netsplit, I guess. decide that the risk of an open network is too great and simply block all routing out of the country through the ISPs and consider the political power that goes along with a global satellite constellation under rule of a single, government-aligned corporation.
"simply block all routing out of the country" is doing a lot of heavy lifting. For government networks, sure. For civilian networks? It's a bit like stopping pirates from ripping video; how do you deal with an attacker that ultimately can gain some form of access? Even in North Korea external media can be smuggled in.
I have seen things move for no reason, but I have seen things remain where they are for a decade. I am in south bay and go to Sunnyvale Costco. They move their bread, the oil and bunch of stuff many times, but the wine (which I do not partake) has not moved, the batteries are exactly in the same spot for decade(s), I find my dishwasher liquid exactly in the same spot, and although I do not consume it any more, but I am 100% certain the eggo waffles have not moved an inch in 2 decades. Yes toilet paper has moved but it is right adjacent and is explained by making it easier than harder to find things.
There is noise for years that China will eventually take over Taiwan. Date set to be 2028 or so. How else to prepare for that than run this war, figure out your weak points and work to fix them.
So maybe US got taught a lesson, but saying it will take years to replenish seems extreme. If that's what it takes, then maybe US was never a superpower and then the 2028 war (hypothetical) would have been a shock. If it got taught lessons, it should use these lessons to improve its capabilities - building drones, resupplying weapons, and fix whatever else is needed. And I am not sure I understand the meaning of phrase "air superiority". It does not mean bombing everything below and taking un-necessary risks. The fact that 7-20 soldiers got killed (and similarly low numbers on Iranian side compared to the Iraq war), is a testament to their ability to reduce risk. Any war will have deaths, but this provided US a stress test like the bankers should have received in 2008.
The question is whether the military and political leadership can learn those lessons or will they pass it on to the next administration. If what is being said is true, this requires a Covid level mobilization effort.
I don't accept the premise that China intends to invade Taiwan. Or, rather, that claims certainly requires some proof. This is an idea that the US has been pushing but maybe, just maybe, we shouldn't take fearmongering from the guy who runs the protection racket and sells all the weapons.
The first problem is that China simply doesn't have that military capability. Water is an incredible barrier, even in modern warfare. There are roughly 100 miles of open ocean between mainland China and Taiwan. China would need to transport somewhere between 500,000 and 1 million troops at a minimum with all th elogistics, air support, etc that that entails. They don't have that Navy. They're not building that Navy. Do you have any idea how badly Taiwan or the US could disrupt supply lines over 100 miles of ocean?
At its height, Nazi Germany's army was something like 8 to 10 million soldiers IIRC. You can see the white cliffs of Dover from Calais on a clear day. It's a distance of 17 miles. And that was completely impassable in an era without radar where the Germans essentially had air superiority. Now nobody has that military, not the US, not China, for a large-scale amphibious landing.
Second, China has no need to invade Taiwan. China thinks very long term. They believe this issue will be resolved in the future, possibly far in the futrure. And all but 10 countries agree with them. This is the so-called "One China" policy. It's the official policy of some ~180 countries including the US and all of Europe.
If they had the military and they chose to use it, it would do untold damage to them diplomatically and economically when the world already agrees with them. Think of it like Russia invading Ukraine. Suddenly formerly neutral countries like Finland and Sweden and lining up to join NATO. Do you think that helped Russia's security situation, economy or diplomatic relations?
Lastly, and this is the point where people really get in their feelings for some reason, China has no modern history of imperialism and military intervention. The standard rejoined is "But Tibet!!!". Yeah, that was 1950. There were some other minor border disputes with Vietnam and I think the USSR. This is all projection because the US loves doing imperialism and military intervention. China doesn't have that history.
So, for a country that can't invade, has no need to and has no history of doing similar, one really should question where this idea is coming from.
China had a border conflict with India in 2020 which resulted in dozens of deaths.
China is engaged in a major border conflict in the South China Sea. So far it's just water canons and ramming boats, but there are reports of deaths.
I sincerely hope you are right, but - as we've seen with Russia - once they get rid of all the people who can say no, dictators make incredibly poor decisions. Better to prepare for war.
China has been involved in other conflicts, notably Vietnam and Korea. I don't put them in the category of imperialist ambitions however, for several reasons.
First, they're in China's backyard. China doesn't want a hostile imperial power on their border any more than Russia or the US does. Just look at the Monroe Doctrine, which now apparently includes kidnapping Venezuela's president.
Second, in those cases China was helping defend a nation from an invader, The Korean peninsula is a little more complicated. The Western version of this conflict is that the North Korea just upped and invaded one day for literally no reason. A more accurate history would have to include the military dictatorship the US installed on the peninsula when it was freed from Japanese occupation post-WW2.
As for the islands, which are in the South China Sea I might add, I'm more sympathetic to China's position here. That position is that the US is engaging in a deliberate strategy of maritime containment through a ring of islands and military bases, called the Island Chain Strategy [1]. It's not a secret. I personally think this is a pointless and unjustifiable strategy, built on a false premise (of containing Chinese imperialism).
The Phillipines are a US client state. So is Japan. So is Taiwan. So is it any wonder than China is grabbing these islands before the US or one of its clients occupies and militarizes them? I mean really... what business does the US have interfering with islands off the coast of China?
The Philippines, Japan, Taiwan, and Ukraine are all democracies. If the people there want to associate with the US or Europe, that's their business.
That thing you just did there - "they're in China's backyard" - that's imperialism. You're trying to justify the imposing China's will on a population that does not want them.
With this kind of bias, I can't trust a thing you say. It's a shame, because I really like the view of China as a peaceful beheamoth. Unfortunately it's all lies.
I agree. I have been fully remote for a bit over 2 years, and I myself feel a change. In the early days I had a managerial role so I felt the need to visit office and deal with employees, colleagues and customers. Office is 5 miles so not too far, I just avoid going as my family health issues may require my intervention. Now that I am an IC, and the health issues are not sorted, my visits have reduced, and I think it is slowly changing me for the worse - in terms of discipline, social interactions and even productivity which you think would be higher from home. Thankfully though I am starting to recognize some of the patterns and working to fix them but you can fix productivity, you can not fix lack of socialization.
Gosh, I was guilty on this account just an hour ago.
I just came back from a midday walk in my neighborhood. Headphones on, walking along, when I hear someone call out — I don't quite catch what. I turn around, and there's a neighbor with a kid (not my street, so I don't know her), but she's from my community. At first I thought she was teaching the toddler — maybe 2 years old — how to say hello. So I'm just standing there, nonplussed. She repeats the greeting. I'm still confused about whether she's talking to me or demonstrating for the kid. Finally, a little louder: "I was just saying hello" — except she used the greeting from our community. It finally clicks, I laugh, and say "oh yeah, same to you."
I probably would have handled it differently if I hadn't had headphones in, or if I'd been more present, or just more socially aware from my early days. Still thinking about it and then I saw this thread.
> What do you think the best implementation would look like? Seems it would still have to strike a balance
Others have explained how the old tech worked well. But let's assume new tech (touch screens), and see what can be done.
There are urgent messages and non urgent messages.
Non urgent messages can be shown when starting the car and requiring the driver to acknowledge them. low wiper fluid - non urgent. This could be a list requiring ack for everything. Recently on my BMW they got the smog check year wrong, and it kept warning me for months before I realized I could change the date for the alerts - same should be possible for low fluid - Ok, I acknowledge, but stop warning for next 14 days (or 2 months).
Urgent messages have to be blocking.
Low gas would be non urgent when you have 50 miles of gas left, but could become semi-urgent (more prominent) when you have less than 50. Also, this is where the tech could be useful. If the car has internet and knows there are no gas stations within 50 miles, or whatever the current range is .... it should make it super prominent. That knowledge processing, aka AI in modern era, would be so awesome.
But it requires design for usability, not one catch all solution.
I know it is not you but the industry parlance, so a question to anyone knowledgable. Is gross margin ever useful? Sure 50% sounds like a lot, but without R&D and staff and other expenses, you can not make that 50% and even the 100%.
reply