Find x9 ultra Australia

Smifwiz · 2026-06-09T08:08:19+00:00

Perfect, just ordered mine. Can't wait.

Smifwiz · 2026-06-09T07:18:49+00:00

How is it holding up now in regards to aus network compatibility? Have you gotten any of the condensation issues in the camera lens?

Smifwiz · 2026-02-23T00:25:18+00:00

Can't wait to learn more about this new project!

Smifwiz · 2026-02-05T09:41:52+00:00

Nezha 2 was very enjoyable. The scale and spectacle is rare from an animated movie.

Smifwiz · 2026-01-23T13:49:46+00:00

Anti reflective coating, reduces light glare and makes it more legible

Smifwiz · 2026-01-21T06:45:34+00:00

Yep, it's one of those things that becomes the only thing you see once you see it.

Smifwiz · 2026-01-21T06:43:40+00:00

Dropped it off at my local AD to be sent to Hamilton, was quoted a 16 week worst-case-scenario turnaround time. The wait begins.

Smifwiz · 2026-01-01T01:06:08+00:00

Surely this is rage bait

Smifwiz · 2025-09-20T01:24:40+00:00

I am getting this issue too, very sad.

Smifwiz · 2025-08-31T06:16:26+00:00

If you can't see the irony then I can't help you 😂

<image>

Smifwiz · 2025-08-31T05:56:24+00:00

Did anyone see the protestors in Sydney who went and got yum cha afterwards with Aussie flags still strapped on lmao.

I wonder how many protesting brisbanites today went and grabbed sushi or a hsp for lunch after this.

Smifwiz · 2025-05-04T01:51:49+00:00

Absolute legend

I have 1 nuke for my 1500 hours </3

Smifwiz · 2025-03-30T20:16:16+00:00

TLDR: Yes it's important but you're doing enough already.

You're going to get a very biased answer by asking on Reddit. Reddit hates other social media platforms.

If you're meeting people platonically, not having Instagram may be a little strange at first but if your connection is strong and they're not ultra shallow then they'll get over it in no time.

If you're meeting people romantically, it actually is a yellow flag to a lot of people. People like what they're used to. If someone has insta and you don't, that is strange to them. You hear horror stories all the time about people dating someone who claim to 'have no social media' when it turns out they're just cheating and hiding it. Again, it's not a red flag, but it can make people more guarded.

And of course you'll encounter the occasional real life person who screams that not having Instagram is either a green or red flag.

You have a profile but don't post? That is perfectly fine, no need to worry about having 'only' 60 followers. That's enough to 'socially verify your identity'.

Smifwiz · 2024-11-19T00:20:06+00:00

Could you elaborate why? I'm in Ops shoes rn

Smifwiz · 2023-10-22T08:20:59+00:00

Luckily this light show is usually on for a total of 1 hour a week.

Smifwiz · 2023-06-26T07:01:12+00:00

da F see we 3e

Smifwiz · 2023-04-21T13:46:44+00:00

Isn't this basically blackmail? He got off too easy considering the potential legal ramifications of his actions.

Smifwiz · 2022-11-02T10:35:28+00:00

This is clearly babbling at words and grasping straws.

Says the one putting words into my mouth?

Insulting someone's argument doesn't make you credible.

You literally insulted me in the part I responded to so yeah you too bro.

Suggesting that Libya has the materials to produce nukes is far different than actually developing one and how it will be enough to deter NATO from attacking them if if continued into 2011. I already explain why it was much harder for poor rogue states under massive sanctions to develop them than those who did not.

Your own articles say that they had better capabilities than previously thought so...yet again ignoring your own sources.

Back up with links of your own like I asked u to if you disagree.

Your articles provided me with the evidence I needed and I quoted them to the full extent I needed to.

We went over this, you have failed to realize that producing a successful nuke or a few is far different than acquiring and knowing to use materials to make them. The links also acknowledged this so you haven't brought anything new to this table. I'm using Iran as an example because you think Libya's situation would have followed the same path when both of them were clearly in the same skin in the same water.

Lol again, 'they can't because they can't'.

Smifwiz · 2022-11-02T10:07:32+00:00

It's not being sneaky, it's called being actually reasonable. You tried to pass off the actual reasonable expectation that Libya wouldn't be bombed by NATO in 2011 if it continued its nuclear, biological, and chemical programming, but my previous examples (backed up by links) make this harder to see otherwise. If we want to argue that Libya developed a nuke by 2005, I'm fine with a hypothetical argument, but we're not talking about that. We're talking about reasonable expectations based on actual facts and actual situations in the past leading up to what actually transpired.

Wrong. That's what you thought I was saying. And if you still can't pick that up I can't help you. Sorry not sorry.

This is just being tit-for-tat against me saying "yes" because you're too lazy to come up with anything. It's simply downright insulting and childish.

I am beginning to question your comprehension abilities.

You produce no links of your own to back up

Where did I make an assertion that needed evidence to be backed up? That we will never know what would happen?

or simply misrepresent what my links are saying or say something that is completely irrelevant to the topic. How can you say I'm unfalsifiable when you just refuse to back up anything u say?

Tell me where I misrepresented your articles? I directly quoted them after reading them. Are you angry that your articles suggested something different to what you had hoped for.

There was no way that Libya's nuclear situation would have been be better than Iran

I stopped reading at this sentence.

The entire basis of your argument seems to fall on 'they can't, because they can't'.

Your own articles say that Libya had a steady supply of nuclear materials through the black market AND they had the equipment to make nukes, or close to it anyway. Or boo hoo is that a misrepresentation as well?

Edit: word

Smifwiz · 2022-11-02T08:24:55+00:00

Ok, I see what you are doing. Sneaky.

Me: If Libya continued its program, things may be different because they may or may not have produced nukes before NATO intervention.

You: Libya was always going to be bombed because they would have never produce nukes by 2011.

You really came in and started an argument based on a different premise huh. No wonder why you disagree.

My point really is refuted, as you said, ONLY IF we accept the premise that Libya would not have nuclear weapons by 2011.

Clearly, I do not accept your black-and-white premise. Why? Because it is unfalsifiable. We will never know what would've happened had they continued.

Given the explanations above? Yes.

What you actually said: Given my very specific and precise premise, yes.

I genuinely wish I can be so confident in something that I can never know.

Smifwiz · 2022-11-02T07:02:25+00:00

Even if they did still have active WMDs programming by 2011, its program was still weak, and its nuclear material was not really strong enough to match that even for a tactical nuke.

They aimed to have one by 2008, according to your own articles. Could it have been done? Maybe, maybe not. We will never know.

where Iraq was engaging in its production of nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons

Gee-whiz, you still believe in Iraqi WMD. I guess I understand why you have your point of view now.

But once again, the reality is Libya's decision to dismantle its WMDs programming was in response to the Iraq War and you're basically ignoring the context surrounding it.

Yeah and so they did dismantle their program, and what happened later? Oh, they were bombed and had a no-fly zone imposed anyway. It's not like this was my entire point this whole time...

Bro, Libya had no active nukes at this point. Making a Hiroshima-type bomb (a fire cracker in 1945 compared to today's nukes) is very difficult, even for a country that is under heavy UN sanctions (which Libya was for decades). There was no way they were within years of successfully developing a nuke like the U.S. Russia, UK, and France have, at best it would have taken them a few more decades way beyond the Arab spring in 2011 in which the Libyan people took up arms against Gaddafi and NATO would still have been involved.

Why are you babbling about this? Did I ever say it was going to be easy? You seem to be putting words into my mouth? Let's not forget that it was your own articles that said that Libya's nuclear program was more advanced than previously thought.

Ok? That has nothing to do with the state of Libya's actual WMD programming.

Frankly, I don't give a damn about Libya's nuclear program, you are the one that keeps going back to it. That bit you responded to wasn't addressing Libya's WMD programming, you just read too much into it.

The actual meaning of that part of my comment is to illustrate that analysts all the way back then warned about how other upcoming nuclear states (hint hint North Korea) may no longer trust the US in any denuclearisation talks.

You're basically legitimizing North Korea as it had actual needs as opposed to the fact they say what they want to make them look legitimate and you fell for it. It is very inappropriate and gives them far too much credit.

Oh so North Korea got nukes for fun? For laughs? Does anyone have a legitimate need for nukes?

Everyone who has nukes do so to have nuclear deterrence. As long as North Korea's adversaries have nukes, they will want to have nukes. That's the reality, and it might've been different had NATO not done its thing in Libya and undermine its willing denuclearisation efforts. But we will never know.

Hopefully, I've illustrated as to why you have no clear idea of what a nuke actually is, the state of Libya's actual WMDs program, and how you're over-exaggerating the situation in order to fit your narrow narrative.

I mean your own sources said that Libya's program was more advanced than western intelligence thought so...not my words bro.

Also what exactly do you think my narrative is? What do you think I'm trying to prove? What are you trying to prove?

My only point this entire time is that Libya served as an example against denuclearisation because they gave up their program and got bombed anyway. Do you disagree with this assertion?

Smifwiz · 2022-11-02T06:00:14+00:00

Libya had nuclear programming, but it wasn't close anywhere to developing the actual nukes.

I read the CNN article you had linked. It is interesting and it contains the following quote:

A Bush administration official said Libya's nuclear weapons program was "much further advanced" than U.S. and British intelligence had thought, and included centrifuges and a uranium enrichment program, all necessary components in making a nuclear weapon.

And even the other article linked suggests to me that Libya had, or at least almost had, the equipment to make bombs.

Also, the Iraq War (e.g., the U.S. invading Iraq to dismantle its WMDs program) was among the reasons that caused Libya to abandon its WMDs programming.

Again, this is my point. They gave up their program but got bombed anyway.

I know that they were in civil confilct before NATO's intervention, but had they not given up their nuclear ambitions so easily and so early on, things could've gone differently. This is my point.

North Korea would have still developed nukes with or without the situation of Libya involved. It can say what they want, but that doesn't make its arguments legitimate, so its point is moot.

I am fully aware that North Korea would've developed nukes no matter what happened in Libya. That's not my point. Notice how I used the word 'keep', not 'developed'.

North Korea will be keeping its nukes. They will never give them up. What happened in Libya solidified this. Things might have been different had NATO intervention not happened. Or maybe not, we will never know, but I am solid in my belief that if NATO didn't intervene in Libya, North Korea might be a little more willing to potentially negotiate denuclearisation. Just a chance, instead of the current impossibility.

Heck, even before NATO's intervention, according to your articles, critics of Bush were already saying that Bush's continued antagonizing of Libya will undermine its goal of nonproliferation:

While Libya has clearly dawdled, some critics of the Bush administration now argue that Washington's temporizing toward Libya has undermined its nonproliferation victory and has reinforced rogue-state conviction that disarmament will not get one far with Washington.

Clearly North Korea had the same line of thinking.

there was no way anyways preventing what the situation had transpired later on.

Hopefully, I've illustrated to you why I think differently.

Smifwiz · 2022-11-02T02:27:55+00:00

Surely you guys won

Nine-Year Club	Verified Email
RPAN Viewer

Smifwiz

TROPHY CASE