deleted by creator

Assuming you mean publicly, no argument with that.

But the goal is to reduce consumption, and it will work.

Yes, but the black market has serious sides effects. You have to compare the disadvantages of allowing people who want to smoke to smoke, damaging their own health vs the black market funding cartels, mafias, and/or other criminals, causing problems for everyone.

Who said national law doesn’t exist? You break national law, decent chance you end up in prison. That’s real enough, even if not perfect. But what happens when you break international law? 99% of the time, nothing. And in the rare cases something does happen, it’s usually not really because of the law. It’s because countries have incentives independent of the law that make them enforce it. Often, the enforcement being illegal as well. That’s not really law, that is a bunch of outlaws shouting at each other with pipes in their hands, threatning each other.

Pretending for a second that international law really exists, it is defined by international treaties. In this case, it would be UNCLOS.

Well, that is against UNCLOS, but while Iran signed it, they did not ratify it. So, kinda not really.

deleted by creator

Except that they are completely legal, you are correct.

No. As I said, apps don’t work. I cobbled together an API key service that let’s you have an API key (password) in the server URL in Rust for myself. This works with Apps, but it is a bit too messy and single purpose for me to open source it right now. Maybe one day.

Honestly, I may have to write one at some point. I just used the documentation of those two tools to set it up.

So use a reverse proxy with authentiacation before access to Jellyfin is allowed. I use Caddy forward_auth with Authelia for this. Unless you also want to use the apps without VPN, this works great.

Well, Arab countries are paying for it, just not to the US government. They pay to Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, etc. Have you seen the new missile and equipment orders?

Also, for low volumes, you may ripple multiple interceptors against single target. So if 1 interceptor has 90% chance of interception, 2 have 99%. But if you are worried about stockpiles, you may start firing just one to save your stockpiles. This is likely what we are seeing. This article is just a pile of horshit IMO.

Basically incompetence. Iran (and Houtis) have been hitting ships they clearly were not supposed to hit. It is not necessarily easy to figure out which ship is which. So even ships that are allowed by Iran are scared of crossing rn. Also, mines don’t discriminate.

UPDATE: Iran started doing this. After a ship pays the toll, Iran is forcing ships to first sail close to the shore into Iranian territorial waters to identify them more easily, mitigating the issue mentioned by me. Even so, wery few ships so far are willing to trust the Iranians and pay the toll.

What’s your point? Even if you were right that both sides were evil, should it somehow make me sad they are killing each other?

👍

No I meant moral here.

Ok. But, I care about internet strangers morals about as much as I care what their favourite icecream is. It has no relevance to anything.

Ethics in general is not universal either of course, there are legal systems and thus codes of ethics that take issue with not wearing a Hijab.

I don’t think ethics have anything to do with law. Ethics is an attempt to create something like objective morals by evaluating how much objective good or harm an action causes. Of course, it is far from universal since it depends how you evaluate seriousness of a harm and good. E.g. is it better to kill one person and save 3. But you would have a hard time creating an ethics system where wearing a Hijab was unethical, since it pretty much does not affect anyone else.

That said, legally speaking it is true that the laws of armed conflict still apply once hostilities have began and the legality of the war itself is a separate question from whether the attack is. Under those laws an enemy warship is a legitimate target whether it has ammunition or not.

Exactly.

Obviously laws are not morals and you could still take issue on moral grounds with an action that is legal though.

I think you mean ethical? On moral grounds, you can take issue with anything, including a woman not wearing a Hijab or speaking in public. Since morals are subjective. It is just unethical to impose such morals on others.

And yes, laws are generally often misaligned with what is ethical, though I am not convinced they are in this particular case.

it is an illegal war that lacks justification under international law.

I guess, technically yes? Although that is true for pretty much any war, even arguably just ones. Regardless, that is not relevant to the topic as you pointed out.

The Geneva convention is something I appreciate, war crimes is not something I appreciate.

There is nothing in the Geneva convention that says a combatant has to have ammo or a gun to be a combatant.

This is a fallacy: Iran is at war, but that does not mean all Iranians are active combatants.

There is no fallacy, because I am not arguing about them being combatants in my last comment. I am debunking a straight up lie that they are not at war. But sure, not everyone is a combatant. Military personel on a warship are.

I’m not sure bombing the country is a good way to help those people.

Who is saying it is? There is a world of middle ground between something being a good idea and a war crime. I am just saying the people being bombed are hardly innocent bystanders.

who were not at war

And you accuse me of semantics? Is Russia also not at war in your mind, because they did not make some war declaration ritual?

Normally I wouldn’t care this much, but the whole reason for this conversation was that you were defending the murders of unarmed sailors who were not at war. So fuck you, you fucking shitwhistle.

WTF is this argument? Oh no, they did not have ammo in their gun at the particular moment they were killed. I guess any sniper who kills a general or an assassin trying to kill Hitler should go straight to hell, because their target was not holding a gun at that particular moment.

I find it mind boggling that the part that troubles you is the death of soldiers supporting brutal theocratic dictator most well known for killing his own people and supporting terrorist groups throughout the region. However many issues I have with the US military, the US as a whole, and it’s pedophile president, this really isn’t one of them.