I am in two minds about this one. I do think this is a retrograde decision, but I can also see (steelman?) a perspective from the DoW that they were entitled to make assumptions about the inputs they use for planning and the inability to follow through on those assumptions means they can't now "supply" the kinds of intelligence they sought.
King for a day I wouldn't have done this, but the current king (of the hill?) has, and the court aligns to his intent more often than not these days.
The designation means no one else receiving federal dollars can contract with them, not just that the DoD will offboard them as a vendor. It's also a clause the government had already agreed to for over a year prior.
Huh? Leverage to... coerce the company into serving all DoD usecases?
No it's not. They can invoke DPA.
The supply chain risk designation is not logically able to be used to coerce a company into integration. The whole premise is that its integration would be an unacceptable risk, therefore it must be banned from being integrated!
I think I'm saying it's leverage as punishment: "do what we want or this happens to you" combined with "we can un-do this pain, if you do what we want"
Yes, but in circumstances where no war is in the offing, digging a giant hole next to 50km of open water begs questions. It would be impossible to get "it's a hedge against the future" over the line.
The same to a lesser extent applies to pipes. You could construct pipes for gas, for some of the heavier oils and crude (what I read suggests pumping crude long distance is painful, it has to be down-mixed with lighter stuff to make it sufficiently fluid) but the fertilizer? that would mean converting dry to wet and back again (nobody ships fluid weight if they can avoid it) -Or ship the inputs: ammonia, and sulphur in some liquid form, and produce the dry goods on the other side.
But, I think pipes have a stronger case than a canal: move the things which are amenable to pipes, into pipes, and bury the pipes.
In times past, this would have been done as a convoy. China and other nations would have stepped to the fore, conducting safe passage with their own ships on the outside edge. But we're not in a world where this kind of thing works for anyone involved. Even offering to cover insurance risk doesn't look to have motivated ship owners to pass. (in times past, the US wouldn't have put itself or it's allies in this position, hence the reference to China)
Don't be fooled by mental images of what a convoy looks like: ships like these maintain massive separation. There's almost suction between hulls moving at this scale, if they were within 500m of each other there'd be chaos if one had to take any evasive action. In reality (I believe) even a convoy consists of a a lot of discrete, clearly demarked and targetable things, not a large mass you can "hide" in.
If the fertiliser production has a point in manufacture when the fluid is amenable to transport, then for sure, that would make sense.
And you are right, if the same amount of capital and energy was invested in Solar/Wind as in Oil, we'd be in a totally different world. It's cents to dollars, considering the size of the tail AND the current investment.
Here in Australia the problem is the royalty stream to the states. Oil and Gas windfalls when the price of equivalent supply (brent crude I believe for oil, not sure what LNG world price defines the limit) hits $100 is just amazing. The revenue stream to the states is enormous. Their motivation to transfer money into alternatives, instead of sucking on the teat, is zero. States without significant oil revenue seem to do more (SA) -States isolated from the national grid seem to do more (WA) but a site with both high insolation, and good wind, but also massive oil, gas and coal fields (Qld) does as little as possible. It's political reductionism. The crony economy is huge, Mining funds the government and the government reflects mining sector interests over all others.
It always amazed me they made ships that just fit the Panama canal. I went though the locks years ago, it was quite a trip (and how a friend got met to go on a cruise)
print spoolers typically consume space in /var/ for the files being printed and then stream them to the device through the output filters. The amount of data in play to render a page is not typically that big. Yes, there are corner cases analogous to a zip bomb which can make the print model explode. No, in practice this isn't very normal: printing is one of the spaces where compression of the data is entirely normal. "please print another row of black, where black is that thing I told you before, do that 2048 times and then come back"
"because you said <that>, I won't do <this>" is rarely an issue in these matters. What people say, and what people do, are divorced.
This isn't contract law. The WH can declare victory and stop, or declare victory and continue, or declare defeat and stop, or declare defeat and continue, or declare nothing and {stop, continue} and what the Iranian government say is not relevant. But, stopping or not stopping sending up UAV and sending over missiles and aircraft, IS relevant.
ie, this is just speech. we judge on outcomes not on words said.
[edit: that said, under this administration, the reverse is also true - "because I heard you said <this> I will now do <that> which is totally irrational, but I now have an excuse in my own mind, for what I intended doing anyway." ]
The Supreme National Security Council is quoting the agreement that Trump supposedly agreed to. And if that agreement holds, it is hard to see it as anything but a complete Iranian victory.
Keep in mind, the losers in a conflict have more of an incentive to lie than the winners. The US and Israel seem very much the losers here.
I don't really disagree, but I just want to observe there is no neutral arbiter here. There isn't some platonic ideal "he won, they lost" outcome.
What I think, is that a french metric tonne of value has been sucked out of the world economy, a lot of future decisions are now very uncertain, power balances have shifted, and none of this is really helpful for american soft or hard power into the longer term.
The Iranians have lost an entire cohort of leadership and are going to spend years reconstructing domestic infrastructure, and a rational polity. But, the IGRC has probably got a stronger hand on the tiller. Their natural Shia allies abroad are in shellshock, but still there.
I'd call it a pyrrhic victory for America, on any terms. Wrecked the joint, came out with low bodycount in the immediate short term, have totally ruined international relations (which they don't care about) and probably won't win the mid-terms on some supposed "war vote" -But who knows? Maybe the horse can be taught to sing before morning?
A lot of very fine bang-bang whizz devices got used, and they learned how much fun that is. A lot of european and asian economies learned how weak they are in energy and fertilizer and will re-appraise how to manage that, and there's a lot of fun in that. A big muscly china is watching quietly and we're pretending there's nothing to see there, and meantime the tariff "war" continues to do .. 5/10ths of nothing.
The pace of worldwide alternative energy adoption has gone up. Is that an upside?
The Iranian PR on this is like the DPRK. Except the DPRK wear Hanbok not Chador. The Iranian citizenry has been badly let down. No green revolution on the horizon.
I genuinely do not understand how people read the words
> We received a 10 point proposal from Iran, and believe it is a workable basis on which to negotiate. Almost all of the various points of past contention have been agreed to between the United States and Iran
and conclude that this means anything remotely resembling that Trump "supposedly agreed" to do everything Iran wants.
(Just in case this is somehow the reasoning: "points of past contention" clearly do not refer to the "points" in the "proposal". That's not how English works and not how time works. But that's the only wild guess I can genuinely even think of, after going over it repeatedly.)
If you get into the details, the two biggest "points of past contention" (nuclear enrichment and sanctions) are in the ten point proposal. I only see four ways to resolve that conflict:
1) The US agrees to the resolution of those that Iran publicly claims in the proposal (aka we lost)
2) Iran is lying publicly, and actually agrees to keep sanctions in place and/or give up uranium enrichment (maybe, but the plausible version of this is just reversion to the diplomatic status quo ante - a de facto defeat for everyone).
3) Trump is lying publicly, and there is no agreement on any of this (plausible, but it's unlikely to end better than #1 or #2)
4) This is just a rhetorical trick in service of a stall tactic ("almost all" does not include the ones that actually matter - plausible, but it's unlikely to end better than #1 or #2)
#2 is best case for the US, and represents a defeat in that costs were paid but nothing achieved. It's also a defeat for Iran, but I don't think many of us care about that?
Edit - I guess it is also plausible that Iran's current leadership is sufficiently fragmented that "what Iran agrees to" is not a coherent concept right now. That is just the practical effect of #3 by another route, though.
Classic IBM Thinkpad was pretty good. I replaced keypads twice on an X30. I did heaps of inside-the-box fiddling. They never complained.
I think the carved aluminium unibody thing was the death knell. Hard to be fashionably sleek and also easy to mod/fix/replace. But then they made hard a feature.
Stuck down memory and SSD is just evil nickel-and-dime stuff.
I think the write up and rationale and FAQ are near perfect. It's a KISS pure NetBSD model, it's deliberately reductionist and it discusses reasoning and why it differs or is an analogue of other systems.
I probably won't be using it because my core investment on FreeBSD does what I need but I think it's interesting.
I use FreeBSD jails and get a lot of value out of separate network stacks for each (vnet jails).
Would the NetBSD approach here be to lean more heavily on your lan infra to register hostnames with static addresses (pointing at NetBSD host) and then run a host proxy to forward & port-map to the relevant cell? Or is this the wrong kind of use-case for cells?
I don't personally like proxies, intermediaries, but that said they've been entirely normalised by kubernetes/traefik/haproxy type setups. I do find managing the bridge pseudo-devices, and the various bindings, and DHCP/SLAAC a bit painful because I actually don't understand it well.
I use bastille, and it seems to "just work" and I looked at Sylve and it had huge potential. When I ask for some ELI5 on bridge/net stuff, I don't get traction so my confusion remains.
I think a lot of people enable NAT methods which aren't that far removed from a host proxy or port-map. I don't like NAT (see comment above about k8s)
Making way for new hires is a virtuous circle. Making way for AI driven de-hires and no new starters is killing the future.
We need a Butlerian Jihad because we need future wage earners to exist. If people don't have jobs, who is buying the goods and services? AI job displacement impoverishes everyone.
> we need future wage earners to exist. If people don't have jobs, who is buying the goods and services
When you travel around the world, you often see jobs that exist in one country but not in another, for multiple reasons but including automation or self-serve, etc.
It is impossible for us to be confident about what specific jobs (or activities) humans will do 15+ years, but we also know that people need a way to exchange something of value to get something of value and that jobs provide a sense of purpose that people might otherwise not know how to fill.
The first is collagen: I'd love to see Lowe's take on recent peer review which says boosting oral collagen does appear to show signs of improved joint pain and skin resilience. Obviously modulated through how protein deprived you are, but for older people, eating enough protein can be an issue: it's not rapidly absorbed so you need 3 squares a day to get to the higher numbers. Collagen powders and vitamin C (oj) at breakfast might kick start this.
The second contradictory point is that this entire thread makes me want to shout GELL MAN AMNESIA because it's an exercise in otherwise intelligent people who can distinguish between anecdata, their personal experience and some cold hard facts in their core field, but not when it's self injecting unknown chemicals from China bought off-script.
Note that there is research showing that whey protein powder has exactly the same effects as collagen, for much lower price.
Mechanistically it makes sense, as I understand the ingredients in Collagen are largely a subset of the ingredients in whey powder, albeit at different ratios.
it is the same if you base it just on the amino acid profiles, they are both just proteins with different amounts.
I always wondered if there were nutrients we can’t measure though, because collagen is typically made from skin or bones whereas whey protein is dairy. Even though both have similar “nutrition facts” maybe there are some unmeasurable differences. Both are highly processed though so who knows.
I think the idea is that some short peptides might survive the digestion and make it to the blood stream, but I'm doubtful there's any specific benefit to collagen.
It has a Mechanism section which explains that when collagen is digested, one of the products of that is Gly-Pro-Hyp, which is what has the effects. I don't think that conflicts anything in this post?
I assume they're referring to the brief bit in the post that indicates that oral ingestion leads to a breakdown that makes oral supplements of amino acids pointless. They say it very briefly and they don't really outright assert it, it's just a sort of implied aside.
That's not the exact quote lol you cut out the exact part I was referring to.
> because unless a really substantial amount of engineering has gone into it, any given peptide is going get the same treatment from your digestive system as a chicken breast does, i.e. a complete teardown
> Every single YouTube video and blog post I have read about peptites is exclusively about injectable supplements.
Collagen peptides, ghk-cu, and many other peptide supplements are often taken orally.
> Collagen peptides, ghk-cu, and many other peptide supplements are often taken orally.
And with very rare exceptions, it's as useful as watching someone workout when you want to gain muscle. Every meat we eat is awash in peptides, and to keep our body from getting hijacked by the signaling for, say a chicken, our body has to break down almost all peptides ingested orally.
There are a few exceptions, notably there's one that is produced by our own bile acid, that can be taken orally, and then SNAC, which was developed by Novo Nordisk over thirty years and has extremely limited capabilities and is fully patented and cannot be made by your fly by night distributers. SNAC achieves a whopping 1% bioavailability of the peptide, and it's ability to work depends on the size of the peptide, specifically the only commercially available use for this is Rybelsus.
Sweeping statements in biochemistry must be made with caution. It is well known that there are some small peptides that are absorbed following oral administration.
Interestingly enough, those two, as well as Gly-Pro-Hyp, are proline/hydroxyproline-rich, which might suggest that proline-rich small peptides are resistant to degradation in the gut.
Anyway, in general oral proteins and peptides are broken down prior to systemic absorption, but not always...
> It is well known that there are some small peptides that are absorbed following oral administration. ...BPC-157 itself is said to be among this class
Do you know of any studies that suggest BPC-157 absorption from gut?
Among others. If you read the paper, it's actually apparent that there's little difference between i.p. and oral administration in terms of efficacy -- both were roughly equally effective in improving MCL ligament healing.
Admittedly the paper's in rats -- as are 99% of the others -- as there's no incentive for anybody to run human trials.
You should note that your study is not controlled.
There are two groups, those with oral administration those with sub-q administration. There is not group without administration.
This means you can't say that oral vs injected is "equally effective" because you can't assert that BPC 157 is effective at all. You can't tease out the effect size because you don't know if any or all of the MCL ligament healing was done via normal pathways
You just read the abstract and didn't read the full paper.
There were control groups.
> Methods:
> [administration] as follows: (i) BPC 157 10 mg or 10 ng/kg or saline 5.0 ml/kg (controls), intraperitoneally, or (ii) BPC 157 in neutral cream (1.0 mg dissolved in distilled water/g commercial neutral cream) or commercial neutral cream (controls), as a thin layer, locally, at the site of injury, administered once daily with the first application 30 min after surgery and the final application 24 h before sacrifice; (iii) BPC 157 0.16 mg/ml or nothing (controls) in the drinking water (12 ml/day/rat) until sacrifice.
There was a big difference vs. the control groups.
> This means you can't say that oral vs injected is "equally effective" because you can't assert that BPC 157 is effective at all
Is that true? It seems that you can say that they were equally effective without quantifying an effect. It could be the case that both are equal in that neither has an effect, which this would validate. Then you can just point to other studies to claim effectiveness of injected.
I want to point out your own contradictory comments about absorption and specifically mentioning a typically highly processed food (orange juice), one which has been stripped of its natural fibers and flavors.
That age group (and all others) should be eating real/whole fruit or having the juice fresh (I.e. just juiced). They would be better served getting this advice than creating more anxiety about protein intake.
> Commercial orange juice with a long shelf life is made by pasteurizing the juice and removing the oxygen from it. This removes much of the taste, necessitating the later addition of a flavor pack, generally made from orange products.
> Commercial squeezed orange juice is pasteurized and filtered before being evaporated under vacuum and heat. After removal of most of the water, this concentrate, about 65% sugar by weight, is then stored at about 10 °F (−12 °C). Essences, Vitamin C, and oils extracted during the vacuum concentration process may be added back to restore flavor and nutrition.
So essentially there are components that vaporize during processing. The make sure to condense the same components and add them back in so that the orange juice contains all the components of fresh orange juice.
There is reason to think the differences are biotic vs. abiotic, between the two. Our digestive system is dependent on healthy microbiota. Pasteurization would be the difference here.
Raw milk is on the fringes of the same argument that whole foods play a more beneficial role in healthy gut microbiota and digestion, and that our current models focusing on nutrient composition are incomplete. It says that our measurements are off, and that there’s more to nutrition than composition alone. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11901572/
reply