Not everyone is a natural Linux user, no need to call other dumb for not knowing something you may know about.

Most of their justification is for sure bullshit, especially knowing how AI routinely “hallucinates” things (Firsthand, as I worked with MS/OpenAI AI for some POC projects).
Their uses of AI isn’t to “better target terrorist”, it is to anesthetize their humanity, the same way a execution peleton ammunition are mostly blank, so none of them know who really killed the prisoner. And see the result. Tens of thousands of women and children killed, and no end of hostility in sight.
This is no war, this is blind vengeance, and those in power in Israel as well as in Teheran keep fueling it in hope to stabilize their power.

Both sides are guilty of war crimes, and that bombing is a war crime in my opinion. Still, The Hezbollah have a lot of other option other than building bunkers under civilian building. If they can dig under that, they can dig under a mountain, a field, or anywhere else where their presence wouldn’t put others in danger.

So tell me, other than using it as a shield, why dig a bunker under a civilian building ?

Very probably, indeed. And most, if not all, would be intercepted by the iron dome. I also doubt they have the required range.

I wonder if their Iranian sponsors could.

There is a difference between being “near” and “under”.
In the first case, unless your missile/bomb is shitty, you should be able to hit the target without collateral damages. On the second, except by telling in advance where you are gonna bomb, there is no way to avoid collateral damage. That a case where the population is used as human shield.

Still, taking that into account, especially with the latest development in drones, Israel could have used a less destructive approach. But that would have required them to go out in the open, and I doubt they would. The only option left is to wait for another opportunity, or to go for it with their bunker buster bombs, despite all the collateral damage it would do. Considering the little respect Israel military has for Arabs lives, the answer was the later.

Funny since I’m rather pro palestinian, but let’s go with it.

I take into account that I don’t know a lot of things as I’m not some sort of omnipotent being.

Here is the data I got :

On the Hezbollah, as they don’t have an habit of documenting their bases (for obvious reason), all I know is that it was in a densely inhabited area, and reportedly underground.
So either it was built before this zone became densely populated, or it was built on a later date, knowing the area was densely inhabited.
Either way, it is either negligence, if they allowed the population to encroach on what should be considered a military area, or knowingly, to use the population as shield. Unfortunately they are against an army that don’t care about killing innocents, so that was of no use.

On the IDF side, according to Wikipedia, Camp Rabin is used as the IDF headquarters since 1948, at that time it was still an agricultural settlement in the periphery of Tel Aviv. This was seized from a Christian community, reportedly because they where nazi sympathizers, and they used to create the IDF HQ there.

If you take a look at it, you’d realize it is tall, and far from any habitation. And in a military base. If is was attacked, there would be little risks of civilian collateral damages. Sure, it is in central Tel Aviv on paper, but more because the city grew around it than because it was deliberately put there.

I couldn’t find anything about the Greek army HQ, care to provide a link?

For what reason do you think they’d build their HQ there and not far away from the population?

Unless you are not just sarcastic:

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/axes

I know I’m a bit late, but here is some more info that may be of use to some.

OpenGL/GLSL

OpenGL, is a set of “extensions” (currently 160 as of OpenGL 4.6), which is a subset of features that has to be implemented by each vendor/manufacturer driver.
To be considered compliant with OpenGL 4.0, you have to implement all its extensions. This base serves as the first stepping toward the next step, OpenGL 4.1, which is basically 4.0 with some more extensions, and so on untill the current OpenGL 4.6.
But as everything in OpenGL 4.0 is also in OpenGL 4.6, a driver for 4.6 will run any 4.0 games. But if you used an extension found in the 4.3 spec, your game won’t work on a 4.2 level driver… Well, most of the time, as it may already have implemented the extension you need, but did not implement yet enough of them to reach the 4.3 specs.
To complicate things even further, you have the cut-to-size versions, aka OpenGL ES, which targets embedded devices with a stripped down version of OpenGL.
As an example of this, you can find here the compatibility matrix for the open-source Mesa collection of drivers : https://mesamatrix.net/

DirectX

DirectX, in contrary, is a monolithic spécification. You either support DX11, or you don’t.
Part of it is implemented in the NT kernel (Linux équivalent in Windows) by MS, through its libraries, and the other is implemented by the GPU manufacturer, in their drivers.
DX version are often tied to Windows versions (DX12 with Windows 11), for multiple reasons. It requires the right features available in the NT kernel, the right hardware to be run, and, lets be honest, it is a great sale argument to try to push users to get the latest Windows version. Same goes with hardware manufacturers, it is a great way to make sure your customers upgrade for a GPU that support the latest DX version.
Subsequent versions are not compatible with each other, that’s why, if you play a DX9 game, you have to install the correct driver that (still) supports DX9, and the DX9 libraries.

To convert or not to convert to new API version ?

To convert a game from DX9 to DX10, you have to rewrite part of the underlying engine, which mean putting ressources and money into it.
Most publisher won’t bother, as the return on investment isn’t good enough to motivate such work. The new features won’t be used, and even though it usually give a substantial boost to performance, those games are often old enough to work exceptionally well on the current era hardware anyway.
So, once again, why bother ?

The specific case of DX12 (and Vulkan)

DX12 is to DX11 what Vulkan is to OpenGL. Both are a dramatic philosophical shift in the graphical API world. Previously, graphical APIs where at a higher level in the stack, which reduced their complexity, at the cost of bigger overhead.
Now with those two new beasts, you get a lot lower in the stack, which mean a lot closer to the hardware itself. You loose some of the ease of use in exchange for a lot less overhead, and thus potentially better performances.
But if your game worked on previous APIs, your are out of luck, as the changes are so radical you’d probably have to rewrite the whole engine renderer. It cost a lot, so only very few games goes this way, mostly the very successful ones, and probably mostly to gain experience with those new paradigms before starting to go all DX12/Vulkan for future games.

And F-droid.

Especially since some South Korean smartphone brand illustrated how it is a bad idea to have a bad quality battery in a smartphone.

Spoiler: It gets hot. Very hot.

Texas left the room.

And I confirm they can go f*** themselves.

You are not the only one who hate that. I refuse to play any of those game because of that, as well as many other microtransaction games, especially those who exploit FOMO.

“Always two, there are. No more. No less. A Master and an apprentice.” - Master Yoda

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/reuters/

Seem to be an API hiccup.

Poor girl…

I’ve found that in the trash, was it yours?

“/s”