What is Hackers' Pub?

Hackers' Pub is a place for software engineers to share their knowledge and experience with each other. It's also an ActivityPub-enabled social network, so you can follow your favorite hackers in the fediverse and get their latest posts in your feed.

rant, California

The problem was never about parental control nor the children. This has always been about getting as much information as possible from the end-user. Giving away personal information such as your age, gender, your eye color, and your preferences, JUST TO USE YOUR HARDWARE, should never be made into law, period.

Do you seriously think that just because California does not require national ID for age verification
today means that they are innocent? Do you seriously not have any clue about the fact that the government in UK is now making the end-user upload their national ID to third-party companies for accessing any site with *potential* adult content like Twitter and Deviantart? We have already past pornhub long ago; this has never been about stopping stupid teenagers watching pornhub to begin with. No. This has always been about obtaining end-user information since day one. And I disagree with users claiming that giving up your personal information (age, gender, preferences) as an end-user is the path for good future when I see the glimpse of PSYCHO-PASS Dystopia already.

RE: https://infosec.exchange/users/david_chisnall/statuses/116160637051672728

0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0

>BT
「若い人と気が合う」と言ってる中高年みんなこれ。相手が気を遣ってくれてるだけ。権力勾配に無頓着だから、こういう勘違いをする。

年上だから、立場が上の人だから逆らえないのを好意と勘違いして、凄惨な事件に発展するケースも珍しくないわけで、決して笑い事ではないのです。

0

Comprehensive Hegemony or Deterrence Balance: War Scenarios After the Assault on Iran

On 28 February 2026, West Asia crossed a red line that had hovered over the region for years, one that diplomats spoke of in cautious tones and military planners gamed out in closed rooms. The US, in full operational coordination with Israel, launched a wide-scale military assault against the Islamic Republic of Iran, targeting the core of its sovereign leadership, its strategic deterrent capabilities, and the infrastructure underpinning both.

Within hours, Tehran responded with cross-border missile strikes against US bases across the Persian Gulf and deep inside occupied Palestine, transforming what Washington had framed as a decisive preventive blow into the opening phase of a regional war Iran had long warned would follow any direct aggression against its territory.

The confrontation quickly moved beyond rhetoric and symbolic retaliation, altering the strategic temperature of the entire region from the very first hours.

Decapitation doctrine: Shock, assassination, and infrastructure strikes

The assault – named “Operation Roaring Lion” by Israel and referred to in Washington as “Operation Epic Fury” – began in the early hours with more than 200 fighter jets, including F-35 aircraft, launching from multiple regional bases under US naval cover in the Arabian Sea.

The sequencing of targets, the depth of penetration, and the use of heavy bunker-buster munitions reflected a clear operational doctrine: decapitate the leadership, sever command networks, and disable retaliatory capacity before it could be fully mobilized.

The first wave focused explicitly on what Israeli and US planners consider the “head of the pyramid.” Sovereign sites in Tehran were struck in rapid succession.

Bombardment hit the Sayyid Khandan district and University Street, targeting Beit al-Rahbari – the complex of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei – alongside the presidential palace and parliament building. Squadrons of F-35s executed concentrated raids against the security perimeter along Pasteur Street, deploying heavy penetrating munitions designed to collapse hardened underground structures.

By dawn on 1 March, Iranian state television interrupted programming to announce the martyrdom of Ayatollah Khamenei following the destruction of his residence and adjacent command centers. Reports confirmed the killing of senior figures who had been attending an emergency meeting of the Supreme Defense Operations Room, including Defense Minister Brigadier General Aziz Nasirzadeh, senior Revolutionary Guard commanders, the chief of staff, intelligence officials, and the secretary of the Supreme National Security Council.

The assault sought to hollow out what Washington and Tel Aviv viewed as the decision-making core of the Islamic Republic in a single, overwhelming stroke.

Strikes extended well beyond leadership targets. Facilities in Isfahan, Karaj, and Qom linked to uranium enrichment and ballistic missile storage were hit in coordinated waves. Air defense systems were targeted in an attempt to blind and disorient Iran’s layered deterrent shield.

Israeli Army Radio later described roughly 500 objectives as having been struck, including sensitive command installations and missile depots associated with the Revolutionary Guard.

Civilian casualties followed the military onslaught. In the southern city of Minab, an airstrike destroyed the Shajareh Tayyebeh (“Good Tree”) girls’ elementary school, killing over 175 students and injuring dozens. Images from the site circulated rapidly across Iranian media, reshaping the internal political atmosphere. The massacre hardened public resolve, framing the confrontation not as an abstract strategic dispute but as a national trauma with generational consequences.

True Promise 4: Expanding the battlefield

Iran’s response did not unfold over days of deliberation. Less than an hour after the initial assault and only two hours into the bombing campaign, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) announced the launch of “True Promise 4.” The operation marked a decisive and historic escalation: direct targeting of US military installations across West Asia.

Missiles struck the headquarters of the Fifth Fleet in Juffair, Bahrain, a symbol of Washington’s maritime dominance in the Persian Gulf. Al-Udeid Base in Qatar – one of the largest US air installations in the region – was hit, alongside facilities in the UAE, Kuwait, Jordan, and Harir Base in Iraq’s Kurdistan region.

For the first time, Tehran formally placed the entire network of US forward-deployed infrastructure within its declared battlefield, erasing the long-assumed distinction between Israeli targets and American ones.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi clarified that the response targeted the “sources of aggression,” stressing that Tehran did not consider host states to be the enemy but viewed US bases on their soil as American sovereign extensions. Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council Ali Larijani reinforced this framing, stating that these bases constitute American territory regardless of geography. Essentially, any platform used to attack Iran would be treated as part of the war.

Simultaneously, hundreds of ballistic missiles and drones were launched toward occupied Palestine. Sirens sounded in Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, and Haifa. Despite interception attempts, direct hits were recorded on military installations and strategic facilities, forcing the occupation government to declare a state of maximum emergency and relocate settlers into shelters.

The aura of strategic immunity that had surrounded both US bases and Israeli depth for decades was punctured in a matter of hours.

With the ceasefire already violated by Tel Aviv, Hezbollah, a central pillar of the Axis of Resistance, launched coordinated rocket and drone attacks from south Lebanon toward military targets inside occupied Palestine, signaling that Iran would not stand alone on the battlefield.

The strikes marked the most serious escalation on the Lebanese front since the 2024 war, immediately transforming the crisis into a multi-front confrontation. Tel Aviv responded with heavy airstrikes on south Lebanon and the southern suburbs of Beirut – Dahiye – targeting resistance infrastructure, logistical hubs, and suspected command sites.

The bombing of Beirut reinserted Lebanon directly into the war equation, potentially operationalizing the ‘Unity of Fronts’ doctrine long articulated by the Axis of Resistance. With Hezbollah’s entry, the conflict ceased to be a bilateral US–Iran exchange and instead evolved into a regional confrontation, as the late Khamenei had predicted last month, with overlapping theaters stretching from the Persian Gulf to the eastern Mediterranean.

Washington’s regime-change push and Tel Aviv’s agenda

Politically, Washington and Tel Aviv presented the assault as a strategic necessity rather than an act of escalation. US President Donald Trump declared the objective to be the permanent elimination of what he called the Iranian nuclear threat, openly tying the operation to regime change and urging Iranians to “take control” of their country.

He issued an ultimatum to the IRGC to lay down arms or face destruction, offering immunity to those who complied. The messaging made clear that the assault was not confined to centrifuges and missile depots but aimed at the political core of the Islamic Republic itself.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu described the attack as a historic opportunity to reshape West Asia. Israeli security officials framed it as a preemptive strike against Iran’s nuclear ambitions, emphasizing tactical surprise and the breadth of targets struck. For Tel Aviv, the operation aligned with a broader strategic vision in which normalization projects and regional integration initiatives are secured by overwhelming military dominance.

Tehran’s response was equally unequivocal. Iranian officials declared that the era of strategic patience had ended and characterized the assault as political and military suicide for the US–Israeli alliance. Official sources signaled the closure of the Strait of Hormuz to international navigation, a move that immediately rattled global energy markets.

Amid escalating tensions, the IRGC announced it had targeted multiple oil tankers in the Strait of Hormuz and the Gulf, as maritime authorities in Bahrain and Oman reported vessel strikes, casualties, and heightened naval alerts – marking a shift from symbolic retaliation to direct maritime confrontation.

Scenario one: Comprehensive war and systemic rupture

The first and most dangerous trajectory is full regional war. In this scenario, Iran escalates from base targeting to enforcing a comprehensive shutdown of oil exports from the Persian Gulf. A temporary closure of the Strait of Hormuz could become a sustained blockade backed by naval mines, anti-ship missile batteries, and asymmetric maritime tactics. Oil prices could surge beyond $200 per barrel, amplifying global economic fragility and placing immense strain on energy-dependent economies.

With Hezbollah already engaged and the Lebanese front active, Israel would confront simultaneous pressure from Iran, Lebanon, Yemen, and Iraq. The activation of the Unity of Fronts doctrine would stretch Israeli military capacity and compel Washington to consider direct intervention across multiple arenas to shield its principal regional ally.

US bases in Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, the UAE, and Iraq would become fixed targets under continuous threat, transforming symbols of projection into liabilities.

Such escalation would test the durability of Washington’s regional architecture. Projects built on the premise of Israeli military supremacy – including normalization tracks and integration corridors – could unravel under sustained fire. Instead of containing Iran, comprehensive war could entrench Tehran and its allies as an unbreakable regional force, accelerating the shift toward a multipolar order in which Russian and Chinese influence expands at the expense of Atlanticist dominance.

Scenario two: Harsh equilibrium under new rules

A second possibility rests on restored deterrence after mutual shock. If Washington calculates that further escalation risks unsustainable military and political losses, and Tehran judges its message sufficiently delivered, an undeclared truce may emerge.

Under such conditions, the US–Israeli camp would frame disruption of Iran’s nuclear trajectory as a strategic achievement while stepping back from explicit regime change. Iran would treat direct strikes on US bases and Israeli depth as proof that western immunity has ended. The confrontation would recede into a new phase of shadow warfare governed by harsher, more permissive rules of engagement.

Yet Hezbollah’s re-entry complicates any swift de-escalation. Multi-front engagement reduces the likelihood of rapid bilateral understanding. Missile exchanges, cyber operations, targeted assassinations, and calibrated strikes could become semi-regular signaling mechanisms. The region would inhabit a persistent gray zone, neither full-scale war nor stable peace, with economic stability perpetually exposed to flare-ups.

Scenario three: Sustained war of attrition

Tehran may instead opt for prolonged attrition designed to erode the logic of US presence without triggering overwhelming retaliation. Rather than granting Washington a pretext for infrastructure devastation, Iran and its allies could raise costs incrementally.

Under this approach, every US base becomes a fortified installation under intermittent fire from drones and missiles. Hormuz and Bab al-Mandab could face periodic disruptions sufficient to unsettle markets without imposing a total shutdown.

Israel would likely intensify assassinations and covert operations, deepening cycles of retaliation. Hezbollah’s sustained engagement from Lebanon would further stretch Israeli military bandwidth and air defense capacity.

Over months, the steady drain on munitions stockpiles, interceptor systems, and defense budgets could erode the strategic rationale of forward deployment. Yet attrition also imposes internal pressure on Iran and Lebanon alike. Sustained confrontation under tightened embargoes demands economic resilience, social cohesion, and political stability. External actors would seek to exploit any internal fractures.

Scenario four: Decisive shock and rapid recalculation

A final trajectory contemplates rapid strategic rupture. One hypothesis envisions the initial assault successfully paralyzing Iranian command structures and forcing sweeping concessions on nuclear and missile programs. Yet the speed and breadth of Iran’s retaliation, conducted despite the loss of senior leadership figures, complicate that assessment.

The alternative centers on an unexpected US setback. A direct hit on a major naval asset, destruction of a central command hub such as the Fifth Fleet headquarters, or disabling strikes on multiple bases could generate domestic backlash in Washington sufficient to compel immediate recalibration. If Israel were subjected to sustained precision fire threatening core infrastructure, US policymakers would confront the risk that continued war jeopardizes their principal regional anchor.

source: The Cradle

abolitionmedia.noblogs.org/?p=
0
0
0
0
0

부정선거 토론 후 조선·중앙, 장동혁 비판… 매일신문만 “방송토론의 새 역사” www.mediatoday.co.kr/news/article... "지난해 2월 매일신문은 58·59기 기자들은 “사명감으로 일해 왔던 우리는 제 손으로 세상을 얼룩지게 하고 있다는 사실에 매일이 괴롭다”고 했다. 50기 기자들은 “휴일에 가족과의 시간도 반납한 채 취재한 윤 대통령 탄핵 찬성 집회 현장 콘텐츠는 웹에서 남몰래 삭제되는 일마저 벌어졌다”며 “극단화된 정치병행성이 저널리즘 붕괴를 가져온 것”이라고 비판했다."

부정선거 토론 후 조선·중앙, 장동혁 비판… 매일신문만...

0

넷플릭스가 올림픽 독점 중계하는 날이 온다면? www.mediatoday.co.kr/news/article... "우선 ‘무료로 접근 가능한 방송’에 우선 보장할지 여부가 쟁점이 될 수 있다. JTBC의 경우 ‘보편적 시청권’ 요건은 충족하지만 ‘무료 방송’이 아니라는 점에선 논쟁 소지가 있다. 2022년 국정감사에서 변재일 더불어민주당 의원은 ‘보편적 시청권’ 도입 당시 취지는 ‘비용 없는 무료방송’을 전제한 개념이라며 “‘유료방송 시청가구’는 가시청가구 기준에서 제외해야 한다”고 주장했다."

넷플릭스가 올림픽 독점 중계하는 날이 온다면?

0
0

오늘도 ㅈㅅ일보가 ㅈㅅ소리를 했습니다. 먼저 피인용 41회 논문을 가져오겠습니다. 내용은 웨이프로틴(유청단백질)이 혈중 요산수치를 개선했다는겁니다. 기본적으로다가 통풍은 요산때문에 생깁니다, 정확히는 퓨린이 대사된 물질이 요산인데, 이게 과도하게 남으면 결정화가 되어서 고통을 유발하는거죠. 여러 논문에 따르면 유청단백, 분리대두단백 모두 "초 저 퓨린 음식"이라 요산수치를 오히려 낮춥니다. 통풍이 있다면 적색육이 아니라 오히려 단백질 보충제로 단백질을 섭취해야 하는겁니다. 그럼 왜 저런 문제가 생길까요?

RE: https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:msciznx5clw63db2ejtb6ati/post/3mg4cee3jlc2o


Whey Protein Peptide Pro-Glu-T...

0
0

去年ようやく会社を去ったポンコツ上司65さいも出会ったばかりの20年まえ「俺って女子会に男ひとり違和感なく溶け込めちゃうんだよね〜」という謎の自認を持ってらしたなあ。女性たちはみんな気を遣っていたんだよね・・。かわいそうなおじさんたち。みんな穴に埋まってしまえ。

0

자연에 게이 동물들이 많이 존재한다 >들어봄 곤충체험관에서 일하며 직접 관찰한 게이 장수풍뎅이 얘기 >엥 ㅋㅋ 생명의 목표는 유전자를 남기는 것인데 직접 생명을 낳는 것보다 나의 유전자를 가진 조카 등을 돌보는 것도 좋은 전략이며 그렇지 않았다면 동성애도 진화에서 도태됐을 것. 또한 사회적인 유전자를 남기는 방법도 있다...라는 자연사 박물관장님 youtu.be/rMynEobbwk8?...

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Iran’s UN ambassador accuses US and Israel of ‘war crime’

Amir-Saeid Iravani has begun speaking to the panel, saying US and Israeli strikes were “illegal and entirely devoid of legal foundation.”

He accused to the “deliberate and persistent targeting” of civilian infrastructure.

He referenced the strike on an elementary girls’ school in Minab, which he said had killed over 100 children.

“This is not only an act of aggression, it is a war crime and a crime against humanity,” he said.

0
0
0
0

lazy web: I got a free chromebook, a 2016 model (specifically an HP Chromebook 11 G5 EE (TPN-Q151)).

I have never touched a chromebook before now, and I'd like to use this thing to play videos out the HDMI port.

Any suggestions for how I should do that? Like, upgrade the OS version as much as it goes and keep it mostly stock? install a linux on it? Some combination?

Ideally I'd like to just be running VLC on it

EDIT: Corrected above to HP Chromebook 11 G5 EE

0
14
0

Israel’s Air Force says it has dropped more than 1,200 munitions on Iran over the past day in its joint attack with the United States.

Among the sites attacked in Iran include an elementary girls’ school in Minab, a city in the Hormozgan province of southern Iran, where at least 148 people have been reported killed and dozens more injured.

Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said “dozens of innocent children” were murdered in the attack on the school, which would “not go unanswered.”

0
0
0
0
0

Iran conflict widens as Israel strikes Lebanon after Hezbollah attacks

The U.S.-Israeli air war against Iran expanded with no end in sight, engulfing Lebanon with Israel responding to strikes by Hezbollah, while Tehran fired missiles and drones at Israel, Gulf states and a British air base in far-away Cyprus.

reuters.com/world/middle-east/



Smoke rises after an Israeli strike on Beirut's southern suburbs. REUTERS/Mohamed Azakir
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
4

我其實還蠻喜歡西元2000年以前的作業系統,例如NeXTstep, MacOS, PalmOS, BeOS等。一是工作環境簡單,生產力不變。我現在用Office365還是只會用Word 6.0已經有的功能。二是那個時候的使用者介面與色彩是一門專業,是深思熟慮後的產品。

雖然這些老作業系統還是可以使用模擬器在現在的硬體上執行,但最大的問題是多半不支援SSL/TLS,所以連上網下載軟體都需要一番功夫。目前仍保有這些系統的精髓又能支援現代加密網路的大概就只有Haiku了。

🤔

0