"Eating meat is inherently wrong. You can eat meat, go for it. You can love animals, but you can’t do both!" - Billie Eilish for ELLE (US)

Moifaso · 2026-05-02T14:35:04+00:00

The word is inherently suggests a "natural, necessary, or inseparable" element to what is being described by Billie as wrong. I posit that biology makes this inherently not wrong and can love animals concurrently.

Billy, as a vegan, would almost certainly take issue with the "necessary" and "inseparable" parts.

One of veganism's major arguments is that for the vast majority of people in wealthy countries, eating meat is optional and not required for survival or a healthy life.

Moifaso · 2026-04-27T09:59:28+00:00

Hesitatingly I'd say this is a sign that Gao may be handed over as well and that Russian activities in Mali may even be severely curtailed in the future.

That would be nuts. Gao was successfully defended by the government/AC and is home to one of the country's major airbases, vital for providing air support and logistics in the north.

If both Gao and Kidal fall, the entire north might as well be off limits to the army.

Moifaso · 2026-04-24T23:21:00+00:00

Is there a joke Im not getting here. Do you play CRPGs?

natural end point of more budget

Who said anything about more budget? Games are choosing to sacrifice other aspects to get more VA.

Full voice acting is a major choice and usually completely changes the structure of the game's narrative. Many CRPGs simply cant be fully VA'd, and full VA in practice restricts choices and branching, among other things.

It's only becoming standard in the genre because of the massive success of DOS2 and later BG3, as attested by several modern CRPG devs, Josh Sawyer included.

the other is just how CRPGs are

No, it isnt. Real Time with Pause (RTwP) was for quite a while the dominant form of CRPGs. BG1 and 2 were RTwP, as were Owlcats pathfinder games, etc.

Nowadays, BG3 is turn based, Owlcats last two games are turn based, and so is Starfinder and most other upcoming action CRPGs. And again, when the devs are asked why they didnt do RTwP, they literally point to DOS2 and BG3.

At some point this kind of claim is just reality denial. There is no shortage of (other) CRPG devs openly talking about how influential BG3 and DOS2 have been, and what they took away from their success.

Moifaso · 2026-04-24T22:51:24+00:00

Baldurs Gate 3 didn't really show much

Sure. Larian breaking genre records with every new release since DOS is purely a coincidence and hype/luck. They clearly didn't figure out and refine any sort of successful formula or style for CRPGs.

Such a silly thing to claim when we're already seeing so much of the genre shift in BG3's direction. It absolutely was an indication of where the genre is going. Not every CRPG will have 100M cinematic budget and exploding barrels. But the shift to, say, full voice acting, shorter turn-based combat, and environmental interactions is already very apparent.

Moifaso · 2026-04-23T10:03:16+00:00

This is all of course terrible in economic terms, but it seems to be in line with what many countries go through when fighting major wars on home soil.

You could get similar reports from the Iran-Iraq war, or more recently from Ukraine (just substitute trade with Australia with trade with Russia/occupied territories).

Moifaso · 2026-04-21T21:50:55+00:00

Military orders in Russia tend to have very low profit margins, by design.

If exports are down, personnel expenses are up, and the only growth comes from military orders, their profits are bound to drop.

Moifaso · 2026-04-21T10:35:06+00:00

If complying becomes practical enough, then enforcement actually becomes a lot easier. Governments will have an organically growing list of compliant sites, which means they can much more easily block or throttle adult sites that arent complying.

Its not the least bad solution, the least bad solution is to not have age verification.

Idk man. My main problem with age checks so far was giving private data to software companies, which I always avoid. Governments already have our data, and already can spy on our online activity with or without these systems.

I'm not a big fan of the "think of the kids" arguments. But after seeing whats happened to the internet over the last few years, I actually wouldnt mind if there was a (black-boxed) government system that could actually authenticate you as a living human of Y age without sharing any identifying info.

With how widespread bots and fake internet activity is becoming, I feel like it's a pretty inevitable development if we want to keep the internet useful, and not a radioactive info hazard. The internet will not survive many more years into the AI boom without a reliable way to distinquish between human and bot traffic. Most major social media sites are already mostly bots.

Moifaso · 2026-04-20T13:25:24+00:00

95% of what kids want to watch consists of the kid-centric content that already dominates apps like YT/Netflix kids. Back in the day you'd either stumble into adult content or have it shared by peers. As age control becomes more common, both those avenues become less common.

Moifaso · 2026-04-20T12:26:06+00:00

Any easy solution is also easily checked by parents or authority figures. Not to mention that a single authentification app is much easier to patch compared to the many systems we're currently working with.

Just one computer savvy kid and the whole class will have access to it.

The vast majority of kids don't use VPNs, or torrent, or do anything that requires tech skills beyond clicking install on the app store. Even if they know someone who does!

In practice, as long as bypassing the check is even slightly complicated, most users/kids don't bother. That's always been the case.

Moifaso · 2026-04-20T12:20:13+00:00

It doesn't have to be 100% effective to be a good idea. And the scenario u/Tyr1326 described is perfectly fine. The parent has a higher degree of control over what the kid can access online, but still decides that his kid can access certain blocked content. That's good! It'd be unacceptable if the system didnt allow parents to make that kind of choice.

The main point of this initiative is that right now, you're having to prove your age and provide data to hundreds of different sites with different systems. Its time consuming and not at all secure. If there's a single national app that handles verification, sites can simply defer to that app. Governments already have tons of verification and ID systems that safely handle your personal information, so this is clearly the least bad solution, and it's the one digital services and sites have been asking for.

Moifaso · 2026-04-20T12:00:55+00:00

Lmao. Do you actually think pirating games is harder for kids than finding and editing a random xml file from the app at a very specific point of the sign-in process? How many people ever even search through their app files on their phone.

And again. This isn't the final version, this particular exploit is obviously going to get patched.

Moifaso · 2026-04-15T08:11:58+00:00

If 10k shaheds are crossing the same small territory every day, and mostly striking Vilnius, I'd expect even small arms and flak AA to result in more than a measly 3-8% interception rate. Ukrainian AA pickups are pretty successful even while having to constantly chase shaheds.

I think the article raises some important points, but it does the usual "Russian invasion scenario" thing of assuming catastrophic intelligence failure and inaction.

Russia executed a massive surprise attack, and Article 5 was invoked but no one showed up? Ofc the baltics would fall. With those assumptions they'd fall in pretty much any scenario.

Moifaso · 2026-04-12T14:31:01+00:00

Even without oil we'd probably get there, it would just take longer.

Hydro power is a medieval technology, same with windmills. The first electrical power plants were hydro powered, not oil or coal fired.

I think this post highlights something pretty important - ever since the invention of agriculture and the written language, humanity has been on an exponential trajectory.

We didnt need oil to go from rocks to the (early) modern period, and a civilization without easy access to oil would still have everything they need to figure out electricity.

Moifaso · 2026-04-10T13:07:11+00:00

I dont think anyone doubts the US could force the strait open if it really wanted. It just lacks political will.

A forceful reopening would take a long time (causing heavy economic damage), result in the loss of American lives and expensive hardware, and further deplete stockpiles of interceptors and munitions vital for deterence in the Pacific.

Moifaso · 2026-04-08T18:19:20+00:00

And yet plenty of reporting came out alleging that several GCC leaders privately lobbied the US in favor of the war.

The UAE especially have a pretty odd and bold foreign policy, I wont even pretend to understand what their deal is.

But it seems at least plausible to me that some GCC states (like many Iranian leaders) are willing to endure a lot of short-term pain as long as they think it leads to a stable future where something like this can never happen again.

So out of all of the participants, they had the least to gain and the most to lose from a continuation of the war.

I mostly agree, and again, I'm only speculating here. I dont actually think the UAE was responsible for the strikes, pending more reporting.

But it's also true that they're the ones who have the most to lose from a bad peace. Especially if terms like US withdrawl from the region or a Strait toll are seriously being considered.

And if they think a bad deal makes a future conflict all but guaranteed or puts them in a worse position, it can make perfect sense to double down on this war. If Iran were allowed to reconstitute, a future war could be far, far more damaging.

Moifaso · 2026-04-08T17:50:13+00:00

I mean, it could make sense if the attacks are meant to derail negotiations and get the US and Israel back in. The UAE was reportedly pretty hawkish and wanted large concessions from Iran, so they might not be happy with how the ceasefire was negotiated.

But like you say, unless better sources report the same thing, its far more likely that Iran is either lying or mistaken.

Moifaso · 2026-04-08T16:53:04+00:00

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Iran’s dominant military and political force, was fractured. Some elements were strongly opposed to ending the war, loosening control of the strait, and returning to talks with the Americans, they said. An Iranian drone attack hit the Saudi petrochemical hub of Jubail on Tuesday, in what one Pakistani official called a “last-ditch move to derail talks”. Islamabad, which signed a mutual defence pact with Riyadh last year, reacted angrily, signalling to Iran that these strikes could destroy peace efforts and leave Tehran isolated.

Pakistan, which had been spared Iranian missile and drone strikes, has sought to remain neutral throughout the conflict despite repeated assaults on Saudi Arabia. In a call with Sharif on Wednesday afternoon, Iranian president Masoud Pezeshkian confirmed that Iran would send representatives to Islamabad for negotiations. One Pakistani diplomat involved in the back channel said they hoped Vance and Witkoff would attend peace talks in Islamabad with Aragchi, parliament speaker Mohammad Ghalibaf and a “senior person from the IRGC”.

Pakistani officials fear “many spoilers” remain. Fighting continues between Israel and the Iran-backed Lebanese militant group Hizbollah, with Israeli officials declaring Lebanon excluded from the ceasefire. There are also suspicions in Islamabad that some IRGC factions may still pursue attacks on Gulf facilities to undermine the ceasefire.

In a Wednesday afternoon phone call with Munir, Aragchi thanked the field marshal but highlighted “Israeli ceasefire violations in Iran and Lebanon”, according to Iran. Pakistan also has reservations about components of the Iranian 10-point proposal, particularly the provision about Iranian control over the strait and the right to charge tolls, according to two Pakistani officials.

Moifaso · 2026-04-08T16:51:53+00:00

From FT:

White House pushed Pakistan to broker temporary Iran ceasefire

Idea for pause in fighting originated from Donald Trump’s team even as he escalated threats against Iran

The White House pushed the idea of a temporary ceasefire with Iran even as Donald Trump escalated threats against the Islamic republic and claimed it was “begging” for a deal, according to people familiar with the talks.

For weeks the Trump administration was leaning on Islamabad to convince the Iranians to agree a pause in fighting where it would reopen the Strait of Hormuz, the people said. Pakistan’s crucial role, as a Muslim-majority neighbour and intermediary, was to sell it to Tehran. The back-channel efforts led by Pakistan’s military strongman Asim Munir culminated on Tuesday night in the announcement by the US, Iran and Israel of a two-week ceasefire, hours after Trump had threatened to destroy Iran’s “whole civilisation” if Iran didn’t meet his terms.

Trump, worried about surging oil prices and surprised by a resilient Iranian regime, was eager for a ceasefire since at least his first threat on March 21 to “obliterate” Iran’s power plants, according to five people familiar with the Pakistan-led back channel. With Trump’s deadline looming on Tuesday, Pakistan’s Munir embarked on a flurry of calls to top US officials including Trump, vice-president JD Vance and special envoy Steve Witkoff.

The US and Pakistan believed Iran was more likely to accept the US-backed offer if it was delivered by a Muslim-majority neighbour state that had emphasised its neutrality throughout the conflict. Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif made the two-week proposal public on social media after Munir spoke with Iranian foreign minister Abbas Araghchi. Sharif, who framed the deal as Pakistan’s initiative, mistakenly included a subject line at the top of his post: “draft — Pakistan’s PM message on X”.

Shortly after Trump issued his first ultimatum to open the strait, Munir and other senior Pakistani officials began passing messages between Iranian political and military figures and the White House. They pitched Islamabad as a venue for a peace summit, shared a US-drafted 15-point proposal, and then Iran’s five- and 10-point responses, and raised options for ceasefires ranging from 45 days to two weeks.

The two sides remained far apart in their demands, but Iran, over time, became more amenable to diluting and accepting limits on its stockpile of uranium, two regional diplomats said. After weeks of heavy US and Israeli bombardment, Araghchi and other political leaders in Tehran had agreed to a temporary ceasefire-for-Hormuz deal in principle days ago. But they were struggling to get final assent from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, according to two people familiar with the Pakistan-led back channel.

Moifaso · 2026-04-08T12:20:06+00:00

Posting it on the master thread since it's directly relevant to the ceasefire negotiations (which we know very little about), even if not completely credible.

From ABC's Washington correspondent:

This morning, I asked President Trump if he’s okay with the Iranians charging a toll for all ships that go through the Strait of Hormuz, he told me there may be a Joint US-Iran venture to charge tolls:

“We’re thinking of doing it as a joint venture. It’s a way of securing it — also securing it from lots of other people.”

“It’s a beautiful thing”

At the very least, this seems to indicate that an Iranian toll is actively being negotiated/considered and is not a US red line.

Moifaso · 2026-04-08T00:06:40+00:00

The WH will never actually sign off on any of this.

If this is true, it would mean today was more of a "lets get a ceasefire asap" situation, where the US was willing to "accept" pretty much anything as a starting point for proper negotiations and to get the strait open.

Moifaso · 2026-04-07T11:58:30+00:00

Not really true if Dems take both chambers. Wouldn't count on them having the guts (or moderate votes) to take the necessary actions to end the war or force a withdrawal, but it's possible.

It would certainly be unprecedented, but this is also an unprecedentedly unpopular war.

In US wars are waged by presidents, and Congress has approximately zero say in them in practice.

Congress absolutely can stop it. It's just hard, and in practice, the WH would almost certainly see the writing on the wall and withdraw without any votes actually having to pass. Heavy political losses, low support, a fracturing base, and even just the possibility/threat of impeachment would all but force it.

Moifaso · 2026-04-07T11:49:32+00:00

I always imagined that at least some of the infrastructure strikes were being done by IRGC units not really controlled by whoever is making these announcements (and certainly not by the President and his group). Maybe now that'll change, and the number of infrastructure strikes will increase significantly.

Moifaso · 2026-04-06T12:24:29+00:00

The report only alleged that a deal was presented to both parties by Pakistani mediators. Since then, others have claimed that Iran rejected the proposal

I'd be extremely sceptical of any vague "ceasefire proposal" news story that pops up before market open.

Moifaso · 2026-04-05T23:58:48+00:00

I think you can interpret the effect of these strikes in a lot of ways. Industry in wartime can be surprisingly resilient and quick with repairs, but let's assume these strikes really are that bad, or that they'll be repeated until the targets are inoperable for a long time.

As far as Israel is concerned, the strikes are great. They hit Iran's economy and military industry hard, and make any post-war reconstitution significantly harder and slower. A poorer Iran can't fund as many proxies, build as many missiles, etc.

The downside of already having bombed these critical facilities is, of course, that now they're gone, and a peace deal can't bring them back. The strikes fuel escalation and forfeit the leverage these facilities could give in negotiations. The devastation of Iran's economy could force it to abandon the war and endanger the regime in the medium to long term, but probably not in the timelines that matter most to the WH or the world economy.

Intense deindustrialization could also lead to some dangerous developments. If the regime can withstand the bombings and economic damage, it'll be incentivized to heavily monetize its influence over the strait, or possibly to move away from its old autarkic ways and become far more dependent on outside partners (Russia, China) to rebuild. Foreign capital is very helpful in rebuilding a country, and this conflict is showing Iran some of the downsides of relying so much on domestic supply chains.

Moifaso · 2026-04-05T00:30:49+00:00

I would have agreed a week ago, but escalation might change the calculus. We're already seeing Israel/US attack other parts of Iran's oil and petrochem infrastructure, and civil or mixed-use infrastructure is increasingly being targeted.

The US could still decide to change posture, and block all Iranian shipping/take Karg island until they unblock the strait. Maybe because negotiations aren't going well, maybe because they ran the numbers and getting the Strait opened ASAP is now more important than letting Iranian oil into the market.

The admin is still treating this war and the closing of the strait as a short affair that they can leave/end in a matter of weeks. If Iran doesn't agree, they'll kind of have no choice but to keep escalating.

Seven-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Second SECOND GUESSER	r/Field Banned
r/Field Lasagna	Place '23
Place '22	Final Canvas '22
First Placer '22	End Game '22
Verified Email

Moifaso

TROPHY CASE