It seems like replacing code that has been written and used extensively for decades with a complete rewrite without a real need is more of a risk to me. Perhaps the uutils are 'simple' enough not to be an issue though.
There is such a large gulf between the two you could name it the Gulf of America. This false equivalence "both sides"-ism is ridiculous when one side is actively harming America which will remain for probably an entire generation to come.
Both sides are actively harming America in ways that will remain for more than a generation. The growing deficit will force us to devalue the dollar, which will remove the status of global reserve currency. This inevitably is going to raise the price of imports, which is why both sides are focusing on reshoring strategic manufacturing.
Currently we are getting a pass because all currencies are being devalued, and ours is devaluing slower than others. Growing deficits might cause us to devalue faster, or economic recovery might push foreign currencies into a stronger position.
EDIT: I’m not arguing that both sides are the same, or that one side isn’t better than the other. I’m arguing that neither side is taking our long term interests to heart.
You've got the causality backwards. Pulling back from the world and ending the US as a source of stability will destroy the status of global reserve currency. And the focus on the "deficit" (which tacitly ignores all the artificially-cheap loans given to the financial industry by the Federal Reserve) is just a kayfabe partisan point rather than a real analysis. In actuality that high price inflation from the first Trump term caused the first shred of fiscal responsibility from the Fed that we've seen in over two decades. Our country would be in a much better state if monetary creation could have continued with deliberate spending on domestic industry rather than being directed back at the everything bubble plus some magical-thinking tariffs.
Define "America". Your side believes that a billion people from all over the world could come here and it would still be "America" so I'm not sure what you even mean when you say someone is "actively harming" it.
Because the circle is the physical silicon. Any chips that fall outside the circle are only part of a full chip. They will be physically missing half the chip.
I haven't had social media for 10+ years. There's been periods where I create a facebook account again, but it is soon deleted within a week or so. I only use WhatsApp to talk to real-life people and Discord to talk to online gaming "friends". I do have accounts obviously on some websites to make comments like this.
It is awfully lonely I must admit. I have a partner of over a decade which helps but not having social media is very isolating. My wife has all the social medias and knows what happens with my family before I do!
My last 'experiment' was the shortest - I registered for an Instagram account and when it suggested that I add my real-life next door neighbour in the sign-up process I immediately stopped and deleted the account. That is scary.
I don't think this post applies much critical considerations on the reality we live in. Just pulling some of the examples at the start of the article and giving an alternative interpretation:
> Helsing has a contract making German Eurofighters able to detect radar lock-on (which indicates the aircraft may be being targeted by AAW, Anti Aircraft Warfare). This could help make German Eurofighters more “survivable”, which includes the ones that carry Nuclear Weapons for deterrence. They argue this helps ensure German nuclear deterrence isn’t nullified by AAW, ensuring peace.
Germany does not own their own nuclear weapons. It may host US/NATO nuclear weapons, but they're not German. Perhaps this German fighter was destroying an unoccupied bridge to stop the advance of enemy troops that were about to kill and rape a village of citizens. Does this now make the plane "good" and no longer "evil"?
> Autonomous drone flight control systems for Ukraine, including “GPS Denied” option (navigating while GPS is being jammed). It was impossible to confirm IRL whether or not this is purely reconnaissance or navigating and dropping payloads on targets. However, it is likely part of a kill chain, as even SIGINT will likely be used for e.g. artillery fire.
Perhaps this will also be used by the civilian aviation industry which currently suffers the same GPS interference. Would the author prefer a precise artillery strike that disables an opponent or imprecise artillery that may destroy kilometres of land and housing and ancillary buildings (and potentially innocent lives)?
meaning we are not only entitled, but even mandated to shoot us into our own foot with them, just in case...
Which was the case since the days of the F-104G Starfigther, F-4F Phantom, MRCA/Panavia Tornado, and is now with the Eurofigther.
Which was also the point of controversy from several points of view. For one, the range of the aircrafts, loaded with these free-falling 'firecrackers'. (See shooting into our own foot abvove... or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B61_nuclear_bomb )
For another, the unwillingness(for some time, got resolved) of the USA to make sure the avionics of the Eurofighter get the necessary codes for integration. "Nice plane you got there, but wouldn't you rather wanna buy the superior F35?" (To shoot yourself into your own foot with our own firecrackers, just in case?)
"bleeding edge" may also be unproven and more importantly it is not standardised. This is why people would muse that they trust a civil engineer over a software engineer - sectors that include physical engineering have rigorous standards. Software projects that interface with this (say, a flight computer of a new jet) also have strict standards. Ones that do not (currently) cover the "bleeding edge" in software development.
I agree - and what's funny is that according to this blog it was the US community that rejected US MIC companies, and the EU community didn't reject the EU MIC company.
I can't take this author seriously. They seem to live in some perfect world divorced from reality. I'm sorry, but these defence companies are the reason that you can enjoy a liberal democracy that protects your LGBQT+ rights. There's no end to the authoritarian governments (or 'regimes') that oppress their citizens, and would like to oppress others through imperial ambitions. I would rather than a strong defence sector and have safety for myself, my family, and my fellow citizens than virtue signal to others that I am somehow above silly things such as 'war'.
I'm sure the author was given an appropriate spiel, but it just screams naivety. No, the guys operating recon drones in Ukraine are not in permanent PTSD at the horrors and evil of the "drone warfare", it's the highlight of their day if them looking at mostly nothing for hours can help their countrymen who are fighting in much more exposed roles.
> the guys operating recon drones in Ukraine are not in permanent PTSD at the horrors and evil of the "drone warfare", it's the highlight of their day if them looking at mostly nothing for hours can help their countrymen who are fighting in much more exposed roles.
Completely agree. We live in a time and world where it is extremely important that EUrope needs to have a strong defense sector. Russia won't stop just because we continue investing nothing into defense and sing kumbaya at the border.
> I'm sorry, but these defence companies are the reason that you can enjoy a liberal democracy that protects your LGBQT+ rights.
Are they really, though? Did Lockheed-Martin sponsor the Stonewall rioters? Did any arms company threaten to cancel supply contracts if the US didn't introduce nationwide gay marriage? Did they withdraw support from anti-trans legislators? How come countries without a huge military-industrial complex also have LGBTQ+ rights - often even stronger ones than the US?
And what about people living in other countries? The US has supported quite a lot of tyrannical regimes - often by aiding overthrowing democratic governments. Those arms companies are directly aiding authoritarian governments in oppressing their citizens. Do those people not deserve the same freedoms you enjoy?
Your comment might make some sense if defense companies were actually used for defense. You know, like Japan's Self-Defense Force, which is constitutionally forbidden from using threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes. But that's not the world we live in. The US military is primarily used to start wars and oppress people, and the very recent developments in Ukraine do not change several decades of history.
> How come countries without a huge military-industrial complex also have LGBTQ+ rights - often even stronger ones than the US?
I'm guessing these countries already have existing ties to the 'west' and would be militarily protected by them. How many countries have both strong LGBTQ+ rights and also categorically wouldn't be militarily aided by the US/the west in case of war?
There are many small progressive countries without a strong MIC, but rely on others for protection and use their existing MIC. For example most NATO countries.
Yes, a strong military protects you. See: all of human history. Do you think Ukrainians would perhaps have personally benefited if they still had their nuclear deterrence? Or if they had been given 10x military aid before February 2022? The fact is Anduril systems are deployed in Ukraine today, helping to protect Ukrainian lives. If you want to see what happens when you don't have a strong military, look to Bucha.
having a strong military defense and being an active imperialist invader is completely different. in fact, the later will bring violence to you which the strong military cannot or is not willing to protect you against.
Why would England declare war on Germany for invading Poland? Because security and deterrence involves a lot more than just 'is Russia invading us right now'.
You purchase a 10Gb/s firewall for $100,000 - you will not be using 10Gb/s traffic for the lifespan of this device.
Applying this to Hetzner:
You sell a service with X bandwidth included free because you know that only Y% is only ever used on average.
Now people exploit the X allowance - spinning up new virtual machines to multiply this already generous allowance to get unlimited bandwidth for a fee 1/10000th of other commercial offerings. Your Y% costing is now completely invalid.
You reduce the allowance 20x to mitigate this.
I can't blame Hetzner at all for this, especially when Google/Amazon/Microsoft are printing money with their insane bandwidth costs. You know they are insane when they then change the rules to say it's completely free if you are migrating to a different provider - suddenly it doesn't cost anything at all for egress? Oh, it was actually upcoming monopoly investigations that might have taken a dim view...
Hammer meet nail. I currently work in a more traditional "ops" team with our cloud infrastructure dictated by development (through contract hires at first, and now a new internal DevOps team). It's mind boggling how poorly they run things. It goes so deep it's almost issues at product design stage. There's now a big project to move the responsibility back into our team because it's not fit for purpose.
I think an operations background gives you a strong ability to smell nonsense and insecurity. The DevOps team seems to be people who want to be 'developers' rather than people who care about 'ops'. Yaml slinging without thinking about what the yaml actually means.
