PowerCrazy

Right, but he just goes inside and the hornets buzz around impotently, then he is hung over the next morning and pisses on the knocked down hornets nest and goes about his day never giving another thought about it.

I guess one of the advantages of having literally zero plans other then "kill the current bad guy" is that you can just stop whenever you want and declare victory.

Ah, another Zionist. I have a good guess as to where he will flee to.

Not all oil is created equal. While all oil is useful, our current oil dependent economy is highly dependent on easily (cheaply) refined and pumped oil.

Though the guardian claims that Venzuela oil is "ideal" for America's guld-coast refineries. I don't really know one way or another the efficacy of that claim. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2026/jan/05/venezuelan-crude-oil-appeals-to-us-refineries

The concept of a shared cache layer that uses cryptographic hashes to distribute copies to everyone that request them isn't stupid at all. In fact that is how CDNs work and they are extremely useful. The stupid part is paying large sums of money to "own" a specific sequence of bits on a specific ledger. The ledger can be copied and is copied, but you have zero ownership of those copies and you don't own the original work either. So what did you pay for?

Why do you think he is a sellout? He was funded by AIPAC from the beginning, and the DNC (also a full throated aipac suppoter) made him the only choice from the beginning.

Blue No matter who am i right guys?

I don't like the idea of "banning" users from accessing a website. But I am certainly in favor of banning sovereign companies from doing business with the company that owns a website, and seizing any physical assets that the website company owns within the laws reach.

Fetterman gets his turn at being the rotating villain for why the dems can't fillibuster the funding bill.

Just the dumbest people drifting through life enabled by the worst people (who are also pretty dumb).

Yes yes, of course the US can do all the war stuff, including war crimes, but unless our sacred institutional leaders all agree to call it a war and then sign the sacred war parchment after the master of arms holds the staff of truth then obviously it's not a war. Great stuff, very compelling world we live in.

You need to understand subnetting. Allowing 192.168.1.0/24 also allows 192.168.1.135/24 In fact 192.168.1.135/24 shouldn't be valid syntax at all, but it is easier to accept it and then let subnet math fix the mistake.

I assume your router is 192.168.1.135 for whatever reason, so as long as your router is contained in the configured iptables allowed network, it'll work with all of the following networks.

192.168.1.135/32
192.168.1.134/31
192.168.1.132/30
192.168.1.128/29
192.168.1.128/28
192.168.1.128/27
192.168.1.128/26
192.168.1.128/25
192.168.1.0/24
192.168.0.0/23
... And 22 even larger networks.

If you don't configure a subnet mask for the rule, iptables will accept the IP address you put in as a single host, the /32 is implied. The same behavior would be seen using any kind of network filter, though they may not allow you to specify 192.168.1.135/24, they may require a bit boundary, but mathematically, it's the same.