I don’t know if it is that off-base to be honest, restraint does not mean that they practiced pacifism, just that the response was disproportionately small.

In what world would a country in a similar situation not support groups that try to counter an invading force? What about the assassinations inside Iran? The terrorist attacks orchestrated by the west? The sabotage of their nuclear facilities? How is it that those things can go on for decades, and then when Iran finally reacts, people go “oh look what these maniacs did, how dare they!”

Do you not care that Iran was on the receiving end of these things, or were you simply not aware?

Iran has been notoriously docile because it knows the US had been looking for an excuse to attack it. Just like Wesley Clarke stated.

That’s like poking a bear and then halfway through your shenanigans claim you’ll have to put it down because you’re in danger. What a bunch of hollow rhetoric. There’s 3 sentences in your paragraph and each one is just a slogan. Each one vague enough that it means both nothing and anything you can think of.

Diverting from the usual warmongering is not isolationism, in fact, the problem you allude to is the result of the former, not the other way around.

I know it’s a crazy idea but perhaps we should look at our failed approaches from recent history and try to learn from it. But judging from your edit, you have an extremely short attention span mixed with tunnel vision. Where were you when the US and its allies assassinated people inside Iran? Funded terrorist groups to carry out attacks in Iran? Sabotaged their nuclear facilities? Or, you know, when the idea of another pre-emptive attack on that nation was so imminent that one presidential candidate figured it’d be funny to fuel that by singing “bomb bomb Iran”, based on nothing but the lie that they were close to getting a nuclear bomb?

Was all that a festering problem that Iran should’ve responded to, or is it different when you’re on the receiving end?

I’ll take “how to repeat bad mistakes from recent history” for 500 Jim.

Did you sleep through the past 20 years or are you just not that observant?

“Your honor the suspect had blood on his hands when we found him. Well you’re 10% blood so what’s your point?”

I know a 5 year old who shoved a crayon up his nose.

Ah yes, “we did good but they messed it up, as usual!”

If the US cared enough about the well-being and the services the people have access to in the nations they invade, they would probably not do the invading bit.

I would advise avoiding things with sucralose.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8880058/

It’s a bit late to worry about internal mics when everyone has their phone on them at all times.

Unless you’re saying bibi paid hamas to attack them

Bibi paying Hamas is common knowledge. I assume the attack on October 7th was really convenient, and I would assume they at the very least let it happen. I think there is also evidence to support that theory, but since I’ve only watched from the sidelines, I’m not going to try and build a case.

this should not be painted as Iran being the reasonable guys in contrast

Well, what would be reasonable for Iran to do when it is being encircled, attacked, and for years called out as the next target? I think they’ve shown quite a lot of restraint as it is.

Neither Israel nor prticularly Palestine benefitted from triggering Oct 7th.

Apart from Israel getting the excuse to do what they’ve always wanted to do, of course.

none of that refutes that Iran has been using Gaza, Hezbollah and the Houthis like chess pawns to strengthen their position in the middle east

Are they strengthening their position? Or is this a matter of survival? They’ve been under attack by the US and Israel for the past 2 decades. Framing their actions as some surreptitious plan to conquer the middle east is no different from describing Israel’s actions against Palestine as self defense.

It’s not so much that Iran is the voice of reason, but that they’re left with no other choice than to be the counterweight to what is happening. And if they had not done so covertly, they’d be putting their very existence in danger as well.

I’m sure it’s a classic because people tend to latch on to any opportunity to start waffling after reading just the title. Ironically, you start your comment telling me I didn’t read yours and you end it with admitting that I address exactly that which you go on about. So which is it?

What bothers me most is that your solution is not realistic, you’re just proselytizing out of idealism but who is it really aimed at? Who’s going to self host a password manager? Uncle Jim and aunt Betty? You know what the average person is capable of? Writing down their passwords on a piece of paper, usually 4 separate ones with different versions for every time they’ve lost it. At best, they allow a key manager on their device to save a password when they enter it, and if the stars align and all their devices use the same OS and they authenticate, then maybe there is even some synchronization involved. That’s a lot of ands and maybes, but you suggest to ignore that and instead use a solution where they not only understand all those steps but also set it up for themselves.

The masses are not going to wake up one day with the know how to do these things, it’s not even going to happen gradually. I don’t even want to do it, and I was born with a computer and run servers for a living. What is going to happen is that solutions that are easy enough to use will become safe enough in order to minimize the risks. Anything else is a pipe dream.

Does nobody read the article? 1Password works on any platform but the attack is Mac only because it’s actually getting passwords from a Mac’s keychain through older versions of 1Password.

Your comment is irrelevant to the issue at hand because it’s a local attack and your suggested alternative could therefore be just as vulnerable.

Self hosting is cool for 0.0001% of the population, for anyone else it’s either too difficult or a hassle. It’s also an oversimplification that I have to “trust” the cloud company and imply that a self hosted solution is inherently safe. You run that program on a computer with 100 different apps, each of which is an attack vector and you’re just you, without the backup of a small army of developers hunting down issues and independent parties auditing the whole shebang.

The only thing self hosting has going for it is that the target is incredibly small, but this is not as big a factor as you suggest because of the maturity of some of these services who basically just store a blob of data you encrypted locally and access to their servers or even your data is usually without danger.

Either you understand that the consensus is that naming things is hard and you just want to elevate yourself above everyone else by arguing against it, or you’re unaware that it is the consensus, in which case your opinion doesn’t really matter because you most likely underestimate the issue.

It’s such a truism that I’d suggest googling "naming things is hard*.

There are only two hard things in Computer Science: cache invalidation and naming things. – Phil Karlton

https://www.namingthings.co/

“Figured it was a bad idea” actually means that some people were against it because they believed semantic class names were the solution, I was one of them. This was purely ideological, it wasn’t based on practical experience because everyone knew maintaining CSS was a bitch. Heck, starting a new project with the semantic CSS approach was a bitch because if you didn’t spend 2 months planning ahead you’d end up with soup that was turning sour before it ever left the stove.

Bootstrap and the likes were born out of the issues the semantic approach had, and their success and numbers are a testimony to how real the issue was, and I say this as someone who never used and despised bootstrap. Maintaining semantic CSS was hard, starting was hard, the only thing that approach had going for it was this idea that you were using CSS the way it was meant to be used, it had nothing to do with the practicality. Sure, your html becomes prettier to look at, but what good is that when your clean html is just hiding the monstrosity of your CSS file? Your clean html was supposed to be beneficial to the developer experience, but it never succeeded in doing that.

I did not. That’s what I alluded to in my last sentence. But I believe the bigger picture is more important and that automation is a step towards getting out of consumerism, exponential growth and job creation just to keep the bar moving, which all ties in to why we’re in this situation in the first place. It allows us to reevaluate what’s important in life.

And what’s the alternative? Stopping progress and keeping menial jobs on life support just to pay people a wage is ludicrous. Automation has been replacing jobs since watermills and oxen, it is a form of liberation. The current rate will probably cause a lot of upheaval yes, but it’s a necessary evil.

Everything is becoming decentralized because it offers a fairer, more level playing field. Except in governance, where things move towards a consolidation of power under the guise of unity and progress with the net result being that the voice of the person becomes a distant cry.

There’s dumb people and some of them drink or smoke.