Yes, they are very obviously suggesting it didn't happen. I have no idea why certain people on the left want to ignore what is happening on Iran, and even pretend like nothing problematic is happening in Iran.
Nobody’s saying nothing problematic is happening in Iran.
What I’m saying is that a lot of people are extremely interested in seeing Iran fall and that Western media paid by Saudi Arabia has exactly zero credibility. So get better sources, that’s all.
Yes and no; kernels aren’t magic, and “change how this kernel is loaded to match how Linux does it” is actually a reasonable first assignment for an Operating Systems class at a top-tier school. (You’re basically just creating an alternative `main()` if you don’t need a RAM disk image from which to load drivers.)
What, pray tell, would you do for a first assignment in an Operating Systems class at a top-tier school that actually involves making changes to on realistic operating system code?
It looks roughly the same as when I took 15 years ago, except they switched to riscv from x86. Honestly, what you're describing sounds too difficult for a first assignment. Implementing irq handlers or syscalls on an existing codebase is far more realistic, plausible, and useful.
At the risk of getting further off-topic: what sort of system calls did they have you implement? I’ve never done but a tiny bit of kernel hacking and that sounds like a good exercise, but I’m not sure what would be a good first syscall to add.
I don't know… people were lonely before LLMs. And, they're right, this is a question one could easily paste into a frontier model and easily get back info that's way more useful than the significant majority of blog posts or replies would give! shrug But also I'd still like to hear what fooker has to say!
Parallels will run a VM that can (manually) boot bsd.rd from the EFI shell if you stick BOOTAA64.EFI and bsd.rd on a FAT32 GUID formatted.dmg, connect it to the VM, then boot EFI shell.
Type:
connect -r
map -r
fs0:
bootaa64.efi
boot bin.rd
Then you'll be in the OpenBSD installer, having booted an OpenBSD kernel.
My point is that as long as OpenBSD can boot like Linux, you just have to tell whatever VM front-end you’re using that you’re booting a Linux but give it an OpenBSD kernel and RAM disk.
Traditionally BSD has booted very differently than Linux, because Linus adopted the same boot process as MINIX when he first developed it (since he was actually using the MINIX boot blocks at first).
BSD has historically used a bootstrap that understands V7FS/FFS and can load a kernel from a path on it. MINIX takes the actual kernel and RAM disk images as parameters so it doesn’t need to know about filesystems, and that tradition continued with Linux bootstraps once it was standalone.
At least as of the last major macOS release, that will not work, because the PCIe LSI SCSI HBA driver doesn’t have the extra stuff needed to support external PCIe.
It’d be a pleasant surprise if Apple implemented that for macOS 26 but I wouldn’t hold my breath.
Interesting... What bothers me is that you'd think that with Mac Proc M2 having advertised support for "storage" cards and lots of PCIe slots, at least some SCSI HBA's would have drivers?
The SCSI protocol driver on macOS is there mostly for USB devices speaking the enhanced storage protocol and similar use cases. That’s how a USB-SCSI adapter from 1999 actually still works on modern macOS.
The PCIe SCSI card driver on macOS is for LSI32032 and related cards, and at least as of last year’s release only works on an internal PCIe slot on a Mac Pro, not in a Thunderbolt-connected slot in an external PCIe enclosure. (Apple “just” needs to implement some extra functionality to support them in external slots, but they no doubt have lots of competing work to do.)
GBSCSI and ZuluSCSI support “initiator mode” that can be used to either image an attached SCSI disk to a file on an SD card or provide live access to it over USB as a mass storage device—with better performance than the old USB 1.1 SCSI adapters too, which top out at about 750KB/sec.
They’re not really designed to be adapters in that direction anyway; the more intended use is that you use it to image a drive to a file on an SD card, and then use that file with a GBSCSI or ZuluSCSI going forward.
The point is that you can do reads/writes to it on a super-faster SD card reader on your main system, and then also use it with the ZuluSCSI/whatever. USB long ago exceeded SCSI’s data rates.
There’s a huge difference between anti-design bias and calling out Liquid Glass for the garbage human interface design that it is. If anything, it demonstrates a substantial *pro-design* bias because it shows that people actually care about design more than any “party line” here.
Crimes against humanity are subject to universal jurisdiction. A state need not be a member of the ICC to be subject to its (or any other entity’s) jurisdiction in investigating, prosecuting, and adjudicating such crimes.
The US does not recognize such an argument. If that is the argument being made, then no wonder the US issued sanctions; it would perceive such a precedent as a threat to its sovereignty.
Not quite: The US helped invent that argument, and has used it extensively to pursue its foreign policy goals since World War II.
What the US has argued historically is that American people and institutions are not subject to it because the US has a functioning civilian and military justice system, and so prosecution for such crimes can be handled within it, even by foreign nations and NGOs.
Obviously that’s a load of bullshit, especially (but not only) these days, but “sovereignty for me but not for thee” has long been the rule and with its weakening international position the US may come to find that to be less achievable in the future.
When has the US used the argument that a judicial system has universal jurisdiction? In the US, foreign policy is the domain of the executive, to the point where court cases involving foreign sovereigns are usually dismissed.
Compared to how much of a mess most of the world's powers are on matters on sovereignty, the US is actually one of the more conservative ones here (e.g., see OFCOM in the UK).
Let me restate: The US position is that the US justice system “works” and thus *US persons and institutions* must be pursued *within the US system* even by foreign entities.
In other words, the US position is not that if (say) North Korea commits a crime against humanity they must be pursued in US courts; the US is fine with the ICC in that case. The US position is that if the US commits a crime against humanity that must be pursued in US courts, not the ICC.
It’s an obvious (and bullshit) double standard, but it’s also not a denial of the legitimacy of universal jurisdiction. It’s just the US, as usual, trying to have its cake and eat it too.
Why is that a double standard? The US position is that recognized nations have sovereignty, and are the supreme law within their jurisdiction. If there is no recognized legitimate sovereign power, then the US is fine with an international body substituting.
That this standard is complicated, and different from those that argue that international law should be the supreme law, doesn't make it a double standard. It's also not what is meant by universal jurisdiction, as it does not depend on overriding sovereignty.
Edit: Seeing your other comment, it's also worth noting this was a large reason why the US didn't sign the Rome statute, since as you note, the US isn't inherently opposed to the idea of international courts, only the supremacy of their jurisdiction.
They don't want the precedent established. Same reason why uninvolved parties in US courts submit "amicus briefs" - the precedent from a case may affect them down the line.
The US doesn’t believe universal jurisdiction applies to it or its vassal states and proxies, which includes Israel.
On the other hand, the US didn’t try to prevent Slobodan Milošević from being tried at The Hague for war crimes and genocide, as Serbia wasn’t a vassal state or proxy.
Every authoritarian regime does this, and some legitimate non-totalitarian governments do too.