Farzin

PhD (Software Eng) | Exec MBA (Finance) | PGDL, LPC, LLM | Postgrad ML & AI | Author | At the intersection of law, technology, literature & finance

[Farzin @realFarzin]

دوستان سلام حتما کارتون ژاپنی بچه های کوه آلپ رو دیدید. این سری کارتونی که اسم‌اصلیش Alps story: My Annette هست در سال ۱۹۸۳ در شبکه تلویزیونی فوجی پخش شده و بعدها هم در ایران. البته من خودم نبودم و ندیدم ولی میدونم خیلی معروفه. داستان این سری در دهکده Rossinière در استان Vaud👇👇

[Farzin @realFarzin]

البته جسارتا بستگی به حجم استفاده کافه داره. اگر کافه ای خیلی شلوغ باشه که در طول روز کل قهوه داخل هاپر تموم بشه مشکلی نیست.

اون دیگس شدن هم که میفرمایید ربطی به در باز بودن و نبودن بسته نداره. خود والو بسته در طول زمانی که قهوه بسته بندی میشه تا به دست مصرف کننده برسه گاز دی اکسید کربن رو از بسته خارج کرده.

باز بودن در هاپر و نگهداری قهوه برای طولانی مدت در جایی که مناسب نیست و نور دیدن باعث کهنه شدن و از دست دادن طعم قهوه میشه.

[Farzin @realFarzin]

@araghchi

OFAC issued a general licence today to allow trades of Crude Oil, Petrochemical Products, and
Petroleum Products until 21 August 2026.

Although OFAC General License X temporarily authorises a broad range of transactions involving Iranian-origin petroleum, petrochemical products and crude oil, the licence does not by itself create a fully functional legal or financial framework for Iranian commerce. The authorisation operates solely within the confines of the sanctions programmes identified therein and does not extinguish separate sources of legal exposure, including terrorism-related legislation, civil judgments, asset attachment proceedings, anti-money laundering requirements or the independent compliance obligations of financial institutions. Accordingly, the issuance of the licence should be viewed as a necessary but not sufficient condition for the restoration of unrestricted commercial activity involving Iran.

From a practical perspective, the continued existence of substantial litigation exposure against Iranian assets, together with the reluctance of many international banks to assume Iran-related compliance and reputational risks, may significantly limit the real-world utility of the licence. Therefore, notwithstanding the formal authorisation granted by OFAC, market participants may continue to encounter material obstacles in arranging financing, obtaining banking services, clearing U.S. dollar transactions and repatriating funds connected with Iranian trade.

[Farzin @realFarzin]

@bahramgour @mah_sadeghi منظور ایشون کیه؟ چون حرف ایشون به خودی خود اشتباه نیست.

[Farzin @realFarzin]

@KE_MrBlack They do!

[Farzin @realFarzin]

Don’t monetise. Lego comes after you.

Keep Lego clips free and interesting for the public.

Monetise on similar things but create new characters. Cartoon characters are easy to create and fun to watch.

With Lego, it would be nice to see a one minute daily clip to summarise the news of the day. Hard but doable.

[Farzin @realFarzin]

Are you talking about the one, X constantly censors? The one which ends up an account being suspended or forced to remove their voice if they want to be active again? The one that X shadow bans if it is against their policy?

The one that even Grok admits, that X as a private company is free to censor?

The one that Iranian officials lose their grey tick just because they are advocating justice and they want the world to hear them? To see the oppression caused by Zionists and Americans?

Give me a break! Don’t pretend to be the nice guy! X is the most corrupted of all!

[Farzin @realFarzin]

Really? The book has over 500 pages!

You are a fast reader. 👏

Anyway, the message of the book doesn’t seem to be on building trust and partnership!

It is more of accepting and acknowledging Iran as a legitimate and popular power in the region in order to keep the US interest there rather than trying to change the regime.

I only skimmed through and indeed it seems to be a good read.

[Farzin @realFarzin]

@georgegalloway @RezaIrani2 The frustration, failure, rage and anger is so obvious from this post!

He has lost it but doesn’t want or better to say, cannot admit it.

[Farzin @realFarzin]

ظاهرا گفته شده خلبان در این درگیری کشته شده و الان امریکا فقط جسدش رو در اختیار داره. هرچند احتمال اینکه تمام این اتفاقات منجر به عدم نجات خلبان شده باشه و خلبان هنوز در ایران جایی قایم شده باشه هست. با این صحنه ها حواس نیروهای تجسس رو پرت میکنند تا فرصت کافی برای پیدا کردن خلبان داشته باشند.

[Farzin @realFarzin]

@shamidartii

Where are you now? Still advocating intervention, or finally ready to face what your position helped legitimise?

You openly pushed for R2P and foreign attacks on Iran. You were warned about the consequences. Now those consequences are visible in dead civilians, including children, and a country left damaged.

So answer plainly: do you still stand by it?

If you call yourself a human rights lawyer, then act like one. That means accountability, not silence. Acknowledge what you supported, admit the error in judgment, and apologise to the Iranian people and to the innocent lives lost.

Anything less is not advocacy, it is complicity.

[Farzin @realFarzin]

@shamidartii

Look at what has happened. Innocent people are dead, including 200 children so far. Homes, infrastructure, and civilian assets have been destroyed. This is the reality that followed the intervention you and others advocated under the banner of “R2P.”

You present yourself as a human rights lawyer. That makes this even more troubling. Anyone trained in human rights law understands the foreseeable human cost of military intervention. When such intervention results in civilian deaths and the destruction of a country’s infrastructure, the question inevitably arises whether this was reckless advocacy or a deliberate political agenda advanced under the protective language of human rights.

Either way, it is indefensible. Calling for foreign military action against your own country and its population is not principled human rights advocacy. It makes you complicit in the consequences that have now unfolded.

The deaths of innocent civilians and the devastation inflicted on the country are no longer theoretical risks. They are the direct outcome of the course you supported, and that responsibility cannot simply be disowned.

[Farzin @realFarzin]

@TheRealLimoGreg @SawyerMerritt Only MSP or any MS?

Mine is not performance but I have free supercharger for life! 😁

[Farzin @realFarzin]

There is a fundamental problem with this kind of rhetoric, and it has nothing to do with denying repentance, forgiveness, or transformation.

The issue is the shift from a general message of redemption to the public exposure of a specific, identifiable person’s intimate past, especially when that person is your spouse.

If this had been framed as a general invitation, something along the lines of “no one is beyond God’s mercy regardless of their past,” it would be entirely uncontroversial. That message is fully consistent across Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. All three traditions affirm repentance, moral renewal, and the possibility of a transformed life.

But this is not what has been done here.

Instead, a woman’s prior sexual history is made part of a public narrative, attached to her identity, and then presented as a theological example. Once you move from abstraction to identification, the ethical landscape changes completely.

Across all three traditions, there is a clear and consistent principle that is being overlooked: repentance does not justify exposure.

Christianity does not only speak about grace. It also emphasises humility, restraint in speech, and avoiding unnecessary discussion of past sins. Islam goes further, strongly discouraging the public disclosure of sins altogether, even one’s own, and placing real weight on the idea that what God has concealed should not be exposed. Judaism is even more explicit, prohibiting reminding a repentant person of their past wrongdoing at all, as it is considered a form of harm.

So while forgiveness is central in all three traditions, so is dignity, discretion, and not reattaching a person to what they have repented from.

That is where this rhetoric fails.

It claims that the past no longer defines the person, yet it brings that very past into the foreground and ties it to a public identity. It says “new creation,” but continues to narrate the person through the lens of the old one.

There is also an obvious social dimension that cannot be ignored. In reality, men and women are not judged equally for sexual history. Women are consistently judged more harshly. So when a husband publicly frames his wife’s past in this way, even under the language of grace, he is not operating in a neutral moral space. He is reinforcing a dynamic where her past becomes part of her public identity, while his does not.

Even if consent is claimed, there is a meaningful difference between someone choosing to share their own story, and another person repeatedly framing that story for a public audience, especially when it involves something as intimate and reputationally sensitive as sexual history.

At that point, it is no longer just testimony. It becomes control over narrative, and arguably, instrumentalisation of another person’s past.

If the intention is truly to highlight grace, then the most coherent expression of that belief would be to let the past remain in the past, not to continually reintroduce it as a defining feature.

A genuinely ethical and theologically consistent position would be simple:

Affirm that no one is beyond redemption, without turning a real, identifiable person’s past into a public case study.

Because once you do that, it stops being about grace, and starts becoming something much closer to moral exhibition under religious language.

[Trevor Sheatz @TrevorSheatz]

My wife was formerly promiscuous. I was a virgin.

She was then radically born-again. Committed to church, evangelized constantly, Puritan books in her bedroom, prayer journals, grief over past sexual sin, etc.

We got to know each other well for over a year, dated for four months, engaged for two and a half, and didn't sin sexually with one another. Our first kiss with each other was at the altar on our wedding day (reaction pic attached!).

We've been married for over five years now, and she's been the most wonderful and godly wife, mother to our three children, and homemaker you could imagine.

She's more pure than most virgins, as biblical purity has less to with past sins (though they certainly matter) and more to do with one's current posture of the heart and daily decisions to honor the Lord (Matt. 5:8).

We're far too quick to forget the story of the woman labeled as a known "sinner" (likely a prostitute) in Luke 7:36-50 who was washing Jesus' feet with her tears while kissing them too. The Pharisees were shocked that Jesus let a public sinner do this.

Jesus responded with a parable about debts being forgiven and ended with this powerful conclusion: "Her many sins have been forgiven; that’s why she loved much. But the one who is forgiven little, loves little" (Luke 7:47).

Everyone seems to highlight the benefits of virginity, and it certainly is a blessing. But we forget to highlight the benefits of being forgiven much as well. My wife knows the depths of Jesus' forgiveness more than most people, enabling her to more easily live out a life of passionate love for her Savior.

A woman or man's past sexual sin matters. But what matters far more when it comes to deciding who to marry is if the person is truly born again, if their repentance is real, if they truly have a heart for Christ, if they truly follow Jesus and obey his commands.

"God has chosen what is foolish in the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen what is weak in the world to shame the strong. God has chosen what is insignificant and despised in the world ​— ​what is viewed as nothing ​— ​to bring to nothing what is viewed as something, so that no one may boast in his presence. It is from him that you are in Christ Jesus, who became wisdom from God for us ​— ​our righteousness, sanctification, and redemption, — in order that, as it is written: 'Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.'" (1 Cor. 1:27-31)

"Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away, and see, the new has come!" (2 Cor. 5:17)

[Farzin @realFarzin]

There is a fundamental problem with this kind of rhetoric, and it has nothing to do with denying repentance, forgiveness, or transformation.

The issue is the shift from a general message of redemption to the public exposure of a specific, identifiable person’s intimate past, especially when that person is your spouse.

If this had been framed as a general invitation, something along the lines of “no one is beyond God’s mercy regardless of their past,” it would be entirely uncontroversial. That message is fully consistent across Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. All three traditions affirm repentance, moral renewal, and the possibility of a transformed life.

But this is not what has been done here.

Instead, a woman’s prior sexual history is made part of a public narrative, attached to her identity, and then presented as a theological example. Once you move from abstraction to identification, the ethical landscape changes completely.

Across all three traditions, there is a clear and consistent principle that is being overlooked: repentance does not justify exposure.

Christianity does not only speak about grace. It also emphasises humility, restraint in speech, and avoiding unnecessary discussion of past sins. Islam goes further, strongly discouraging the public disclosure of sins altogether, even one’s own, and placing real weight on the idea that what God has concealed should not be exposed. Judaism is even more explicit, prohibiting reminding a repentant person of their past wrongdoing at all, as it is considered a form of harm.

So while forgiveness is central in all three traditions, so is dignity, discretion, and not reattaching a person to what they have repented from.

That is where this rhetoric fails.

It claims that the past no longer defines the person, yet it brings that very past into the foreground and ties it to a public identity. It says “new creation,” but continues to narrate the person through the lens of the old one.

There is also an obvious social dimension that cannot be ignored. In reality, men and women are not judged equally for sexual history. Women are consistently judged more harshly. So when a husband publicly frames his wife’s past in this way, even under the language of grace, he is not operating in a neutral moral space. He is reinforcing a dynamic where her past becomes part of her public identity, while his does not.

Even if consent is claimed, there is a meaningful difference between someone choosing to share their own story, and another person repeatedly framing that story for a public audience, especially when it involves something as intimate and reputationally sensitive as sexual history.

At that point, it is no longer just testimony. It becomes control over narrative, and arguably, instrumentalisation of another person’s past.

If the intention is truly to highlight grace, then the most coherent expression of that belief would be to let the past remain in the past, not to continually reintroduce it as a defining feature.

A genuinely ethical and theologically consistent position would be simple:

Affirm that no one is beyond redemption, without turning a real, identifiable person’s past into a public case study.

Because once you do that, it stops being about grace, and starts becoming something much closer to moral exhibition under religious language.

[Farzin @realFarzin]

@OperHealAmerica And Jews don’t believe Jesus is the messiah and God either.

It’s that simple.

Don’t complicate it.

[Farzin @realFarzin]

@takaichi_sanae

広島と長崎を灰燼に帰した側に献花し、その直後に真珠湾を持ち出され、世界の前で諭されるように立ち尽くす――これは外交ではない。国家としての矜持を投げ出した公開の屈辱だ。

和解と服従の境界すら見失い、歴史の重みを軽々しく扱う姿は、指導者としての資質を疑わせる。

日本の歴史と誇りは、このような振る舞いのためにあるのではない。

[Farzin @realFarzin]

広島と長崎を灰燼に帰した側に献花し、その直後に真珠湾を持ち出され、世界の前で諭されるように立ち尽くす――これは外交ではない。国家としての矜持を投げ出した公開の屈辱だ。

和解と服従の境界すら見失い、歴史の重みを軽々しく扱う姿は、指導者としての資質を疑わせる。

日本の歴史と誇りは、このような振る舞いのためにあるのではない。

[Farzin @realFarzin]

@iranscreenshot Well done. Excellent translation. 🙏🏻🌹

[Farzin @realFarzin]

@k_maziar @RezaIrani2 سلام مازیار جان

امیدوارم در پناه خدا خودت و خانواده ات سلامت باشید.

چقدر تاسف داره دیدن چنین صحنه هایی.

دیاسپورای ایرانی و خود ایرانی‌های مشوق جنگ روزی تقاص این حماقت رو پس خواهند داد. خون بیگناه گردنشان را خواهد گرفت.

در پناه خدا باشید

[Farzin @realFarzin]

@4evereliranian چه کرده؟

[Farzin @realFarzin]

این نمونه ای از قشر احمق و و بیشعور جامعه ماست!

پیامی که طرف چند روز قبل از شروع جنگ استوری اینستاگرامش کرده بود. دلم میخواد ببینم الان چی میگه!

مرگ ۲۰۰ تا بچه و ۸۰۰ بی گناه، خرابی و انهدام ساختمان‌ها، اموال عمومی، خانه مردم، بیمارستان‌ها و مدارس و معلوم نیست چقدر بیشتر هم بشه!

اینا بهتر بود از جمهوری اسلامی؟

نمک نشناسهای بی فکر و بیعقل.

حالا با ژست متفکرت بگو چطور این جنایات علیه ایرانیها رو توجیه میکنی؟

تو و امثال تو خائنین به ملت، به ایران و حتی به خانواده خودتون ‌هستید.

تاریخ این ننگ رو ثبت خواهد کرد.