u/ChairmanMeow — 𝙲𝚑𝚊𝚒𝚛𝚖𝚊𝚗 𝙼𝚎𝚘𝚠

But is that high demand or low availability?

Controller updates were performed during system updates, or could be done manually from the settings iirc. I mention it because I mainly played on PS3 for years too and definitely remember updating those controllers.

I don't think any of the updates were ever mandatory though.

Even the PS3 controller received firmware updates. This isn't all that new.

Why the fuck did he sign it

Yet there were still no findings that Iran indeed was working towards nuclear weapons. Just having the means to do it isn't the same as *actually* doing it.

So it's just a coincidence that no neighboring country has threatened them with outright military invasion since they got nukes?

I mean, haven't they?

And when has Iran ever threatened to use a bomb against Israel?

The IAEA cites several officials that have stated that Iran is able to manufacture nuclear weapons, and pundits on state tv have threatened Israel with total destruction and "annihilation". It doesn't take much to put two and two together. They're overt threats, but threats nonetheless.

The Soviets didn't just keep expanding across Europe, precisely because the US had the bomb to hold them in check.

This ignores the many proxy wars the US and USSR fought in many regions. I wouldn't necessarily call that very stabilizing. Meanwhile the theory that wars won't be declared between nuclear powers is actively being tested by several states at the moment, prodding and probing nuclear-capable alliances to test where the boundary lies.

Results achieved in the past do not guarantee success in the future.

As much as I agree that Israel is a destabilizing force and that you have their MO fairly spot on, Israel doesn't seem to be using its nuclear arsenal as a deterrent for invasion. They don't have to, they have significant conventional forces with US backing, making invasion nigh-impossible anyway. That's how it went in the past at least with the various regional wars.

I'm not sure an Iranian bomb would stabilize much if anything. Israel sees it as a direct existential threat and will stop at nothing to prevent or disable such a weapon. Iran has also repeatedly threatened to use it on Israel offensively, which doesn't really bode well for peace either. Suppose Iran does lob a bomb at Israel, how would they respond? Or what if Israel strikes first? I don't trust either party to be reasonable and responsible here tbh.

Iran can't use the weapon to threaten Israel as you say, because it'd be an empty threat. Iran can't nuke Israel without getting nuked right back. Israel knows this, so they can continue their expansions just fine.

MAD doctrine prevents nuclear wars from breaking out, but as we have been seeing recently it doesn't prevent conventional wars.

Iran doesn't even have nukes yet.

International law doesn't put up any of those restrictions. As an illegal occupying force Israel is not allowed to dictate what the "proper" channels are.

International law doesn't permit the blockading of humanitarian aid. Israel was allowed to board and inspect the vessel, but not block it from entry.

This seems rather unlikely. Ukraine for example takes care to inform journalists and simply asks them not to compromise their locations, checking phones and cameras where necessary.

They don't hold journalists at gunpoint, delete all images off of each device, then threaten the journalists if they dare come back.

Israel has committed crimes in Syria too, which they seem keen to cover up. Intimidation of the press fits in that pattern. They wouldn't behave like this if it was jusy opsec.

The judges were personally sanctioned I believe.

That's all conjecture. I'm not sure lawmakers would be particularly swayed by the Haka, particularly not the proponents of the bill (who probably care even less about it).

Even then, an impassioned speech tends to be far more effective in parliament than disruptive protests (historically speaking).

The bill was already fairly controversial, so it probably wouldn't have passed through legislative apathy.

Yeah but why bother? That same parliamentary process *defeated* the bill?

But that same procedure ended up *defeating* the bill? I'm not sure the protest really achieved much.

You can fight a bill like this in a 100 ways within parliamentary procedure. If they had announced the protest it would be allowed too I believe.

Protest is for when the procedure fails. But it worked just fine here.

Also, arguments about the protest aside, my main point was that it's not *racist* to punish an unannounced disruptive protest, just because that protest happened to be a Haka.

I mean, personally I don't really agree with people here saying this punishment is racism.

For me this falls into the same category as walking up to other members of parliament and yelling loudly at them, or breakdancing, or doing anything that disrupts the parliamentary process. I don't think making exceptions for a Haka is reasonable. Parliament has these rules to ensure the room stays calm, collected and can do its work. The Labour party too believes some punishment is appropriate, though they suggested a censure instead.

Most articles refer to a previous suspension of 3 days, but I can't find what that was for. I can't judge if the severity of the punishment is therefore in line with precedent.

It should be mentioned, the bill they protested ultimately did not end up passing.

It doesn't yet, there's another vote.

It's insane, the *basic fucking concept* of why human shields "work" is that it's *morally wrong* to kill them. Totally bizarre.

Most webshops don't directly implement payment methods, they implement PSPs. And those do keep good logs. Depending on the shop keeping those logs may be required by law too.

Absolutely true, but it does place some question marks after the supposed benefit of Taler. Not due to any fault of Taler ofc.