> The US has protected global sea lanes for 80 years.
But rather than protect global sea lanes, the US is bombing Iran. That’s not the same thing.
The idea that the war isn’t costing money for personnel because those people would be doing something anyway makes no sense. They could be doing something else. In fact, they could be doing something that increases the wealth and wellbeing of the world, rather than destroying things. So from that perspective, the cost is far higher than what is shown here.
Then there’s the loss of innocent lives. It would be unconscionable to put a price tag on the lives of dozens of Iranian girls killed when their school was flattened and to show it on this website, and yet, this is not “free” either.
> But rather than protect global sea lanes, the US is bombing Iran. That’s not the same thing.
Arguably the primary threat to modern sea lanes is Iran.
Right now Iran is harrasing traffic. Previously the Houthis, generally considered an Iranian proxy, were harrasing traffic. Its all kind of the same war, this is just the end game.
The first gulf war was 1990. The US has been at war with various factions of the Middle East more or less continuously for thirty five years. The current president specifically campaigned on no new foreign wars and repeatedly tried to bully the Nobel committee into awarding him a peace prize before accepting a second hand one from another world leader and a sham one from FIFA of all things.
What makes anyone think that this latest attack is the "end game" vs just the latest expensive chapter?
If it were that straightforward, right now the US would (A) have a consistent set of demands/goals that include shipping security and (B) a large international coalition of support.
Neither are true.
P.S.: Plus, of course, the whole problem where "protecting global sea lanes" typically requires a different approach than "start a war by assassinating the leadership you were negotiating with."
Why focus on the consumer side, especially when so many of the current administration are brazenly in bed with the regimes that benefit from free oil flow in the region? (Kushner & MBS)
You’re not forced to repeat his rhetoric, maybe think critically about it.
How much of the destabilization of North Africa and the Middle East is America's responsibility, and how much did Europe pay in absorbing refugees from it?
Should Germany be sending DC a bill?
If I recall correctly, America didn't even say 'Thank you'...
US messaging has been all over the place, but stop funding proxies has been one of the more consistent parts.
To be clear, im not saying protecting shipping is the primary reason for this war. I'm just saying if that is what you think usa should be doing, then this war makes sense.
As far as b) there are a lot of factors. Its not like freedom of navigation is the top concern of every country in the world.
People should begin quantifying the commercial freight global costs incurred from the Houthi harassment. There is a basic ROI one can do that impacts not just US interests, but global interests.
Houthi harassments was also a byproduct of the Israel-US "self defense" against the Iranian backed hamas attacks. Maybe it is pointless to pontificate whether the the tic-for-tat would have been initiated had the Israel-US coalition had stopped at punishing the Oct. 7 terrorists rather than leveling half of gaza, although I'm not convinced it was an inevitable byproduct.
who bombed them first and repeatedly? and embargoed and sanctioned them before that? and tore up the nuclear deal? and before that installed the shah so we could get the oil?
> who bombed them first and repeatedly? and embargoed and sanctioned them before that? and tore up the nuclear deal? and before that installed the shah so we could get the oil?
Not the people they are attacking. Intentionally attacking people unrelated to those you have a grievance with is terrorism, Iran has a terrorist regime. Russia doesn't do that, Ukraine doesn't do that, and so on.
What about tens of thousands of peaceful civilians who have been killed by the Iranian regime during past decades? The alternative to this war is allowing the Iranian government to keep doing that, business as usual.
In my opinion bombing people responsible for these atrocities increases the well-being of the world. Most Iranians seem to agree.
I don't see how this is going to work without troops on the ground?
The US had air supremacy, troops on the ground and a friendly regime in Afghanistan and Vietnam, and it did not work. (I am not sure if Iraq was a success, but I am sure that people were super tired of it, and did not want something like that again)
What is just bombing going to do? They just rebuilt their weapons and you have to bomb them again in 1-2 years?
The administration has already suggested sending troops as an option. It does not help that they are just making things up as they go.
You’re right that airpower alone will not change anything. But as you pointed out, putting troops on the ground does not automatically change the outcome either. If there is a lesson from the last few decades it is that the military is good at two things. Killing people and breaking their equipment. What it can do is create opportunities that political or covert efforts have to capitalize on.
Any military campaign needs a clear objective and an achievable end state with contingencies planned. Even then something unexpected will still happen. Afghanistan, Vietnam, and Iraq were all very different conflicts and the current situation is different again.
As for rebuilding their capabilities, that is not trivial. Iran is still operating aircraft that we retired decades ago, which says something about their supply constraints.
The outcome also does not have to be installing a perfect government of our choosing. A more realistic result would be a government the United States can work with and one that the Iranian people actually support. That could still include parts of the current system if major and unpopular things changed.
I am sure someone in the current leadership would like to be the person who reduced the influence of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, loosened the grip of the religious leadership, and ended the country’s pariah status while getting sanctions lifted and money flowing back into the economy.
That would probably be a better outcome than trying to export our model of government to yet another Middle Eastern country.
The issue is that no one is going to defect without protection. That is the reason you put troops there. Democracy building is nice, but that is not the real reason you sent troops.
Defection happens without protection if the regime gets weakened enough, and in addition to that USA is supplying weapons to Iranians so they can take up arms against the regime.
Iran has mandatory military training so if the people gets weapons they can fight for themselves.
Defection within the regime is never going to happen. If there is one thing that will unite a bunch of egos and put their personal grievances aside is a war. Anyone who smells like a traitor is shot. They become more fanatical, not less.
Only option is outside rebellion. But weapons and rebels are not created out of thin air. You need to sent weapons, trainers and troops. Syria 2.0 but worst.
A big difference here is that the Iranian leaders are being blown to bits every day currently, so its a bit different from Syria where the rebels barely had any support.
But at that point the Talibans had Iran supporting them. Now they have no regime supporting them since the Iranian regime is constantly killed and no neighbor supports them. With 90% of the people not supporting such acts and no external country supporting them with weapons such acts quickly fizzle out into something the police can manage, it never completely disappears though.
Trump is at his best point to save face right now. It's now or never, IMO. He killed an entire leadership lineup of Iran. If he pulls out now it is a clear victory for him. If he continues the campaign 2 or 3 more weeks it's tough for me to find another out for him that doesn't involve a lot more risk to the USA.
Given he did take this clear victory and cash in, in Venezuela, there is some hope he'll do the same in Iran.
Sometimes yes, but is there in this specific case?
Because from my vantage point it looks like the choice is, status quo or bomb them. Its not like america can double sanction iran, they are already fully economically sanctioned. What is the middle ground here?
You could relax sanctions in exchange for other priorities. A persistent pain is less effective than an acute one anyway. There’s carrots too in negotiations. But no, we cannot do what a previous president did.
How much of the current situation is a result of that previous deal?
The deal basically stopped iran's nuclear program but allowed the regime to better send money and guns to its proxy network.
The current war is effectively the downstream consequences of Iran's proxy network going off the leash.
Ultimately, negotiations work best with both a carrot and a stick. If its just a carrot, and no deal would be unacceptable to one of the parties, then the logical thing for the other party would be to always hold out.
----
In any case, in this specific situation (regardless of how we got here), its hard to imagine that Iran could have made a deal and survived. The regime is very weak at home and its questionable if they could have survived the loss of face to agree to what usa wanted.
This justification for bombing Iran is dumb as fuck. In a few days the number of civilians killed by US-Israeli bombings will surpass the number of civilians killed by the regime in decades.
Iranian official numbers are 3.5k. the OSINT community say at least 15k in the 3 biggest cities (including peo-regime guardias of the revolution), and 'local' journalists (a lot with CIA ties though), not friend of the system say 30k.
I wouldn't trust Iran with a butter knife, so I imagine between 15 and 30k, including 1 to 2k 'guardians'
Let's count. Power consolidation (post-revolution): 10-20k. 100k during the first gulf war, but I think you should put that on the US (and maybe Irak, but it's the US that pushed Irak to attack Iran), then a bit more than 50 execution per year on average for 30 year. 100-300 in 2019/2020, and 15k-35k for the 2025/2026 protests. So even if you take the higher bound, that's 66k max, and if you count the gulf war (which was defensive, against US-led Iraki), 166k. But a reasonable estimate would not count the gulf war, and would be 35k over 40 year.
Weirdly, that's less than the number of saudi Arabia slaves who died in the last 20 years. But most of them are African, so they don't count, if I understand why Saudi Arabia are our allies.
The 15-35k for protestors killed is a complete fabrication. No verifiable sources corroborate that figure. Media has a tendency to report figures based on nothing. Then those figures get established as the truth, which shifts the burden of proof. Thus, unless one can prove that 15-35k protestors wasn't killed the myth lives on.
> This justification for bombing Iran is dumb as fuck. In a few days the number of civilians killed by US-Israeli bombings will surpass the number of civilians killed by the regime in decades.
I was just curious if you had information that I don't have. I suppose not.
But what you describe was not the motivation behind the decision by Washington to bomb Iran. The motivations were Tehran's nuclear program and Tehran's support for groups like Hezbollah and generally Tehran's promotion of violence and instability outside Iran in the Middle East.
The strait of hormuz is the opposite of protected right now. Insurance companies aren't willing to cover ships if they enter the strait to pick up a load of oil, so little commercial traffic is occurring.
The real cost should include the spike in oil prices, the world consumes about 100 million barrels a day, so every $10 increase costs the world a $1 billion a day. We're already up ~$10, and it might continue to rise depending on how things go. You probably should include LNG in there too. If this oil halt is protracted, your stocks and bonds will be dragged down as well.
We have surplus carriers specifically to allow them to average a large percentage of their time at home unlike container ships who spend the vast majority of their time in service. Many systems that are both bespoke and complex means lots and lots of maintenance issues.
Sure the Navy can Airlift in parts etc, but that’s obviously very expensive and less obviously more dangerous.
We don't have a surplus of carriers. We have a shortage, at least relative to their current tasking. They're overstretched and behind on maintenance. This is unsustainable so the civilian leadership will have to either cut back on missions or build more.
There’s always an argument for more equipment, but you need to start building them long before they enter service and need to set budgets long before any specific crisis.
Funding for Nimitz was authorized in 1967 they started construction the next year and it was in service in 2025. The US has a very large and very expensive carrier fleet today because people decided it was worth having X boats a long time ago and they calculated X under the assumption that a significant number would be spending time docked / on the other side of the planet from where the conflict is.
Obviously, part of that equation was based around warfare and the likelihood of losing some / extending deployments etc, but what we want today has no barring on what we actually built as all those decisions happened a long time ago.
TLDR; Having more than strictly needed for normal operations = having a surplus when something abnormal occurs.
There is literally no surplus. There hasn't been a surplus for 15+ years when funding priorities shifted to sustain the GWOT. There haven't been enough carriers to meet requirements for the combatant commands during normal operations, let alone when something abnormal occurs. So they try to make do with other platforms but the cracks are really showing.
That is a good reason to focus what you have on Iran since Iran is causing a lot of that demand for power projection. If you fix it at its source there will be much less demand for them in the future.
They aren't all deployed at all times and the Ford is more than overdue to be in Port. The sailors are notably suffering on this deployment and there is a ton of deferred maintenance.
Exactly: that protection isn't happening right now because those resources are doing something else. The money would be spent anyway, but doing something that is normally considered useful, and that useful thing is not happening to the same capacity as before. Therefore there is an opportunity cost to consider.
As an American, I will echo Trump's speech at Davos. We want strong allies, not vassals. Be capable of building your own EVs, your own rockets, your own fighter jets, your own subway systems, your own zoom alternatives, your own search engines, your own operating systems, etc etc.
Make Europe great again. Bring back creativity. Bring back jobs. Build a talented workforce that stays local instead of migrating to the US. Be independent. Stand tall. Do all of these things and preferrably do them now.
America and China's rise shouldnt be zero sum. It should lift the world. Europe forged the path we all follow. Come back to it.
Latest leaks indicate the US will be given sovereignty over its existing and future bases in Denmark, along with oil drilling rights, at $0 to US tax payers. Some vassal indeed.
Re: fighter jets, the US and China are each producing about 4x as many jets as all of Europe combined. Europe's deliveries (41) barely exceed Russia's (33-39) despite Europe having 3x the population, supposedly superior industrial tech, not being the most sanctioned economy on Earth, etc...
Re: rockets.....well we don't want to judge by tonnage lifted, where SpaceX dwarfs the entire planet's efforts. Still it appears Europe struggles to put even a handful of new rockets up, so I'm not sure why you are characterizing that as "plenty" either:
> Europe is already great. It's why hundreds of thousands of Americans moved here in 2025.
HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS? Citation needed please. A migration of that scale would have journalists writing about it. Accurate data seems hard to come by but one expert puts TOTAL US expat numbers in Europe around 1.1 million.
> As for being a vassal: Trump was warned of the consequences of invading Greenland and he backed down immediately. Some vassal.
Yes sometimes vassals oppose their suzerain's most egregious overreaches of power successfully. King John of England's barons pressured him to create the Magna Carta. Afterwards...they were still his vassals, as they were before it.
Ok, let's take all of that as a given ... (and I've not clicked on one link, or read one line of it, so this is assumption).
Even after all of that... I'd still live in Europe any day of the week instead of your sh1thole country. How's your gestapo crackdown going? Your nation is currently as stain on democratic landscape. I hope you move beyond it.
Your comment here is arguably illegal under UK law that prevents extremism based on violence, hatred or intolerance. Referring to someone as affiliated with the Nazi party arguably fits that bill. Please exercise caution...
You're wrong, but I couldn't give a shit, mate. None of us do... freedom of expression is a wonderful thing. Try it out sometime if your gestapo will let you.
But anyway, I'd have a fine, FINE time in court arguing the similarities of Hitler's finest and your ICE agents.
And don't get me wrong. Just because I call the USA a sh1thole on the ILS glidepath to a fascist state, doesn't mean I don't see the wrong in our countries.
The difference is, I don't turn the other cheek about my own country. I don't look in the mirror and lie to myself like some of you do. Pathetic.
And, AGAIN, even now, even with your evidence (which I didn't click on and couldn't give a shit about considering your comment adjacent to it) ... I'd STILL live here over that sh1thole with your pretend stormtroopers with their trigger happy fingers... hilarious how quiet your 2A fanatics and loud auditors are now.
Hell, half of them probably took that $50k signing on bonus while smoking a big fat one (the burning embers of your constitution).
You're barking up the wrong tree; I haven't lived in the US for 15 years. Looking at the crackdown on Occupy Wall Street, and the militarization of law enforcement during the Ferguson Riots when we had a black President was enough to confirm how the Empire's overseas oppression would eventually come home. It's a contributing factor to why so many military veterans (including us NON-WHITE ones) are happy to settle out here in Asia. I get to leverage the power of US dollar income to build a future for my children who's only connection to the US / "The Old Country" will be the revenue generated from their family property.
>> How's your gestapo crackdown going?
Same shit, different day when you are black. We're just looking at the white liberals who are now getting shot by The State's goons like "Oh, first time?"
I think your response is below the threshold of quality commentary for HN, but I didn't downvote it. It's better that it is as visible as possible, to serve as an artifact demonstrating the combined arrogance and ignorance that so often spews forth out of the mouths of Europeans.
Ignorance? I'll call it assumption. Arrogance? No, just disgust.
And just like I assumed your background, so you assumed mine with the same level of precision.
I'll not call you a coward for lumping those who now suffer under your current pseudo-fascist government (because it still is your government). Ok, I will. When your fellow man or woman suffers under the same oppression you've suffered, you don't turn and run, you stand and fight, if you're able.
And it disgusts me that you look at those "white liberals" who will, and have, fought for you, and treat their deaths with pithy disdain.
Someone tried to shake our company down once. They posted all this stock imagery on the web, waited for someone to use it with an ambiguously worded attribution policy, then have a third party chase you down and demand $100k but will settle for $5k.
It turns out we did attribute the right way (in our terms of use) and could prove it with logs of when we added the language and when it was removed after we removed the image, but I am sure they nail people all the time with this strategy. This didnt stop them from sending 20 emails, demand lawyers get on the phone, etc.
There are a couple of similar scams like this out there.
Oh that's a classic trick. It's been going on for decades. One example I am particularly familiar with is that of Larry Philpot / User:Nightshooter on Wikimedia Commons. He would upload his photos there with an addendum on how he should be attributed. Any slight impression in the attribution would be followed by legal action. It was obviously a copyright troll mechanism and now all of his photos on Wikimedia Commons have forced attribution affixed by users that warns others that he sues people.
His stuff is so widespread that the consensus on Wikimedia Commons was to keep his photos and add a warning so that no one ends up accidentally using it. Some accused him of sock-puppetry to get his content into a place.
Today, intellectual property maximalism is a much more mainstream position so perhaps modern Internet users will think that he is in the right, but I think it's a bit much.
Could he ever win a case in court? At least the Swedish legal system is based a lot around common sense and good faith and such a trap would likely end up with the one who sued having to pay the legal costs for both parties.
The US legal system is famously not very much based on common sense and good faith. The US has 3x as many lawyers per capita as other Western countries and for some reason idolizes lawyers.
Is your reaction based on reading the linked case? Because it seems pretty sensible to me. Philpot licensed the photo to AXS under traditional terms, and also posted it to Wikimedia with a CC-BY license. IJR put a copy of the photo in their listicle, did not follow either license, and then tried to claim fair use. It’s clearly not fair use. The whole reason you put photos in an article is to make people want to read the article—this hasn’t changed since the early days of newspaper photography. And the whole reason for publishing the article is commercial: to sell ads against it.
His cases that I could find are where the company republishing his photos didn't attribute them to him at all so it seems fair to sue (except when it turned out to be fair use). What is this attribution error you mentioned? CC BY-SA 3.0 is pretty onerous "You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made." All 3 things are required. Maybe every CC-BY photographer should be suing newspapers for stealing their work, shouldn't they?
I was curious about this a few years ago so I took a look around and found another case, the one of Thomas Wolf / User:Der_Wolf_im_Wald, but this guy seems to be getting away with it because he has a 'no-derivatives' box on the image page. He has the same modus operandi:
1. Post the photo to Wikimedia Commons
2. Mark it CC-BY or derivative (say CC-BY-SA etc.)
3. Have a highly precise attribution clause
4. Sue everyone who uses it without the specific attribution
The funny thing about this copyleft troll is that Someone Who Is Not Him creates accounts on Reddit (e.g. this one[0]) that post exclusively about how they made a mistake and the photographer was well within his rights to sue and you should take him very seriously and negotiate the amount.
> We actually violated copyright law before he wrote to us. So it was our mistake and we apologized for that.
I really should create a List page for this on my personal wiki so I can remember all these guys. I find this kind of behavior galling.
But since I don't speak German well enough and inevitably this is going to end up in such a situation where you have to, I think it best I don't pursue deletion here. Hopefully a German speaker will see fit, referencing the other cases here.
I am honestly flabbergasted that his pictures weren't expunged with great prejudice. what is the value they add to wikimedia that makes being associated with this sort of sleaze okay?
If you read the discussion, they weren't kept because of their encyclopedic value, or because they were "widespread". I'm not sure why the parent commenter said that.
They were kept to preserve a record of their having been uploaded, and to not create a legal risk for third parties who might be relying on the Commons page as their way to provide attribution.
The original proposal was to keep the image pages with the metadata, but delete the image files. That turned out to have some technical hurdles, so instead the images were overwritten with versions containing big ugly attribution messages, to discourage their use.
A valid question. These kinds of approaches are a pretty standard attack in the copyleft world. I don't know on what basis the community chooses forced-attribution vs deletion.
So it's a question of the execution of the operation really.
By the way, do you also have the same user handle on Reddit? I have the vaguest memory of you quoting someone else on the subject of denying a person suffering on the street drugs that went something to the effect of not wanting to do it because denying such a man drugs deny him his only escape from such reality or something of the sort.
I never did find that comment again, and it's been at the back of my mind for years (perhaps even a decade) and now I'm not even sure if I've asked you this before.
yes that was me! I love that quote (it's by samuel johnson), so it's really moving to hear it made an impression on someone else too. here it is:
What signifies, says some one, giving halfpence to beggars? they only lay it out in gin or tobacco. "And why should they be denied such sweeteners of their existence (says Johnson)? it is surely very savage to refuse them every possible avenue to pleasure, reckoned too coarse for our own acceptance. Life is a pill which none of us can bear to swallow without gilding; yet for the poor we delight in stripping it still barer, and are not ashamed to shew even visible displeasure, if ever the bitter taste is taken from their mouths."
I don’t understand why this is sleazy TBH. It’s CC-BY-SA. If attribution isn’t provided it’s a valid case. I once uploaded a map of my state with all the districts in labels in English and my language Tamil to commons under CC-BY-SA. It was used left right and centre, from publications, map sellers to the point I can see them hanging in offices. It’s always pained me, nothing could be done about it. Now I didn’t want money, would have liked the recognition, but would have settled for just seeing the CC-BY-SA logo on it at the least.
CC-BY-SA-4.0 fixes the specific technique of spreading one's work through the commons and then charging for inadequate attribution by allowing for a 30 day cure period on notification. This anti-copyleft-troll clause should likely permit your use-case.
it's sleazy because the intent wasn't to be properly credited, it was to use a loophole in the CC-BY-SA license to sue people for minor typos or mistakes in the exact form of the attribution even when they had clearly intended to give proper attribution.
My two cents as a 20 year product manager with +10 enterprise applications under my belt (and having read several of these):
# "Don't make me think" is a seminal work on design thinking for online services. I've yet to come across a book with as much relevance and substance even though
it was written for the dot com era.
# "Positioning" by Al Reis is a book I wish I read 15 years ago when I started my company... your product's strategic positioning will greatly inform and shape design decisions (typography, colors, tones, copy, etc)
# "Ogilvy on Advertising" - written by the legend himself, once you read this book, it will change the way you see all ads in any medium
I have similar experience and agree with your book recommendations. Depending on your vertical I would add the Toyota Way later to understand factory design and efficiency. It’s interesting to read back to back.
I think the issue is that the administration is in an adversarial relationship with China. Risky to allow a foreign power have a kill switch on critical infrastructure.
Just to clarify: We accept the security risk of kill switches in networking equipment, smartphones, laptops, servers, clouds, processors, bluetooth firmware and nvidia driver blobs, but we draw the line at civillian cars?
And in contrast to the listed items above, for civillian cars you can choose from dozens of countries who produce them. And if you cannot accept security risk of owning a "kill switch" car then you can still go back to gasoline or diesel.
I feel it's crazy to collectively accept security risks in vital electric equipment but suddenly cars are the one product that becomes a political issue. An unlike cars there are very limited alternatives with electrical equipment.
This doesn’t seem that crazy to me - a broadly applicable coordinated OTA zero day applied across cars during US rush hours has the potential to result in likely hundreds of thousands of deaths in a few hours if safety critical systems like airbags can be tampered/inhibited by OTA-capable systems.
The scale of car travel plus the inherent kinetic energy involved make a correlated risk particularly likely to lead to a mass casualty event. There are very few information system vulnerabilities with that magnitude of short-term worst case outcome.
Sure but you could just nuke us too, given that the response to a mass civilian death event would be the same. Same reason the US would be foolish to destroy the Three Gorges Dam.
It doesn't need to be a mass civilian death event. They can wait, collect data and kill 90% of our most important soldiers, heads of state, spies and everyone needed to maintain critical sectors of our economy. They could kill everyone who is anti-china. They could kill all the members of one political party (any one) as a false flag and cause a civil war.
Surveillance technology is nessisarially selective, so these "all or nothing" hypotheticals do not apply.
There was already a million vehicle recall for a vulnerability that allowed remote control of safety features (steering/breaking/acceleration control) that could be abused by anyone with a sprint mobile sim.
.... and the second US civil war starts up and one side has hacked into the automobile kill switches ...
"security" and "war" come in all sizes and shapes. Even inter-national warfare can be of the "cold" variety, in which nobody is nuking anybody else, but making automobiles randomly unreliable could be extremely effective (for a while, anyway).
Not really convinced by your argument. If you want to achieve your scenario you just take a sysadmin from the Tesla shanghai plant and next time they go to the US HQ they gain access to a coworkers laptop and deploy an OTA update to the tesla fleet. And this is assuming that the Tesla OTA update deployment mechanism is actually separated between countries, and not simply accessible from the Tesla intranet.
No need to design & ship another low-cost car model for this.
The security risk of backdoors in your IT may drive you crazy, but backdoors in your car may drive you off a bridge.
I agree with your point. But cars are the last line of defense, and they are technology most people understand. With computers, you can just unplug them at the end of the day. A backdoor in a car or a drone or something just kills you.
Cars are not critical infrastructure, also, the idea that China would turn off their EVs or starting to use them as weapons from the other side of the world is borderline absurd.
Occam's razor suggests that the simplest solution is the most probable: they are scared of the competition, because they know that if those cars enter the market they will dominate it.
If that's a normal thing to do, why aren't we hijacking russian teslas right now? Why haven't we made Microsoft push an OTA update to windows to bluescreen all military PCs in Russia? Why haven't we made Google and Apple push Android/iOS updates that cause all phones in Russia to crash?
I'm confident that even if at war with China, the US would not hijack random civilian cars, yes. That's absolutely absurd.
Of course we fucking would. Maybe not in a shooting match, which I guess means a proxy war. But if we went to war? If Americans were dying? It would be ridiculous not to.
Do you think China would permit vehicles it could disable to allow Americans to travel to and from jobs that might involve attacking it? Do you think they have some moral obligation to allow that?
The issue is that the administration is in an adversarial relationship with “woke”. That EVs and renewable energy somehow fall into this category is one of the dumbest parts of this timeline.
That's actually where I started! Majority (but not all) of the institutions present on the dashboard are from the CUMA :) I don't technically crawl that portal, but their robots.txt certainly seems to encourage it. Great resource.
I bought a domain that was previously used for hentai in the 90s and 00s. It was blacklisted from search because Symantec site review and other similar site review services marked it as adult content. I emailed each of them directly and within 48-72 hours, all had manually changed it. This is the only path that I know of.
