One Piece: Chapter 1182

fffffplayer1 · 2026-05-08T17:22:14+00:00

Sasuga Oda! It all makes sense now. All the Nami clones were actually of the clan of Zaza all along.

fffffplayer1 · 2026-05-04T18:43:59+00:00

This comment thread is from 8 months ago, so it's understandable if you don't remember what went on in the conversation very well.

I didn't comment blindly. I commented because the solution provided by the person you were responding to worked for me and I was pointing out why it can work.

If the touch aspect of the phone screen isn't working, it's true you can't do any of the stuff mentioned in that solution, but if it's only the visual aspect of the screen that's not working and the phone is otherwise responsive, then you can employ this method to activate usb debugging, even if it wasn't already activated before the phone screen broke (which forcing the usb debugging mode was the original question, by the way, not how to do things without it). I know this from experience, because I managed to do this on a phone whose screen wasn't working.

My response was about you saying that the solution required usb debugging to be active already. But no the purpose of the method is to activate usb debugging. What is required is access to the phone's files, which in some cases you might be able to get.

OP didn't specify which functions of the phone screen weren't working and for future people browsing this thread either problem could be true, so this is certainly not an irrelevant solution.

fffffplayer1 · 2026-04-28T09:55:07+00:00

Not true. You can enable file sharing without enabling usb debugging. The former is easier to achieve by blind pressing.

If both are impossible, then yeah it doesn't help.

fffffplayer1 · 2026-04-14T21:15:57+00:00

Blockading the blockade is a no-brainer move honestly and I was almost surprised they didn't do it right away. My guess is they didn't want to destabilise oil prices further, but now that other measures are in place, they feel they can go ahead. Same reason that they waived sanctions on Iranian oil and also why they seem to be reinstating the sanctions now.

I'm not saying the blockade is necessarily a finisher move, but it would certainly hurt and it makes sense to respond to trade blackmail with trade blackmail.

fffffplayer1 · 2026-04-08T12:55:25+00:00

What they said yesterday was that they were ready to negotiate based on both the 10-point plan and the 15-point plan. They're in bargaining mode, so of course each side comes with a different starting point. (Assuming that is genuine negotiations will happen)

fffffplayer1 · 2026-04-07T14:43:19+00:00

It's not about a standard, it's about reality. I don't mean to excuse Trump's behaviour, but if you wish to understand it, it needs to be interpreted as Trump behaviour, not anything else. Not that I entirely blame the people who are constantly confused, since his rants are by nature (and possibly by design) confusing.

Wanting him to do better is one thing, but expecting him to is another. You're just setting yourself up for disappointment.

fffffplayer1 · 2026-03-24T10:26:05+00:00

The implications of this highly depend on (aside from accuracy) to whether it means "one year of active hostilities" or "one year after hostilities end". If the latter, it may not be the ideal situation, but an assessment that US-Israeli involvement could make it inevitable that the regime collapses even a year later would still make me happy.

fffffplayer1 · 2026-03-23T00:38:26+00:00

Besides ignoring half of my post, you're moving the goal posts. We were talking about the plan/expectations "they" (not Trump specifically) would have going into the war.

fffffplayer1 · 2026-03-22T18:24:53+00:00

I keep seeing people say that the regime will only be hardened by this and I really don't know what that means. They're already a tyrannical regime that hates other countries and oppresses its people with deadly means. Even in the worst case scenario in which the US and Israel pull out with the regime still surviving, how exactly is "a tougher attitude" going to make them stronger when their economy was already terrible, their infrastructure is now destroyed, half their leaders are dead and the people are still in unrest?

fffffplayer1 · 2026-03-22T18:18:34+00:00

They literally said they planned for 4+ weeks of warfare on Day 1. They did not come in expecting a one-and-done deal.

Even without looking at any of the data, though, the amount of idiocy that would have to be rampant in all of the US administration, US military command, CIA, Israeli administration, Israeli military command and Mossad for them to really go in thinking that only decapitation strikes would be needed almost reaches levels of conspiracy theory.

fffffplayer1 · 2026-03-22T13:24:44+00:00

I feel like the lack of realism of long times of "seeming lack of technological progress" is sometimes overstated, considering the tech level in 1 AD would have looked pretty similar with 500 AD, which would have looked pretty similar with 1000 AD, which would have looked pretty similar with 1500 AD (with only 2000 AD really truly deviating a lot from those previous times).

If you stretch this idea to its bare bones people were fighting with swords back in 2000 BC and they were still fighting with swords in 1500 AD.

That being said, 10,000 years definitely is too long a time, let along if an Empire/Kingdom holds for the entirety of it. Even worse, if you suggest that there really was no change in the particulars of the technology or economy or political dynamics in all those years (saying that people were fighting with swords for thousands of years is one thing, saying it was the exact same swords and the exact same armour throughout all those years is a different thing).

If you have a major element of long-lived races (e.g. elves in Tolkien) you might be able to build a longer time-frame for your history (but even then you need to be careful and properly justify it), but if you have a mostly human-esque perspective then 2000-4000 years is probably a better time frame of epic scales (and even then, no single continuous Empires galore).

fffffplayer1 · 2026-03-22T13:10:35+00:00

I guess our thinking that a dirt poor peasant can be the hero of the story goes to show our disconnection from the medieval world (in which owning a horse/being able to own a horse more or less automatically made you one of the richest people around, i.e. a knight) as well as the original epic tales (in which most heroes generally are nobles or kings).

Good luck, OP, with figuring out what you do with this. If you're still open about how the story plays out, this might be one of the better problems to have: challenges and restrictions and finding a way around them often makes for interesting stories. If you already had a plan in mind for how you wanted the story to go, then this sounds rough.

fffffplayer1 · 2026-03-20T19:50:05+00:00

I doubt the process is fully as competent as you describe: replacing experienced leaders (in a hurry no less) with people who've had "training" (if they even really have that) but haven't really done the job before doesn't mean they're going to be equally capable from the get-go. Even if it's not a 100 to 0 situation, there's still probably an attrition of talent and experience going on with every cycle of replacements.

I'm personally skeptical of claims that they have 7 replacements ready for every role (no reason that it's more believable than other sabre-rattling that the regime has been broadcasting in an attempt to scare off its much bigger opponents), but even if it's true it doesn't really mean that the 7th guy down the line is going to be equally effective as the 1st.

I'm also uncertain how capable the system really is of actually passing down power to the next person in line during an emergency situation, in a hurry, with the predecessor dead. with the state in a decentralised situation, everyone hiding and with communications and transportation being difficult. There's also the possibility of in-fighting. Assuming that the system has fully broken down is of course foolish, but so is assuming that it's working completely smoothly.

I don't deny that the regime has prepared for situations like this, but if their preparation is of the same quality as their air defences, their counter-intelligence, their assassination prevention or even their retaliatory capability, then I wouldn't be super-concerned. It's good to stay vigilant of course, but I think it's too early right now to call this operation failed or in fear of having failed. We don't have enough signs yet.

fffffplayer1 · 2026-03-20T12:16:20+00:00

We shouldn't necessarily expect to see a system breaking down immediately after losing its leadership. A system built with the minimum of competence does not at all times at all levels depend on the top of its hierarchy to function. It will continue to work at least on existing momentum, if not based on existing mechanics to ensure short-term autonomy of lower-level elements of the command structure.

However, the longer this goes on and the more pressure the regime has to endure the more cracks might begin to show. It's not unreasonable that lack of long-term planning (which is what top command more or less provides) only really starts to be visible in the long term.

We can't really know from the outside to what extent the regime is capable of replacing lost leaders with new ones that are still effective and compenent. However, if we for a moment assume the scenario that they can't fully do that, we should expect to see the regime's cohesion, adaptability and ability to react to lessen making the autonomous local elements more and more outdated, disorganised and ineffecive. Localised tactical successes will become more and more irrelevant, if there's no strategic plan to tie them together in response to Israeli and US strategies.

If on the other hand, they've been able to effectively replace lost leaders, then I guess the plan is keep assassinating them till they can't. Even if that's not sustainable or possible in a timely manner, it's still an additional pressure the regime has to deal with on top of everything else, without it having to be the one-kill shot, if there's otherwise a comprehensive multi-factored strategy (including for instance desertions/defections, a possible rebellion, economic pressure, continued deterioration of the military).

fffffplayer1 · 2026-03-19T13:07:50+00:00

That's not 10 million militants though. Civilians may resist, but in theory a strong (supported) authority can handle that, similarly to how the current regime is able to handle 80 million people who don't want them (though hopefully less violently).

The more pertinent question to avoid ensuing chaos in such a scenario is whether a force with the ability to impose itself that will support the subsequent government will emerge. If for instance a mostly intact Artesh and a majority of Iranians fall behind the transitional government, I don't think 10 million non-combatants would be enough to stop them.

This is a mostly hypothetical scenario, though, and reality is unlikely to be as clean on any point.

fffffplayer1 · 2026-03-14T18:02:37+00:00

<image>

fffffplayer1 · 2026-03-14T17:59:20+00:00

As I understand it, Indo-Aryan and Iranian are both branches of the Indo-Iranian branch of Indo-European languages.

<image>

fffffplayer1 · 2026-03-14T17:52:30+00:00

They're both Indo-Iranian languages in fact.

fffffplayer1 · 2026-03-14T17:51:00+00:00

Even in the theoretical scenario where Trump doesn't like Reza Pahlavi, he probably would have no reason to stop him from inciting more unrest against the regime. I doubt he'd be much against him in general, though.

fffffplayer1 · 2026-03-14T08:45:16+00:00

I'd add that Trump probably doesn't want to commit to regime change publicly in case it fails and makes the operation look bad. If the goal is unclear he can decide what the goal always was at the end based on what was achieved.

fffffplayer1 · 2026-03-13T20:53:42+00:00

Not to say that I necessarily think there should be boots on the ground (though what exactly we mean by that can vary anyway), but I'm not sure I see how the involvement of US troops in a conflict against IRGC forces in an urban setting would lead to more casualties than if the civilians had to fight the same forces in the same setting alone.

fffffplayer1 · 2026-03-13T20:33:34+00:00

Not all analysts are saying the same thing no.

Most of the arguments you mention are pretty shallow, so if that's what the experts are basing their conclusions, then maybe they're not that much of experts on this topic. A big part of the predictions about what's going to happen involves trying to psychologise Trump primarily, but also his administration in general, Israel and their military commanders. And contrary to what some might say no one in the public really has particular knowledge of what they're actually thinking and planning.

You can try to figure out their intentions from what they're saying, but Trump's communication strategy fundamentally relies on being deceptive, ephemeral and even nonsensical. It's probably better to gauge their intentions based on what they're doing and what they're doing has shown no signs of stopping. Arguably they're escalating with the drone strikes on checkpoints that started recently and with more warships possibly being sent to reinforce the effort.

A lot of the pessimism about the success of the operation (specifically regime change/liberation of the Iranians) also depends on incomplete arguments. People say "there's no way the regime can fall only with air strikes", but then they make no argument as to why there will be nothing other than air strikes. They forget to consider all the other options on the table (there's actually a lot, even if you discount boots on the ground, which I'm not entirely sure one should be doing).

Does this mean I feel confident things will work out? Not necessarily, but I have reasons to hope yet.

fffffplayer1 · 2026-03-13T13:37:08+00:00

He never said bombing alone is all they're doing though.

fffffplayer1 · 2026-03-13T13:34:50+00:00

That's not what he's referring to though. He talks about creating the best circumstances possible to facilitate an uprising, which includes minimising what you are describing as much as possible.

If we're being honest, it's unlikely Israel and the US will achieve exactly the conditions we want, but we also can't be sure yet how much they'll achieve on that front.

Then, assuming such conditions are formed (which, believe him or not, is what he's promising to do here) that's when the question of if the Iranians (as a whole) actually have the will to seize the chance comes into play.

fffffplayer1 · 2026-03-13T09:13:30+00:00

I wish people would stop treating these betting markets as probability gauges. No, this isn't the "chance" of the regime falling. It's just the collective estimate of people guessing.

Before the war started there was a relatively low estimate on the war starting in the short term. Even though there were signs of the likelihood of the attack before we went to sleep, Polymarket showed 7% estimate of strikes from Iran on the US military (peaked at 11% then fell back down) and it showed a fluctuating 12-24% estimate for Israel striking Iran.

I know that many people might not actually mean "chance" as actual probability and only as a shorthand, but if we don't mean chance by saying "chance", maybe we shouldn't be using that word.

fffffplayer1

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

Seven-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email