The main reason both Meshtastic and MeshCore have location data as a part of the protocol is because they emerged from the Ham community which has always taken its role in search and rescue seriously, and because it also appealed early on for other off-grid uses like hiking.

Given the detail and depth of reporting into the initial strikes on Iran that emerged very shortly after, I would expect the same was true in that case too.

Banning journalists from the Pentagon doesn't prevent them from getting scoops and being leaked to. That was always a false justification for this move.

[0]: https://www.npr.org/2026/01/05/nx-s1-5667060/media-shows-res...

The qualifying criteria is probably just having picked an offer for renewable-sourced energy in the past, indicating that it has some importance to you. So you will be given more green energy offers in future.

Every company segments its customer base this way for marketing. Sometimes it’s even useful.

‘Department of War’ is merely an authorised second name for the department, but legally it remains the Department of Defense until/if Congress changes it.

Developing and using apps like this is a choice, there’s no inherent force propelling them into existence other than people thinking it’s a good idea. I’m explaining why it’s not a good idea.

Some wildlife parks have ‘daily sightings’ maps at rest stops and lodges, but those are monitored by park officials who remove the most at-risk animals and are cleared at least daily.

Aside from that, apps like this encourage bad behaviour from visitors in parks that allow self-driving, as dozens of people rush to the next leopard, lion, etc sighting. That not only creates its own risks but ruins the experience for everyone else.

In short, don’t do this.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46624616

Points: 3

# Comments: 0

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46484293

Points: 1

# Comments: 0

However it's one-way only at the moment, there's no way to use it for two-way communication.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46234007

Points: 11

# Comments: 5

That might be a worthwhile discussion to have, but it’s categorically not the same thing as invasion, occupation, and annexation.

The US was invited into South Vietnam to help defend them against an invasion from North Vietnam. We can debate the morality of the resulting war, which was questionable, but it was not a US invasion.

The US invasion of Nicaragua was in 1912, long before the modern post-WWII era of stronger international law.

Chile was not invaded by the US.

If these are the examples you have, you don’t have a strong argument.

The issue with Cuba was the stationing of nuclear missiles in Cuba, not merely its membership of a pact with the USSR.

The US didn’t invade Cuba, it assisted Cuban exiles to do so in the embarrassing Bay of Pigs disaster which took place before the naval blockade as part of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Naturally, Bay of Pigs should never have happened, and it’s one of the things that led to the CIA’s powers and freedom from oversight being drastically curtailed the following decade.

Furthermore, the world and international law has moved on since the 1960s. That sort of brinkmanship has been much reduced.

There was no such open invitation to Georgia and Ukraine, only vague promises. MAPs were still required.

The US would have no right to invade either Canada or Mexico if they were discussing joining a mutual defence pact with Russia, yes.

There is no right in international law that allows its neighbours to invade if it picks one they don’t like.

Add to that that it’s a mutual defence pact and the argument becomes more absurd.

Nor was Ukraine anywhere close to joining NATO. It’s application had effectively been frozen in 2008, and it was not even being offered a MAP which is about step 1 on a 20 step ladder of actions to take before joining.

It’s a red herring being used to justify Russia’s territorial and imperial ambitions.

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/did-nato-promise-not-to-e...

https://hls.harvard.edu/today/there-was-no-promise-not-to-en...