Further, can anything be "100% human writt even if it uses pen and paper? No of course not! Unless it is created by pricking a finger and put on human vellum, it's only partially human written.

Seriously though - if you want to do stupid purity test games, at least be properly pure about it. This half-assed nonsense is just trite.

There were several different hammers there, bearing different branding and having different manufacturers.

I don't quite get the distinction...

I don't live in terror of new things though, so I don't really understand the propaganda.

* coalescing jobs with control over the granularity of it. That means you can say "i want this job run on at 14:30:02 exactly" and I want these jobs run at 19:21 or so, 19:22 or so: and 19:23 and set your resoultion to 10m and they'll all run at once. Great on laptops and other scenarios where you want to reduce power draw.

* System wakeup - you can wake a system from sleep various sleep modes (details depend on hw support) and run a job.

* cohesion with the rest of the system. this is a big deal when you stop playing with just your desktop and pet server and have to deal with 10^4 or more servers. having to deal with the wierd quirks of cron vs inittab vs whatever is frustrating and when there are many people working on it, someone is always going to do something quirky and fragile. Yes you have to know the systemd things, but that's it - a timer starts a unit, any unit, without all the bullshit (e.g, oh im stating with cron, these magic invocations are neeeded, oh im starting it with runit and these different invocations are needed, etc)

I literally never experienced any of the problems people complain about for pulseaudio - at the time it was released it was the smoothest audio experience i ever had on linux. I think some people just want to look cool and complain about the new thing.... But also I read manuals and think for 3 or 4 seconds before doing things, so maybe it has something to do with that.

As for the rest of the drivel: so what it was used for a long time. That just means it was pretty good. That doesn't mean it has to stay forever, just that a new contender should do things better.

Systemd timers address real shortcomings of cron.

Your argument boils down to: everyone should be stuck with shortcomings of the early days of computing because you don't like new things.

I just don't get it. Like is the core sentiment "How dare they address obvious system shortcomings"? Is it "I learned once and how dare you think I'm capable of learning again"? Is it "I want others to suffer the way I did to learn job scheduling"?

cron did a job, but had shortcomings. Systemd addresses many of those shortcomings. One day something else will come along and address the shortcomings of systemd, and no one will care about systemd nostolgia. This is how technology is supposed to work: making progress and fixing the shortcomings of the past generation. It's not a religion, we don't have to maintain the weird old ways from the 80's, your soul won't be saved by cron or corrupted by systemd.

> Google Cloud placed Railway’s production account into a suspended status incorrectly, as part of an automated action. This action extended to many accounts within Google Cloud. As this was a platform-wide action, there was no proactive outreach to individual customers prior to the restriction.

> Google Cloud placed Railway’s production account into a suspended status incorrectly, as part of an automated action. This action extended to many accounts within Google Cloud. As this was a platform-wide action, there was no proactive outreach to individual customers prior to the restriction.

This might be 100% of what google told them.

Congratulations, you have experience in pointless middle east wars, and expertise at ineffective action which takes 20 years to utterly fail. It seems like the best place for you is in Iran fighting another pointless war that isn't actually doing much but making life worse back home - it's what you're good at. I want to see you thrive friend, go use you skills and take the place of some kid that doesn't need to die or be ruined by this pointless conflict you want.

> Here's one then: China has no intention of attacking Taiwan - it's just practicing its ability to blockade small island nations in case it comes under attack.

By this logic the US war with Canada happened how many centuries after stockpiles of weapons were near the border?

The direct conflict with the Warsaw Pact happened exactly which decade, given all the stockpiles of arms the US had on those border?

China has had stockpiles of weapons ready to invade Taiwan for decades, when exactly did they do it?

My point is - Most weapons stockpiles do not indicate imminent threat, and the do not require conflict. There needs to be evidence beyond "there's a stockpile of weapons". I have been asking for that evidence, for something that indicates that this is a situation different than the others. I really don't understand why you're so upset that I want actual evidence, not vague assertions like:

> But I think you're taking an extremely charitable position which stands in stark contrast to Iran's actual activities and actions in the region.

What activities are you fucking talking about. Show your work and bring receipts. I don't play "just trust me bro" on this shit. I saw enough of my generation come back dead, maimed and broken from the last time a conservative moron said "just trust me bro, they gonna do bad stuff".

In fact - you clearly beleive this so much, go get on the front lines and catch bullets for it. Better you than someone who didn't sign up for this and actualy deserves to live.

> This doesn't hold water since Iran has been working on these programs and projects since before 2025. October 7th, for example, which was a de facto attack by Iran on a US ally obviously occurred prior to 2025.

Um... project 2025 is a plan for the repulican party, the goal of which was to begin action in 2025. The plan was named for (at the time of its writing) a future date. All this to say project 2025 plan was first publisht in early 2023. Simple facts are useful... see how i back up my statements with them. You should try one day, its nice.

October 7 was not a direct attack by Iran. I promise you... the palestinians who are being genocided did the attack. Iran may have had a part funding and planning it, but they didn't use any of their stockpile of weapons to do that attack. I really don't see how this is evidence that Iran will be using a stockpile of weapons for a direct attack... particularly given that Iran generally does things via proxy.

> It's not wild speculation though. You can look for yourself at Iran's activities. Why is it that only Iran has these problems? Why does Iran always need special treatment like the JCPOA? Why does Iran fund terrorist groups as recognized by the United States and European Union who launch missiles and blow people up, and kill and maim others? Do you just not care or pay attention to that stuff? Do you excuse it all away? It's truly something I find bewildering.

The basic premise - that Iran is special in any of these regards, is fundamentally wrong. The US has funded plenty of terrorist organizations (recognized as such by the US and EU). The US launches plenty of missles that kill and maim children, etc.

I do pay attention when Iran does it, and when the US does it, and when others do it too. I find all of it abhorrent. None of it justifies even more of the same though. It's even less of a justification for a full scale, poorly planned and excuted war that isn't accomplishing any one of it's stated goals.

> But there is evidence haha. The drone and missile stockpiles and attacks, nuclear enrichment programs, providing Russia with drones to kill Ukrainians, funding terrorist groups, chanting death to America, killing 30,000 of their own peacefully protesting people.

None of this is enough to justify intervention elsewhere, so its not evidence that justifies invading Iran. Whats the actual reason for going after Iran? Why didn't Bush use these arguments to go after North Korea before they had the bomb?

> Do you want Iran to have a nuclear bomb? Do you think that's a good thing?

I don't care if they have a nuclear bomb. Im don't drink the kool-aid that tells me that "scary brown people will use the bomb because they are stupid enough to beleive they will accomplish their mission magically after the retalliation leaves all their people dead". I think it's a rational choice for any nation without nuclear weapons to seek them in order to prevent random attacks from other nations.

> Oh I don't think they're stupid at all. Incompetent or crazy at times, absolutely. Your characterization about cartoon level villainy is incorrect as it applies to me or any comments I've said.

You literally are making more assertions of cartoon villany in the very post I'm replying to. It's tiring to deal with illogical zealots, take your kids, go to the front line, fight the war you want so my neighbors don't have to go off and die for your absurd and illogical stance.

"That person" was literally you. I replied to you and quoted you. Are you sure DBz is beneath you?

> Now it's fair, certainly, to speculate that Iran had no intention of closing the Strait or whatever, but their actions seem to indicate the opposite.

It indicates only that they wanted to have a stockpile of weapons... the most common reason for which is to defend the country from attacks. It seems perfectly reasonable that they would want a bunch of weapons in striking range of both attacks from the sea, and of hostile military installations (which were located specifically within range to strike Iran). In fact, given that the 2025 project explicitly targeted Iran it seems very likely that it was a bolstering of defenses (absent other evidence).

> You can also ask why is it that Iran is the only country stockpiling these weapons systems, working on a nuclear weapon, chanting death to America, and whatnot?

They aren't the only country doing any of these things. (semantics aside... maybe they are the only country stockpiling those brands of missles and drones.... but certainly not the only country stockpiling missles and drones, etc).

> I think it's unfair to characterize this as wild speculation when anyone can read for themselves from reliable sources about Iran's activities.

The wild speculation is intent. Each of the actions that you bring up have many possible motives. The idea of Iran attacking directly and initially is a change in M.O. for Iran, and such a claim requires evidence that points directly to it beyond "this one of many possible motives".

> There seems to be this impression that the Iranian government is like this peaceful government and oh if only the US would just stop bothering them, but that simply does not stand up to reality

I don't think may people are saying that at all. They are saying this war was unnecessary for any of the reasons that have thus far been stated because there is no evidence pointing to those reasons being true. The consequential evidence does not add up to a single conclusion, and the direct evidence has not been presented.

You seem to have had an awful lot of the "Iran is irrationally evil and stupid" kool-aid. I don't beleive Iran is a "good guy", but I don't believe in war justifications without good evidence either, particularly not ones that rely on cartoon-level villainy.

What you're not to accept/acknowledge is this type of reasoning:

The US used to be power level 9000 [for several decades, in the past going back to the 1940s or before]

Now the us is power level 7000

China is currently power level 5000

The statement "The US is weaker than it ever has been [ed. in the lifetime of any current decision maker and relevant to current geopolitical decisions]" is true.

The fact that it's still stronger than China is also true.

It's absurd to pretend you don't understand this.

> Yea, now imagine Iran quadruples its drone and missile stockpile and then closes the Strait and then proceeds with accelerating development of nuclear weapons. I'm not sure why folks seem to lack the capacity to project future actions

What evidence is there that Iran would have shut down the strait at all? The only time they've done so in the last 40+ years is in response to a direct, unnecessary attack.

What evidence is there that Iran would behave differently than any other nation with nuclear weapons - that is use them as a deterrent to prevent pointless meddling by other countries prone to an unnecessary attack?

It seems like what you call a "lack [of] capacity to project future actions" might just be people wanting to avoid wild speculation.