s a pretty clear/succinct cause and effect.
It’s not clever, patriotic or even a good take to ignore that and hide behind “well it’s their fault for having a regime change orchestrated by us that installed an unpopular authoritarian monarch who curtained freedoms because he would oppose Russian interests and support western ones, ultimately leading to someone worse taking power after decades of human rights abuse supported by the west in return for continued alignment”.
Yes, ultimately the person who pulls the trigger is responsible, but the person who gave them the gun and told them where to shoot is also responsible.
That's quite a shift from your earlier post that US conduct "led to" the Islamic Republic, and a more measured and reasonable take. But in as far as the US had a secondary role in recent Iranian affairs, it was a very distant second to the Iranians themselves. It does the Iranians no favours to edit them out of their own history.
The thing is, it's very easy to get caught up in this kind of rhetoric and lose a lot of perspective. This is the kind of logical chain that leads people to end up deciding that Germany had "legitimate grievances" about the Treaty of Versailles and end up in some pretty dark places. Not saying that's you in the slightest, just noting the problems with that rhetorical style. It's fast, somewhat lazy, and greatly lacking in perspective.
If there's something I think we can agree on, the US role in '53 (corrected date) is nothing to be proud of, any more than *points generally towards the Strait of Hormuz* whatever the hell this is.
Iran has actually never directly killed any US citizens. This misconception arises because its allies in Lebanon have done so. But the US and Israel were occupying the bottom third of Lebanon so I would hardly call that an attack.
There was also the hostage crisis but that was done by student protestors rather than the Iranian government.
The 1953 coup was ugly realpolitik, but the Islamic Republic's hostility began in 1979 (hostage crisis, embassy takeover, fatwas against the West). Iran has been the initiator of most modern conflict.
It contributed, but downright accusing the US for 1979 ignores Iranian agency, the Shah's own policy failures, economic/social pressures, and the ideological revolutionaries.
I think you need to learn more about the history of U.S./Iran relations over the past 75 years. There was a pretty good episode of NPR Throughline a couple weeks back that gets into the CIA bullshit and then 1979 onwards. Iran has not been a good actor, but we aren’t exactly saints either. It’s an ugly situation all around.
Ok, the Shah didn’t just randomly happen. The U.S. and U.K. helped put him back in power, so American interference is part of the chain that led to 1979... apparently largely due to geopolitical and crude oil reasons.... huh. Enlightened.
The hostility began in 1953 - too many Iranians hated shah and seen monarchy as oppressors put in by CIA. Even anti islamist Iranians were writing about it. And yes, monarchy was a vialent dictatorship.
Like yes, goverment put in by america wont be hostile to america. But its opponents will blame america for that goverment, because well, they are to blamr. And also, once it fails, all the suppressed anger goes out. And some more, because now america is well positioned to be generic scapegoat even for stuff it had not done.
you seem to have all the data but failing to sort them out to see the direct causal link between the point of origin and the current situation.
also I would argue that we should not confuse Iran and the islamists ruling the country. as a reminder the Iranian people suffered thousands if not tens of thousands death recently during violent repression of social unrest. so it seems the Iranian people may disagree with the choices of the people in power. at least until the US joined the israel led war crimes against Iran.
It is pretty obvious that the current war was started by Israel and USA.
I somewhat understand Israel's agenda and objective, even if evil and selfish depending on the point of view (or selfish, for Netanyahu to avoid legal scrutiny while acting as prime minister).
I don't understand the USA attacking here at all. With rising prices I think Trump should pay compensation to the rest of the world for his decision here. This is now similar to the build-up to Vietnam though - I don't see Trump being able to withdraw, without looking incompetent, so he is now committed to the war, similar to why Putin can not stop his invasion of Ukraine. Two criminals, one thought.
Trump thinks he did a huge favour to the entire world. He even expressed disappointment no country accepted to give him a little hand when he asked for help.
1. Iran is clearly not suicidal
2. what do you think would be the best way to motivate them to get a bomb? maybe attack them?
3. they don't support terrorism "all over the world." they support shia militant groups in their region, for very good reason. WE ARE THE TERRORISTS
With how many countries Iran started direct war with, even with this religious rulers in power?
With how many countries Israel started direct war with?
With how many countries USA started direct war with? (thousand of miles away and contents apart)
We didn't do it for regime change, but then we did, oh wait we want to negotiate, but Israel keeps killing the new people in charge.
We did it to keep Iran from getting nukes, oh wait, there's no clear plan to get the material out and they've never said they're going to go get it.
We now are saying we'll negotiate for the exact same restrictions the JCPOA had, which we could have done without the war in the first place.
We totally don't need the strait opened up, we're super independent, but also really want them to open the strait.
Other countries should open the strait, not the US or Israel that started the war without the buy-in of other countries.
And finally, this is an illegal war for the US. Let's not play word games with the War Powers Act - this is a full-scale war, against a "worthy adversary" that 100% will not end in 60 days and one in which we don't control the terms of its end. Iran posed no imminent threat to the United States. Other than the most crazed warmongers like Lindsey Graham, it seems to me that the members of Congress who have been briefed in classified settings are in bipartisan agreement that this was a Bad Idea and that further involvement is a Worse Idea.
This is a colossal strategic screw-up, to use the most polite understated terms possible.
It is not obvious at all unless you don't understand Iran's objectives and its attacks on Israel (a country over 1,000 miles away) for the past several decades.
All reporting I’ve seen on Israel mention destruction of Iran as long time dream of Bibi and it distracts from his legal and political troubles and unites country behind him - war has 90 plus percent approval among Jews and about 25 percent among Arabs who don’t vote for his coalition anyways, so political win for him. For modern GOP, “the cruelty is the point” can be used to explain most of his policy decisions, the book and original essay make the argument that making “others” suffer is uniting factor for GOP since Trump took the reins (in spite of many conflicting reasons Rubio, Trump and Hegseth have given to justify this war including setting stage for apocalypse foretold in Revelations to please fundamentalist Christian voter bloc) Many GOP voters have backed Trump in interviews even after being hurt by his tariff regime, immigration crackdowns, DOGE cutbacks, threats to annex territory, the only thing that appears to move the needle a little in GOP approval has been the recent run up in gasoline prices. One case in point - Farmers got hurt in first term by Trump tariffs, overwhelming supported Trump three elections in a row, and after second term tariffs hurt them, still support Trump, one would think if one farmer said I’m off the Trump train that reporters would be all over it. There is no rational thought process going on here beyond first order effects.
> how can anyone justify the United States of America and Israel attacking ANY country?
Every military action will have an on-paper "justification". It's kind of irrelevant frankly.
But to cut bullshit, it really isn't that complicated.
Venezuela is an extremely oil rich country. Countries in the middle-east region, including Iran are very oil rich.
And that's in large part why US (by this point firmly decaying petrostate propped by petrodollar) is constantly there "meddling" and ensuring all the oil is continuously bought using US dollars.
That is wholly sufficient to explain things.
Every other cartoonish-evil justification "Iran wants to build nukes to bomb US, etc" is largely bullshit (why, for example, Iran doesn't want to nuke.... say Germany or France? hmmm.....)
Saying "Death to America" doesn't give us the right to bomb them. They've been saying that for a long time now and yet haven't posed serious threat to the US mainland. Trump says a lot of crazy shit as well, would that give other countries the right to bomb the US?
I've gone over this before; but they do not even chant "death to america". It's a deliberate mis-translation to stoke tensions between Iran and the US.
Don't be intentionally obtuse. They've been saying this for over four decades and have spent at least tens of billions of dollars in their quest to make it happen. Besides attacking Israel.
So when you ask the IRGC and the ayatollahs why they hate the US, Israel, and the West, they say it's because of history from 1957? I'm thinking it has more to do with their interpretation of their religion.
You remember Qasim Solemani? The guy Trump bragged on national television about how he blew up?
That guy collaborated with US forces, led a 2001 uprising against the Taliban in Herat, effectively liberating the town before US army had to make contact with the enemy. Do you understand what leading a local uprising against the Taliban in 2001 meant?
Iran was the first ME country to sympathize and hold candle vigils after the fucking Saudi’s (the guys Trump rolls out the red carpet for, btw) blew up the towers, things were ready to normalize - and then Bush says they are part of the axis of evil with Iraq (which Iranians had a war shortly before that) and North Korea.
Iraquís started chanting “death to America” after we murdered 1 million of their fellow citizens.
They hate us not only because they are religious freaks, but also because we fuck with their country non-stop. We just go around blowing shit up, or enforcing regime change (Iran-Contra?). It’s unsurprising lots of them hate our guts - I would too.
Ps. LATAM is the same, btw - we fucked with their governments non-stop, the only ones that like us are the rich fucks that want to use the military to further amass fortunes.
If they were serious they could have you know actually done something to the US all this time. Like closing this straight. Or at the very least extorting it.
Saying things and even spending to try to make it happen doesn't mean they were even close to being able to actually do it. Under Obama we had an agreement which had rigorous inspection details to prevent them developing nuclear weapons. Trump tore that all up in his first term.
They were violating the agreement. That is why it was torn up.
Why is the burden on us to disprove what they tell us they want to do and are taking actions to accomplish? When someone says they're trying to kill you and is actively working to make that happen, it is prudent to believe them.
As an aside: Iran is one of the youngest nations on earth. The government threatening is one thing. Most of the younger Iranians were sympathetic to the West. It was only a matter of time before the regime would be gone or at least soften. But when you bomb a country that generally tends to cause a rally-round-the flag effect (see Britain in WWII, for example). So we've probably blown our chance at rapprochement for quite a while. The regime can tell it's citizens "see, we warned you about America, the Great Satan! "
This talk of the "rally-round-the-flag" effect is uninformed speculation since very little is exiting the country. Would they also have rallied around the flag if these same actions were taken when the initial protests occurred? It's not at all clear that the Iranians would ever be able to throw off their tyrannical government without outside help.
There is no rapprochement with people whose goal is to kill you and who don't mind so much if they die while trying.
Well, there certainly isn't any chance if you assume that everyone in Iran wants to kill you. But when you realize that it's only a small minority of people who were saying this then you start to ask: what about the majority of the people who were either sympathetic to the West or even just apathetic? Their government saying "Death to America" is like Trump saying "We're going to bomb them back to the stone age!" - most of us don't agree with Trump and we don't want any part of "bombing them back to the stone age". Same in Iran: most Iranians didn't agree with "death to America". But when you give them reason to agree with that sentiment it makes it harder for anything to actually change.
> Their government saying "Death to America" is like Trump saying "We're going to bomb them back to the stone age!"
The only way these things are alike is not useful. It's true that they both said things. But everyone understands that, even though Trump is a reckless idiot, he is saying bellicose things during a military offensive; not that he plans to annihilate Iran with nuclear weapons.
The people in charge of Iran who are acquiring nuclear weapons actually intend to use them. Besides the nuclear weapons, the quantity of conventional weapons they are stockpiling is an existential threat to Israel.
I'm going to give the Iranians credit for understanding that the intention of the US is to mitigate the threat that its autocracy poses to other countries. But it doesn't really matter. They can't be allowed to develop nuclear weapons or pose an existential threat to Israel. Neither of those aims was going to be accomplished waiting for some sort of sea change effected by an unarmed citizenry oppressed by a ruthless regime.
Pakistan has nukes already. They hate Israel. They harbored bin laden. Somehow we don't care about any of that. They just got a slap on the wrist I guess. Iran gets the beating stick though.
Yes, puzzling. What might the difference be? Oh, Pakistan isn't devoted to "Death to America" and they're not actually firing rockets at Israel and killing Israelis.
I don’t trust that we landed on the moon because Neil Armstrong says we did, but because it is confirmed by innumerable other informed people and verifiable factors.
If there is anyone worth approaching with a double dose of skepticism is this Israeli Prime Minister in bed with religious extremists, who failed his primary mandate and is self-dealing with a consummated conman like Trump
Right someone saying they want to kill you and building an arsenal is not sufficient, the missiles have to be flying towards you, you have to let them pull the trigger before you can respond.
I don’t know why you’re being voted down for stating plain facts.
If you know someone in town that regularly threatens you and your friends with death[1] and you see them buying a gun, you do something about it before they also get the bullets.
Iran has been steadily decreasing their “breakout time” to levels that Israel and the US considered unacceptable. Timelines too short to police with diplomacy.
They forced the hand of the Western world, they and their supporters are crying crocodile tears.
“We were just innocently enriching near weapons grade Uranium in underground facilities hardened against attack and inspection! Calm down bro!”
[1] To stretch the analogy further: they regularly hand out knives to their cousins, all of whom have stabbed your friend in a dark alley once or twice, to the point that your friend has to wear body armor at all times.
The JCPOA kept Iran from developing nuclear weapons. It was only the abrogation of this agreement by Trump which led Iran to resume enrichment of uranium.
A fork bomb can refer to any process that spawns multiple recursive child processes. You don't need fork to spawn more copies of yourself, that is merely the classic Unix implementation.
> USPS delivered more than a billion packages for Amazon last year, close to 15% of all the packages that the Postal Service delivered in the country. Amazon’s guaranteed volumes have been a source of stability for the agency, which has operated at a loss for most of the past two decades. In fiscal 2025, it reported a net loss of $9 billion.
Yes, it's not a business, it's a government agency. That is expected. With proper funding and removal of political interests, it should ideally break even. However, political interests are forcing the USPS to lose money...thanks team red.
Definitely an unpopular opinion: The whole with the internet is anonymity. Keep in mind, I support an anonymous internet, however, political interests, corporate interests, hate groups, etc. are all using it to undermine society.
Example: When Twitter ("X") suddenly started showing the locations of accounts, a lot of folks with MAGA talking points were shown to be anywhere except the U.S. Accounts with millions of followers and tons of influence have never even set foot in the U.S.
Another Example: Polymarket (not the "US" one) is anonymous. Because of this, events like the headline talks about happens. Certain government leaders worldwide could easily be seeding the bets, and playing the market, and you would never know.
Anonymity is nice, however, it is being taken advantage of for power plays. This is why we can't have nice things.
So, firstly, before I dive into your comment; about the topic above, this is the result of a terrible headline gone wrong in a single state in the US. The language never required any changes to Linux, or Windows, or any other operating system, for that matter.
Someone read the text, and made a clickbaity headline, and it went viral. then, another state made a similar bill, and it went viral again.Age verification isn't coming to Linux any time soon, and no, you aren't breaking any laws by either developing for, and/or using Linux if you are a U.S. citizen. It is literally illegal to pass a law like that thanks to the constitution. Outside the U.S.? well depending on the country, you likely experienced something better or worse, Regardless...
It is pretty remarkable that it [age verification] has popped up in multiple countries at once. It is almost as though a certain few billionaires are interested in suppressing speech.I wonder who those folks might be? ;)
The folks trying to shut down the masses via stuff like this should probably read some history, because that never works out...like ever. Doing the same thing over and over again won't make it work. It won't work this time either.
> 1798.501. (a) An operating system provider shall do all of the following:
> (1) Provide an accessible interface at account setup that requires an account holder to indicate the birth date, age, or both, of the user of that device for the purpose of providing a signal regarding the user’s age bracket to applications available in a covered application store.
[And some other stuff]. A simple reading says operating systems need to ask the age of the accout holder during account setup. It says the purpose is to provide a signal to a covered app store, but it does not exempt operating systems without a covered app store.
To me, the biggest issue is that it seems to think of computers as something you use while being near and having only one user at a time accessing, where computers you use might be far away and have thousands of people accessing them per day with hundreds of concurrent users and tens of thousands of accounts.
If you don't intentionally allow accounts access to any app stores, do you still need to collect the data ? It says to collect it, and that's the purpose but it doesn't say if you're not permitting that purpose you don't have to collect it
That an issue to you, I, personally, love the idea of submitting my ID to McDonald's kiosk before ordering.
Maybe that would finally push them to make kiosks that run entirely without OS. I expect a big enough Rube Goldberg machine could do the task if not as efficiently, then at least in a more entertaining way.
I think, if there's no account setup, there's no need to request an age/birthday signal. Although if there's am app store and no account setup, you might have trouble.
Qwen is actually really good at code as well. I used qwen3-coder-next a while back and it was every bit as good as claude code in the use cases I tested it in. Both made the same amount of mistakes, and both did a good job of the rest.
reply