Romania is not the priority, just like the US is not the priority for Trump and France is not the priority for Le Pen.

Good lord. It’s very bad. I like how the presenter clearly knows that it sucks, too, but he’s required to go out and pretend it doesn’t and try to hype it up.

“And trust me, I know tyranny.”

Yeah. That’s the way. Maybe one physical switch for “answer call and enable mic” and one for “enable camera and open camera app”. And, if for some reason you want to, you can exit the camera app with it still turned on, but the normal recommended process is to flip it back closed when you’re done which takes you back to the home screen. (And, if being in the “wrong” position when you want it, if you exited the “wrong” way the last time, serves as a gentle reminder to be better about your data security.) I like it.

I rememeber downloading a little 20-second audio clip of some interesting radio traffic, and I think it took about 15 minutes to download.

Phones need way more physical switches on them.

One for camera (maybe for mic, not sure how that would work out with the “phone” aspect for any of those deviants who still use their phones for voice calls), one for GPS. Maybe we could add one for USB data, next to the port. Actually even better for the camera would be a little slidey plastic cover like the old SGI webcams. One for a kill-switch that stops all battery power so it’s not pinging towers while it’s “off”.

IDK, it seems kind of silly that the solution to this particular problem is not hardened phones for defense personnel of which no ability to transfer data over the cable whatsoever would be a fairly good early step (one among many). There are lots more malicious chargers in the world other than Chinese vehicles. In general phones are just a nightmare.

Are you saying I was being silly?

You might be onto something

Okay, so way back when, Google needed a way to install and administer 500 new instances of whatever web service they had going on without it being a nightmare. So they made a little tool to make it easier to spin up random new stuff easily and scriptably.

So then the whole rest of the world said “Hey Google’s doing that and they’re super smart, we should do that too.” So they did. They made Docker, and for some reason that involved Y Combinator giving someone millions of dollars for reasons I don’t really understand.

So anyway, once Docker existed, nobody except Google and maybe like 50 other tech companies actually needed to do anything that it was useful for (and 48 out of those 50 are too addled by layoffs and nepotism to actually use Borg / K8s/ Docker (don’t worry they’re all the the same thing) for its intended purpose.) They just use it so their tech leads can have conversations at conferences and lunches where they make it out like anyone who’s not using Docker must be an idiot, which is the primary purpose for technology as far as they’re concerned.

But anyway in the meantime a bunch of FOSS software authors said “Hey this is pretty convenient, if I put a setup script inside a Dockerfile I can literally put whatever crazy bullshit I want into it, like 20 times more than even the most certifiably insane person would ever put up with in a list of setup instructions, and also I can pull in 50 gigs of dependencies if I want to of which 2,421 have critical security vulnerabilities and no one will see because they’ll just hit the button and make it go.”

And so now everyone uses Docker and it’s a pain in the ass to make any edits to the configuration or setup and it’s all in this weird virtualized box, and the “from scratch” instructions are usually out of date.

The end

Fun fact, the character of Ripley was written for a man, and only once the script was complete did they randomly decide to cast a woman for the part and see what happened.

And yes I completely agree with you. Implications about how Hollywood does things are left as an exercise for the reader.

Be sure to include some kind of passive-aggressive “joke” about how everyone in Hollywood who’s left of Harvey Weinstein is stupid.

Fun fact about that: I think it was Mike Mullane who was on one of the first missions with a female astronaut. He found her, obviously, to be beyond qualified, and was just as furious as all the other astronauts of any gender at the dumb type of “how will you do your makeup in space” type of questions she would get from the press.

Anyway, partway through the mission her hair got caught by some kind of machinery, sucked in and tangled up in it, and it was a little bit of a pain in the ass to get things sorted out. She hunted down every single member of the crew and made them swear an oath under threat of terrible violence not to say a goddamned word about it, because it was intolerable that there be some actual negative issue with some reality that was connected with her gender in any way, that anyone could point to as a reason why male astronauts were better.

Then he put it in his book. Of course. Hopefully enough time had gone by at that point that we understood that astronauts can be qualified even if they have hoo-has. Or, well, we did until Jeff Bezos got involved.

She was widely ridiculed for the quote with Alien as a notable example.

I think the rest of the quote was pretty accurate. She was speaking to gender bias in Hollywood and saying she was happy to be an exception, which I think was fine. But because she said something boneheadedly wrong to tee up the point, that’s all anyone really remembers about it.

Dude I didn’t pick this weird pedantic fight and get all upset about what Wikipedia says and what a problem it is. You did. Now that it turned out you were making it up, it’s all of a sudden weird for people to care about it. Okay.

Wait, so up there it looks like the actual truth is not “Some years later I tried again but you could no longer make changes IIRC. Just checked, info still missing.” but in fact that the exact information is already in the article.

Glad we had this talk lol. I mean it’s a pretty trivial thing to get upset about even if it were true, I can somewhat believe that some random person might have reverted your edits for bad reasons, but I am wholly unsurprised to learn that there was no grand conspiracy and the information in the article has been corrected now even though you specifically said that it wasn’t.

It strongly looks like you’re making things up lol

It is trivial to check what changes someone did or didn’t make 10 years ago on Wikipedia, if you know which page of Wikipedia it was on. Which page was it on?

What does the article mean “Juniper Networks, despite being a “Good Article”, is also mostly PR”?

It’s all part of their various horseshit attempt at making something which is pretty simple an innocuous into something that it isn’t.

Within the last few days, it looks like someone raised the issue on this guy’s page, the arbitration committee is getting in touch with him, and he’s saying he’ll get back to them. Presumably there’s a minor conflict of interest and they’ll look over the article and make sure he didn’t do anything slanty to it and then tell him to stay away from COI-adjacent articles in the future.

There’s absolutely nothing sinister here, and they are stringing together a bunch of misleading stuff (like “mostly PR”) to make a mountain out of a molehill to discredit Wikipedia. I’ve noticed a bunch of people doing this, presumably there is some organized campaign which actually is sinister in the way they’re implying WP is, that is trying to make people think badly of them.

yes, assuming Trump’s goal is to have more manufacturing in the US, tariffs will

Destroy domestic manufacturing by enacting insane tariffs on the raw materials it depends on, without any nontrivial increase in manufacturing to counterbalance the pain, even in the long run.

This type of command economy “might makes right” stuff can fail catastrophically. As recently as the 1990s, there were people starving in North Korea by the hundreds of thousands (at least) because someone decided that enforcing his will was more important than listening to people who even on the most rudimentary level knew what they were doing.

I mean, if I am more qualified at recognizing horseshit than The Guardian is, that’s a problem. It’s weird to me that you are classifying this view of how Trump operates with respect to things like tariffs and whether or not he is a total moron as a matter of opinion.

I’ve seen them get other things about him wrong before, too. They were super happy about how Trump was finally going to lay the hammer down on the Israelis and create peace in Gaza:

https://ponder.cat/post/1323549

There were a bunch of Lemmy commentators in there, too, saying more or less that it was super easy, Trump had made progress with his tough negotiating, and this was just evidence that Biden hadn’t been trying to do it. Since that happened, Isarel’s occupied roughly half of Gaza and resumed killing at scale, and also starting doing the same a little bit in the West Bank. They’re also not letting any food in.

For example, think about the sheer amount of executive orders he has put out in his first few days of his second term. This must have been planned and prepared.

Absolutely true.

It was not just some random sh*t.

Also true. They put together a detailed plan about it, it was published. Some of it was his own ideas but there was also a lot that was coordinated and coherent, put together by smarter people.

You may be underestimating him a lot if you only think of “insane” etc. It was for a purpose.

Now you’re switching back to talking about tariffs. Those were not for a purpose. He literally thinks (or thought, at one point, I don’t know if he still does) that the country doing the exporting pays the tariff. He put 50% tariffs on Lethoso. That’s not underestimating, that’s just facts.

Other more coherent people have written about his motivations, the source of his tariff ideas, all kinds of stuff. You can do analysis of any of his ideas and the goals (if any) behind them without agreeing with any of it. But this article’s thesis is more or less “he’s trying to devalue the dollar to set right the balance of trade, and it might work” and that is a bunch of sanewashing and horseshit with some additional fantasies about how well Reagan’s stuff worked out thrown in for good measure.

The world is much more than “pro or against trump”. They want diversity and they are doing well.

You don’t need to have diversity between horseshit and non-horseshit. I’m fine with many many points of view, including pro-Trump ones if they make sense (one random example from recently being that he seems genuinely surprised and angry that Russia broke the cease-fire instantly). My complaint with this article is not that it’s pro-Trump, it’s that it is horseshit.

This is one of the weirdest goddamned articles I have ever read.

The US dollar being devalued so people could accept our exports more readily would make some sense if we had manufacturing capacity to make some exports people will buy. We don’t. What will happen is we’ll lose the ability to buy everyone else’s stuff, and the history of where global capital chooses to site factories argues strongly against them moving them back to the US even with a cheaper dollar. It’s just suffering with no upside, short term or long term.

Other insane things he says, like that defaulting on T-bills would be sort of a good thing or that Reagan’s people made “the economy” boom in the 1980s, are sort of side notes. And the idea that Trump is competently executing on plans that can be laid out coherently is also laughable. The whole thing is just insane in multiple overlapping respects. Why are they putting this in the newspaper? This is not the first totally insane pro-Trump story I have seen in The Guardian.