kingdark

modding games

[kingdark @thunderq9]

@xmbwqh @MyLordBebo You really need some treatment to your eyes

[kingdark @thunderq9]

@nda_jbr @KAlflwj9 والله اني مو مطبع ولا شي لكن هذا الواقع شوفي حال الدول الي تدخلت فيها ايران وتعرفين شنو احكي عنه انا، كل دوله تدخلت فيها ايران متروسة مخدرات وكلها خراب وفساد ومافيها لا تنمية ولا شي

[kingdark @thunderq9]

@nda_jbr @KAlflwj9 اي قاسم سليماني ولك انتي نايمه بالعسل وغاسلين مخچ محد حرر المناطق هذي الا الامريكان وهما الي حاطين داعش بنفسك الوقت عشان يلقون ذريعه للتدخل بالشأن العراقي وبتفاق مع ايران لنهب ثروات العراق والله انه مضحوك عليكم مساكين

[kingdark @thunderq9]

You have completely abandoned the scientific evidence and are now relying on fabricated history, elementary-school "gotcha" games, and links that actually disprove your own claims. Let's dismantle this final batch of misinformation:
1. The Ultimate Self-Own
You claimed: "No scientist or peer-reviewed publication would publish McCrone."
Look at the literal title of the https://t.co/d6RYJDNpIo link YOU just posted: "Critique of McCrone's 1990 paper in Accounts of Chemical Research."
Accounts of Chemical Research is one of the most prestigious, top-tier, rigorously peer-reviewed journals in the world, published by the American Chemical Society! You literally provided the proof that his work was published by the highest scientific authorities. 
2. Fabricated History & Fake Retractions
You claimed Dr. McCrone "created" The Microscope journal to push lies. This is historically false. The Microscope was founded in the UK in 1937 by Arthur L.E. Barron, decades before McCrone analyzed the Shroud. Furthermore, McCrone never retracted his Shroud papers. He stood by his discovery of medieval paint until he died in 2002. For his lifetime of forensic excellence, he was awarded the American Chemical Society National Award in Analytical Chemistry in the year 2000. 
3. Your Screenshot Proves It's a Fake
Your screenshot brings up Hugh Farey. Hugh Farey is a highly respected Shroud skeptic who believes the Shroud is a forgery! Modern scientists debating the exact method the 14th-century artist used (e.g., whether it was pure brush painting vs. a chemical rubbing over a 3D bas-relief sculpture) does not mean the cloth is a miracle. It just means scientists are studying how the medieval forger pulled it off. 
4. The Rigged $1 Million Contract
A contract written by a biased documentary filmmaker is a PR stunt, not the scientific method. Contract law requires objective criteria for satisfaction. Rolfe demands it be replicated with "all known properties," but Rolfe subjectively defines what those are! Whenever a scientist replicates the Shroud's properties using medieval techniques, Rolfe simply moves the goalposts. No serious scientist is going to spend $500,000 in international legal fees to sue a filmmaker over a rigged contest.
5. The "IF Genuine" Theological Trap
You are relying on a logical fallacy known as "Begging the Question." You are demanding: "Admit that IF it is genuine, the Quran contains lies."
That is exactly like asking, "Admit that IF unicorns are real, your biology textbook is a lie."
Yes, if the hypothetical premise were true, the conclusion would follow. But the premise is entirely false. We do not need to entertain a hypothetical "IF," because we have definitive empirical proof that it is not genuine. The radiocarbon dating, the forensic microscopy, and the Catholic Church's own 1390 papal decree all prove it is a 14th-century creation.
Carbon-14 isotopes do not have a religious bias. You lost the scientific argument, so you are attacking my faith.

Again the references if you want the truth
Accounts of Chemical Research Ahead of Print - ACS Publications https://t.co/IvfhjxVtzf

The Microscope Journal | McCrone Research Institute, Inc. https://t.co/ydy7KGNnJ8

Past Recipients - American Chemical Society https://t.co/8Adts4oAto

Accounts of Chemical Research Journal - ACS Publications https://t.co/6TYYNZO7at

https://t.co/9SVQiUkIxp

[kingdark @thunderq9]

You are now resorting to verifiable lies, fabricating history, and religious bigotry because your scientific arguments have completely collapsed. Let's dismantle your latest claims fact by fact:
1. The Lie About Dr. Walter McCrone
You claimed Dr. McCrone "lost all credibility" and "retracted his papers." That is a blatant, verifiable fabrication. Dr. Walter McCrone never retracted his peer-reviewed papers on the Shroud. He stood by his microscopic analysis (which found millions of particles of red ochre and vermilion tempera paint) until his death. Far from losing credibility, he was awarded the prestigious American Chemical Society National Award in Analytical Chemistry in the year 2000—decades after his Shroud research—specifically honoring his world-class forensic career. 
The link you posted is merely a critique written by members of STURP. STURP was a highly biased group heavily populated by religious believers. When McCrone—the only world-class forensic microscopist on the team—found medieval paint, they pushed him out because his hard data ruined their miracle narrative. A complaint letter from opposing researchers is not a "retraction."
2. Your Own Screenshot Proves the Confession Was Reported
Read your own AI screenshot! It explicitly confirms that Bishop d'Arcis wrote to the Pope reporting that his predecessor had investigated the cloth and found the artist who confessed to painting it. You are using a childish logical fallacy: "Because the artist's name wasn't written down, the confession didn't happen." Demanding the specific name of a 14th-century peasant artisan in a high-level diplomatic memorandum to the Pope is historically illiterate.
3. You Have the "Greed" Backwards
You claim the Bishop lied out of greed. This is historically backward. The Charny family were the ones displaying the Shroud and illegally charging innocent pilgrims money to see a fake relic. The Bishop stepped in specifically to stop them from scamming Christians! 
4. The Pope Decreed it a Fake
You conveniently ignore how the Catholic Church handled this. Pope Clement VII (Avignon) investigated the Bishop's report and agreed with him. In 1390, the Pope issued a papal decree officially ruling the cloth was a forgery. He ordered that it could only be legally displayed if a priest stood next to it and loudly announced to the crowd that it was a painted "representation," not the true burial cloth of Christ. 
5. The Religious Ad Hominem
Instead of accepting the 1260–1390 AD radiocarbon date, the forensic paint analysis, or the medieval papal decree, you are repeatedly attacking Islam and the Quran. Carbon-14 isotopes and microscopic paint particles do not care about your religious bias. When you have to attack someone's faith to defend your position, you have already lost the debate.

References:
Walter McCrone - Wikipedia https://t.co/tHEC4yKbrM.

The Holy Shroud, among science, history and mystery - Indagini e Misteri EN https://t.co/vdIFY7QpZc.

Walter McCrone - Wikipedia https://t.co/x7InkAlLD9.

The secret of the shroud of Turin: Between the greatest hoax and the greatest miracle in history - AS USA https://t.co/uoYetI5030.

Here are all the references if you want to see the truth

[kingdark @thunderq9]

(2/2)
4. The Paint, the AI, and the Pope
Posting a Google AI overview is not scientific proof. World-renowned microscopist Walter McCrone analyzed the tape lifts and found millions of particles of red ochre and vermilion tempera paint bound in an animal collagen binder—standard medieval materials.
Furthermore, you claim the local Bishop "lied" for money. In reality, Antipope Clement VII investigated the Bishop's claims in 1390 and officially issued a papal decree ruling the cloth was a painted "representation." He ordered that it could only be legally displayed if a priest explicitly announced out loud that it was a copy. 
1.The "Photographic Negative" and "3D" Claims
This is not a miracle; it's basic contact-transfer geometry. Any standard medieval contact-rubbing over a shallow bas-relief sculpture naturally creates a "photographic negative" (raised areas transfer pigment, recessed areas stay light). Because the pigment intensity directly corresponds to the physical distance from the cloth to the 3D sculpture, the resulting 2D image naturally translates perfectly into 3D topography. Independent researchers have replicated this exact effect.
2.The Rigged $1 Million Challenge
David Rolfe is not a scientific institution; he is a pro-Shroud documentary filmmaker. His $1M challenge is a well-known, rigged PR stunt. He acts as the sole judge and jury. When scientists (like Garlaschelli in 2009) successfully replicate the Shroud's properties using medieval techniques, Rolfe simply moves the goalposts and refuses to pay. 
The physical evidence, the math, and the historical confession of the original artist all align perfectly. It is a brilliant piece of 14th-century art, and attacking another user's religion does not change those facts.

[kingdark @thunderq9]

You are using the "Gish Gallop" tactic—rapidly throwing out dozens of debunked theories, AI-generated summaries, and conspiracy theories to avoid the hard math of the radiocarbon dating. You also resorted to attacking someone's religion, which proves you are arguing from a position of emotional bias, not objective science. Let’s dismantle your claims fact by fact:
1.The "VUV Laser" Logical Fallacy (Affirming the Consequent)
Your claim that the energy source "must" be Vacuum UV light is logically false. In 2011, scientist Paolo Di Lazzaro used a modern UV laser to scorch linen to mimic the Shroud. You are claiming: "Therefore, the Shroud was made by a laser." That is a logical fallacy. If I cut a piece of wood with a million-dollar industrial waterjet, I cannot look at a 14th-century chair and say, "Medieval people didn't have waterjets, so this chair is a miracle!" Scientists like Luigi Garlaschelli have perfectly replicated the superficial discoloration using 14th-century techniques (faint acidic pigments on a bas-relief sculpture). No 34-Terawatt lasers required. 
2.The Debunked "Invisible Reweave" Theory
You claim the C14 labs tested a 13-15th century "repair strip." This theory has been completely debunked by the world's leading textile experts. Mechthild Flury-Lemberg, the renowned Swiss textile expert who literally restored the Shroud in 2002, examined it and confirmed there is ZERO evidence of any seam, patch, or "invisible reweave" in the radiocarbon sample area. The weave is completely continuous. Furthermore, to mathematically shift a 1st-century date to 1350 AD, the sample would have to be roughly 60% medieval contamination by mass. Wax and stray fibers don't do that.
https://t.co/etOMIw4JAa Misunderstand Peer Review & Raw Data
You claim Oxford "ratified" the 2019 Casabianca paper. Archaeometry is just a journal published by Oxford University Press. A university publishing a paper does not mean they "ratify" it as unquestionable institutional truth. The paper merely pointed out statistical variance in the raw data (publishing averages instead of raw data in Nature is standard scientific practice, not a cover-up). Variance is completely normal in ancient textiles that survived multiple fires and were handled by thousands of people. It mathematically did not invalidate the medieval date. (1/2)

[kingdark @thunderq9]

You are cherry-picking a quote entirely out of context to claim the exact opposite of what the scientists actually concluded.
1.Not an Oxford Admission: Your screenshot is not a statement from the Oxford radiocarbon lab. It is a 2019 paper by an independent Shroud advocate (Tristan Casabianca) published in Archaeometry, a journal owned by Oxford. The three labs have never retracted their 1260–1390 AD dates. 
https://t.co/GwpNcltB4E misquoted the scientist: Your highlight cites "(Freer-Waters and Jull 2010)". Timothy Jull was the director of the Arizona lab. If you read his actual 2010 paper, his conclusion is the exact opposite of your claim: he explicitly states they found "only minor contaminants" and no evidence of coatings or dyes, confirming the medieval date is accurate. 
3.Labs wash their samples: You are assuming they dated raw, dirty cloth. They didn't. The samples were put through rigorous chemical cleanings (Acid-Base-Acid washes) to strip away trace waxes, oils, and debris before they were dated.
4.Mathematical impossibility: Radiocarbon dating is based on mass. To shift a 1st-century artifact to a 14th-century date, the sample would need to be heavily contaminated with roughly 60% modern carbon by weight. A microscopic speck of wax and a few stray cotton fibers physically cannot shift a radiocarbon date by 1,300 years.

[kingdark @thunderq9]

@Chris_T4257 @Yeshua_Yah @Percy_official_ @luqharith @hamzahwiyardi @Abel198429 @RMistereggen Finally, 3 independent labs (including Oxford) carbon-dated the flax to 1260-1390 AD. This perfectly matches history: in 1389, the Bishop of Troyes wrote to the Pope explicitly stating he had found the artist who confessed to painting it. It's medieval art, not a miracle. 3/3

[kingdark @thunderq9]

@Chris_T4257 @Yeshua_Yah @Percy_official_ @luqharith @hamzahwiyardi @Abel198429 @RMistereggen Second, the "3D image" claim. If you wrap a cloth around a real 3D head and lay it flat, the face distorts heavily (the "Mask of Agamemnon" effect). The Shroud face is perfectly proportioned in 2D, proving it was created on a flat surface like a painting or a rubbing. 2/3

[kingdark @thunderq9]

@Chris_T4257 @Yeshua_Yah @Percy_official_ @luqharith @hamzahwiyardi @Abel198429 @RMistereggen This post relies on pseudoscientific technobabble. Let's start with the math: Power (6GW) multiplied by Time (1/40 billionth of a sec) equals 0.15 Joules of total energy. That’s less energy than striking a match. It's not a miraculous cosmic explosion. 🧵👇 1/3

[kingdark @thunderq9]

@yousefrol انا اشوف انه افضل اذا كان انثروبك على وضعها هذا في استهلاك التوكينز لا في ناس كثير بيشتركون بباقة ٢٠ دولار وعلى اساس يستعملون كلاود كود ويتفاجئون بنها التوكنز يخلص بسرعه وتصير كانها عملية نصب فالأفضل انهم يشيلونها عشان محد يطيح بالخطأ هذا

[kingdark @thunderq9]

@Noorjn9 @q8i_cyber اي حساب اي مصخره روحي تمتعي ولا تتحسسين من الكلمه اذا انتي معتقده بالمتعه وتشوفسنها اجر لاني عارف انك راح تتحسسين من قبل لا اشوف ردك وهذا ان دل يدل على الفطره السليمه الي داخلك تقاوم الشي الحرام والغلط فسبحان الله العظيم

[kingdark @thunderq9]

@Redha715 @Adrik_Inc انت يا غبي او أحمق القاصي والداني علم انهم قصفو مصافي الكويت لدرجة ان حتى الحرس الثوري صرح بذالك لكن لا حياتة لمن تنادي

[kingdark @thunderq9]

@Dragon93700140 @li1il1 كيف عرفت مكتوب بالفصل ؟

[kingdark @thunderq9]

طيب، الكلام عن Claude Code source code leak غالبًا مجرد clickbait:

أنا جرّبت أستخدم هذا source code في reverse engineering لشيء معيّن، وكانت النتيجة:

تقدر تسوي له reverse engineer، لكن هذا ما يعني شيء كبير. لأن Claude Code من الأساس ما كان closed-source بالشكل اللي بعض الناس متخيلينه.

الوضع الحقيقي:
•كود Claude Code CLI كان من زمان تقدر تطّلع عليه داخل npm package بصيغة minified JS، وملف source map بس يخليه مقروء كـ TypeScript
•شركة Anthropic أصلًا ما كانت تعتبر منطق client-side في Claude Code شيء سري — الحماية الحقيقية أو core moat هي Claude model نفسه، مو أداة CLI
•وتقدر الحين مباشرة تشغّل
cat /opt/homebrew/lib/node_modules/@anthropic-ai/claude-code/dist/*.js
وتشوف كل المنطق البرمجي

الأشياء اللي تقدر تسوي لها reverse engineer:
•محتوى system prompt كامل (وهو أصلًا ظاهر، النص الطويل اللي يطلع ببداية كل محادثة)
•منطق tool calling orchestration مثل حلقة plan / execute / observe
•طريقة إدارة context window مثل قواعد compression / truncation
•تفاصيل تنفيذ MCP protocol
•منطق permissions / security checks

الأشياء اللي ما تقدر تسوي لها reverse engineer:
•Claude model weights نفسها، لأنها موجودة على سيرفرات Anthropic
•API authentication bypass
•training data

بجملة وحدة:
هذا مو “leak” فعلي، بقدر ما إنه واحد بس سوّى pretty-print للكود الـ minified

لكن مع ذلك، تقدر تستخدمه فعلًا في refactor خاص فيك لـ connector MCP gateway، وتتجاوز بعض قيود remote trigger restrictions بشكل headless CLI — فله استخدام مفيد فعلاً

[kingdark @thunderq9]

@isaacman_ @Rainmaker1973 The best comment hands down

[kingdark @thunderq9]

@Nasik3a1m @Hermes_tooll How you know that ?

[kingdark @thunderq9]

@KhaledQ84Ever اشتراك pro مايسوي شي لازم max لان واضح من صورت CLI شغال عليه بكثافه بس اكيد يوهقك ويخلص عليك بسرعه