Not speaking to this specific bit of information, but generally speaking when they give you just so much easily provable material to work with, it’s just silly to go far into speculation over trivialities that actually distract from the big and real issues going on.
And what disturbances do you mean?
This very article seems to be a prime example. Yes, NATO spending is up, and because of Russia conducting a violent unprovoked invasion of a sovereign territory in their area, and a general reduction in confidence that they can rely on USA and must fend for themselves. Trump’s schtick is mostly ‘America shouldn’t help so much, fend for yourself’. Even with somewhat elevated spending, would that offset the loss of capability that would come with the US just failing to live up to their NATO obligations when the time came?
Why would Putin kick off the Ukraine war immediately after his “agent” leaves office?
Because things were going to be as good as he could get them and the best opportunity was before the new administration could reverse course? In the most favorable Russia outcome, Trump might have followed through on threats to further reduce NATO contributions, but with Trump gone and a more NATO-friendly admin in place, things were going to get worse for Putin before they could get better. I vaguely recall some non-US situations that similarly could have greased the wheels for an easier annexation of Ukraine, so it’s not like the US is the only factor in such timing anyway, but don’t recall what specifics made me think of that.
Trump is not a Russian asset. He’s an easily-manipulated businessman
I will agree that it’s not a straightforward “Trump is a Russian agent”, but an “asset” is not an agent. He’s a convenient “friend” that is easily manipulated/bribed. He doesn’t have loyalty or anything like that to Putin, but he is plainly easy to manipulate, and Putin’s circle has been consistently in position to do that manipulation for decades. Others may be no saints, but Trump is comparitively easier to mess with because of just being terrible at the things he purports to be good at.
Broadly, I agree.
I would still worry as while they might not actively attack, they may happily just nope on out of helping any NATO allies. NATO allies are more self-sufficient than before, but NATO without US forces and equipment would be much weaker than an active US.
However, he might just go and pick up Greenland if things pop off. If NATO were chewing on a fight with Russia, I think it would be a safe bet that europe would barely spare the time to shake their head disapprovingly if US just went and occupied Greenland. I don’t think they’d actually do a hot war with western european nations, but could easily see them just ‘declaring’ ownership of Greenland and no one stopping them.
Frankly, another choice virtually forced by the broader IT.
If the broader IT either provides or brokers a service, we are not allowed to independently spend money and must go through them.
Fine, they will broker commercial certificates, so just do that, right? Well, to renew a certificate, we have to open a ticket and attach our csr as well as a “business justification” and our dept incurs a hundred dollar internal charge for opening that ticket at all. Then they will let it sit for a day or two until one of their techs can get to it. Then we are likely to get feedback about something like their policy changing to forbid EC keys and we must do RSA instead, or vice versa because someone changed their mind. They may email an unexpected manager for confirmation in accordance to some new review process they implemented. Then, eventually, their tech manually renews it with a provider and attaches the certificate to the ticket.
It’s pretty much a loophole that we can use let’s encrypt because they don’t charge and technically the restrictions only come in when purchasing is involved. There was a security guy raising hell that some of our sites used that “insecure” let’s encrypt and demanding standards change to explicitly ban them, but the bearaucracy to do that was insurmountable so we continue.
No, they are appealing to MAGA folks that are picturing getting rid of all the dark skinned people they don’t like.
The people that consider that nuance have already been against the ICE crap, you don’t have to convince those. The only people that can be convinced are those that you need to get their racism aside before they’ll join you. It’s distasteful, but it’s a way to grow the voices condemning this behavior.
They in fact refuse to even do a redirect… it’s monumentally stupid and I’ve repeatedly complained, but ‘security’ team says port 80 doing anything but dropping the packet or connection refused is bad…
Ours is automated, but we incur downtime on the renewal because our org forbids plain http so we have to do TLS-ALPN-01. It is a short downtime. I wish let’s encrypt would just allow http challenges over https while skipping the cert validation. It’s nuts that we have to meaningfully reply over 80…
Though I also think it’s nuts that we aren’t allowed to even send a redirect over 80…
I concur that a fight against EU is just completely unlikely, I do think Venezuela is possible since his administration has pretty much been giving free reign and seems to have their heart set on it…
I don’t think having the US attack them is in the cards, but I could see them sitting such a conflict out.
Hey, he earned that purple heart when that skateboard viciously injured him
When they get all melodramatic about flour, eggs, sandwiches being tossed at them, don’t they realize how pathetic they sound acting like these acts are in and of themselves just horrible violance?
Was never going to happen. The most efficient plane uses way more fuel than even a “gas guzzler”. The common driver is dangerous enough with a land vehicle between mistakes operating and slack maintenance, imagine if that population were all flying around.
Might be nice to make that distinction, and have caps.
Millions to move an executive around makes no sense. Even if the route and timing can’t work using commercial, you can still fly a cheaper turboprop for people moving.
A freight company needing millions to move packages, ok, sure.
Whole it could provide some premium features (I’m imagining more like massage type features), the equivalent of 400 thousand USD seems near impossible to see that much value. Maybe 40 thousand for a luxury item for rich people could work more.
It’s just a limited run publicity stunt that will be forgotten within a few weeks.
Yeah, generally of a feature is vaguely expensive, they will not mandate it.
Where airbags hit the scene, they said that would work, but since it is so expensive you can do automatic seatbelts instead.
We are talking about a few dollars on a 30,000 dollar purchase…
I appreciate the online update/kill switch/repaiarability, lock out concerns, but these systems are surprisingly good for safety
On an early outing with my kid driving, we were going on a freeway next to a long line of cars waiting at an exit. Well suddenly someone pulls right in front of us, in a way that even if it happened to me I think I would have hit it, and certainly the car couldn’t brake in time and my kid swerved instead, a good call but one I’m sure would have left us running into the ditch at the speed we were going and no experience with that maneuver. However it was like a professional driver, managing to dramatically yank the car around the sudden slow car and neatly back in the lane after avoiding.
I was shocked my kid pulled that off with only 10 hours of driving experience, turns out the car had an evasive steering assist. Saved our asses.
Tons of videos about the emergency braking tests that should easily convince anyone of their value to safety.
In my car I haven’t figured out what sets it off, it happens all the the with nothing in the backseat.
I appreciate the intent, but at least in my car the false positive rate is so high I could imagine ignoring it
Would be interesting to see the stats for revenue by game, price by volume. If someone charges 300 for a game that no one bought. Then it shouldn’t count, hypothetically.
Difference there being everyone knows that’s a mockery and not genuinely intended to be true.
For the ‘allegedly true’ stuff that is actually realistic and realistically knowable but is on dubious grounds in actual facts, that can backfire without much upside.